Oh, man. I've seen part of Bush's speech. It could be a long night. Of course I will not be able to beat the mass media at parsing the bogus screed, but I will keep to the facts. If I am going to speculate, you'll know it..I'll have a key I was thinkng about incorporating a reader's key into the site anyway.
Sorta like the DHS threat level bar chart, only accurate.
If you must watch George live(?) you may as well have some fun while doing so
a lowly engineer 's attempt at hard science reporting and digressions into a childhood ecstacy not yet lost
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Well. Iowa is over. I personally feel that it means more for Kerry than it does for Dean. When you have a Red state voting over what are predominantly Blue state issues, surprises are bound to take place. That Howard Dean finished shouldn't have surprised anyone, except Howard Dean.
Gephardt's showing was most intriguing. He should have won by the demographic, but it was not to be. He has bowed out gracefully. I'm glad Gephardt is out. He's needed in Congress.
Bush looks to be ready to give his SOTU address focusing on few issues. One, that of homeland security, he is inexplicably held in high regard by the majority of Americans. We at pure bs must wait until after the 9/11 commission reports and we have more color about Bush's Iraqi adventure before issuing him a grade. As noted earlier, he receives a grade of 'incomplete.' He'll be asking for more money, in a further expansion of government, which is anathema to true conservatives.
The other things that appears likely is the Bush will likely be health care, and jobs. Remember, this is a campaign speech as much as anything else, and Bush is likely to use hyperbole and subterfuge in an effort to hide the fact that he has done a terrible job as president. Let's face it, if he had a boss, he'd have been canned a long time ago. That's how I view any resident of the oval office. What would I do if I was the boss? In Bush's case, termination would be the answer. Before you think that I'm a Clinton person, I would have sacked him as well.
Both of there men are terribly flawed individuals. Bush just happens to be the occupier of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue at present. His appeal is very limited. He is not a strong leader. He has a lot of explaining to do on Iraq. He's Cheney's boss, so anything Cheney's involved with, Bush is ultimately responsible.
That Bush's popularity is so narrowly focused(leadership post 9/11) isn't much of a revelation. His response to 9/11 was what any responsible individual would have done. The Right Wing Echo Chamber has turned a very mediocre man, much less president, and turned this fortunate son into a regular guy. Bush is anything but. The polls are really not an indication of Bush's popularity. He is a polarizing figure.
It is curious that Clinton was impeached, and yet Bush, who really has lied to everyone about nearly everything of substance gets a free ride form the press. The So Called Liberal Media is certainly doing its job as watchdog. I won't be watching Bush's SOTU address. I'll look at the transcript and see if I can find any inconsistency between the facts and the rhetoric. It seems an easy job.
Before hearing Bush's 2004 SOTU address, it might be wise to take a look at V2003. Here's a bit:
Really? In Afghanistan, the Taliban are regrouping, security outside of Kabul is STILL a joke, warlords are running most of the country, and because we stretched our resources too thin, by going to Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan, terrorism is on the rise. What little we have accomplished is in jeopardy. Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan has survived two assassination attempts. If this sort of thing is happening to perhaps the most heavily guarded man in Afghanistan, what does it say about the average citizen? Opium production has skyrocketed since the ousting of the Taliban as well.
What about "our nation moves troops and builds alliances?" In hindsight this is a joke. Bush has done more to damage the post 9/11 goodwill of the world than I would have thought possible.
The Israeli/Palestinian issue. Bush has done nothing over the past year, while the death toll increases. Sad. Like I've said, he should be fired.
Let's move onto another part of the address:
Sorry, George. This is all horseshit, and you knew it at the time. But that doesn't change the reality that you are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, hundreds of Americans, and thousands more Americans with life altering injuries. George W. Bush is directly and ultimately responsible for telling Congress and the American people an orchestrated set of lies, so he would get us behind 'his' war.
The Iraqis claimed that they were weapons free. The UN agreed that most if not all of their WMD capacity was destroyed during GW1, or shortly thereafter under the auspices of UNMOVIC. It was not the Iraqis who made a positive claim. It was the U.S. Hence, under rules of logic, the onus was on the U.S.' to prove that Iraq still harbored WMD. In the laughable presentation the Colin Powell made to the UN, it convinced no one but those ready to be convinced. Namely, the Congress and the American public. The press failed in its duty again. The average reporter didn't know what to make of the 'evidence' Powell presented to the UN, but that did not stop them form declaring that Powell's presentation was, "compelling", "convincing" and a whole host of adjectives save for the accurate one, "counterfeit."
Most people, except for guys like Greg Thielmann , were persuaded by Powell's dog and pony show, replete with plagiarised documents stolen from the internet that comprised an American student's doctoral thesis of some ten years past.
The press simply laid down, and we went to war.
So, what is all of this going to cost? No one knows. Estimates range from $200 million dollars to half a trillion. The lives lost can never be recovered. If anyone asks me for references to document any statements I have made, I have all the sources.
I didn't go - as the Bush Administration likes to do - 'cherry picking' information. I only used information form the speech that included facts and figures that are easily dismissed.
Sorry about that. I meant to simply post a link to the article below. :)
Spaced-Out Invaders is worth a read. A bit shrill and lacking on science, it nevertheless provides an interesting viewpoint that hasn't been made in the popular press.
That is how I view things. If I am not an expert on a topic - and there are few that I am - I will get the opinion of someone that is, prior to forming an opinion. Slower yes, but much more importantly, apt to be accurate. If you watch the SOTU address, just bear in mind the drivel that was shoveled our way last year.
Gephardt's showing was most intriguing. He should have won by the demographic, but it was not to be. He has bowed out gracefully. I'm glad Gephardt is out. He's needed in Congress.
Bush looks to be ready to give his SOTU address focusing on few issues. One, that of homeland security, he is inexplicably held in high regard by the majority of Americans. We at pure bs must wait until after the 9/11 commission reports and we have more color about Bush's Iraqi adventure before issuing him a grade. As noted earlier, he receives a grade of 'incomplete.' He'll be asking for more money, in a further expansion of government, which is anathema to true conservatives.
The other things that appears likely is the Bush will likely be health care, and jobs. Remember, this is a campaign speech as much as anything else, and Bush is likely to use hyperbole and subterfuge in an effort to hide the fact that he has done a terrible job as president. Let's face it, if he had a boss, he'd have been canned a long time ago. That's how I view any resident of the oval office. What would I do if I was the boss? In Bush's case, termination would be the answer. Before you think that I'm a Clinton person, I would have sacked him as well.
Both of there men are terribly flawed individuals. Bush just happens to be the occupier of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue at present. His appeal is very limited. He is not a strong leader. He has a lot of explaining to do on Iraq. He's Cheney's boss, so anything Cheney's involved with, Bush is ultimately responsible.
That Bush's popularity is so narrowly focused(leadership post 9/11) isn't much of a revelation. His response to 9/11 was what any responsible individual would have done. The Right Wing Echo Chamber has turned a very mediocre man, much less president, and turned this fortunate son into a regular guy. Bush is anything but. The polls are really not an indication of Bush's popularity. He is a polarizing figure.
It is curious that Clinton was impeached, and yet Bush, who really has lied to everyone about nearly everything of substance gets a free ride form the press. The So Called Liberal Media is certainly doing its job as watchdog. I won't be watching Bush's SOTU address. I'll look at the transcript and see if I can find any inconsistency between the facts and the rhetoric. It seems an easy job.
Before hearing Bush's 2004 SOTU address, it might be wise to take a look at V2003. Here's a bit:
"The qualities of courage and compassion that we strive for in America also determine our conduct abroad. The American flag stands for more than our power and our interests. Our founders dedicated this country to the cause of human dignity, the rights of every person, and the possibilities of every life. This conviction leads us into the world to help the afflicted, and defend the peace, and confound the designs of evil men.
"In Afghanistan, we helped liberate an oppressed people. And we will continue helping them secure their country, rebuild their society, and educate all their children -- boys and girls. (Applause.) In the Middle East, we will continue to seek peace between a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine. (Applause.) Across the Earth, America is feeding the hungry -- more than 60 percent of international food aid comes as a gift from the people of the United States. As our nation moves troops and builds alliances to make our world safer, we must also remember our calling as a blessed country is to make this world better."'
Really? In Afghanistan, the Taliban are regrouping, security outside of Kabul is STILL a joke, warlords are running most of the country, and because we stretched our resources too thin, by going to Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan, terrorism is on the rise. What little we have accomplished is in jeopardy. Hamid Karzai, the President of Afghanistan has survived two assassination attempts. If this sort of thing is happening to perhaps the most heavily guarded man in Afghanistan, what does it say about the average citizen? Opium production has skyrocketed since the ousting of the Taliban as well.
What about "our nation moves troops and builds alliances?" In hindsight this is a joke. Bush has done more to damage the post 9/11 goodwill of the world than I would have thought possible.
The Israeli/Palestinian issue. Bush has done nothing over the past year, while the death toll increases. Sad. Like I've said, he should be fired.
Let's move onto another part of the address:
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
"From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."'
********
Sorry, George. This is all horseshit, and you knew it at the time. But that doesn't change the reality that you are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, hundreds of Americans, and thousands more Americans with life altering injuries. George W. Bush is directly and ultimately responsible for telling Congress and the American people an orchestrated set of lies, so he would get us behind 'his' war.
The Iraqis claimed that they were weapons free. The UN agreed that most if not all of their WMD capacity was destroyed during GW1, or shortly thereafter under the auspices of UNMOVIC. It was not the Iraqis who made a positive claim. It was the U.S. Hence, under rules of logic, the onus was on the U.S.' to prove that Iraq still harbored WMD. In the laughable presentation the Colin Powell made to the UN, it convinced no one but those ready to be convinced. Namely, the Congress and the American public. The press failed in its duty again. The average reporter didn't know what to make of the 'evidence' Powell presented to the UN, but that did not stop them form declaring that Powell's presentation was, "compelling", "convincing" and a whole host of adjectives save for the accurate one, "counterfeit."
Most people, except for guys like Greg Thielmann , were persuaded by Powell's dog and pony show, replete with plagiarised documents stolen from the internet that comprised an American student's doctoral thesis of some ten years past.
The press simply laid down, and we went to war.
So, what is all of this going to cost? No one knows. Estimates range from $200 million dollars to half a trillion. The lives lost can never be recovered. If anyone asks me for references to document any statements I have made, I have all the sources.
I didn't go - as the Bush Administration likes to do - 'cherry picking' information. I only used information form the speech that included facts and figures that are easily dismissed.
Sorry about that. I meant to simply post a link to the article below. :)
Spaced-Out Invaders is worth a read. A bit shrill and lacking on science, it nevertheless provides an interesting viewpoint that hasn't been made in the popular press.
********
That is how I view things. If I am not an expert on a topic - and there are few that I am - I will get the opinion of someone that is, prior to forming an opinion. Slower yes, but much more importantly, apt to be accurate. If you watch the SOTU address, just bear in mind the drivel that was shoveled our way last year.
Monday, January 19, 2004
Mars and Dick.
As I was looking for material concerning details of Bush's Mars mission(s), I found an interesting article at the WaPo.
Is it a straight Mars exploration story detailing Bush's plans? No. That article will be written in the future..maybe.
This is a potential conflict of interest issue concerning Halliburton and everyone's favorite Dick. ;)
Without further ado:
Industry Hopes Soar With Space Plan
Energy and Aerospace Firms Have Long Lobbied NASA
Of course there simply has to be a big payoff for the GOP's big contributors, and Dick's old firm in which he still holds ~225,000 shares of stock. Gee, I really would like to cut this administration some slack, but well, they don't deserve any.
It really frosts me that the U.S. exports only two things in mass volumes, the first being food, the other being weapons.
Mr. Cheney's 'advisory capacity' be damned. He's only in for the loot. If private industry wants to go and drill the Moon, Mars wherever, they should pick up the tab. These Republicons currently residing in and around 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are only concerned about lining their already full pockets once back in the private sector. Fukkum!!
Bush is about as curious about space exploration as my cat. Maybe less so. He was allegedly asking questions. Okay. I'll go out on a limb here, and suggest that he was looking for a way for the defense industry to get more of a play. It is certainly not unreasonable to suggest this.
Fuck the defense industry. They're no longer needed in the same capacity as in decades gone by. It's a new world, and the old defense industry has a much smaller role to play. It's in danger of becoming an anachronism. It's human intelligence and cooperation that are now vital. That is, IF we are to believe our commander-in-chief. The old guard needs new projects to tinker with, and we are fortunate enough to pay for it! Lovely.
Key Phrases: 'industry driven' , 'advisory capacity' , 'an industry official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the oil and gas industry, including Halliburton, would benefit considerably from technology that was developed for drilling on Mars, including the tools, the miniaturization, the drilling mechanism, the robotic systems and the control systems'
Yeah, okay. That last one was more than a phrase, but why would an 'industry official' only speak on condition of anonymity? You know why. Gut the taxpayer who'll pay for to develop the technology, and then use our stuff to make yourselves richer. I suppose that is the American way, although it is no longer anything remotely like covert. These folks have no shame..remember..Ambien®
As I was looking for material concerning details of Bush's Mars mission(s), I found an interesting article at the WaPo.
Is it a straight Mars exploration story detailing Bush's plans? No. That article will be written in the future..maybe.
This is a potential conflict of interest issue concerning Halliburton and everyone's favorite Dick. ;)
Without further ado:
Industry Hopes Soar With Space Plan
Energy and Aerospace Firms Have Long Lobbied NASA
President Bush emphasized American ingenuity, international cooperation and human destiny when he announced his new space policy this week, but the plan also reflected long-held ambitions of the U.S. aerospace and energy industries.
For years, they have labored to persuade NASA to pursue interplanetary voyages more aggressively, with companies standing to reap billions of dollars from the contracts and spinoff technologies that would result.
Industry officials said yesterday that they see a huge boon to business in Bush's "renewed spirit of discovery," which set a mission to Mars as a long-range goal after astronauts build a science base on the moon. Among the companies that could profit from the plan are Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co. and Halliburton Co., which Vice President Cheney headed before he joined Bush's ticket.
"Going beyond the moon is big news for us," said Ed Memi, a spokesman for Boeing, which is NASA's largest contractor.
As an example of private industry's hunger for a Mars mission, Steve Streich, a veteran Halliburton scientific adviser, was among the authors of an article in Oil & Gas Journal in 2000 titled "Drilling Technology for Mars Research Useful for Oil, Gas Industries." The article called a Mars exploration program "an unprecedented opportunity for both investigating the possibility of life on Mars and for improving our abilities to support oil and gas demands on Earth," because technology developed for the mission could be used on this planet.
Lockheed spokesman Tom Jurkowsky expressed similar enthusiasm. "Today our people in Houston, our people at Cape Canaveral, at the Marshall Space Center . . . are talking to their counterparts at NASA -- at headquarters, at all levels," he said.
NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe said at a briefing Wednesday that officials will now determine to what degree Bush's exploration program, which must be funded by Congress, will be "industry-driven."
Private companies had pushed NASA for years to think big, to undertake more far-reaching programs, such as sending astronauts to the moon or Mars. But the agency resisted, its ambitions beaten down by years of declining budgets, industry officials said.
One industry official said the climate changed last October, when China put a man in orbit and announced plans to go to the moon. Suddenly, the official said, the White House seemed anxious to revitalize the U.S. space program, in effect telling NASA that "we're not going to let the Chinese take the moon and let us look like fools." NASA then spent weeks in drills to come up with an outline for getting U.S. astronauts back into space in a big way, using some of the broad ideas that companies had been pushing.
A senior administration official involved in the process said the impetus for the space policy review was Bush's desire to give NASA a clear mission after the Feb. 1 disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia.
"The president made a commitment that we will continue on our journey," the official said. "But as we looked at that journey, the question was, is there a specific goal? What is the vision? And the assessment was that it lacked a specific vision and goal. The president kept asking, 'To what end? The space station, to what end? The shuttle crews will continue to orbit the Earth, for what end?' And he said, 'What is the vision?' "
Whatever the plan's genesis, the aerospace industry has been hungry for the work. Many companies consolidated in the 1990s, with Boeing and Lockheed Martin emerging as by far the dominant contractors. One or the other oversees virtually every major NASA program, and a Boeing-Lockheed joint venture, the United Space Alliance, manages the space shuttle program.
The companies had counted on a huge jump in commercial space business from the telecommunications industry, but when the Internet boom went bust and when fiber optics replaced satellites as the medium of choice, commercial space launches evaporated.
Military space business picked up some of the slack, but the giant companies have pushed for more NASA work. Industry officials said they did not do an end run around NASA and plead their case directly to the White House.
The problem is funding. Although the extra $1 billion the president has proposed for NASA for the exploration project is a start, officials said, the agency will need more money to carry out the new goals. One industry executive said spending is likely to increase once the programs get underway.
That would fit a familiar pattern, said Phil Finnegan, an industry expert with the Teal Group aerospace consulting firm. Military programs traditionally start with small price tags and grow once Congress has bought in; NASA's international space station has done the same, he said.
The companies are ready with advice for NASA, though, about how to move forward at a politically viable pace. "We've been doing feasibility studies for some time on how to make an affordable, sustainable program," Boeing executive Mike Lounge said.
Halliburton's interest in Mars was first pointed out yesterday by the Progress Report, a daily publication of the liberal Center for American Progress. Administration officials scoffed at the idea that Halliburton had anything to do with the development of the space policy, which was headed by Bush's domestic policy adviser, Margaret Spellings, and Stephen Hadley, the deputy national security adviser. Another administration official said Cheney did not take a lead role in the interagency work on the space policy but gauged support on Capitol Hill and served in an advisory capacity.
"How to go up there and drill remotely, seal it off, make sure the well stays stable, analyze it, produce from it -- that has a lot of application right here," the official said. "If you go up and drill down several thousand feet, you've got to have the same types of safety equipment there that you're going to have here, or you'll blow your spacecraft off wherever it landed, if anything comes back at you out of the ground, like it does here." Link to WaPo
********
Of course there simply has to be a big payoff for the GOP's big contributors, and Dick's old firm in which he still holds ~225,000 shares of stock. Gee, I really would like to cut this administration some slack, but well, they don't deserve any.
It really frosts me that the U.S. exports only two things in mass volumes, the first being food, the other being weapons.
Mr. Cheney's 'advisory capacity' be damned. He's only in for the loot. If private industry wants to go and drill the Moon, Mars wherever, they should pick up the tab. These Republicons currently residing in and around 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are only concerned about lining their already full pockets once back in the private sector. Fukkum!!
Bush is about as curious about space exploration as my cat. Maybe less so. He was allegedly asking questions. Okay. I'll go out on a limb here, and suggest that he was looking for a way for the defense industry to get more of a play. It is certainly not unreasonable to suggest this.
Fuck the defense industry. They're no longer needed in the same capacity as in decades gone by. It's a new world, and the old defense industry has a much smaller role to play. It's in danger of becoming an anachronism. It's human intelligence and cooperation that are now vital. That is, IF we are to believe our commander-in-chief. The old guard needs new projects to tinker with, and we are fortunate enough to pay for it! Lovely.
Key Phrases: 'industry driven' , 'advisory capacity' , 'an industry official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the oil and gas industry, including Halliburton, would benefit considerably from technology that was developed for drilling on Mars, including the tools, the miniaturization, the drilling mechanism, the robotic systems and the control systems'
********
Yeah, okay. That last one was more than a phrase, but why would an 'industry official' only speak on condition of anonymity? You know why. Gut the taxpayer who'll pay for to develop the technology, and then use our stuff to make yourselves richer. I suppose that is the American way, although it is no longer anything remotely like covert. These folks have no shame..remember..Ambien®
CBS has refused to air Moveon.org's 'Bush in 30 Seconds' winner during the superbowl. Not surprising after having bowed to pressure with that whole Reagan's bit.
Use this link to find all the pertinent details. Sign the pledge to boycott if you wish. I wasn't planning on watching anyway.
Use this link to find all the pertinent details. Sign the pledge to boycott if you wish. I wasn't planning on watching anyway.
If you only read one article today, it should be this fine bit of writing.
I know, it's the dismal science again, but what can I say. I'm intrigued by economics. ;)
As this day should be a celebration of the life, times and struggle of MLK jr., think a little and reflect. I'll be plumbing. Ugh.
I know, it's the dismal science again, but what can I say. I'm intrigued by economics. ;)
As this day should be a celebration of the life, times and struggle of MLK jr., think a little and reflect. I'll be plumbing. Ugh.
The Oxycontin King on The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Well, Rush, it's easy to say anything. And you will. Where is your evidence that the CEIP is a 'hyper-left-wing' foundation? I know something about the Carnegie Endowment. Unlike you, and from all accounts, the majority of your listeners, I have been following the CEIP since prior to GW2. They are hardly extreme leftists. They are rational, and intelligent observers. They advocated something called "Forceful Inspections" prior to the Neo-cons excellent adventure, but I suspect that you were to busy calling for unnecessary war to have noticed, Mr. pilynidal cyst. Let's follow Rush along on his fantasy a bit more.
Still looking for a shred of evidence that the CEIP was wrong, Rush? It is that you, Bush and all the other war hawks want to continue believing in your fantasy, and cannot accept the fact that Hussein had no weapons. Need we go back to plagiarized dossiers, Powell and Rice on tape declaring prior to 9/11 that Saddam was no threat. Not to his neighbors, and certainly not to us. I have all the data. You on the other hand, are beholden to a group of easily duped listening body for your ratings. I know that you believed that Iraq had WMD. It's okay to say that you were wrong. It is not okay to smear the good works of good people. More Rush..
More blather from the uninformed king of AM drivel radio
Well, well. Here is the truth. Those lefties were right. But, of course it wasn't Bush's bad intelligence that got us into Iraq, it was of course, Bill Clinton's. Rush's biggest crime and that of so many of our fellow countrymen is that he thinks he has the expertise to parse intelligence data. That is absurd. This war was overtly political. I don't blame Rush for being wrong. Many people were. I do blame him for not knowing enough about the CEIP to make a reasoned decision. But then that has never stopped him in the past.
Wrapping it all up is that Rush is either unable or unwilling to speak to his listeners with anything remotely like honesty about things that are likely to tarnish GWB's reputation. In this quarter, we have no such qualms. Rush, you are a world class hypocrite. GWB is an utter failure as a president, and is looting the country even as I type this.
"Bush administration officials exaggerated the threats from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and failed to uncover any links between Hussein and al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, says a private, nonpartisan [group.]" Which is flat-out BS, folks. This is the well-known hyper-left-wing Carnegie Foundation. It's one of these, just like the Ford Foundation, these people were originally endowed by great conservative families, and they've been taken over by the left. This notion that the left doesn't have a think thank out there, like they don't have a talk radio network, it's all a bunch of BS. What is NPR, what's the mainstream press and television to begin with? So they're not on radio and they're not the going to succeed with the way they're trying it anyway. But to think that they don't have a presence. And here's a classic example. This Carnegie Foundation is being portrayed as a nonpartisan research organization. That's absolutely a lie. These people are some of the biggest extreme leftists you can find.
Well, Rush, it's easy to say anything. And you will. Where is your evidence that the CEIP is a 'hyper-left-wing' foundation? I know something about the Carnegie Endowment. Unlike you, and from all accounts, the majority of your listeners, I have been following the CEIP since prior to GW2. They are hardly extreme leftists. They are rational, and intelligent observers. They advocated something called "Forceful Inspections" prior to the Neo-cons excellent adventure, but I suspect that you were to busy calling for unnecessary war to have noticed, Mr. pilynidal cyst. Let's follow Rush along on his fantasy a bit more.
"The study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace..." What the hell would it be but a bunch of lefties? It might as well say the Carnegie Endowment for International Surrender, because that's what these people would do to get peace. They're pure leftists. "The study states that administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile program by treating possibilities as fact and misrepresenting inspectors' findings in ways that turn threats from minor to dire. The three Carnegie Endowment researchers who produced the report charged that U.S. officials politicized intelligence to fit their arguments for a war to oust Hussein. 'We believe that in 2002 the intelligence process began to be politicized,' said Carnegie's president Jessica Matthews. 'They were under intense pressure to produce something that buttresses policy makers' beliefs. This is an old story in government. This just happens to be an egregious case with extreme consequences, namely, going to war.'"
Still looking for a shred of evidence that the CEIP was wrong, Rush? It is that you, Bush and all the other war hawks want to continue believing in your fantasy, and cannot accept the fact that Hussein had no weapons. Need we go back to plagiarized dossiers, Powell and Rice on tape declaring prior to 9/11 that Saddam was no threat. Not to his neighbors, and certainly not to us. I have all the data. You on the other hand, are beholden to a group of easily duped listening body for your ratings. I know that you believed that Iraq had WMD. It's okay to say that you were wrong. It is not okay to smear the good works of good people. More Rush..
"The other two researchers are Joseph Sirincioni, director of the Nonproliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment and George Perkovitch, vice president for studies at Carnegie, who authored a book on India's nuclear bomb. Now, okay, let's just take this at face value. Let's not even argue with what they say just for the fun of it, folks, just for the fun of it. Because if we take this story at face value, we also would have to include in this story that Bill Clinton advanced the exact same, phony, artificial data and did it for political reasons. His were to hide what was going on with Monica Lewinsky, grand jury testimony, and the impeachment to distract people from that, but we got the speech from Bill Clinton December 16th, 1988, it reads almost identically to everything George Bush ever said. And then we can go back to Bush 41 and we can find other politicians in the middle. We can find Democrats who voted for all this. What about the members of the Senate intelligence committee and the House intelligence committees. You think they had a look at this data and believed it, too? But they did. We know Clinton did. We know Tom Daschle couldn't wait to sign on to the resolution in the Senate after Clinton spoke on December 16th authorizing the use of force.
More blather from the uninformed king of AM drivel radio
Well, well. Here is the truth. Those lefties were right. But, of course it wasn't Bush's bad intelligence that got us into Iraq, it was of course, Bill Clinton's. Rush's biggest crime and that of so many of our fellow countrymen is that he thinks he has the expertise to parse intelligence data. That is absurd. This war was overtly political. I don't blame Rush for being wrong. Many people were. I do blame him for not knowing enough about the CEIP to make a reasoned decision. But then that has never stopped him in the past.
Wrapping it all up is that Rush is either unable or unwilling to speak to his listeners with anything remotely like honesty about things that are likely to tarnish GWB's reputation. In this quarter, we have no such qualms. Rush, you are a world class hypocrite. GWB is an utter failure as a president, and is looting the country even as I type this.
Sunday, January 18, 2004
Quote of the day:
"He doesn't understand the struggle people put up with in their lives." - Dick Gephardt on GWB 17/01/2004
I'm no fan of Gephardt, but I do admire the man's work ethic. He really has been a tireless advocate for 'his constituents' over the last 27 years. That's staying power. Perhaps a little too much.
"He doesn't understand the struggle people put up with in their lives." - Dick Gephardt on GWB 17/01/2004
I'm no fan of Gephardt, but I do admire the man's work ethic. He really has been a tireless advocate for 'his constituents' over the last 27 years. That's staying power. Perhaps a little too much.
NYT Poll: Bush's numbers: Okay, but sliding.
I still do not know what the average person is thinking when they give Bush high marks on anti-terror issues. The only thing I can fathom is that that this is a 'new' issue to Americans, and they don't yet know how to judge a policy's efficacy.
Until Kean and Co. issue their report, and we have some clarity on Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush gets a grade of 'incomplete' from this quarter. The DHS funding issue firther casts doubts on Bush's leadership ability. People have no knowledge of what Bush knew and when. This may change within a month.
I suppose that everyone polled thinks they know more than they do. A snippet from this article:
So, people get it, about the short term effect of Bush's tax cuts. It doesn't benefit them. What is far less clear is whether they know the long term implications of mountainous debt, continued record spending in the face of record deficits and that their real security is jeopardized by this administration's reckless fiscal policy.
The Republicans in this country cannot experience cognitive dissonance. This isn't really surprising given their insistence on continued belief in ancient myths. 90% of them approving of Bush's job? Talk about a disconnect between belief and reality. It boggles the reasoning mind.
Until the Kean Commission reports and we hopefully have a clearer sense of who knew what, and when, this administration has unequivocally proven that it does not warrant the benefit of the doubt. From Cheney's Energy Policy documents to Valerie Plame, this administration has been nothing but a pack of deceptions, redirections and lies. You could say, that this is 'politics as usual.' You would be wrong.
It is humorous that Dean, the candidate that got the Iraqi question right, is seen as weak on national security. The RWEC has certainly done their jobs well.
What's with the ambivalent statement from Mr. House above about Bush?. He showed 'a maturity after 9/11'. Hell, I could have done that. What did Bush and his advisors know prior to 9/11? Hopefully we'll find out. Mr. House still is 'unsure' about Iraq? Doesn't this guy read? Sorry to be harsh, but people need to be informed before they can even form a reasoned position. Mr. House is not informed.
Poor shill Bill McInturff. He believes that Bush has kept the country safe. Well, excuse me, but didn't one of the worst attacks upon Americans take place under his watch? Yes. Yes it did.
If I was a bit less a skeptic, I might buy into some of what the RNC is pitching. But from where I'm standing, all I see is a weak sitting president that took us into a war of his own making, and is looting the country even as I type this. We are not demonstrably safer, we are far worse off economically, and no one is at the helm. Harsh, maybe. I think that these are objective observations, and sometimes objectivity is harsh.
I still do not know what the average person is thinking when they give Bush high marks on anti-terror issues. The only thing I can fathom is that that this is a 'new' issue to Americans, and they don't yet know how to judge a policy's efficacy.
Until Kean and Co. issue their report, and we have some clarity on Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush gets a grade of 'incomplete' from this quarter. The DHS funding issue firther casts doubts on Bush's leadership ability. People have no knowledge of what Bush knew and when. This may change within a month.
I suppose that everyone polled thinks they know more than they do. A snippet from this article:
Fewer than one in five people said their tax burden had been eased by Mr. Bush, who has made tax cuts the centerpiece of his economic program. His latest domestic initiatives, unveiled in the run-up to the State of the Union message on Tuesday, got only a lukewarm response, with 58 percent saying that building a permanent space station on the Moon was not worth the risks and costs.
Moreover, the support Mr. Bush gained after the capture of Saddam Hussein last month has largely dissipated. His overall approval rating now stands at 50 percent, comparable to President Bill Clinton's 47 percent in January 1996. Mr. Bush remains a polarizing figure in a sharply divided country, with 9 in 10 Republicans approving of his performance, and only 1 in 4 of the Democrats.
Despite those vulnerabilities, which the Democratic presidential candidates are busily trying to exploit, Mr. Bush retains a powerful advantage on national security. Sixty-eight percent, including majorities of both Democrats and independents, gave him high marks for the campaign against terrorism, and 68 percent said the Bush administration's policies have made the United States safer from terrorist attacks. Sixty-four percent said they considered him a strong leader.
"He demonstrated a maturity after 9/11, responding in a positive and determined way to bring the country onto a steady keel," said George House, a 72-year-old Democrat in Sigourney, Iowa. Mr. House, who was reinterviewed after the poll, added that he still had doubts about the war with Iraq.
Such assessments could set a high bar for Mr. Bush's Democratic challengers, who are still largely unknown, even among Democratic primary voters, many strategists say. "People wonder whether the Democrats will be as aggressive as Bush in keeping the country safe," said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster.
Already, credibility as commander in chief has emerged as a major issue in the battle for the Democratic nomination. Many Democrats in rival campaigns have argued that Howard Dean, who has led in the polls for most of the primary season, is unlikely to pass that test on national security, because of his opposition to the war in Iraq and his lack of foreign policy experience.
So, people get it, about the short term effect of Bush's tax cuts. It doesn't benefit them. What is far less clear is whether they know the long term implications of mountainous debt, continued record spending in the face of record deficits and that their real security is jeopardized by this administration's reckless fiscal policy.
The Republicans in this country cannot experience cognitive dissonance. This isn't really surprising given their insistence on continued belief in ancient myths. 90% of them approving of Bush's job? Talk about a disconnect between belief and reality. It boggles the reasoning mind.
Until the Kean Commission reports and we hopefully have a clearer sense of who knew what, and when, this administration has unequivocally proven that it does not warrant the benefit of the doubt. From Cheney's Energy Policy documents to Valerie Plame, this administration has been nothing but a pack of deceptions, redirections and lies. You could say, that this is 'politics as usual.' You would be wrong.
It is humorous that Dean, the candidate that got the Iraqi question right, is seen as weak on national security. The RWEC has certainly done their jobs well.
What's with the ambivalent statement from Mr. House above about Bush?. He showed 'a maturity after 9/11'. Hell, I could have done that. What did Bush and his advisors know prior to 9/11? Hopefully we'll find out. Mr. House still is 'unsure' about Iraq? Doesn't this guy read? Sorry to be harsh, but people need to be informed before they can even form a reasoned position. Mr. House is not informed.
Poor shill Bill McInturff. He believes that Bush has kept the country safe. Well, excuse me, but didn't one of the worst attacks upon Americans take place under his watch? Yes. Yes it did.
If I was a bit less a skeptic, I might buy into some of what the RNC is pitching. But from where I'm standing, all I see is a weak sitting president that took us into a war of his own making, and is looting the country even as I type this. We are not demonstrably safer, we are far worse off economically, and no one is at the helm. Harsh, maybe. I think that these are objective observations, and sometimes objectivity is harsh.
DumbHammer
Charles Krauthammer: Despite ridicule, Bush's space plan isn't pie in the sky
"I can't imagine an easier choice." That's utterly preposterous. What is particularly stupid is Krauthammer's lack of attention to the true needs of the nation. Bush's proposal is so utterly inane. It comes at a time when the Uhemorrhagingrraging technology jobs, and those that are available here, are paying on average 23% less than they did three years ago.
The choice is, there is no choice. We as a nation need to pay down our debt, attempt to re-establish a manufacturing base, and get our trade deficit in better shape before embarking on things we've already done. We have proven to be unworthy of stewardship of our own world, so let's go and pollute another.
The problem with the stammering pundit's analysis, is that it is no analysis at all.
Particularly stupid, Dr.? That the Washington Post allows you to continue to waste space on its editorial page is what I find particularly stupid. Uncritical cheerleading has no place on an editorial page of a paper as important as the WaPo.
Millionaire neo-con pundits call for space exploration from the protection of their keyboards without a strategy to pay for it. We still have committments in Afghanistan for chrissakes. Then there is Iraq, and the impending unstoppable retirement of the boomers.
If it makes sense, private enterprise will pick up the tab, not merely live fat off of government contracts. Bush once talked about sacrifice. I wonder if he meant the sacrifice of America's future at the cost of present ambition?
Charles Krauthammer: Despite ridicule, Bush's space plan isn't pie in the sky
12:02 AM CST on Sunday, January 18, 2004
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
Most Americans had long since stopped paying attention to manned space flight.
The shuttle? So what (except during some stunt like the John Glenn flight)?
The moon? Been there, done that.
Four years ago, I wrote an article ("On to Mars," The Weekly Standard, Jan. 31, 2000) advocating phasing out the space shuttle, abandoning the space station, establishing a moon base and then eventually going on to Mars.
It was greeted with yawns by those who noticed it at all.
Even my friends excused my fondness for the moon as the kind of eccentricity one expects from a guy who has an interest in prime numbers and once drove to New York to see a chess match.
Ridiculed
Well, things have gotten worse. Last week, when the president proposed to phase out the space shuttle, phase down the space station, establish a moon base and then eventually go on to Mars, he was met not with yawns but with ridicule.
"He wants to build like a space station on the moon, and then from the moon, he wants to launch people to Mars," said a positively gleeful David Letterman. "You know what this means, ladies and gentlemen? He has been drinking again."
And Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, whose usual specialty is unintended humor, got the laugh of last Sunday's Iowa debate when he suggested President Bush was going to the moon and Mars to find weapons of mass destruction.
Part of the reason for the unfriendly reception was the way the Bush proposal was rolled out. It was spun as a great new goal to unify the nation ?– a "Kennedy moment" to kick off an election year.
That was as clumsy as George H.W. Bush saying "Message: I care" or Howard Dean discovering Jesus as he heads south.
If you are going to do something blatantly political, don't telegraph it.
Particularly stupid
The presentation was particularly stupid because I believe the plan would have been proposed exactly as is, with or without an election year, with or without the phony Kennedy overlay.
In fact, there isn't an ounce of political advantage in the proposal. An Associated Press poll found that a majority of Americans would rather spend money on domestic needs.
As for the Kennedy stuff, the Bush proposal has less to do with a vision of man's destiny than with a totally dysfunctional government agency.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration gave us the glory of Apollo, then spent the next three decades twirling around in space in low earth orbit studying zero-G nausea.
It is crazy, and it might have gone on forever had it not been for the Columbia tragedy.
Columbia made painfully clear what some of us have been saying for years: It not only is pointless to continue orbiting endlessly around the earth; it is ridiculously expensive and indefensibly risky.
The president's proposal is a reasonable, measured reconfiguration of the manned space program.
True, he couldn't go all the way. Binding agreements with other countries made it impossible for him to scrap the space station ?– a financial sinkhole whose only purpose is its own existence. But he is for phasing it down and for retiring the shuttle within six years.
That frees up huge amounts of NASA money to do what is useful and exciting: going to other worlds. For this generation, the only alternative to wandering about in low earth orbit ?– other than the Luddite alternative of giving up manned flight completely ?– is to return to the moon. And this time, stay there.
Human habitation
Establishing the first human habitation on a celestial body wouldn't just allow for extraordinarily interesting science (from geology to astronomy) and be the locus for extraterrestrial manufacturing.
It would be ?– those without an ounce of romance in their souls are advised to skip the rest of this sentence ?– the most glorious human adventure since the Age of Exploration five centuries ago.
As for Mars, there is nothing Buck Rogers in the president's proposal.
It will take decades to work out how to get there safely. There is no Apollo crash program. There simply is an annual 5 percent increase in the NASA budget ?– which itself is less than 1 percent of the federal budget.
Those who want to divert even such paltry sums to domestic spending undoubtedly would have objected to Magellan's costly plans, too.
Look. We can stay on Earth. We can keep tumbling about in orbiting Tinkertoys. Or we can walk the moon again and prepare for Mars.
I can't imagine an easier choice.link
"I can't imagine an easier choice." That's utterly preposterous. What is particularly stupid is Krauthammer's lack of attention to the true needs of the nation. Bush's proposal is so utterly inane. It comes at a time when the Uhemorrhagingrraging technology jobs, and those that are available here, are paying on average 23% less than they did three years ago.
The choice is, there is no choice. We as a nation need to pay down our debt, attempt to re-establish a manufacturing base, and get our trade deficit in better shape before embarking on things we've already done. We have proven to be unworthy of stewardship of our own world, so let's go and pollute another.
The problem with the stammering pundit's analysis, is that it is no analysis at all.
Particularly stupid, Dr.? That the Washington Post allows you to continue to waste space on its editorial page is what I find particularly stupid. Uncritical cheerleading has no place on an editorial page of a paper as important as the WaPo.
Millionaire neo-con pundits call for space exploration from the protection of their keyboards without a strategy to pay for it. We still have committments in Afghanistan for chrissakes. Then there is Iraq, and the impending unstoppable retirement of the boomers.
If it makes sense, private enterprise will pick up the tab, not merely live fat off of government contracts. Bush once talked about sacrifice. I wonder if he meant the sacrifice of America's future at the cost of present ambition?
Your vote and Tom DeLay:
High Court Refuses to Block GOP Redistricting Plan
Redistricting should only be allowed to provide parity, not 'loading the deck.' Another loss for democracy.
High Court Refuses to Block GOP Redistricting Plan
Friday, January 16, 2004; 3:12 PM
The Supreme Court refused Friday to block a hard-fought Republican redistricting plan in Texas that could cost Democrats as many as six seats in Congress.
The justices will announce later this year whether they will consider an appeal from congressional Democrats and others who claim that the map dilutes minority voting strength. In the meantime, they rejected an emergency appeal that sought to stop the state from using the new boundaries in this year's elections.
The districts were approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature in a special session following months of partisan bickering, highlighted by two out-of-state walkouts by Democrats.
Republicans contend they could capture as many as 22 of Texas' 32 seats in Congress, up from the present 16, under the new map, which was upheld last week by a federal panel.
The three-judge panel said critics failed to prove the plan was unconstitutional or illegal, but noted they were not ruling on the "wisdom" of the plan.
"We know it is rough and tumble politics, and we are ever mindful that the judiciary must call the fouls without participating in the game," the judges said. Link
Redistricting should only be allowed to provide parity, not 'loading the deck.' Another loss for democracy.
Now for something completely different:
Happy penis song doesn't annoy Canadian regulator
This is a political issue. It illustrates the difference(vas deferens?) between the cool Canadians and the morally rigid,(sorry) uptight Americans. America has lost its way. We are now a country of non-thinking, jingoistic, socially rigid captives of the 'religious right,' and their servants currently occupying the White House.
I've no issue with religion, as long as public funds do not go to religious organizations. If someone can show me that Christianity is a 'reasonable' belief system, I'll devour my keyboard.
Happy penis song doesn't annoy Canadian regulator
OTTAWA, Jan 16 (Reuters) - A song lauding the joys of an "enormous penis" is not obscene because the object of the lyric's affection isn't necessarily sexual, a Canadian regulator ruled on Friday.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council was reacting to a complaint from a Calgary radio listener to a joke song that declared: "I've got the cure for all of my blues/I take a look at my enormous penis/And my troubles start a-meltin' away."
The listener's complaint that the song was obscene fell flat before the council's members, who said the item did not break its code of ethics.
"The discussion of penis size is not in and of itself sufficiently unequivocally a sexual matter that it can be said to be in breach of the code," the council said.
Calgary's CJAY-FM replied to the complaint by saying most of its core audience -- men from 18 to 49 -- enjoyed such items as "Enormous Penis" by Da Vinci's Notebook, which also features the line: "I gotta sing and I dance/When I glance in my pants." Link
This is a political issue. It illustrates the difference(vas deferens?) between the cool Canadians and the morally rigid,(sorry) uptight Americans. America has lost its way. We are now a country of non-thinking, jingoistic, socially rigid captives of the 'religious right,' and their servants currently occupying the White House.
I've no issue with religion, as long as public funds do not go to religious organizations. If someone can show me that Christianity is a 'reasonable' belief system, I'll devour my keyboard.
Here's a shocker:
Study Finds Few Women Science Professors
This is just another example of a long term trend in the U.S. Women are still not effectively engaged in the sciences. This is a shame. Half of our brain power - some would argue MORE than half :) - lies within our female populace. Smart, assertive women are everywhere. Science is not the domain of men. It is for all. We need to provide for women the structure that that need to feel comfortable in order to succeed in the sciences. Be a mentor. It'll prove amongst the most rewarding things you'll ever do!
Study Finds Few Women Science Professors
JEFF LATZKE
Associated Press
OKLAHOMA CITY - White men still dominate university professorships at the nation's top science and engineering schools, even where many of the doctoral students are women and minorities, according to the results of a survey released Thursday.
Women hold between 3 percent and 15 percent of full professorships in science and engineering at the schools surveyed, according to the report written by Donna J. Nelson, a University of Oklahoma chemistry professor who has written several studies on women and minorities in science.
As a result, women can earn their degrees without having a woman professor or even having access to a female faculty member, according to the survey.
"Women are less likely to go into and remain in science and engineering when they lack mentors and role models," the survey said. "When female professors are not hired, treated fairly and retained, female students perceive that they will be treated similarly."
In some instances, the percentage of female students far outweighs the proportion of professors of the same gender, the survey showed. For example, 48.2 percent of students earning bachelor's degrees in math were female, but only 8.3 percent of math professors were women.
Black, Hispanic and American Indian women have even fewer professorships than their white counterparts, according to the survey. For instance, it found no black, Hispanic or Indian women who were full professors at any of the top 50 computer science departments.
The report, which Nelson co-wrote with Diana C. Rogers of the University of Oklahoma, urged male and female professors to encourage women to enter science and engineering.
The study examined the top 50 departments in many science and engineering fields, as ranked by the National Science Foundation, from 2000 to 2002. Some research also was done at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Link
This is just another example of a long term trend in the U.S. Women are still not effectively engaged in the sciences. This is a shame. Half of our brain power - some would argue MORE than half :) - lies within our female populace. Smart, assertive women are everywhere. Science is not the domain of men. It is for all. We need to provide for women the structure that that need to feel comfortable in order to succeed in the sciences. Be a mentor. It'll prove amongst the most rewarding things you'll ever do!
The Independent reports just how little the IGC(Iraqi Governing Council) knows about the customs and culture of Iraq. Once again, the U.S. resorts to using outdated material in order to get round a current troubling situation. At least this time, Powell won't be going to the UN and waving a student's thesis about.
Coalition uses 1918 British report on tribal system
By David Usborne in New York and Glen Rangwala
18 January 2004
Read the entire piece. It is very good. This is a glaring example of just how ill prepared we were to go into Iraq. Gulf war 2 was ill-conceived, poorly orchestrated and now is likely to reduce America's ability to respond to real threats around the globe.
No one in Washington seems to have a clue about how to effectively deal with the Iraqi situation. I am certain that there are people with the expertise to oversee things in Iraq, and who understand things a lot better than members of this administration, but you'll never hear those voices. Pretty sad.
Coalition uses 1918 British report on tribal system
By David Usborne in New York and Glen Rangwala
18 January 2004
As the United States scrambles to end a dispute with Shia leaders over plans to elect an interim government in Iraq before July, it has emerged that American commanders are seeking to reach out to tribal leaders by relying on a report devised in 1918 by Britain, the country's then ruler.
Lieutenant-Colonel Alan King, head of the Tribal Affairs Bureau set up by the US-led coalition last month, admitted last week that he had been referring to the pages of the British report to fathom Iraq's network of tribal sheikhs - regardless of the fact that it dates back to the First World War.
The revelation is not likely to improve confidence in the ability of the US to sort out the deepening muddle over how it means to relinquish political power to the Iraqi people by this summer. The plan to create an interim government before a 30 June deadline has been in doubt since objections were raised last week by the powerful Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani. His words set off mass demonstrations against the proposal in southern Iraq on Thursday.
The American head of the occupying coalition, Paul Bremer, indicated on Friday, after talks in Washington with President Bush, that he will be flexible in how the process might run. He suggested, however, that Ayatollah Sistani's demand for fully fledged direct elections would be impractical. One of the problems Mr Bremer faces is having to deal with the cleric through intermediaries, as Ayatollah Sistani refuses to meet him. Much more at link
Read the entire piece. It is very good. This is a glaring example of just how ill prepared we were to go into Iraq. Gulf war 2 was ill-conceived, poorly orchestrated and now is likely to reduce America's ability to respond to real threats around the globe.
No one in Washington seems to have a clue about how to effectively deal with the Iraqi situation. I am certain that there are people with the expertise to oversee things in Iraq, and who understand things a lot better than members of this administration, but you'll never hear those voices. Pretty sad.
Links Time 36 Hours Late
Globalisation, and counter globalisation seems all the rage, and I culled a few interesting articles from the foreign press regarding the phenomenon. It appears just as likely that dissenters come from countries and or regions that are benefiting most as those that globalisation is likely to harm.
From India, a prime beneficiary of globalisation comes this article via The Times.
An interesting bit:
Save the planet, start a Bush-fire
ERRATICA/BACHI KARKARIA
[ SUNDAY, JANUARY 18, 2004 12:00:32 AM ]
Always in Mumbai, ?It?s the time to disco?. The recent rave party of 'Bhujbal A-Go-Go' has just been upstaged by the newest hip and happening place, 'NGO A-Go-Go', alternatively known as the World Social Forum.
This latest disco is bound to be a success because it has rounded up the usual suspects: media hype, music, dancing, frenetic firangs, and our own designer do-gooders. Since Friday, the Forum has been rocking to Patkar Beats and Tandava Shiva, the doughty divas of Indian activism.
The permanently aggrieved have repositioned themselves as a continuous carnival. Adivasis have been re-incorporated as indigenous peoples.
Sporting branded commitment-chic, members of the Bleeding-Heart Board stride from greenroom negotiations to greenhouse think-tanks. A new multinational culture is born.
The crowd of registered do-gooders and unregistering do-gawkers has rivalled the Shiv Sena rally, the Phalguni Pathak dandiya, and the 8.14 Churchgate Fast.
So, naturally, ordinary folks are asking, "What this WSF is? Who are all these goras in Goregaon? And why some people are shouting slogans against American Imperialism over Iraq in Japanese, which neither Bush nor the Baghdadis can understand? They are mad or what?"
I try to explain the noble motivation of these anti-globalisation gurus who have braved Alan Greenbacks, Pascal Lamy's banana-diet-boosted WTO stamina, and their own sloganitis to save the world from neo-imperialists hell-bent on genetically modifying the world economy.
These are the Supermen of the Small Voice (and the Resident Goddess of Small Things), who have slain the WEF Goliath at Davos.
But the Bai from Borivali and the Bhai from Bhayander look as blank as a book on Shivaji after all his followers have finished wiping out all the variously objectionable passages. Much more at link
There is plenty of ammunition for these committed people to draw inspiration from. The environmental lack of leadership shown by the U.S. and the Neo-con's excellent Iraqi adventure are but two concerns that idealists place above their own financial well-being. Bravo to all divas!!
********
Continuing our globalisation theme, more on the WSF:
World Social Forum declares war on globalisation
BOMBAY (Reuters) - Thousands of dancing, singing and debating activists from across the world declared war on big business at an anti-globalisation meet in India's corporate capital on Saturday.
Labour leaders from South Korea joined Indian farmers, American volunteers and Afghan women to denounce multinational companies as more than 100,000 activists assembled in a Bombay suburb for the six-day World Social Forum which began on Friday.
"Nestle, Coca Cola quit our countries. Give us our rights," Jose Bove, a French sheep farmer who has become a flag-bearer in the challenge to "economic imperialism", told a cheering crowd packed in an auditorium in the northeastern suburb of Goregaon.
Nobel laureates Shirin Ebadi and Joseph Stiglitz, and Bove, best remembered for demolishing a half-built McDonald's outlet in France nearly four years ago, are among a dozen prominent names at the fourth World Social Forum (WSF), being held in Asia for the first time.
As tribals with painted torsos danced vigorously carrying anti-globalisation banners, singers skipped down another lane belting out criticism of big business while another group performed skits about the exploitation of impoverished farmers.
Bove said global firms producing packaged food and beverages should be shunned and urged that agriculture be taken out of the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
"WTO has to get out of agriculture. It's policies are threatening our future," said Bove.
"Seeds are being patented and are controlled by big industries. This means farmers cannot use their own seeds and they will be out of work. Patenting of seeds has to stop."Much more at link
It should be clear that the WSF is the intellectual, and ideological counter to the WTO. I am a firm believer in direct action, as long as it is of a non-violent nature. As I told a pollster the other day, I consider myself more of an anarchist than anything else politically.
********
One last article from the Pakistan Daily Times. It seems a very good paper..well, at least the online edition.
WSF in full swing in Mumbai
MUMBAI: Thousands of social justice activists, anti globalisation organisations and like-minded people have descended on Mumbai for the World Social forum mass gathering.
It has rapidly turned red with hammers and sickles sprouting on every lamppost and slogans denouncing multinationals and some denouncing the WSF itself sprayed across the walls of Mumbai.
The official slogan of the mega talkfest is 'Another World is Possible' and 1,200 plus seminars will discuss a range of issues from Palestine and Iraq to crimes against women to racism, caste, unemployment and communalism.
The city has responded positively to the invasion.
The drivers of auto-rickshaws and taxis are happy with the extra business from the otherwise bewildered foreigners offloading at the Goregaon, the main venue for the event. The morning commuters of the city train to work are confused by the sudden activity and hundreds of foreigners from nearly 80 countries.
At the Goregaon each participant is greeted by activists with leaflets and announcements of seminars, symposiums, meetings, songs and dances and exhibitions at hundreds of sites while a hundred languages and nationalities are visible.
Held together by a motley mass of grassroots groups, labour unions, non-government organisations and artists, it seeks to throw up responses not just to globalisation but also to sectarian violence and war, like the war on Iraq. In fact, opposition to the war in Iraq and US militarism is the dominant theme, culminating in a massive rally next week against the US, said organisers. Much more at link
I'm really intrigued by the harsh contrasts between the response that WTO dissenters are treated in 'the land of the free,' - see Michelle Goldberg's Excellent, "This is not America" piece she did for Salon - and the way that they are being welcomed in other countries. American democracy in the early 21st century is looking more like totalitarinism.
Friday, January 16, 2004
No ten links o' fun tonight :(
I'm a slacker. No 10 links tonight. I'll shoot for fifteen on both Saturday and Sunday. As you can see, I'm messing with a new look for the blog. It works as advertised in Gecko engined browsers, Mozilla, NS6+, Firebird(my personal fav) and should in the others. I have an I.E. bug. if you hover(mouseover) a link in the main page body, you'll note that the text jumps left. This is not, I repeat NOT a feature.
I looked at my code, and yes it is still something of a mess, as I add and remove features, but I cannot fathom why I.E. is exhibiting this behavior. I suspect that it may be related to the script for either the permalink, or Haloscan's commenting.
This only started when I went to the box model to enclose the entries. I'll figure it out. I always do. I did add a search function today, as well as the misbehaving box model, so it wasn't a total waste, just a less than fully productive day.
Ciao for now..your humble blogger,
Todd
George "not a scientist" Bush's absurdly named, "President's Council on Bioethics" [Ed. Snickers aloud] fails to take a stance on embryonic stem cell research.
I'm almost certain that this is an election year political move, designed to make the anti-science, anti-progess Bush seem more the moderate. In this administration, if you don't agree with the boss, they summarily dismiss you after a round or two of derision.
The Scientist's biomed central has more.
400 pages, and who knows how much taxpayer money to say 'we have no position on the issue?' WTF?!?!
Read the highlighted paragraph, and tell me that this is not Bush's hand-picked nutcases bowing to election year pressures. Fuckin' sad.
George WTF Bush. I think Gore is spot on for calling Bush a moral coward.
I'm almost certain that this is an election year political move, designed to make the anti-science, anti-progess Bush seem more the moderate. In this administration, if you don't agree with the boss, they summarily dismiss you after a round or two of derision.
The Scientist's biomed central has more.
US President's Council on Bioethics takes no position in 400-page report | By Eugene Russo
WASHINGTON, DC - The President's Council on Bioethics released its first report on stem cell research at a meeting here yesterday (January 15). But unlike one of its noteworthy predecessors, the new report, Monitoring Stem Cell Research, made no recommendations and took no particular ethical or policy position.
Instead, the 400-page-plus report, which includes four chapters and several appendices, summarizes the most recent developments in stem cell science, outlines the ethical issues surrounding stem cells—in particular embryonic stem cells—and provides an overview of the current federal policy.
Responding to a query by one puzzled audience member, Council Chair Leon R. Kass said that the council declined to make specific recommendations because the stem cell research field is young, and the president's policy and its implementation are even younger. In August 2001, President Bush announced that under his policy, only the approximately 60-plus stem cell lines that already existed would be eligible for funding.
400 pages, and who knows how much taxpayer money to say 'we have no position on the issue?' WTF?!?!
Read the highlighted paragraph, and tell me that this is not Bush's hand-picked nutcases bowing to election year pressures. Fuckin' sad.
George WTF Bush. I think Gore is spot on for calling Bush a moral coward.
U.S. not a 'free trader' says WTO
From the UPI:
WTO finds some trade barriers in U.S.
Under the deregulatory GOP, you'd think we would have the freest trade polices on the planet. We do not. I think we rank around 6th or 7th in overall free trade. This is not a bad thing. Policies restrictive of trade generally only delay the inevitable. You cannot 'restrict' your economy into competition. It musy happen organically through innovation.
I don't fear globalization. I think it inevitable in a freer world. Of course, in the long run, the U.S. will be a lesser player on the world stage. It's simply a matter of extending the dynamics that are now in play. We are only a mass exporter of food and weapons. I'm referring to things that are actaully made here, rather than have the components made elsewhere and assembled here. Much of the 'value added' processes are done elsewhere.
There are ways to plan for outsourcing, a permanently crippled currency and the loss of our manufacturing base. This is not the stuff of fantasy. It is here and now. I have ideas as to how to flow with trends, and I'll write more as this trend accelerates.
From the UPI:
WTO finds some trade barriers in U.S.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 (UPI) -- The World Trade Organization, in its first report on U.S. trade policies in two years, said Friday that though the United States is a largely open economy, barriers still persist in important areas of trade.
According to the WTO report, "recent U.S. macroeconomic policy has been directed, increasingly successfully, towards recovering and sustaining growth, with benefits to the global economy, including through trade."
However, the report said that barriers facing other nations to gaining access to U.S. markets persist in a few, but important, areas in the U.S. economy. These include large agriculture subsidies, the recently ended steel tariffs and the ongoing protectionist tariff policies in the textiles and clothing sectors. The report added that these measures have distorted the U.S. market and "has burdened U.S. consumers, taxpayers and trade." More at link
Under the deregulatory GOP, you'd think we would have the freest trade polices on the planet. We do not. I think we rank around 6th or 7th in overall free trade. This is not a bad thing. Policies restrictive of trade generally only delay the inevitable. You cannot 'restrict' your economy into competition. It musy happen organically through innovation.
I don't fear globalization. I think it inevitable in a freer world. Of course, in the long run, the U.S. will be a lesser player on the world stage. It's simply a matter of extending the dynamics that are now in play. We are only a mass exporter of food and weapons. I'm referring to things that are actaully made here, rather than have the components made elsewhere and assembled here. Much of the 'value added' processes are done elsewhere.
There are ways to plan for outsourcing, a permanently crippled currency and the loss of our manufacturing base. This is not the stuff of fantasy. It is here and now. I have ideas as to how to flow with trends, and I'll write more as this trend accelerates.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)