just so you know, bill clinton (like ronald reagan) talked of repealing the 22nd amendment. but to date i can find no resolution introduced on the floor of the house of representatives. my republican friends claim that the democrats did indeed put forth a resolution. but they may be misremembering their history. i'll keep looking.
by the way, one of the sponsors of the resolution i mentioned in my last post is none other than rep. sensenbrenner, the man who gaveled a subcommitee hearing to a close because he didn't like listening to democrats arguing about the vaidity of increasing the powers of the patriot act (this happened last week). he closed the meeting, cut off a democrat in midsentence and had an aide come out later and turn off the microphones, because the dems kept talking. there's a politician i want on my side.
CLINTON CALLS FOR CHANGETO 22ND AMENDMENTWants to Modify Presidential Term Limits
(Washington, D.C.) — While speaking at the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum yesterday, former President Bill Clinton announced that Congress should change the 22nd Amendment that limits a president to two terms.
"I think since people are living much longer . . . the 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime," Clinton said.
Stacie Rumenap, executive director for U.S. Term Limits, responded to Clinton's comments: "By term limiting the president of the United States, the 22nd Amendment provides that no matter how much power a given chief executive may gather, there's a definite limit on how long he may wield it. At a maximum, a fresh face and a fresh perspective will be brought to the White House every eight years."
While Clinton said such a change "probably" wouldn't apply to him he didn't rule out the possibility of a future run.
"There may come a time when we elect a president at age 45 or 50, and then 20 years later the country comes up against the same kind of problems the president faced before. People would like to bring that man or woman back but they would have no way to do so," Clinton said.
Rumenap countered: "Voters would be surprised to learn how many politicians have never held a real job in the private sector. For example, if it weren't for term limits, Bill Clinton most likely wouldn't have been looking for his first ever non-governmental job at the age of 54. The fact remains that all politicians face the same potential to be corrupted by power. And only term limits ensure that no single person can ever hold a monopoly on that power. Our country fought a revolution to get rid of a king, and we certainly don't need another king — not Clinton or anyone else."
The 22nd Amendment was ratified on February 27, 1951, six years after the death of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt who had been elected to a record four terms.
For more information about the 22nd Amendment, or the national term limits movement, please contact Kurt A. Gardinier at U.S. Term Limits at 202-379-3000, extension 109.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Surprised?
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)
HJ 24 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 24
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 17, 2005
Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`Article --
`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.
HJ 24 IH
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 24
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 17, 2005
Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`Article --
`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.
Monday, June 13, 2005
A Rant And A Letter To The Paper
this is my most recent letter to the Fresno Bee. printing it is up to them.
i know that most of my friends who look at this blog are put off by my political push, but it is more important now than it has ever been. we are on the brink of fucking everything up beyond redemption. in many ways, we may have already. you and i can agree that bush is not "our" president. you and i can agree that this Iraq war is not by our bidding. you and i can disagree on these and many other aspects of our current political and social climate. but the one thing we cannot let ourselves do is ignore it. check that. there are two things. and the second is that you and i cannot allow ourselves to be satisfied with what our local paper and/or TV news tells us. There is so much more information out there via the internet that it is irresponsible of every one of us not to look for it, to research the McBites we get from our local news. Intelligence is no longer a privilege, it's a responsibility.
if this seems like a tantrum, so be it. if it seems like a slap at some of you who read this, so be it. i don't ask you to agree with my writings or clippings. in fact, i'd love to hear from you who disagree. but those of you who would agree silently, but not investigate yourselves, i say shame on you.
it's an emotional attack i admit. but i believe it. we are nothing if we are not informed. and our american population is not informed. we believe in the big mac. we secretly wonder what jared would do. we can quote commercials ad infinitum, but not remember what a president said in a state of the union speech. we pretend to not care about michael jackson's trial, but stop our work for an hour to hear the verdict and the talking heads' resultant effluence. We have an opinion about every minor bit of minutia that is spewed to us daily by the press and will expound upon it to anyone within earshot, but we shy away from those topics that will affect us, our children and millions of people around the world. are these topics too big? is a cybercue more fun and easier to handle? yes, they are and yes it is. i know the answer as well as you do. and i know the excuses. why would i want to go on my friend's blog to face politics? all i do every day is read about politics, watch the news and get politics. why would i want to come here and be faced with more politics?
the truth is, however, that most of us are not faced with politics daily. we shun it, we run from it. we know it exists and we have our opinions about it, but we don't look any further into it than we have to in order to maintain our beliefs. in short, we ignore it. we take for granted that those people who we don't like will continue to say and do things we don't like. we take for granted that the truth will emerge in fairly quick fashion and the rest of our community will see the light and vote for sanity. and we also take for granted that the truth will NOT emerge, because our leaders have always been a bunch of liars. and we take for granted that the right to vote is a right, not a responsibility. wake up. it's a RESPONSIBILITY!!! the main way in which to exert your influence as a member of this country is to vote. writing letters to the local paper, letters to your politicains, donations to candidates or parties can be good and sometimes work, but the only way in which you can truely say that you are involved and commited is to vote...every time.
so ends this diatribe. to those of you who actually read it to this point, i thank you and beg your forgiveness for my ranting.
the letter begins:
Let's recount. We have the Downing Street memo, which describes Bush's intentions to invade Iraq and force regime change with or without evidence. There's the minutes of a British intelligence meeting, which detail Bush's lack of a strategy on what to do after the invasion and "rose petaled" victory. There's an "insurgency" that won't go away. Dick Cheney said last week that it was in its "last throes". Military commanders are now saying that our army will likely need to remain in Iraq for thirty years. The military and private contractors' bodyguards are shooting at each other. Prisoner abuse by the military continues to happen. Polls show that now American support of this "war" is less than a majority. Military deaths continue to occur and escalate. Evidence emerges that Iraqi soldiers are applying for the paycheck and actually remember the Saddam days more fondly than they did a year ago. Military recruiters are targeting high school dropouts and those with "only" minor criminal convictions. And Democrats are now mentioning a draft as the only way in which we can continue our push toward global hegemony. I can spell "quagmire", "quicksand" and "quandary". Can you?
i know that most of my friends who look at this blog are put off by my political push, but it is more important now than it has ever been. we are on the brink of fucking everything up beyond redemption. in many ways, we may have already. you and i can agree that bush is not "our" president. you and i can agree that this Iraq war is not by our bidding. you and i can disagree on these and many other aspects of our current political and social climate. but the one thing we cannot let ourselves do is ignore it. check that. there are two things. and the second is that you and i cannot allow ourselves to be satisfied with what our local paper and/or TV news tells us. There is so much more information out there via the internet that it is irresponsible of every one of us not to look for it, to research the McBites we get from our local news. Intelligence is no longer a privilege, it's a responsibility.
if this seems like a tantrum, so be it. if it seems like a slap at some of you who read this, so be it. i don't ask you to agree with my writings or clippings. in fact, i'd love to hear from you who disagree. but those of you who would agree silently, but not investigate yourselves, i say shame on you.
it's an emotional attack i admit. but i believe it. we are nothing if we are not informed. and our american population is not informed. we believe in the big mac. we secretly wonder what jared would do. we can quote commercials ad infinitum, but not remember what a president said in a state of the union speech. we pretend to not care about michael jackson's trial, but stop our work for an hour to hear the verdict and the talking heads' resultant effluence. We have an opinion about every minor bit of minutia that is spewed to us daily by the press and will expound upon it to anyone within earshot, but we shy away from those topics that will affect us, our children and millions of people around the world. are these topics too big? is a cybercue more fun and easier to handle? yes, they are and yes it is. i know the answer as well as you do. and i know the excuses. why would i want to go on my friend's blog to face politics? all i do every day is read about politics, watch the news and get politics. why would i want to come here and be faced with more politics?
the truth is, however, that most of us are not faced with politics daily. we shun it, we run from it. we know it exists and we have our opinions about it, but we don't look any further into it than we have to in order to maintain our beliefs. in short, we ignore it. we take for granted that those people who we don't like will continue to say and do things we don't like. we take for granted that the truth will emerge in fairly quick fashion and the rest of our community will see the light and vote for sanity. and we also take for granted that the truth will NOT emerge, because our leaders have always been a bunch of liars. and we take for granted that the right to vote is a right, not a responsibility. wake up. it's a RESPONSIBILITY!!! the main way in which to exert your influence as a member of this country is to vote. writing letters to the local paper, letters to your politicains, donations to candidates or parties can be good and sometimes work, but the only way in which you can truely say that you are involved and commited is to vote...every time.
so ends this diatribe. to those of you who actually read it to this point, i thank you and beg your forgiveness for my ranting.
the letter begins:
Let's recount. We have the Downing Street memo, which describes Bush's intentions to invade Iraq and force regime change with or without evidence. There's the minutes of a British intelligence meeting, which detail Bush's lack of a strategy on what to do after the invasion and "rose petaled" victory. There's an "insurgency" that won't go away. Dick Cheney said last week that it was in its "last throes". Military commanders are now saying that our army will likely need to remain in Iraq for thirty years. The military and private contractors' bodyguards are shooting at each other. Prisoner abuse by the military continues to happen. Polls show that now American support of this "war" is less than a majority. Military deaths continue to occur and escalate. Evidence emerges that Iraqi soldiers are applying for the paycheck and actually remember the Saddam days more fondly than they did a year ago. Military recruiters are targeting high school dropouts and those with "only" minor criminal convictions. And Democrats are now mentioning a draft as the only way in which we can continue our push toward global hegemony. I can spell "quagmire", "quicksand" and "quandary". Can you?
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Joke From My Blonde Sister
A blonde woman was speeding down the road in her little red sports car and was pulled over by a female police officer.
The officer asked to see the woman's driver's license.
She dug through her purse and was getting progressively more agitated. "What does it look like?" she finally asked.
The officer replied, "It's square and it has your picture on it."
The driver finally found a square mirror, looked at it and handed it to the policewoman. "Here it is," she said.
The blonde officer looked at the mirror, then handed it back saying, "Okay,you can go. I didn't realize you were a cop."
The officer asked to see the woman's driver's license.
She dug through her purse and was getting progressively more agitated. "What does it look like?" she finally asked.
The officer replied, "It's square and it has your picture on it."
The driver finally found a square mirror, looked at it and handed it to the policewoman. "Here it is," she said.
The blonde officer looked at the mirror, then handed it back saying, "Okay,you can go. I didn't realize you were a cop."
UK Cabinet Office Paper (Re: last two blogposts)
Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action
The paper, produced by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, is incomplete because the last page is missing. The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source.
PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY
IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION (A Note by Officials)
Summary
Ministers are invited to:
(1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.
(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.
(3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the President on 4 August.
(4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002.
(5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US.
Introduction
1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.
2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.
3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action. Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very difficult to support.
4. In order to fulfil the conditions set out by the Prime Minister for UK support for military action against Iraq, certain preparations need to be made, and other considerations taken into account. This note sets them out in a form which can be adapted for use with the US Government. Depending on US intentions, a decision in principle may be needed soon on whether and in what form the UK takes part in military action.
The Goal
5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power. US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.
US Military Planning
6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.
7. US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. This means that legal base issues would arise virtually whatever option Ministers choose with regard to UK participation.
The Viability of the Plans
8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.
UK Military Contribution
9. The UK's ability to contribute forces depends on the details of the US military planning and the time available to prepare and deploy them. The MOD is examining how the UK might contribute to US-led action. The options range from deployment of a Division (ie Gulf War sized contribution plus naval and air forces) to making available bases. It is already clear that the UK could not generate a Division in time for an operation in January 2003, unless publicly visible decisions were taken very soon. Maritime and air forces could be deployed in time, provided adequate basing arrangements could be made. The lead times involved in preparing for UK military involvement include the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements, for which there is no financial provision.
The Conditions Necessary for Military Action
10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion.
Justification
11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.
12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.
13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully operational.
14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.
An International Coalition
15. An international coalition is necessary to provide a military platform and desirable for political purposes.
16. US military planning assumes that the US would be allowed to use bases in Kuwait (air and ground forces), Jordan, in the Gulf (air and naval forces) and UK territory (Diego Garcia and our bases in Cyprus). The plans assume that Saudi Arabia would withhold co-operation except granting military over-flights. On the assumption that military action would involve operations in the Kurdish area in the North of Iraq, the use of bases in Turkey would also be necessary.
17. In the absence of UN authorisation, there will be problems in securing the support of NATO and EU partners. Australia would be likely to participate on the same basis as the UK. France might be prepared to take part if she saw military action as inevitable. Russia and China, seeking to improve their US relations, might set aside their misgivings if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and economic concerns. Probably the best we could expect from the region would be neutrality. The US is likely to restrain Israel from taking part in military action. In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon. However, the greater the international support, the greater the prospects of success.
A Quiescent Israel-Palestine
18. The Israeli re-occupation of the West Bank has dampened Palestinian violence for the time being but is unsustainable in the long-term and stoking more trouble for the future. The Bush speech was at best a half step forward. We are using the Palestinian reform agenda to make progress, including a resumption of political negotiations. The Americans are talking of a ministerial conference in November or later. Real progress towards a viable Palestinian state is the best way to undercut Palestinian extremists and reduce Arab antipathy to military action against Saddam Hussein. However, another upsurge of Palestinian/Israeli violence is highly likely. The co-incidence of such an upsurge with the preparations for military action against Iraq cannot be ruled out. Indeed Saddam would use continuing violence in the Occupied Territories to bolster popular Arab support for his regime.
Benefits/Risks
19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.
Domestic Opinion
20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.
Timescales
21. Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington. That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action were deferred until the following autumn.
22. As this paper makes clear, even this timescale would present problems. This means that:
(a) We need to influence US consideration of the military plans before President Bush is briefed on 4 August, through contacts betweens the Prime Minister and the President and at other levels.
The paper, produced by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, is incomplete because the last page is missing. The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source.
PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY
IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION (A Note by Officials)
Summary
Ministers are invited to:
(1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.
(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.
(3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the President on 4 August.
(4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002.
(5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US.
Introduction
1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.
2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.
3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action. Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very difficult to support.
4. In order to fulfil the conditions set out by the Prime Minister for UK support for military action against Iraq, certain preparations need to be made, and other considerations taken into account. This note sets them out in a form which can be adapted for use with the US Government. Depending on US intentions, a decision in principle may be needed soon on whether and in what form the UK takes part in military action.
The Goal
5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power. US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.
US Military Planning
6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.
7. US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. This means that legal base issues would arise virtually whatever option Ministers choose with regard to UK participation.
The Viability of the Plans
8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.
UK Military Contribution
9. The UK's ability to contribute forces depends on the details of the US military planning and the time available to prepare and deploy them. The MOD is examining how the UK might contribute to US-led action. The options range from deployment of a Division (ie Gulf War sized contribution plus naval and air forces) to making available bases. It is already clear that the UK could not generate a Division in time for an operation in January 2003, unless publicly visible decisions were taken very soon. Maritime and air forces could be deployed in time, provided adequate basing arrangements could be made. The lead times involved in preparing for UK military involvement include the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements, for which there is no financial provision.
The Conditions Necessary for Military Action
10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion.
Justification
11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.
12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.
13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully operational.
14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.
An International Coalition
15. An international coalition is necessary to provide a military platform and desirable for political purposes.
16. US military planning assumes that the US would be allowed to use bases in Kuwait (air and ground forces), Jordan, in the Gulf (air and naval forces) and UK territory (Diego Garcia and our bases in Cyprus). The plans assume that Saudi Arabia would withhold co-operation except granting military over-flights. On the assumption that military action would involve operations in the Kurdish area in the North of Iraq, the use of bases in Turkey would also be necessary.
17. In the absence of UN authorisation, there will be problems in securing the support of NATO and EU partners. Australia would be likely to participate on the same basis as the UK. France might be prepared to take part if she saw military action as inevitable. Russia and China, seeking to improve their US relations, might set aside their misgivings if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and economic concerns. Probably the best we could expect from the region would be neutrality. The US is likely to restrain Israel from taking part in military action. In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon. However, the greater the international support, the greater the prospects of success.
A Quiescent Israel-Palestine
18. The Israeli re-occupation of the West Bank has dampened Palestinian violence for the time being but is unsustainable in the long-term and stoking more trouble for the future. The Bush speech was at best a half step forward. We are using the Palestinian reform agenda to make progress, including a resumption of political negotiations. The Americans are talking of a ministerial conference in November or later. Real progress towards a viable Palestinian state is the best way to undercut Palestinian extremists and reduce Arab antipathy to military action against Saddam Hussein. However, another upsurge of Palestinian/Israeli violence is highly likely. The co-incidence of such an upsurge with the preparations for military action against Iraq cannot be ruled out. Indeed Saddam would use continuing violence in the Occupied Territories to bolster popular Arab support for his regime.
Benefits/Risks
19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.
Domestic Opinion
20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.
Timescales
21. Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington. That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action were deferred until the following autumn.
22. As this paper makes clear, even this timescale would present problems. This means that:
(a) We need to influence US consideration of the military plans before President Bush is briefed on 4 August, through contacts betweens the Prime Minister and the President and at other levels.
New Memo Leak From Britain, Page Two
Frustrated at the refusal by the White House to respond to their letter, the congressmen have set up a website — www.downingstreetmemo.com — to collect signatures on a petition demanding the same answers.
Conyers promised to deliver it to Bush once it reached 250,000 signatures. By Friday morning it already had more than 500,000 with as many as 1m expected to have been obtained when he delivers it to the White House on Thursday.
AfterDowningStreet.org, another website set up as a result of the memo, is calling for a congressional committee to consider whether Bush’s actions as depicted in the memo constitute grounds for impeachment.
It has been flooded with visits from people angry at what they see as media self-censorship in ignoring the memo. It claims to have attracted more than 1m hits a day.
Democrats.com, another website, even offered $1,000 (about £550) to any journalist who quizzed Bush about the memo’s contents, although the Reuters reporter who asked the question last Tuesday was not aware of the reward and has no intention of claiming it.
The complaints of media self-censorship have been backed up by the ombudsmen of The Washington Post, The New York Times and National Public Radio, who have questioned the lack of attention the minutes have received from their organisations.
Page 1 Page 2
Conyers promised to deliver it to Bush once it reached 250,000 signatures. By Friday morning it already had more than 500,000 with as many as 1m expected to have been obtained when he delivers it to the White House on Thursday.
AfterDowningStreet.org, another website set up as a result of the memo, is calling for a congressional committee to consider whether Bush’s actions as depicted in the memo constitute grounds for impeachment.
It has been flooded with visits from people angry at what they see as media self-censorship in ignoring the memo. It claims to have attracted more than 1m hits a day.
Democrats.com, another website, even offered $1,000 (about £550) to any journalist who quizzed Bush about the memo’s contents, although the Reuters reporter who asked the question last Tuesday was not aware of the reward and has no intention of claiming it.
The complaints of media self-censorship have been backed up by the ombudsmen of The Washington Post, The New York Times and National Public Radio, who have questioned the lack of attention the minutes have received from their organisations.
Page 1 Page 2
New Memo Leak From Britain
The Sunday Times - Britain
June 12, 2005 Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’Michael Smith
MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.
The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.
This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.
“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.
The paper was circulated to those present at the meeting, among whom were Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The full minutes of the meeting were published last month in The Sunday Times.
The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.
“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.
The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.
The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it.
There has been a growing storm of protest in America, created by last month’s publication of the minutes in The Sunday Times. A host of citizens, including many internet bloggers, have demanded to know why the Downing Street memo (often shortened to “the DSM” on websites) has been largely ignored by the US mainstream media.
The White House has declined to respond to a letter from 89 Democratic congressmen asking if it was true — as Dearlove told the July meeting — that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” in Washington.
The Downing Street memo burst into the mainstream American media only last week after it was raised at a joint Bush-Blair press conference, forcing the prime minister to insist that “the facts were not fixed in any shape or form at all”.
John Conyers, the Democratic congressman who drafted the letter to Bush, has now written to Dearlove asking him to say whether or not it was accurate that he believed the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. He also asked the former MI6 chief precisely when Bush and Blair had agreed to invade Iraq and whether it is true they agreed to “manufacture” the UN ultimatum in order to justify the war.
He and other Democratic congressmen plan to hold their own inquiry this Thursday with witnesses including Joe Wilson, the American former ambassador who went to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore for its nuclear weapons programme.
Page 1 Page 2
June 12, 2005 Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’Michael Smith
MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.
The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.
This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.
“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.
The paper was circulated to those present at the meeting, among whom were Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The full minutes of the meeting were published last month in The Sunday Times.
The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.
“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.
The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.
The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it.
There has been a growing storm of protest in America, created by last month’s publication of the minutes in The Sunday Times. A host of citizens, including many internet bloggers, have demanded to know why the Downing Street memo (often shortened to “the DSM” on websites) has been largely ignored by the US mainstream media.
The White House has declined to respond to a letter from 89 Democratic congressmen asking if it was true — as Dearlove told the July meeting — that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” in Washington.
The Downing Street memo burst into the mainstream American media only last week after it was raised at a joint Bush-Blair press conference, forcing the prime minister to insist that “the facts were not fixed in any shape or form at all”.
John Conyers, the Democratic congressman who drafted the letter to Bush, has now written to Dearlove asking him to say whether or not it was accurate that he believed the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. He also asked the former MI6 chief precisely when Bush and Blair had agreed to invade Iraq and whether it is true they agreed to “manufacture” the UN ultimatum in order to justify the war.
He and other Democratic congressmen plan to hold their own inquiry this Thursday with witnesses including Joe Wilson, the American former ambassador who went to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore for its nuclear weapons programme.
Page 1 Page 2
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Strap-on Veterans For Truth
(don't even ask me where i found this)
Strap-on Veterans For Truth
An organization dedicating to exposing the truth about the former drag queen now known as Ann Coulter
We are a coalition of former friends and co-workers of Ann Coulter who are upset by her vicious anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-feminist rhetoric and feel the truth should be told. Our organization, Strap-On Veterans For Truth, is dedicated to exposing the true past of America’s number one hatemonger. Ann Coulter is actually a former drag queen from Key West named Pudenda Shenanigans. Ms. Shenanigans was famous for her renditions of “Dude Looks Like a Lady” “I Will Survive” and “You Shook Me All Night Long” as well as an extensive Barbra Streisand repertoire. We who used to work with her are concerned for her as well as upset by the vile hatred she has spewed towards her former friends in the gay community. We feel that by bringing the truth to light perhaps Ann will come to grips with her past and change her wicked ways. As Pudenda Shenanigans, she was well known on the drag circuit in Key West. Whether she actually had a full sex change or not is a matter of debate, although her adam’s apple is still visible in photos, under the appropriate light. We who laughed, cried, worked and danced with her feel her story should be told. We are not out to punish her, but feel it’s time she owned up to what she really is. The person known today as Ann Coulter was born Jeremy Levinsohn in the village in New York in 1960. His parents were typical latte-drinking liberals, religiously conservative, but socially and politically radical. His father taught Russian Literature at CUNY and his mother was a social worker. His childhood friend Rodger Mihalot described him, “The Levinsohns were nice people, but his father was distant, so Jeremy seemed to seek a strong male figure in his life. Although they were Jewish, he often hung out at our church, and really seemed to spend a lot of time with Fr. Donatella Nowunn. I also think he was really looking to rebel against his overly liberal parents. Otherwise he was a typical kid, he liked to play cowboy, sailor and gladiator a lot. His favorite movie was always The Sheik, he really seemed to have a fascination with Arabs, I don’t know why.” In the 70’s Jeremy went to Brandeis, where he majored in Sociology, with a minor in comparative religions. His lifelong fascination with Muslims really seemed to take root at Brandeis. But college roommate Ima Gaiboyye described an unhappy man, “He was never really interested in women, but did go see the theater company’s production of “The Wizard of Oz” 10 times, I thought he liked the girl who played the lead, he really talked about her outfit a lot. After college Jeremy just dropped off the face of the earth, we never heard from him again.” Jeremy drifted for awhile before finding himself in Key West. Co-worker Licky Dickenstein described these early years, “Jeremy was a natural, I never saw anyone take to drag so quickly. Once he found his persona, he WAS Pudenda Shenanigans. For most of us drag was a part time thing, but Pudenda was 24-7, always in character, always in costume. She really shook things up, she was a goddess on stage.” By 1985 Ms Shenanigans was dating a Lebanese businessman, Ustahav Toubohls and the two were believed to be deliriously happy. Friends report Pudenda always had a fetish for Muslims and was considering a marriage proposal. But then she opened up the New York Times one day and saw a picture of Mr. Toubohls with a famous actress in New York. Former friend Gaivit Tuhym described the result, “Pudenda was devastated, she couldn’t stand seeing her Toubohls with another woman. She cried and cried, ‘I miss my Toubohls, I want my Toubohls back!’ I don’t think she ever forgave him, the New York Times, or Muslims in general.” After that Ms. Shenanigans disappeared for years, only resurfacing in the 90’s as Ann Coulter. Her hatred for Muslims, gays and feminists is odd for her former coworkers. Long Dick Gone, a former co-worker stated, “At first I thought there was something funny about this Ann Coulter. I mean here’s a woman who claims to hate feminists, but is in her 40’s, single, no kids, is very opinionated and outspoken and concentrates on her career. Ann Coulter is the biggest example of a feminist I ever saw. Then I noticed that in just the right light you could see that adam’s apple and that’s when I recognized our little Pudenda Shenanigans, the hottest drag queen this side of Fire Island.” Strap-On Veterans For Truth Once they realized who Ann Coulter was, Strap-On Veterans For Truth was formed. Ann’s former friends and co-workers realized that her intense hatred of gays, feminists and Muslims was really self-loathing and continuing hurt from the loss of her beloved Toubohls. Although we know she’s been through a lot, we feel hurt by her turning against everything she used to hold dear. We love you Ann, or Pudenda, or Jeremy. We respect whatever lifestyle of gender you choose. We just want you to be true to yourself and please stop the hatred. Come back to us and share the love of your friends and community again.
Strap-on Veterans For Truth
An organization dedicating to exposing the truth about the former drag queen now known as Ann Coulter
We are a coalition of former friends and co-workers of Ann Coulter who are upset by her vicious anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-feminist rhetoric and feel the truth should be told. Our organization, Strap-On Veterans For Truth, is dedicated to exposing the true past of America’s number one hatemonger. Ann Coulter is actually a former drag queen from Key West named Pudenda Shenanigans. Ms. Shenanigans was famous for her renditions of “Dude Looks Like a Lady” “I Will Survive” and “You Shook Me All Night Long” as well as an extensive Barbra Streisand repertoire. We who used to work with her are concerned for her as well as upset by the vile hatred she has spewed towards her former friends in the gay community. We feel that by bringing the truth to light perhaps Ann will come to grips with her past and change her wicked ways. As Pudenda Shenanigans, she was well known on the drag circuit in Key West. Whether she actually had a full sex change or not is a matter of debate, although her adam’s apple is still visible in photos, under the appropriate light. We who laughed, cried, worked and danced with her feel her story should be told. We are not out to punish her, but feel it’s time she owned up to what she really is. The person known today as Ann Coulter was born Jeremy Levinsohn in the village in New York in 1960. His parents were typical latte-drinking liberals, religiously conservative, but socially and politically radical. His father taught Russian Literature at CUNY and his mother was a social worker. His childhood friend Rodger Mihalot described him, “The Levinsohns were nice people, but his father was distant, so Jeremy seemed to seek a strong male figure in his life. Although they were Jewish, he often hung out at our church, and really seemed to spend a lot of time with Fr. Donatella Nowunn. I also think he was really looking to rebel against his overly liberal parents. Otherwise he was a typical kid, he liked to play cowboy, sailor and gladiator a lot. His favorite movie was always The Sheik, he really seemed to have a fascination with Arabs, I don’t know why.” In the 70’s Jeremy went to Brandeis, where he majored in Sociology, with a minor in comparative religions. His lifelong fascination with Muslims really seemed to take root at Brandeis. But college roommate Ima Gaiboyye described an unhappy man, “He was never really interested in women, but did go see the theater company’s production of “The Wizard of Oz” 10 times, I thought he liked the girl who played the lead, he really talked about her outfit a lot. After college Jeremy just dropped off the face of the earth, we never heard from him again.” Jeremy drifted for awhile before finding himself in Key West. Co-worker Licky Dickenstein described these early years, “Jeremy was a natural, I never saw anyone take to drag so quickly. Once he found his persona, he WAS Pudenda Shenanigans. For most of us drag was a part time thing, but Pudenda was 24-7, always in character, always in costume. She really shook things up, she was a goddess on stage.” By 1985 Ms Shenanigans was dating a Lebanese businessman, Ustahav Toubohls and the two were believed to be deliriously happy. Friends report Pudenda always had a fetish for Muslims and was considering a marriage proposal. But then she opened up the New York Times one day and saw a picture of Mr. Toubohls with a famous actress in New York. Former friend Gaivit Tuhym described the result, “Pudenda was devastated, she couldn’t stand seeing her Toubohls with another woman. She cried and cried, ‘I miss my Toubohls, I want my Toubohls back!’ I don’t think she ever forgave him, the New York Times, or Muslims in general.” After that Ms. Shenanigans disappeared for years, only resurfacing in the 90’s as Ann Coulter. Her hatred for Muslims, gays and feminists is odd for her former coworkers. Long Dick Gone, a former co-worker stated, “At first I thought there was something funny about this Ann Coulter. I mean here’s a woman who claims to hate feminists, but is in her 40’s, single, no kids, is very opinionated and outspoken and concentrates on her career. Ann Coulter is the biggest example of a feminist I ever saw. Then I noticed that in just the right light you could see that adam’s apple and that’s when I recognized our little Pudenda Shenanigans, the hottest drag queen this side of Fire Island.” Strap-On Veterans For Truth Once they realized who Ann Coulter was, Strap-On Veterans For Truth was formed. Ann’s former friends and co-workers realized that her intense hatred of gays, feminists and Muslims was really self-loathing and continuing hurt from the loss of her beloved Toubohls. Although we know she’s been through a lot, we feel hurt by her turning against everything she used to hold dear. We love you Ann, or Pudenda, or Jeremy. We respect whatever lifestyle of gender you choose. We just want you to be true to yourself and please stop the hatred. Come back to us and share the love of your friends and community again.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Unality...I Like It, It's So Retro.
when a chairman of a very important committee can close testimony and halt all proceedings, because he doesn't like what he's hearing and his party members follow him out of the room and a staff member comes back in to turn off the microphone, so democrats cannot (supposedly) be heard for the record...well, you have the one party state that republicans claimed to abhor back in the mid-90's. when newt gingrich led the "revolution" to bring america back to morality, when he and dozens of other republicans signed their "contract with america", they swore to never become what they now have. a party in search of unality.
the following is backed up by plenty of independent sources.
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001452.htm
the following is backed up by plenty of independent sources.
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001452.htm
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries
Would I make a title like that up? Experience firsthand what a panel of conservative "scholars" declared.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Someone Shut The Door, It's getting "Drafty" In Here
When Marine recruiters go way beyond the call
By SUSAN PAYNTERSEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
For mom Marcia Cobb and her teenage son Axel, the white letters USMC on their caller ID soon spelled, "Don't answer the phone!"
Marine recruiters began a relentless barrage of calls to Axel as soon as the mellow, compliant Sedro-Woolley High School grad had cut his 17th birthday cake. And soon it was nearly impossible to get the seekers of a few good men off the line.
With early and late calls ringing in their ears, Marcia tried using call blocking. And that's when she learned her first hard lesson. You can't block calls from the government, her server said. So, after pleas to "Please stop calling" went unanswered, the family's "do not answer" order ensued.
But warnings and liquid crystal lettering can fade. So, two weeks ago when Marcia was cooking dinner Axel goofed and answered the call. And, faster than you can say "semper fi," an odyssey kicked into action that illustrates just how desperate some of the recruiters we've read about really are to fill severely sagging quotas.
Let what we learned serve as a warning to other moms, dads and teens, the Cobbs now say. Even if your kids actually may want to join the military, if they hope to do it on their own terms, after a deep breath and due consideration, repeat these words after them: "No," "Not now" and "Back off!"
"I've been trained to be pretty friendly. I guess you might even say I'm kind of passive," Axel told me last week, just after his mother and older sister had tracked him to a Seattle testing center and sprung him on a ruse.
The next step of Axel's misadventure came when he heard about a cool "chin-ups" contest in Bellingham, where the prize was a free Xbox. The now 18-year-old Skagit Valley Community College student dragged his tail feathers home uncharacteristically late that night. And, in the morning, Marcia learned the Marines had hosted the event and "then had him out all night, drilling him to join."
A single mom with a meager income, Marcia raised her kids on the farm where, until recently, she grew salad greens for restaurants.
Axel's father, a Marine Corps vet who served in Vietnam, died when Axel was 4.
Clearly the recruiters knew all that and more.
"You don't want to be a burden to your mom," they told him. "Be a man." "Make your father proud." Never mind that, because of his own experience in the service, Marcia says enlistment for his son is the last thing Axel's dad would have wanted.
The next weekend, when Marcia went to Seattle for the Folklife Festival and Axel was home alone, two recruiters showed up at the door.
Axel repeated the family mantra, but he was feeling frazzled and worn down by then. The sergeant was friendly but, at the same time, aggressively insistent. This time, when Axel said, "Not interested," the sarge turned surly, snapping, "You're making a big (bleeping) mistake!"
Next thing Axel knew, the same sergeant and another recruiter showed up at the LaConner Brewing Co., the restaurant where Axel works. And before Axel, an older cousin and other co-workers knew or understood what was happening, Axel was whisked away in a car.
"They said we were going somewhere but I didn't know we were going all the way to Seattle," Axel said.
Just a few tests. And so many free opportunities, the recruiters told him.
He could pursue his love of chemistry. He could serve anywhere he chose and leave any time he wanted on an "apathy discharge" if he didn't like it. And he wouldn't have to go to Iraq if he didn't want to.
At about 3:30 in the morning, Alex was awakened in the motel and fed a little something. Twelve hours later, without further sleep or food, he had taken a battery of tests and signed a lot of papers he hadn't gotten a chance to read. "Just formalities," he was told. "Sign here. And here. Nothing to worry about."
By then Marcia had "freaked out."
She went to the Burlington recruiting center where the door was open but no one was home. So she grabbed all the cards and numbers she could find, including the address of the Seattle-area testing center.
Then, with her grown daughter in tow, she high-tailed it south, frantically phoning Axel whose cell phone had been confiscated "so he wouldn't be distracted during tests."
Axel's grandfather was in the hospital dying, she told the people at the desk. He needed to come home right away. She would have said just about anything.
But, even after being told her son would be brought right out, her daughter spied him being taken down a separate hall and into another room. So she dashed down the hall and grabbed him by the arm.
"They were telling me I needed to 'be a man' and stand up to my family," Axel said.
What he needed, it turned out, was a lawyer.
Five minutes and $250 after an attorney called the recruiters, Axel's signed papers and his cell phone were in the mail.
My request to speak with the sergeant who recruited Axel and with the Burlington office about recruitment procedures went unanswered.
And so should your phone, Marcia Cobb advised. Take your own sweet time. Keep your own counsel. And, if you see USMC on caller ID, remember what answering the call could mean.
By SUSAN PAYNTERSEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
For mom Marcia Cobb and her teenage son Axel, the white letters USMC on their caller ID soon spelled, "Don't answer the phone!"
Marine recruiters began a relentless barrage of calls to Axel as soon as the mellow, compliant Sedro-Woolley High School grad had cut his 17th birthday cake. And soon it was nearly impossible to get the seekers of a few good men off the line.
With early and late calls ringing in their ears, Marcia tried using call blocking. And that's when she learned her first hard lesson. You can't block calls from the government, her server said. So, after pleas to "Please stop calling" went unanswered, the family's "do not answer" order ensued.
But warnings and liquid crystal lettering can fade. So, two weeks ago when Marcia was cooking dinner Axel goofed and answered the call. And, faster than you can say "semper fi," an odyssey kicked into action that illustrates just how desperate some of the recruiters we've read about really are to fill severely sagging quotas.
Let what we learned serve as a warning to other moms, dads and teens, the Cobbs now say. Even if your kids actually may want to join the military, if they hope to do it on their own terms, after a deep breath and due consideration, repeat these words after them: "No," "Not now" and "Back off!"
"I've been trained to be pretty friendly. I guess you might even say I'm kind of passive," Axel told me last week, just after his mother and older sister had tracked him to a Seattle testing center and sprung him on a ruse.
The next step of Axel's misadventure came when he heard about a cool "chin-ups" contest in Bellingham, where the prize was a free Xbox. The now 18-year-old Skagit Valley Community College student dragged his tail feathers home uncharacteristically late that night. And, in the morning, Marcia learned the Marines had hosted the event and "then had him out all night, drilling him to join."
A single mom with a meager income, Marcia raised her kids on the farm where, until recently, she grew salad greens for restaurants.
Axel's father, a Marine Corps vet who served in Vietnam, died when Axel was 4.
Clearly the recruiters knew all that and more.
"You don't want to be a burden to your mom," they told him. "Be a man." "Make your father proud." Never mind that, because of his own experience in the service, Marcia says enlistment for his son is the last thing Axel's dad would have wanted.
The next weekend, when Marcia went to Seattle for the Folklife Festival and Axel was home alone, two recruiters showed up at the door.
Axel repeated the family mantra, but he was feeling frazzled and worn down by then. The sergeant was friendly but, at the same time, aggressively insistent. This time, when Axel said, "Not interested," the sarge turned surly, snapping, "You're making a big (bleeping) mistake!"
Next thing Axel knew, the same sergeant and another recruiter showed up at the LaConner Brewing Co., the restaurant where Axel works. And before Axel, an older cousin and other co-workers knew or understood what was happening, Axel was whisked away in a car.
"They said we were going somewhere but I didn't know we were going all the way to Seattle," Axel said.
Just a few tests. And so many free opportunities, the recruiters told him.
He could pursue his love of chemistry. He could serve anywhere he chose and leave any time he wanted on an "apathy discharge" if he didn't like it. And he wouldn't have to go to Iraq if he didn't want to.
At about 3:30 in the morning, Alex was awakened in the motel and fed a little something. Twelve hours later, without further sleep or food, he had taken a battery of tests and signed a lot of papers he hadn't gotten a chance to read. "Just formalities," he was told. "Sign here. And here. Nothing to worry about."
By then Marcia had "freaked out."
She went to the Burlington recruiting center where the door was open but no one was home. So she grabbed all the cards and numbers she could find, including the address of the Seattle-area testing center.
Then, with her grown daughter in tow, she high-tailed it south, frantically phoning Axel whose cell phone had been confiscated "so he wouldn't be distracted during tests."
Axel's grandfather was in the hospital dying, she told the people at the desk. He needed to come home right away. She would have said just about anything.
But, even after being told her son would be brought right out, her daughter spied him being taken down a separate hall and into another room. So she dashed down the hall and grabbed him by the arm.
"They were telling me I needed to 'be a man' and stand up to my family," Axel said.
What he needed, it turned out, was a lawyer.
Five minutes and $250 after an attorney called the recruiters, Axel's signed papers and his cell phone were in the mail.
My request to speak with the sergeant who recruited Axel and with the Burlington office about recruitment procedures went unanswered.
And so should your phone, Marcia Cobb advised. Take your own sweet time. Keep your own counsel. And, if you see USMC on caller ID, remember what answering the call could mean.
Excellent Essay By One Who Knows
Citizens in the rain. Maybe we can't have election reform without media reform
By ROBERT C. KOEHLERTribune Media Services
“Where there is a free press the governors must live in constant awe of the opinions of the governed.” — Lord Macaulay (one of many stirring quotes on the sacred role of the Fourth Estate adorning the lobby of the Chicago Tribune)
My fantasy of the mainstream media actually doing their job, and living up to the words they carve in marble to describe their own importance, is an 80-point (Terri Schiavo- or even Pope John Paul II-sized) headline running across the top of tomorrow’s paper: ELECTION RESULTS IN DOUBT.
That would stop a few hearts. But the nation’s major newspapers, even as they struggle with declining readership, have no intention of being quite that relevant to their readers — no intention, it appears, even to begin the process of looking into the hornets’ nest of vote fraud allegations abuzz in meticulously researched reports on electronic voting (see uscountvotes.org) or the voluminous Conyers Report on what happened in Ohio on Nov. 2 (see truthout.org/Conyersreport.pdf).
Isn’t our democracy at stake? Doesn’t that matter?
“If John Kerry and the Ohio Democratic Party and all the other folks who had the most to gain from the election were making this challenge, I would get interested. But when the people with the most at stake don’t step up, I’m suspicious.”
WAS THE ELECTIONSTOLEN?
A lot of people think so.
Join the thousands of visitors who have read my columns:
“The Silent Scream of Numbers”
“Democracy's Abu Ghraib”
And then tell me what you think.
So Don Wycliff, the Chicago Tribune’s public editor, wrote to me in an e-mail exchange a few days ago, explaining why he, if not the Tribune itself, had no intention of investigating the issue with any seriousness.
It followed a strange breach in the Tribune’s deathly silence on the irregularities of the 2000 and 2004 elections, which came about after readers began bombarding the Tribune with mail suggesting they run a column I had written, “The Silent Scream of Numbers,” addressing these irregularities and reporting on a national election-reform conference in Nashville last month.
My column didn’t run, but Wycliff wrote a column, “When Winning Isn’t Everything,” dismissing their concerns and telling them to ponder the moral leadership of Richard Nixon, who patriotically swallowed his close defeat in 1960 without complaint. In others words, shut up and get over it.
Wycliff was speaking only for himself, not “the media,” but because his column was one of the few pieces to appear in a major publication even acknowledging that a huge number of Americans are distraught at mounting evidence of large-scale disenfranchisement in 2004 (and no guarantee that 2006 and 2008 will be any different), his words, by default, have special resonance. They stand in for the prejudices of the media as a whole.
Of all my objections to what he wrote, his contention that Kerry has the most at stake in all this is the most dispiriting, and most reflects the wrongheaded, “horse race” coverage of elections the media have shoved down our throats for as long as I can remember.
In his column, Wycliff even used a sports analogy, pointing out that “it’s not the pregame prognostication and expert opinions that count, but the numbers on the scoreboard after the contest has actually been played.” The Bush team won; the Kerry team lost. And the voters must be the equivalent of sports fans then, either jubilant or disappointed when the game is over, but couch potatoes either way, not participants.
Anyone else just a little bit offended? As one of the hundred or so readers who responded to the column (and cc’d me) put it, “Winning isn’t everything, but fair elections are everything.”
Nearly a week after Wycliff’s column ran, the Tribune has printed only one letter in response to it — and this letter was about Nixon. It didn’t have a word to say about the 2004 election. So much for my naïve optimism that an actual debate would ensue on the pages of the Trib.
Once again I quote exit-poll analyst Jonathan Simon: “When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death.”
The stakes are getting higher and higher. Could it be we can’t have election reform without media reform? The “respectable press” refuses to confer the least legitimacy on the citizens who are questioning this election and demanding accountability in the voting process.
How do we make them care? How do we make them look for themselves? How do we make them stand outside with us in the rain, waiting to cast our ballot for democracy?
By ROBERT C. KOEHLERTribune Media Services
“Where there is a free press the governors must live in constant awe of the opinions of the governed.” — Lord Macaulay (one of many stirring quotes on the sacred role of the Fourth Estate adorning the lobby of the Chicago Tribune)
My fantasy of the mainstream media actually doing their job, and living up to the words they carve in marble to describe their own importance, is an 80-point (Terri Schiavo- or even Pope John Paul II-sized) headline running across the top of tomorrow’s paper: ELECTION RESULTS IN DOUBT.
That would stop a few hearts. But the nation’s major newspapers, even as they struggle with declining readership, have no intention of being quite that relevant to their readers — no intention, it appears, even to begin the process of looking into the hornets’ nest of vote fraud allegations abuzz in meticulously researched reports on electronic voting (see uscountvotes.org) or the voluminous Conyers Report on what happened in Ohio on Nov. 2 (see truthout.org/Conyersreport.pdf).
Isn’t our democracy at stake? Doesn’t that matter?
“If John Kerry and the Ohio Democratic Party and all the other folks who had the most to gain from the election were making this challenge, I would get interested. But when the people with the most at stake don’t step up, I’m suspicious.”
WAS THE ELECTIONSTOLEN?
A lot of people think so.
Join the thousands of visitors who have read my columns:
“The Silent Scream of Numbers”
“Democracy's Abu Ghraib”
And then tell me what you think.
So Don Wycliff, the Chicago Tribune’s public editor, wrote to me in an e-mail exchange a few days ago, explaining why he, if not the Tribune itself, had no intention of investigating the issue with any seriousness.
It followed a strange breach in the Tribune’s deathly silence on the irregularities of the 2000 and 2004 elections, which came about after readers began bombarding the Tribune with mail suggesting they run a column I had written, “The Silent Scream of Numbers,” addressing these irregularities and reporting on a national election-reform conference in Nashville last month.
My column didn’t run, but Wycliff wrote a column, “When Winning Isn’t Everything,” dismissing their concerns and telling them to ponder the moral leadership of Richard Nixon, who patriotically swallowed his close defeat in 1960 without complaint. In others words, shut up and get over it.
Wycliff was speaking only for himself, not “the media,” but because his column was one of the few pieces to appear in a major publication even acknowledging that a huge number of Americans are distraught at mounting evidence of large-scale disenfranchisement in 2004 (and no guarantee that 2006 and 2008 will be any different), his words, by default, have special resonance. They stand in for the prejudices of the media as a whole.
Of all my objections to what he wrote, his contention that Kerry has the most at stake in all this is the most dispiriting, and most reflects the wrongheaded, “horse race” coverage of elections the media have shoved down our throats for as long as I can remember.
In his column, Wycliff even used a sports analogy, pointing out that “it’s not the pregame prognostication and expert opinions that count, but the numbers on the scoreboard after the contest has actually been played.” The Bush team won; the Kerry team lost. And the voters must be the equivalent of sports fans then, either jubilant or disappointed when the game is over, but couch potatoes either way, not participants.
Anyone else just a little bit offended? As one of the hundred or so readers who responded to the column (and cc’d me) put it, “Winning isn’t everything, but fair elections are everything.”
Nearly a week after Wycliff’s column ran, the Tribune has printed only one letter in response to it — and this letter was about Nixon. It didn’t have a word to say about the 2004 election. So much for my naïve optimism that an actual debate would ensue on the pages of the Trib.
Once again I quote exit-poll analyst Jonathan Simon: “When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death.”
The stakes are getting higher and higher. Could it be we can’t have election reform without media reform? The “respectable press” refuses to confer the least legitimacy on the citizens who are questioning this election and demanding accountability in the voting process.
How do we make them care? How do we make them look for themselves? How do we make them stand outside with us in the rain, waiting to cast our ballot for democracy?
Monday, June 06, 2005
Monkey Man
A great fucking article on Elvis Costello and a concert in New York.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9820
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9820
Sunday, June 05, 2005
San Francisco Fringe Festival
Well folks,
It looks like I won't be attending this year's Fringe activities during its second weekend. Normally, I set the second weekend of the S.F. Fringe aside so as to go up and see 12 or 13 shows, eat lots of weird ethnic food and sightsee the city with others from the lovely city of Fresno.
This year, however, I will be presiding over my niece's wedding somewhere near the California/Nevada border. I received the request today and there was no way I could say no. She is one of my two favorite nieces and can kick my ass in a one on one fight. So, I shall be donning the ministerial robes once again and igniting two individuals in holy maternity. Um, you know what I mean.
So, my apologies to those of you who would like to see me moon the City from the rooftop of our usual hotel. But a higher duty calls.
However, if she makes me pay for my own hotel room for three days I'll see you in S.F.
It looks like I won't be attending this year's Fringe activities during its second weekend. Normally, I set the second weekend of the S.F. Fringe aside so as to go up and see 12 or 13 shows, eat lots of weird ethnic food and sightsee the city with others from the lovely city of Fresno.
This year, however, I will be presiding over my niece's wedding somewhere near the California/Nevada border. I received the request today and there was no way I could say no. She is one of my two favorite nieces and can kick my ass in a one on one fight. So, I shall be donning the ministerial robes once again and igniting two individuals in holy maternity. Um, you know what I mean.
So, my apologies to those of you who would like to see me moon the City from the rooftop of our usual hotel. But a higher duty calls.
However, if she makes me pay for my own hotel room for three days I'll see you in S.F.
Impeachable Offenses
From the Bangor, Maine Daily News:
Let's consider an item from the news of about two weeks ago: A British citizen leaked a memo to London's Sunday Times. The memo was of the written account of a meeting that a man named Richard Dearlove had with the Bush administration in July 2002. Dearlove was the head of the England's MI-6, the equivalent of the CIA. On July 23, 2002, Dearlove briefed Tony Blair about the meeting. He said that Bush was determined to attack Iraq. He said that Bush knew that U.S. intelligence had no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no links to foreign terrorists, that there was no imminent danger to the U.S. from Iraq. But, since Bush was determined to go to war, "Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy." "Fixed" means faked, manufactured, conjured, hyped - the product of whole cloth fabrication.So we got aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds imported from Niger, biological weapons labs in weather trucks, fear and trembling, the phony ultimatums to Saddam Hussein to turn over the weapons he didn't have and thus couldn't. We got the call to arms, the stifling of dissent, the parade of retired generals strategizing on the "news" shows, with us or against us, flags in the lapel, a craven media afraid to look for a truth that might disturb their corporate owners who would profit from the war. Shock and Awe. Fallujah. Abu Ghraib.It was all a lie. Many of us have said for a long time it was a lie. But here it is in black and white: Lies from a president who has taken a sacred trust to uphold the Constitution of the United States.So, what does it mean? It means that our president and all of his administration are war criminals. It's as simple as that. They lied to the American people, have killed and injured and traumatized thousands of American men and women doing their patriotic duty, killed at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians, destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and poisoned its environment, squandered billions and billions of our tax dollars, made a mockery of American integrity in the world, changed the course of history, tortured Iraqi prisoners, and bound us intractably to an insane situation that they have no idea how to fix because they had no plan, but greed and empire, in the first place.What does it mean? It means that everyone in this administration should be impeached. It means that our Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and our Congressmen Tom Allen and Mike Michaud should call for immediate impeachment. They were lied to by their president, voted for war, and are thus complicit in the multiply betrayals of the American people unless they stand up now for the truth.Richard Nixon was impeached for a cover-up of a two-bit break-in. William Cohen, a young Maine Republican, played an important role for the prosecution in those proceedings. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with an intern. Now we have the irrefutable evidence that George W. Bush lied about the reasons for taking the United States to war. The intelligence wasn't flawed. The weapons weren't hidden. Our elected leaders were lying.Democracy, like any sound relationship between people, is built on trust. We trust our leaders to tell the truth so that the consent that we give them is honestly informed. If the consent is won through manipulation, propaganda, fear, or lies, the basis of our democracy has been subverted. It is no longer democracy at all, but we continue to call it that because we have not the courage or stamina to demand its overhaul. We live a lie when we fail to hold leaders accountable for their lies. By not calling now for impeachment, we are saying that we condone hypocrisy, pseudo-democracy, and murdering thousands of Americans and Iraqis for strategic control of energy resources that we have no right to. Patriotism demands that we insist on the ideals of democracy, not that we support the "leaders" who cynically destroy them.What's curious is why anyone like me should have to even point this out. Don't our senators and congressmen feel betrayed? Are they content to continue the murdering rather than do what truth demands? Do they think they can lie to history, too. Do they think that this little Iraq problem will somehow just go away, that the courageous resistance to the United States occupation will give up and hand Bush the keys to the oil wells? Do they think that any of the grave crises facing the world now - energy consumption, global warming, species extinction - can be solved by lying about them? We are living in an age of no accountability. It's also an age upon which may hang the survival of human life on this earth. One should not bet one's future on people who abjure responsibility. The first courageous step is to come to terms with what we know is true: America's president lied to America's people to create an unnecessary war. I ask Sens. Snowe and Collins, Reps. Allen and Michaud to take that step. Begin impeachment proceedings. It's really no more or less than their duty. It's also the first step toward restoring America's integrity.Robert Shetterly is a writer and artist who lives in Brooksville.
Let's consider an item from the news of about two weeks ago: A British citizen leaked a memo to London's Sunday Times. The memo was of the written account of a meeting that a man named Richard Dearlove had with the Bush administration in July 2002. Dearlove was the head of the England's MI-6, the equivalent of the CIA. On July 23, 2002, Dearlove briefed Tony Blair about the meeting. He said that Bush was determined to attack Iraq. He said that Bush knew that U.S. intelligence had no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no links to foreign terrorists, that there was no imminent danger to the U.S. from Iraq. But, since Bush was determined to go to war, "Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy." "Fixed" means faked, manufactured, conjured, hyped - the product of whole cloth fabrication.So we got aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds imported from Niger, biological weapons labs in weather trucks, fear and trembling, the phony ultimatums to Saddam Hussein to turn over the weapons he didn't have and thus couldn't. We got the call to arms, the stifling of dissent, the parade of retired generals strategizing on the "news" shows, with us or against us, flags in the lapel, a craven media afraid to look for a truth that might disturb their corporate owners who would profit from the war. Shock and Awe. Fallujah. Abu Ghraib.It was all a lie. Many of us have said for a long time it was a lie. But here it is in black and white: Lies from a president who has taken a sacred trust to uphold the Constitution of the United States.So, what does it mean? It means that our president and all of his administration are war criminals. It's as simple as that. They lied to the American people, have killed and injured and traumatized thousands of American men and women doing their patriotic duty, killed at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians, destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and poisoned its environment, squandered billions and billions of our tax dollars, made a mockery of American integrity in the world, changed the course of history, tortured Iraqi prisoners, and bound us intractably to an insane situation that they have no idea how to fix because they had no plan, but greed and empire, in the first place.What does it mean? It means that everyone in this administration should be impeached. It means that our Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and our Congressmen Tom Allen and Mike Michaud should call for immediate impeachment. They were lied to by their president, voted for war, and are thus complicit in the multiply betrayals of the American people unless they stand up now for the truth.Richard Nixon was impeached for a cover-up of a two-bit break-in. William Cohen, a young Maine Republican, played an important role for the prosecution in those proceedings. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with an intern. Now we have the irrefutable evidence that George W. Bush lied about the reasons for taking the United States to war. The intelligence wasn't flawed. The weapons weren't hidden. Our elected leaders were lying.Democracy, like any sound relationship between people, is built on trust. We trust our leaders to tell the truth so that the consent that we give them is honestly informed. If the consent is won through manipulation, propaganda, fear, or lies, the basis of our democracy has been subverted. It is no longer democracy at all, but we continue to call it that because we have not the courage or stamina to demand its overhaul. We live a lie when we fail to hold leaders accountable for their lies. By not calling now for impeachment, we are saying that we condone hypocrisy, pseudo-democracy, and murdering thousands of Americans and Iraqis for strategic control of energy resources that we have no right to. Patriotism demands that we insist on the ideals of democracy, not that we support the "leaders" who cynically destroy them.What's curious is why anyone like me should have to even point this out. Don't our senators and congressmen feel betrayed? Are they content to continue the murdering rather than do what truth demands? Do they think they can lie to history, too. Do they think that this little Iraq problem will somehow just go away, that the courageous resistance to the United States occupation will give up and hand Bush the keys to the oil wells? Do they think that any of the grave crises facing the world now - energy consumption, global warming, species extinction - can be solved by lying about them? We are living in an age of no accountability. It's also an age upon which may hang the survival of human life on this earth. One should not bet one's future on people who abjure responsibility. The first courageous step is to come to terms with what we know is true: America's president lied to America's people to create an unnecessary war. I ask Sens. Snowe and Collins, Reps. Allen and Michaud to take that step. Begin impeachment proceedings. It's really no more or less than their duty. It's also the first step toward restoring America's integrity.Robert Shetterly is a writer and artist who lives in Brooksville.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
two nights ago a car had its windows broken in. as far as i know there was no reason. i heard it happen. at first, i thought someone was having problems shutting their car door. so, they were slamming it. but there was a counternoise to it. inbetween each car slam was what sounded like a popper that people throw to the ground in order to make it explode. it took about 5 of each sound to make me get up and decide to investigate. i saw nothing. i didn't see the guys who did it, i didn't see what they did. as i was standing out there i saw the owner of the car come out, look at it and raise his arms as if to say "what the fuck is this?". later, the cops showed up. i was standing on the sidewalk and they ignored me. admittedly, i was four houses down from what happened. the cops unhooked their guns and advanced on the neighbor's house. after a bit, the cops went to the house of the car owner. i went to bed.
the next morning i arose somewhat tired, because i had been waiting until one a.m. in case the cops wanted to ask questions (plus, apocalypse now redux was on). so, i managed on my to work to look over and see the car that had had its windows bashed in. every single one of them was either gone or bent inward. i got to tell my co-workers the story. it wasn't until i was driving home and on my block that i noticed there were two cars that had all of their windows beaten the hell out of. right next to each other. i know that the time from when i heard the window beating begin to when i heard it stop was all of ten to fifteen seconds. two cars, all of the windows. i hoped that the instance was a targeted thing and that the owner of the cars would shut his mouth.
tonight i was walking and on my way back i met the man who owns the cars. his wife and two small children were outside watching him try to punch out the rest of the windows with a hammer and piece of wood. she moved away from me. wouldn't look me in the eye. i went to him to ask if the cops had caught the guys who did it. he didn't speak english. this family lives there four houses down from me and they can't communicate with their neighbors. a quiet family (now i know why). i know they will get nothing from the police if they can't speak english. i know that whatever the reason for someone to want to break their windows they will not get any satisfaction or justice. it's a shame.
but how do you speak with someone who doesn't understand what you're saying? i used body language to tell him i lived right down the block. i hoped that he understood that he could ask me for help. somehow, though, i ldoubt it. i am a good actor, but this was different. he looked at me as if i was going to belt him. and i see someone who doesn't necessarily need help with the windows, but may need help with where he and his family live.
i'm a sucker for strays. that's why i have a cat.
the next morning i arose somewhat tired, because i had been waiting until one a.m. in case the cops wanted to ask questions (plus, apocalypse now redux was on). so, i managed on my to work to look over and see the car that had had its windows bashed in. every single one of them was either gone or bent inward. i got to tell my co-workers the story. it wasn't until i was driving home and on my block that i noticed there were two cars that had all of their windows beaten the hell out of. right next to each other. i know that the time from when i heard the window beating begin to when i heard it stop was all of ten to fifteen seconds. two cars, all of the windows. i hoped that the instance was a targeted thing and that the owner of the cars would shut his mouth.
tonight i was walking and on my way back i met the man who owns the cars. his wife and two small children were outside watching him try to punch out the rest of the windows with a hammer and piece of wood. she moved away from me. wouldn't look me in the eye. i went to him to ask if the cops had caught the guys who did it. he didn't speak english. this family lives there four houses down from me and they can't communicate with their neighbors. a quiet family (now i know why). i know they will get nothing from the police if they can't speak english. i know that whatever the reason for someone to want to break their windows they will not get any satisfaction or justice. it's a shame.
but how do you speak with someone who doesn't understand what you're saying? i used body language to tell him i lived right down the block. i hoped that he understood that he could ask me for help. somehow, though, i ldoubt it. i am a good actor, but this was different. he looked at me as if i was going to belt him. and i see someone who doesn't necessarily need help with the windows, but may need help with where he and his family live.
i'm a sucker for strays. that's why i have a cat.
did anyone watch the daily show with jon stewart last night? he had some good quotes from criminals about how "deep throat" is not a hero but a very unethical person. pat buchanan was on board, so was g. gordon liddy (who was one of the arrested in the watergate breakin and said that deep throat should have reported his information to the law for a grand jury to consider indictment) and bob novak (who outed a CIA operative last year or so and is the only journalist to report on it who is not currently under subpoena. the CIA person was the wife of a diplomat who disagreed publicly with Bush about the so-called yellowcake uranium that Bush and powell claimed Iraq tried to buy from Niger. it turned out that the documents were forged in a very amatuerish way. it, also, turned out that the white house leaked the wife's name to novak as retribution, though it has yet to be proven in a court of law). awesome segment and very funny.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/01.html#a3233
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/01.html#a3233
This is Why We Have So many Yardsales in Fresno
WE'RE #180!!! WHOOHOO!!! I'M MOVING.
By the way, I think Marcel and I are having another yardsale at his place this Saturday. His street is doing their annual block sale, so we're going to try to get rid of the rest of our respective dvd collections. Will let you know if this changes.
Top 10 cities where paychecks go far
New survey finds cities where you get the most value for your salary, and where you get the least.May 23, 2005: 10:52 AM EDT By Jeanne Sahadi, CNN/Money senior writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – Pride aside, it really doesn't matter how much you make, just so long as it goes a long way where you live.
Therein lies the rub for all those who seek glory and glamour – or just decent housing and a drink -- in the most fabled places.
A new report from Salary.com looks at the relationship between salaries and the cost of living in 188 large metropolitan areas across the country to see where the gainfully employed can live and eat and still pad their bank accounts.
The living costs measured in the new Salary Value Index include housing, food, transportation, utilities and state taxes. The index also factors in an area's employment and job-growth rates.
What it does not account for are quality-of-life issues, such as culture, school systems and the weather.
So, financially speaking, the top 10 places where you'll get the most mileage out of your paycheck are:
New London, Conn.
Huntsville, Ala.
Baltimore
Harrisburg, Pa.
Tulsa, Okla.
Rock Island, Ill.
Troy, N.Y.
Corpus Christi, Texas
Schenectady, N.Y.
Las Vegas, Nev.
The top cities, Salary.com found, have all enjoyed various forms of revitalization in the past several years since the cost of doing business is low and new employees are brought to town.
For instance, New London, a historic whaling port between New York and Boston, now serves as home to Pfizer's Research and Development headquarters.
Huntsville, Ala., a turn-of-the-century town, is home to various NASA programs.
If companies continue to find a city in the Top 10 of the Salary Value Index attractive, the cost of living could eventually increase along with salaries and employment opportunities.
But the draw of such areas is vulnerable if any major players pull out of town. A naval submarine base in New London, for instance, may soon close. If that happens, the immediate impact would be a higher unemployment rate, a decline in the cost of living and then in salaries, said Bill Coleman, Salary.com's senior vice president of compensation.
But long-term, he suggested, the city's appeal would depend in part on what happens after the base closed – whether, for instance, a corporation converts the space for some of its facilities, attracting new workers.
The worst places to stretch a dollar earned
Chances are, you easily might have predicted many of the worst places on the Salary Value Index without the aid of a calculator.
In any case, please refrain from serenading your tan and toned West Coast friends or your pale, neurotic Manhattan ones with a rousing rendition of "Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah."
According to Salary.com, the 10 least affordable cities for paycheck earners are:
New York
San Francisco
Stamford, Conn.
San Jose, Calif.
San Diego
Santa Barbara, Calif.
Bakersfield, Calif.
Los Angeles
Fresno, Calif.
Boston
And what of the often-overlooked middle child? According to Salary. Com, the cities that rank in and around the 50th percentile in terms of affordability relative to pay are:
Mobile, Ala.
Kansas City, Kan.
Fort Collins, Colo.
Sioux City, Iowa
Orlando, Fla.
-------------------------
Wherever you live, the challenge is to live within your means. To see if you are, click here.
By the way, I think Marcel and I are having another yardsale at his place this Saturday. His street is doing their annual block sale, so we're going to try to get rid of the rest of our respective dvd collections. Will let you know if this changes.
Top 10 cities where paychecks go far
New survey finds cities where you get the most value for your salary, and where you get the least.May 23, 2005: 10:52 AM EDT By Jeanne Sahadi, CNN/Money senior writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – Pride aside, it really doesn't matter how much you make, just so long as it goes a long way where you live.
Therein lies the rub for all those who seek glory and glamour – or just decent housing and a drink -- in the most fabled places.
A new report from Salary.com looks at the relationship between salaries and the cost of living in 188 large metropolitan areas across the country to see where the gainfully employed can live and eat and still pad their bank accounts.
The living costs measured in the new Salary Value Index include housing, food, transportation, utilities and state taxes. The index also factors in an area's employment and job-growth rates.
What it does not account for are quality-of-life issues, such as culture, school systems and the weather.
So, financially speaking, the top 10 places where you'll get the most mileage out of your paycheck are:
New London, Conn.
Huntsville, Ala.
Baltimore
Harrisburg, Pa.
Tulsa, Okla.
Rock Island, Ill.
Troy, N.Y.
Corpus Christi, Texas
Schenectady, N.Y.
Las Vegas, Nev.
The top cities, Salary.com found, have all enjoyed various forms of revitalization in the past several years since the cost of doing business is low and new employees are brought to town.
For instance, New London, a historic whaling port between New York and Boston, now serves as home to Pfizer's Research and Development headquarters.
Huntsville, Ala., a turn-of-the-century town, is home to various NASA programs.
If companies continue to find a city in the Top 10 of the Salary Value Index attractive, the cost of living could eventually increase along with salaries and employment opportunities.
But the draw of such areas is vulnerable if any major players pull out of town. A naval submarine base in New London, for instance, may soon close. If that happens, the immediate impact would be a higher unemployment rate, a decline in the cost of living and then in salaries, said Bill Coleman, Salary.com's senior vice president of compensation.
But long-term, he suggested, the city's appeal would depend in part on what happens after the base closed – whether, for instance, a corporation converts the space for some of its facilities, attracting new workers.
The worst places to stretch a dollar earned
Chances are, you easily might have predicted many of the worst places on the Salary Value Index without the aid of a calculator.
In any case, please refrain from serenading your tan and toned West Coast friends or your pale, neurotic Manhattan ones with a rousing rendition of "Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah."
According to Salary.com, the 10 least affordable cities for paycheck earners are:
New York
San Francisco
Stamford, Conn.
San Jose, Calif.
San Diego
Santa Barbara, Calif.
Bakersfield, Calif.
Los Angeles
Fresno, Calif.
Boston
And what of the often-overlooked middle child? According to Salary. Com, the cities that rank in and around the 50th percentile in terms of affordability relative to pay are:
Mobile, Ala.
Kansas City, Kan.
Fort Collins, Colo.
Sioux City, Iowa
Orlando, Fla.
-------------------------
Wherever you live, the challenge is to live within your means. To see if you are, click here.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
RE: Tower Listserv Morons who comment way too much
For you dumpster diving naysayers, rest assured. Various cities have been passing laws that prohibit anyone from taking from any bin put onto the curb. In short, the law says that if the bin is put on the curb, then its contents belong to the company that picks it up. It shouldn't be too long before Fresno adopts this law. Top fine for anyone caught is $500 as of right now. Perhaps, some of you would like to petition your council people to pursue this. This is a law set into force by the recycling companies that have contracts with the cities. So, calling whoever ours is might work too. I don't back it, but I thought you might like it.
As for Gordon complaining about someone coming 125 feet onto his property to steal from his dumpster, I can only ask what the selling price is, because I don't know of any property within the Tower that has that kind of driveway.As for the CRIME WAVE, last night I was an audio witness to all of the windows being busted out of two cars parked under a streetlight in a span of 10 seconds. By the time I got to my sidewalk the criminals were a block and a half away and accelerating. Pretty damn impressive. I'm pretty sure without seeing anyone's crime sheet that it was a targeted thingy. Today, someone tried to tell me that the second car showed some time later in the same condition, but I counted the number of blows and it added up to the number of windows wiped out.
I have lived in my house for two years now and never been approached by the Neighborhood Watch. And last night there were representatives of only three houses on the entire block who stepped out of their houses to check on the noise. When I told my backyard neighbor about it today, he responded by telling me that the Neighborhood Watch Captain had quit. And he didn't know what was happening with the Neighborhood Watch.That's news to me, since those who have condemned me for not being a joiner have also told me that they would pray for me. But they can't be bothered to tell me that a loose knit "militia" organization is now defunct.
I have nothing against groups that want to be on the lookout for things that go bump (or blam or scream or shatter) in the night (or day). I do my part without knowing these groups. I think that a resident's first responsibility is to his or her safety within the home. Second, his or her responsibility is to the visible community. And when I am standing on my sidewalk and wondering what the hell that loud banging was and no one else is out there wondering with me, then I have to think that we as a neighborhood within the Tower (or anywhere for that matter) are lacking. If anyone can give me the number or direction to go in which to find out who is in charge of my Neighborhood Watch I would greatly appreciate it. I think these things can work so long as no one decides they're "in charge" and everyone must bow to their beckoning. Which is what I gathered was happening to my little pod.
Now, as for the service y'all think you're not getting at our local establishments. I agree that it is not what it used to be. Today I waited almost 5 minutes before the Livingstones bartender got me my beer. But she was new. The other bartenders will have my beer in front of me within 4 minutes. The last time I ate at the Landmark I had to get up from my table and let Giselle know that I'd been waiting for over 15 minutes. But I've been to Chili's and Sizzler and the Outback and many other places (on somebody else's dollar, baecause they are places I would rather not frequent) on the North end of town and had to undergo the same amount of waiting time. I don't see any difference in dining experience here or there. I think the only time I receive topnotch waiting service is at Denny's. And if Echo wants to leave, good. The owners were very snooty within the restaurant and out of it. I met them at Arthop and other functions and they had elite dripping out of their noses onto the placemats (which, at Arthop, tended to be paper). pretty gross. The 609 moving to the strip between Sequoia and the Tower is very groovy. Hopefully, Sequoia will get a clue about how to treat their clientele and any others who walk in. The wait staff is cool (but predictable in their immediate "today's special is...". at least at Livingstone's or the Landmark they would ask you what you'd like before the spiel about how to make them more profit for their money ala the "specials". specials are cool, but don't need to be the immediate focus), the managers are not.
I don't know if Geoff tried hugging at the Revue again, but it must be accepted, because I was given a serious full-body hug by a very nubile woman not long ago and it lasted a bit (though not as long as I would have liked) and nobody complained. Or if they did I didn't hear them and nobody pulled us apart. Until she did. That bitch.
Anyway, Eric writes from New Jersey (as if his voice counts anymore). He's bought a mansion and is raising his children in total isolation from each other. They eat breakfast together and then are forcibly separated until the next morning. His wife is nowhere to be found. She left one day (allegedly for New York) and they haven't seen her since. It's rumored she's dancing for Greenwald. I could cite sources, but...they're still close friends. Plus, I've still got Eric's tuxedo. If I f**k up, he'll have me buried in it. He's got friends, too.
As for Gordon complaining about someone coming 125 feet onto his property to steal from his dumpster, I can only ask what the selling price is, because I don't know of any property within the Tower that has that kind of driveway.As for the CRIME WAVE, last night I was an audio witness to all of the windows being busted out of two cars parked under a streetlight in a span of 10 seconds. By the time I got to my sidewalk the criminals were a block and a half away and accelerating. Pretty damn impressive. I'm pretty sure without seeing anyone's crime sheet that it was a targeted thingy. Today, someone tried to tell me that the second car showed some time later in the same condition, but I counted the number of blows and it added up to the number of windows wiped out.
I have lived in my house for two years now and never been approached by the Neighborhood Watch. And last night there were representatives of only three houses on the entire block who stepped out of their houses to check on the noise. When I told my backyard neighbor about it today, he responded by telling me that the Neighborhood Watch Captain had quit. And he didn't know what was happening with the Neighborhood Watch.That's news to me, since those who have condemned me for not being a joiner have also told me that they would pray for me. But they can't be bothered to tell me that a loose knit "militia" organization is now defunct.
I have nothing against groups that want to be on the lookout for things that go bump (or blam or scream or shatter) in the night (or day). I do my part without knowing these groups. I think that a resident's first responsibility is to his or her safety within the home. Second, his or her responsibility is to the visible community. And when I am standing on my sidewalk and wondering what the hell that loud banging was and no one else is out there wondering with me, then I have to think that we as a neighborhood within the Tower (or anywhere for that matter) are lacking. If anyone can give me the number or direction to go in which to find out who is in charge of my Neighborhood Watch I would greatly appreciate it. I think these things can work so long as no one decides they're "in charge" and everyone must bow to their beckoning. Which is what I gathered was happening to my little pod.
Now, as for the service y'all think you're not getting at our local establishments. I agree that it is not what it used to be. Today I waited almost 5 minutes before the Livingstones bartender got me my beer. But she was new. The other bartenders will have my beer in front of me within 4 minutes. The last time I ate at the Landmark I had to get up from my table and let Giselle know that I'd been waiting for over 15 minutes. But I've been to Chili's and Sizzler and the Outback and many other places (on somebody else's dollar, baecause they are places I would rather not frequent) on the North end of town and had to undergo the same amount of waiting time. I don't see any difference in dining experience here or there. I think the only time I receive topnotch waiting service is at Denny's. And if Echo wants to leave, good. The owners were very snooty within the restaurant and out of it. I met them at Arthop and other functions and they had elite dripping out of their noses onto the placemats (which, at Arthop, tended to be paper). pretty gross. The 609 moving to the strip between Sequoia and the Tower is very groovy. Hopefully, Sequoia will get a clue about how to treat their clientele and any others who walk in. The wait staff is cool (but predictable in their immediate "today's special is...". at least at Livingstone's or the Landmark they would ask you what you'd like before the spiel about how to make them more profit for their money ala the "specials". specials are cool, but don't need to be the immediate focus), the managers are not.
I don't know if Geoff tried hugging at the Revue again, but it must be accepted, because I was given a serious full-body hug by a very nubile woman not long ago and it lasted a bit (though not as long as I would have liked) and nobody complained. Or if they did I didn't hear them and nobody pulled us apart. Until she did. That bitch.
Anyway, Eric writes from New Jersey (as if his voice counts anymore). He's bought a mansion and is raising his children in total isolation from each other. They eat breakfast together and then are forcibly separated until the next morning. His wife is nowhere to be found. She left one day (allegedly for New York) and they haven't seen her since. It's rumored she's dancing for Greenwald. I could cite sources, but...they're still close friends. Plus, I've still got Eric's tuxedo. If I f**k up, he'll have me buried in it. He's got friends, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
