Friday, October 26, 2007

Weekend Update - October 27th


GO DUCKS!
  • Has America become a mean, ungenerous, cramped and crabby nation, a deeply insecure colossus—one that just might be taking all those Viagra and Cialis commercials a bit too personally? Find out here.
  • Chalmers Johnson reports on why Bush's response to 9/11 was deadlier than the attack itself. A must read.
  • Our man Olbermann. Damn, we like this guy.
  • Bush the "Hugger-In-Chief?" Ohmygawd, gag me with a spoon.
  • Our President is working hard to keep us from expanding health care to children. What a guy.
  • p.m. carpenter finally asks the big question. Is the President mad? As in crazy as a loon? As in, back up the big white truck and take this idiot away?
  • "Burn Baby Burn." Greg Palast comments on the comparison between Katrina and the California fires.
  • Mark Morford reports on "The Great Pacific Garbage Patch." This is enough to make you sick.
  • "Check Out All the Violence Here! or How I Jolt You into Submission to Get Your Money." A fascinating report on how the media manipulates us. Check it out!
  • Remember "The Rude Pundit?" I always sent a language warning with his posts. Well, this one isn't all that bad, but he sure rips Rudy Giuliani. Good stuff.
  • "I Had Sex With Larry Craig." What more can I say? (Language Warning Here!)
  • "Are you happy with FEMA's response so far?" The details on FEMA's bogus "press conference. Heckofajob.
  • Our Vice President was so bored during the briefing on the California wildfires that he nodded off. I wonder what he dreams about during these moments. Quail hunting, perhaps?
  • Just for fun, quite possibly the best beer commercial ever. So good you'll play it twice.
  • And finally, "The Ann Coulter Song." Turn up your speakers and enjoy. Here's the YouTube version, for you with wimpy computers.
  • Oh, and by the way, Oregon beat USC today, 24-17. How 'bout them Ducks?

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Fareed Speaks Up

Fareed Zakaria, in the latest issue of Newsweek reminds us that "The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality." He speaks, of course, about the insane notion being spread among the populace that somehow this third rate nation (no offense, jihadists) is a threat to the United States.

"Here is the reality." Fareed reminds us. "Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times larger. Israel and every Arab country, (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"

(And, "How Bush Wrecked Conservatism" )

Uncle Bob

Lives of the Rich and Conservative

(From Arthur in Marin County)

Richard Mellon Scaife is a massive player in the conservative movement. He funded the "Arkansas Project" to dig dirt on Bill Clinton, he funds the Heritage Foundation and a host of other conservative "think tanks". By some estimates his contributions to conservative causes may be as high as $300 million over the last fifteen years or so.

And he seems to be in a bit of a pickle right now. This article seems to suggest that the depth of his personal fortune is about to be tapped into in a significant fashion. Most of it seems to be in trusts, which presumably give him a lifetime income of about $45 million a year, and then on his death the trusts will pass to his heirs. Now he presumably has some living expenses; houses, staff, a DC-9. The Good Life, as we call it. But that all costs money. What a divorce is very likely to do is cut in half (or close to it) his monthly income. At first glance that would appear to sharply reduce his ability to make lavish expenditures on conservative causes.

The description of Scaife's mistress, as given in this article, goes to prove an old adage. Actually, it goes to prove about five or six old adages, which I do not intend to dignify by repeating them in a high-toned forum like this.

But while we are on the general subject, did you hear that at a campaign event a small boy asked Rudy Giuliani if he could ask a question, Rudy said sure, the boy asked something along the lines of, "If you believe in family values, how come you had three wives, Mr. Busy Penis?"

And of course, when we stop laughing, we must ALL deplore the father who coached his son to ask such a rude question. Deplore in the strongest of terms...

...deplore.

Arthur

Saturday, October 20, 2007

The View From Marin County - "Avoiding Dynasties"

(All's well in Marin County, as Bad Hat's aging Chief Political Correspondant pontificates on the situation of the world as we know it.)


Dear Ass Hat,

Okay, here we go with what I was worried about in regard to a Clinton campaign, in short, that there is something of an anti-Clinton industry that has been lurking in a large dark cave for six years, waiting, waiting, patiently for their party to call on them once again. These troglodytes recall, as though it was yesterday, all of the moves that worked so well against the Clintons last time. If you will recall, the Clintons were not only very popular with the African-American community, they were the darlings of an odd collection of Chinese gentlemen in bad suits who seemed to not always have the personal resources to gather the sorts of donations that they were bundling and passing on to the President. In a number of instances they had to try to explain where those funds really came from, although they had not been quite as forthcoming when the donations were made. Oh, and the Clintons had not appeared to be particularly curious about it all, since hey, a buck is a buck, right? Or, as the French so elegantly put it, "Money has no memory" by which they mean that clean money and dirty money both will buy the same amount.

Whatever good or bad you can say about us Americans, we are nowhere near as cynical about government as the French. It is possible, actually, that there is no one on the planet who is more cynical about government and politicians as the French. As proof of that I offer the sudden divorce of President Sarkozy of France, on the grounds that his glamorous wife thinks that being First Lady is "not her style" and oh, by the way, she may be moving to New York to live with her lover. Meanwhile there is a national strike of transportation workers and talk of barricades. They loved Sarkozy last spring, now they realize he is just another right wing creep, and to cap it off, his wife has decided that also.

On second thought, the French aren't cynical, they are fast learners. Can you imagine how different our country would be if Laura had made a similar decision a half year into President Bush's first term of office? One woman could have changed history. But I digress...

Here we go again. More donations from dodgy Chinese donors. Been there, done that. You would think, with as much money as they have coming in, that the Clinton campaign would be very careful about accepting maxed out donations from people who live in poor neighbors and have Chinese surnames. It is not a question as to IF the campaign is going to get called on it, so much as when and by who:

I spoke the other day with a bright and really well-connected Republican lady who worked in the CIA for many years, then was in the Clinton White House as a part of an agency. She said several things (a) she found Hillary Clinton a dreadful person to work around, and (b) she thought that she may have been one of the few people that the President did not hit on. I felt that I was hearing the opening lines of the 2008 campaign, if Hillary is nominated. It was the same old soap opera, with a side of terrorist threat.

I am no fan of Hillary Clinton because I am a believer in avoiding dynasties. Second acts in political families rarely live up to the accomplishments of the first act. It is statistical nonsense to think that in a country of three hundred million the best candidate would be the spouse or son of a former President. And then there is that Clinton-bashing industry. They are already up to speed on the Clintons, so why make it easy for them? The GOP will be gunning for whoever the Democrats nominate. The Republican lady passed along a terrible story of John Edwards' affair with a blonde cinematographer who made some web shorts for his campaign. The story appeared in the National Enquirer, but she commented on how quickly the story had been dropped, which she found "highly suspicious". Or else everyone found out it was nonsense and backed away from it.

I assume that Edwards is not that dumb, but this apparently will be the story line of the Get Edwards effort: he was having an affair with a blonde filmmaker while his poor wife sat at home dying of cancer. Oh, that brute, that cad! The French would probably elect him by acclaim for being that much of a hound, but we are not French, are we? Part of the story is that Elizabeth Edward's cancer is far, far worse than the Edwards are letting on and she is likely to die soon, at which point John Edwards will run away with the blonde cinematographer... who has a website on which she paints herself as a nut case. If Edwards was dumb enough get involved with her, he does not deserve to be elected dogcatcher, but I'm not buying it. But this is the sort of mudslinging we will be in for, so get ready. The Republican approach is to sling as much mud as possible, in the belief that at least some of it will stick in the minds of voters. It has worked for them in the past, it is not working so well this campaign cycle because everyone is sick of them and they keep getting caught doing creepy and corrupt things. Actual events tend to trump unsubstantiated rumor.

In other news this week the Iraqi government told us that they will not permit the United States to keep permanent military bases in their country. I can't quote the exact language, but what the Vice President said (I am not making this up) was something close to, "No way, no, a big fat no, N, O, no". And after all that we've done to them! What an ungrateful people those ignorant Iraqis are! Can you imagine how much the US has wasted in building mega-bases that we now can't use? When those bases are given back to the Iraqis there will be a flood of journalists to photograph and catalog what the US had started to build, and was forced to abandon. It will not be pretty. Or else we will have to overthrow the Iraqi government and install one which is more sympathetic to us. Or, maybe instead we should just attack Iran in order to clean their dirty holocaust-denying clocks and scare the Iraqis into obedience at the same time. Hey, that would work, right? What? The Joint Chiefs think it is a dumb idea? Oh phooey.

As Representative Pete Stark said this week, "This President just likes to blow things up".

Arthur

Friday, October 19, 2007

Weekend Update - October 20th



  • Okay, let's start this weekend out with a seven-year-old singing the national anthem. Now brace yourself, this kid is really good. Check it out.

  • It's still not too late to get on the Katherine Harris bandwagon. Now here's a woman who's got it all together.

  • Mygawd, you just gotta love this guy. President Bush makes a funny. Remember this one?

  • Paul Krugman writes on "The Death of the Machine."

  • "Thank you sir, may I have another?" p.m. carpenter.

  • Have you been having the feeling there's something wrong with "The Big Picture?" Well, you're probably right. Check out Joe Conason's essay "The Senate's Strange Double Standard."

  • Further documentary evidence that President George Bush is a blithering, war-mongering idiot. -Uncle Bob

  • Funny stuff from David Letterman.

  • Religious Rightists and Their Autumnal Discontent (with God). p.m. carpenter.

  • Think the ever expanding surveillance laws won't concern you because you have nothing to hide? Read this essay by John Dean.

  • Why is there no Daniel Ellsberg in the Bush administration? Here's Ellsberg himself to explain why.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Weekend Update - October 13th




  • Okay, so some times we Liberals sound a little whiney. Mark Morford brings us all to task in "The Whine of Voracious Liberals."


  • He may be gone, but he's not forgotten. The Rovian Touch at the Justice Department.

  • p.m. carpenter talks about "Bush's History and Gore's Future."

  • Here's how Bush's Justice Department takes care of people and politicians they don't like.

  • In 2003 Fred Thompson said he was "never really willing to pay the price" to run for President. So I guess now he's charging it?

  • E.J. Dionne tells of the Conservatives attack of a 12 year old in "Meanies and Hypocrites." Also Paul Krugman discusses this issue in "Sliming Graeme Frost."
  • Ann Coulter says that "Jews need perfecting." Why do people talk to this "woman?" Why does anyone listen? Why am I writing this?
  • If the Republicans have lost Merle Haggard, is this the end for them?
  • Bless Jimmy Carter for telling it like it is. He calls Cheney "a disaster for our country."

Al Gore Wins Nobel Prize


Today, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Al Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their work to raise awareness about the threat of global warming.


Bad Hat salutes Al Gore on his outstanding achievement, and wishes him all the best in the future. And even though we sincerely wish he would run for President again, we can understand why he doesn't. Peace On Ya, Al, and thanks.
....................................................................................................................
(Al Gore Responds:)
Dear John,

I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This award is even more meaningful because I have the honor of sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the world's pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis--a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years. We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level.

My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 percent of the proceeds of the award to the
Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.

Thank you,

Al Gore

Uncle Bob (and Arthur) Comments On "Strategic Bombing"

(Here's Uncle Bob's fascinating response to Arthur's note of last week. Uncle Bob has been in Washington for the past week, but he's back in full force. Arthur's response follows.)


In partial response to Arthur’s comments in the latest issue of this fine rag, it is my understanding that firebombing of civilian targets was not contemplated by the Allies at the beginning of World War II until the massive German bombing campaign destroyed entire cities and inflicted thousands of civilian casualties in Britain.

Understandably, the Brits wanted payback, and when the Americans furnished new bombers for British crews and arrived themselves with many more bombers and eager air crews, there were opportunities for payback galore. The British air marshal known as “Bomber” Harris soon overcame initial American objections to bombing civilian targets, resulting in such atrocities as the firebombing of Dresden, which wiped out an entire city and at least half of its inhabitants.

Payback, indeed.

In the Pacific theater the opportunities for massive slaughter by our esteemed bomber fly boys were minimal until Allied forces had taken nearby Okinawa and invasion plans of the home islands were on the charts in the war rooms.

I was in an Osaka prison camp in early 1945 when the city was firebombed by hundreds of low-flying bombers. There was death, destruction, and desolation all around us, all civilian so far as we could tell, but our unmarked barracks in the shipyards was miraculously untouched.

The American military commanders called it strategic bombing. I call it murder.

Soon thereafter we were transported by train to a small coastal village on the northwest coast of Honshu where we remained until the war was over.

The firebombing of major cities such as Tokyo was the brainchild of Air Corps General Curtis Lemay, who later remarked that if Japan had won the war, he would have been hung as a war criminal.

During a more recent conflict, General Lemay recommended that the US nuke North Vietnam.

The capability to obliterate entire cities and their inhabitants was enhanced a hundredfold by the atomic bomb, which was dropped unnecessarily on two Japanese cities for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with winning the war.

In August 1945 I traveled by train through the city of Tokyo on my way to the docks where American ships awaited to take us home and there was nothing but smoking desolation and heaps of rubble as far as the eye could see and not a living person in sight, a result of conventional firebombing under the direction of General Lemay.

Later, when I read up on the history of World War II, I concluded that what I saw in Japan was a direct legacy of the strategic bombing strategy first orchestrated by “Bomber” Harris and later by his bloody-minded disciple, General Curtis Lemay.

A post war analysis of the results of strategic bombing found that its efficacy was much over rated by its adherents. During the massive strategic bombing of Germany, for example, German war production actually rose.

Strategic bombing, by its very nature, must be called a war crime, and there are disturbing reports in the press that it is being used in Iraq.

There is no way for bombs to discriminate between who is innocent and who is guilty, therefore when the innocent are killed, what else can you call the bombers but murderers?

A question you might ask the next Air Force bomber crewman you run across.

Uncle Bob

(Uncle Bob's postscript:)

And then there is close air support, pioneered and perfected by the U. S. Marine Corps, designed to support and protect the troops. Targets of such tactical aviation units are normally enemy military units or aircraft. However, in a static situation such as developed in Korea and Vietnam with no enemy planes to fight and only occasional calls for close support missions, the task morphs into a strategic one.


Fighter bombers took off daily by the dozens from the airfield in Vietnam where I spent some of my last years in the Corps, loaded with bombs and napalm looking for “targets of opportunity.” My Group executive officer bragged often about napalming “crispy critters,” otherwise known as Vietnamese rice farmers in the wrong place at the wrong time, which seems to apply to our latest military fiasco, according to the many reports of innocent civilians being slaughtered by trigger happy American bandidos in Iraq.


The beat goes on.


Next year, Iran?
*******************************************************************
Arthur Responds:

"Bomber" Harris, the British architect of firebombing Germany, cut his teeth in... wait for it... Iraq. Where Harris was the architect of the British efficiency program which involved punitive bombing of restive villages and the aerial delivery of mustard gas bombs. You know, the same sort of WMD that we hung Saddam Hussein for using?

Bomber Harris proved that if you bombed the crap out of civilians that you could cow the population into obedience. For a while. And then they would figure out a way to subvert you and kneecap you and take their country back, as happened in Iraq. One of the heroes of that effort? Yup, Saddam Hussein. The problem with forcing a revolution is that the nation in question runs the risk of being taken over by revolutionaries. Who often are not very nice people. A bit too prone to ripping people's intestines out, in order to get their attention.

Curtis Le May, if I have my facts straight, is the model for "General Jack D. Ripper" in the movie Doctor Strangelove. One of the oddest movies you will ever rent, trust me.

Arthur

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Arthur's "Creeping Anglophila"

(Another note from Marin County...)

I confess to creeping Anglophila. Two of my ancestors fought the English and their Hessian mercenaries in the Revolutionary War. I'm not sure if they bled for the birth of the nation, but I am sure they shivered, ate short rations, lived in crappy conditions and were enormously relieved the war was over. There is no, repeat no family history of that glorious war. That leads me to believe that the "glory" of that war was entirely lost on my ancestors. I suspect it was more a matter of being given a crappy job and doing it, then going home.

But I like the Brits. We stopped fighting ever so long ago and in recent years they sometimes come out with really intelligent assessments of the world. The end of their empire was only about fifty years ago, and they tend to shy away from the idea of becoming colonialists once again. Sometimes they make bad alliances, but what I like is that they appear willing to revisit bad decisions and work to understand what went so badly wrong. And write about it in newspapers. Fairly intelligibly.

Some of those folks just sat down to do a bit of a think about this Bush "War On Terror" thing. They decided against it, thanks anyhow.

Meanwhile the Swiss have a political campaign posting flyers and billboards showing three white sheep kicking a black sheep out of Switzerland, with a slogan something like "To Create Security". That suggests that our country does not have a monopoly on racist and zenophobic targeting of other races and culture groups. They are just a bit more direct about it.

Arthur

Saturday, October 6, 2007

A Note From Marin County

(Aurthur is indeed still alive and busy subverting the dominant paradigm, or something. Here's a letter from the old fart just received at Bad Hat HQ. Note: the Ken Burns link was added by Bad Hat, not Arthur.)

Dear Ass Hat,

I hope everyone has taken the opportunity to watch Ken Burns' "War" series. Very tough watching because the sum of human misery from that war simply stretches the imagination. I am curious what Uncle Bob thinks of it overall. What struck me the most were the comments over and over again about the official blunders, miscommunications and screw-ups. Each of which cost thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. Stupid leaders are not unique to the Iraq War. We just are hearing more about it, more quickly, whereas a lot of decisions in WW II were glossed over at the time and people were so relieved to have the war end that I think there was little taste for revisiting past decisions.

What also stuck in my throat was the description of the intentional allied firebombing of cities in Europe and Japan. There seemed to be a calculated science involved in setting enormous areas of cities on fire by creating "firestorms". When you think about it, when a firestorm was able to cause a hundred thousand deaths in one night, mostly civilian, was it really such a great leap to decide to drop atomic bombs on cities? I doubt that anyone knew much about the subsequent deaths that would result from radiation exposure, so my assumption is that they just figured, "Hey, one bomb or five thousand incendiary bombs, either way a hundred thousand will die. What's the difference?"

And that is the terrible calculus of all-out war. Again, I would defer to Uncle Bob for his reaction and comments on how people viewed things at the time, but it very much seems as though many viewed it as "Us or them", by fair means or foul, and such an idea was not entirely unreasonable. Could we stumble into another war of such ferocity? Hard to say, but equally impossible to rule out.

It is a compelling argument for electing the right individual. I wish I knew what was going to happen in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Florida is going to be early, too, and despite threats to not count their votes, they will. It all seems a messy and arbitrary system.

Arthur

p.m. carpenter's Commentary - "A Comedy of Arrows"

(Here's a wonderful column by p.m. carpenter, just to get us started this week. And just for our transit union friends at LTD, notice his reference in the last paragraph. Now that we're not allowed to strike, I'm wondering just how good this "binding arbitration" thing is going to work out. But, that's another post altogether... JP)


Having misjudged the illegal law of the land for at least the past couple of years, Congressional Democrats are now the ones suffering from the "combined effects" of a "secret regime" and its torturous application of authoritarian rule.

How embarrassing. Or, as John D. Rockefeller IV, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, put it, "I find it unfathomable that the committee tasked with oversight of the C.I.A.'s detention and interrogation program would be provided more information by The New York Times than by the Department of Justice."

Just as unfathomable is that any Democratic member of Congress would still find unfathomable any administration secrecy, brazen illegality, or bombastic snubbing of the people's representatives.

But, the gloves are off, or, to mix metaphors, the Dems have drawn some menacing projectiles from their quivers and are now aiming straight at the administration's swinish heart.

The chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees are, understandably, particularly upset, because the New York Times did indeed do their work for them -- the product of which John Conyers finds "extremely troubling," and Patrick Leahy speculates is proof of a "secret regime." This would be extremely troubling proof number -- what? -- 168?

Nevertheless, they mean business this time. So Conyers has sent flying a scathing letter to Justice, and Leahy, along with fellow judiciary committee members, has vowed to "closely question" the administration's attorney-general nominee "about his views on interrogation." Well, that should clear things up.

Furthermore, Democrats are "demand[ing] to see the classified memorandums" regarding the administration's happily deployed "harsh interrogation techniques."

But White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday -- rather, she actually said yesterday -- that those techniques are secret because they're classified. Had I been present I would have asked why they're classified, just for the amusement of hearing her say, because they're secret.

At any rate, Ms. Perino assured us, the world and potential terrorists that the interrogation techniques are "safe," thereby disclosing practical information that she also said should never be disclosed, lest terrorists train against the techniques. Why bother?

Just as entertaining was a statement released late yesterday from old reliable Kit Bond -- a man I once personally witnessed primping his hair endlessly before a radio interview -- saying that the intelligence committee on which he sits, with thumbs twirling and fingers in the ears, had already "been briefed on the administration’s 'legal justifications' for interrogation," which, of course, happen to be illegal.

Thus, in the name of God, marches the Rump Parliament against its increasingly monarchical foe, whose secrecy and impunity are sure to triumph once again -- because, having adorned itself with the similar powerlessness of a strike-disowning union, impeachment is "off the table."

Weekend Update - October 6th




  • Why isn't there more serious news on the front page of the newspapers? Mark Morford ponders that question in "Britney Spears Sucks Blackwater."

  • James Dobson says he just can't bring himself to vote for Rudy. Is it the abortion thing, or is he afraid of losing access to power?

  • A U.S. District Court judge put Lt. Ehren Watada's court-martial on hold yesterday. Can something reasonable come from it?
  • Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American public wants our troops out of Iraq. Helen Thomas calls them spineless.
  • Skeeter Sanders (who?) reveals secret transcripts that make Bush look bad. Does anyone have a secret transcript that makes Bush look good? Now THAT would be news.
  • p.m. carpenter discusses the GOP, or what's left of it.
  • Breaking News: God has told Richard Roberts (son of Oral) not to worry about that pesky litigation concerning misuse of University funds. Next week, Bad Hat reveals God's cell phone number.
  • When it comes to Blackwater, just follow the money.
  • John Edwards slams Hillary Clinton over her link to Blackwater. Here we go.
  • Bitter, angry, shallow, and vain - poor poor Clarence Thomas. "Liberals are scarier than the Ku Klux Klan." And this man is a Supreme Court Justice.