Friday, December 26, 2003

The Rest of the Marbles The Rest of the Marbles These are all the doublethink entries between March 28, 2003 and May 17, 2003 that I haven't gotten around to archiving properly. They're just raw posts, stripped of reader comments (and I've left the all-graphical entries out). This is a HUGE page - but until the day I actually have time to split it up by post and reproduce it here, this is the best I can do. There's just too much good info here not to have it up, in some readable form, on the Web. Your Required Weekend Reading posted Sat, 17 May 2003 18:50:35 -0700 If you don't have an account with the online version of The New York Times, you should; fickle left-right pendulum swings (it's never "neutral") and Jayson Blair aside, its op/ed pages are nearly unbeatable. (I said "nearly"; the NYT is still consistently too far to the right for my liking.) And it's worth registering (for free, mind you) just to read the piece below in its entirety: Is President Bush a religious zealot, or does he just pander to that crowd? ... [Mr. Bush's public piety] contributes to an image of crusading arrogance abroad, and to a fear of invasive moralism at home. Most recently, the president's reluctance to offend Senator Rick Santorum - a Catholic theocrat who believes that states should have the power to arrest gay lovers in their bedrooms, or even to criminalize couples who use contraceptives - was an occasion to wonder what, exactly, Mr. Bush was born-again into. ... I've long suspected the essential fact about Mr. Bush is that God was his 12-step program. ... This kind of born-again epiphany is common in much of America - the red-state version of psychotherapy - and it creates the kind of faith that is not beset by doubt because the believer knows his life got better in the bargain. ... It is probably not entirely irrelevant to our international relations that Tony Blair is, as one British columnist put it, "the most overtly pious leader since Gladstone," while Jacques Chirac of France and Gerhard Schröder of Germany are adamantly secular. Mr. Schröder was the first German chancellor to refuse to end his oath of office with the customary "so help me God." ... So God is a kind of fraternity handshake. ... Mr. Bush's frequent invocation of the Almighty in his speeches grates on the ears of worldly Europeans, who, when the president says, "God bless America," imagine they hear, "And to hell with everybody else." But it is a tradition of long standing in America, where our dissident origins, First Amendment protections and entrepreneurial spirit have created the most diversely religious population in the world. Mr. Bush comes nowhere near the profuse sectarian language of, say, Lincoln or the Roosevelts. He is also the first president to expand the routine homage to "churches and synagogues" to include "mosques." That amendment came long before 9/11, and was welcome, even if it was motivated by the awareness that American Muslim voters constitute a growing, unexploited voter pool. ... His advocacy of faith-based social programs, for example, clearly grows from his conviction, based on personal experience, that religion can bring an extra charisma to problems like drug abuse. If that also happens to win him religious votes and to coincide with the Republican aversion to government social programs, so much the better for Mr. Bush. ... Perhaps the most important effect of Mr. Bush's religion is that, for better or for worse, it imparts a profound self-confidence once he has decided on a course of action. This has been most conspicuous since Sept. 11 in the way he has talked about his mission to make the world safe for democracy. Some listeners take it as presumptuous, messianic, even blasphemous. ... As for the enduring notion that Mr. Bush takes his instructions from the organized Christian right, it misses a much more interesting story: as an independent political structure, the Christian right is dying. For one thing, the organizations that hit their stride in the 1980's have waned. The Moral Majority is long gone. The Christian Coalition is withering. Bombastic evangelical power brokers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have aged into irrelevance, and now exist mainly as ludicrous foils. ... At the same time... many local activists have gravitated into the Republican Party as county chairmen and campaign consultants. Once an independent force hammering at the president and Congress, they are now an institutional part of the party base. They must be kept mollified - but in balance with other parts of the coalition, like business, and within the bounds of what a majority of voters will accept. Karl Rove, the White House political genius, has a master plan for enlarging that ecumenical array of believers - churchgoing Catholics, Mormons and Jews as well as the evangelicals - and welding them permanently into the Republican mainstream. The interesting story, then, is not that Mr. Bush is a captive of the religious right, but that his people are striving to make the religious right a captive of the Republican Party. Bill Keller God and George W. Bush New York Times May 17, 2003 Another 242 Iraqis Liberated! posted Sat, 17 May 2003 18:28:49 -0700 This should warm the hearts of the pro-war brigades (sorry I couldn't find any pictures for the truly bloodthirsty - or for those who like their real-life gore in living color): Statistics unpublished until today reveal the stark facts: 242 people have died in Baghdad in just over three weeks, almost all from bullet wounds. It is an epidemic, and it is getting worse. But the late-night scenes in a city hospital tell the real story of the postwar price that the Iraqi capital is paying for the occupying forces' failure to live up to their responsibility to make the streets safe. At 3.20am yesterday, Haider Khassem's friends stuffed him half-dead into the back seat of a car. Doctors at al-Kindi hospital's casualty department had done all they could to treat the four bullet wounds in his chest with which he had been brought to them 90 minutes earlier, a hefty young man thrashing in agony and spouting blood like a clubbed seal. They concluded he needed urgent treatment by specialists at a cardiothoracic hospital 20 minutes away. The driver of al-Kindi's only remaining ambulance - the other three have been stolen or looted - had disappeared. So the dangerously ill Mr Khassem was bundled into a clapped-out, rust-bitten orange Moskavich 408. A friend held his intravenous drip out of the back window. In the front seat sat Salah Fayek, his head wrapped in a turban of bandages to staunch an injury inflicted in the same attack. Thus, the maimed and wounded set off into the benighted streets of Baghdad, a city under curfew and echoing with sporadic gunfire, to try to save a life. ... Dr Fa'ak Amin Bakr, director of the city mortuary, says 242 people have died in the past 25 days, of whom more than nine out of 10 had been shot. He says that before the invasion Baghdad had an average of one death a day caused by gunshot wounds. Battles between looters and score-settling from the Saddam years have taken hold, fuelled by a security vacuum that owes much to a decision by Donald Rumsfeld, the American Defence Secretary, to invade and occupy Iraq with minimum troop numbers - two divisions short, say well-informed sources within the Allies' reconstruction team. They are the by-product, too, of the failure of the Allies to coax the Baghdad police to return to work in sufficient numbers. Most of the Iraqi officers who have returned have yet to come out of their police stations. And homicide figures are going up. The 124 who died from bullet wounds in the past 10 days is a rise of 60 per cent on the previous 10-day period. ... This is the mess that Washington has deployed Paul Bremer, a protégé of Henry Kissinger, to sort out. Unlike Jay Garner, the man he replaces as Iraq's chief administrator, he has been assigned full authority over the Allied administration in Iraq. At his first press conference in Baghdad yesterday, Mr Bremer... [said the] "serious law and order problem" in the capital was a top priority... He noted that 100,000 inmates were released from Iraqi prisons in October by Saddam Hussein. "It's time those people are put back in jail," he said. This peculiar endorsement of Saddam's judicial system will not endear Mr Bremer to human and civil rights activists. Less likely to object are the desperate doctors of Baghdad who want something to be done before hundreds more end up in the mortuary. Baghdad pays the postwar price: 242 die in three weeks The Independent May 16, 2003 Gee, I hope this story was enough to make the anti-peace bunch happy. I sure will try to do better next time, and find you some nice, big pictures of this Crusade of Carnage you support. Sleep well tonight. Just Plain Common Sense(milla) posted Sat, 17 May 2003 18:03:00 -0700 At least one Ontario judge refuses to succumb to the U.S.'s hysterical (and long-lost) "war on drugs": Canada has no laws prohibiting marijuana possession, an Ontario Superior Court judge said yesterday in a ruling that will be binding on judges in the province and may soon be picked up across the country. "For today, and for the Victoria Day weekend, it's a very pleasant state of affairs for recreational pot smokers," said criminal lawyer Paul Burstein, who helped argue the case successfully. It was the second time that a Windsor teenager who was caught smoking pot while playing hooky in a park has been found not to have broken any law because, the courts ruled, there are effectively no longer any marijuana laws to break. Mr. Justice Steven Rogin upheld yesterday a lower-court decision, based on complex arguments, that has already had far-reaching influence. The new ruling means that proposed federal legislation to decriminalize possession of a small amount of marijuana would actually "recriminalize" it, defence lawyers said yesterday. While the new law would impose fines for pot possession, yesterday's ruling effectively eliminated any sanctions for simple pot possession in Ontario, they said. The decision "has effectively erased the criminal prohibition on marijuana possession from the law books in Ontario," said Brian McAllister, the lawyer for the accused teenager. ... The federal Department of Justice, which appealed the initial ruling, is planning another appeal. The government still plans to introduce its marijuana-decriminalization legislation later this month. Most Canadians are behind the idea, according to an Ipsos-Reid poll released yesterday. It found that 55 per cent of Canadians did not believe smoking marijuana should be a criminal offence, while 42 per cent thought it should be. More telling, 63 per cent of respondents supported Ottawa's plans to issue tickets and fines similar to traffic violations to those caught with 15 grams or less of marijuana, the poll found. Justice Minister Martin Cauchon has said he is seeking the changes so that people who are caught with small amounts will not clog up the court system, potentially receiving criminal records. For the moment, however, marijuana possession remains the most frequently laid drug charge in Canada even though courts are becoming increasingly resistant to hearing those cases. ... No laws ban possession of marijuana, court rules The Globe and Mail May 17, 2003 Now don't get on my case about how drugs are bad, and ruining the moral fabric of America, and all those other canned, knee-jerk responses I can hear on any 15-second public-service announcement. Marijuana is not heroin, and it's positively moronic to equate all drugs. Do that, and you may as well outlaw your grandmother's Norvasc; it'll lower her blood pressure, but it can also drop her heart rate to a dangerously slow pace, make her too dizzy to drive responsibly, and make her ankles swell. And you may as well outlaw alcohol while you're at it. Frankly, I've never seen anybody who's smoked too much pot die of cirrhosis of the liver, become obnoxious at a bar, or beat his wife. The most horrendous "marijuana crime" I've ever witnessed was that of a terminal stoner who opined that Drew Carey was actually funny. Do you want to compare the dangers of pot to the dangers of cigarettes next? The fact of the matter is that the only reason pot hasn't been legalized in the U.S. is that nobody's figured out how to regulate it yet. And frankly, I can't understand why the federal government hasn't re-focused its efforts on finding a way to do just that, instead of clogging the already-overstrained U.S. court system, packing prisons with small-time offenders given utterly unreasonable sentences, framing law-abiding bong-sellers like Tommy Chong, turning AIDS and cancer patients into criminals, and completely steamrolling the concept of states' rights. God knows the revenue from controlled licensing of marijuana would be a boon to both cash-strapped states and the foundering fed; a 1998 report by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) states: "Marijuana remains the fourth largest cash crop in America despite law enforcement spending an estimated $10 billion annually to pursue efforts to outlaw the plant. In many states, marijuana ranked as the top cash crop for farmers. United States marijuana growers harvested a minimum of 5.5 million pounds of saleable marijuana in 1997 worth $15.1 billion to growers and $25.2 billion on the retail market." It's no secret that here in California - where agriculture is a massive industry, of unbelievable volume - pot has been the number-one cash crop for years, outranking everything from grapes to walnuts. (Keep your "fruits and nuts" jokes to yourselves, folks - I've heard 'em all, and they were only mildly amusing the first 350 times.) I mention California naturally because I have a vested interest in the state's welfare (which ain't so hot these days), but mostly because, even though I hear the number every damned day, I still can't comprehend the fact that we are facing a $38 billion budget crisis that has to be solved within the next two weeks. It won't be solved this year - or next, I'm afraid - but do you have any idea what a dent tax revenues from the legalized sale of marijuana would put in that $38 billion? Especially in a state where both personal and business income-tax revenues keep falling by the month? (Thanks for a wrecked economy, George!) And don't tell me you really want to talk about the morality of decriminalizing marijuana. If you haven't made up your own mind by now, you never will - and if you're worried that I'm a bad influence on young minds, I suggest you take a look at the influence of your own attitudes about booze, tobacco, and even violent movies and video games before you jump all over me for refusing to demonize weed. And having lived through the 1960s and 70s, I've seen it all, folks, and there's not a thing anyone could say to change my thinking about pot, so don't waste your time. The bottom line is that I'm neither condoning nor condemning marijuana use by responsible adults - but neither do I condone nor condemn adult use of alcohol, cigarettes, kava, or most organized religions. (Although I will say that of the above, only wine, marijuana, and kava have been proven to offer any conclusive therapeutic benefits that outweigh the dangers). When pressed to judge whether a thing is right or wrong, the only question I ask is: Does it hurt anybody else? All told, too much of anything is bad for you - and that includes black-and-white thinking. So, How Many Have You Read? posted Fri, 16 May 2003 23:14:34 -0700 BANNED BOOKS The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990 _ 2000* Scary Stories (Series) by Alvin Schwartz Daddy _ s Roommate by Michael Willhoite I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling Forever by Judy Blume Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson Alice (Series) by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman My Brother Sam is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger The Giver by Lois Lowry It _ s Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris Goosebumps (Series) by R.L. Stine A Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Newton Peck The Color Purple by Alice Walker Sex by Madonna Earth _ s Children (Series) by Jean M. Auel The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L _ Engle Go Ask Alice by Anonymous Fallen Angels by Walter Dean Myers In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak The Stupids (Series) by Harry Allard The Witches by Roald Dahl The New Joy of Gay Sex by Charles Silverstein Anastasia Krupnik (Series) by Lois Lowry The Goats by Brock Cole Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane Blubber by Judy Blume Killing Mr. Griffin by Lois Duncan Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam We All Fall Down by Robert Cormier Final Exit by Derek Humphry The Handmaid _ s Tale by Margaret Atwood Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison What _ s Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee Beloved by Toni Morrison The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton The Pigman by Paul Zindel Bumps in the Night by Harry Allard Deenie by Judy Blume Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes Annie on my Mind by Nancy Garden The Boy Who Lost His Face by Louis Sachar Cross Your Fingers, Spit in Your Hat by Alvin Schwartz A Light in the Attic by Shel Silverstein Brave New World by Aldous Huxley Sleeping Beauty Trilogy by A.N. Roquelaure (Anne Rice) Asking About Sex and Growing Up by Joanna Cole Cujo by Stephen King James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl The Anarchist Cookbook by William Powell Boys and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy Ordinary People by Judith Guest American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis What's Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras Are You There, God? It _ s Me, Margaret by Judy Blume Crazy Lady by Jane Conly Athletic Shorts by Chris Crutcher Fade by Robert Cormier Guess What? by Mem Fox The House of Spirits by Isabel Allende The Face on the Milk Carton by Caroline Cooney Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut Lord of the Flies by William Golding Native Son by Richard Wright Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women _ s Fantasies by Nancy Friday Curses, Hexes and Spells by Daniel Cohen Jack by A.M. Homes Bless Me, Ultima by Rudolfo A. Anaya Where Did I Come From? by Peter Mayle Carrie by Stephen King Tiger Eyes by Judy Blume On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer Arizona Kid by Ron Koertge Family Secrets by Norma Klein Mommy Laid An Egg by Babette Cole The Dead Zone by Stephen King The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison Always Running by Luis Rodriguez Private Parts by Howard Stern Where _ s Waldo? by Martin Hanford Summer of My German Soldier by Bette Greene Little Black Sambo by Helen Bannerman Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett Running Loose by Chris Crutcher Sex Education by Jenny Davis The Drowning of Stephen Jones by Bette Greene Girls and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell View from the Cherry Tree by Willo Davis Roberts The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Keatley Snyder The Terrorist by Caroline Cooney Jump Ship to Freedom by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier Also well worth reading: Banned Books Online The Savannah Morning News reported in November 1999 that a teacher at the Windsor Forest High School required seniors to obtain permission slips before they could read Hamlet, Macbeth, or King Lear... * © Copyright 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 American Library Association. This document may be reprinted and distributed for non-commercial and educational purposes only, and not for resale. No resale use may be made of material on this web site at any time. All other rights reserved. One Texan All of Us Dang Li-buh-ruls Jes' Love posted Fri, 16 May 2003 21:20:57 -0700 Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the incomparable, indomitable heroine of all liberals stuck in the Bible Belt (and we in "freeman" country who would like to rescue you)... the one and only Molly! ...with the story that was made just for her: Killer D's attack! Texas to Oklahoma, now back to Texas - bills die by the dozens When last we left the saga of Texas' few living elected Democrats, they had fled the state pursued by minions of the law - legislators on the lam. These courageous citizens, fleeing vile Republican oppression in their state capital, took refuge at the Holiday Inn in Ardmore, Oklahoma. Reporters embedded with the law-breaker law-makers in Ardmore say the perps remain unrepentant. ... The manhunt continued despite the presence of a swelling press corps in Ardmore. Gov. Perry asked neighboring governors to arrest the perps on sight. The attorney general of New Mexico obligingly put out an all-points bulletin on any politicians who favor health care and oppose tax cuts for the rich. U.S. House Majority Leader Tom (the Hammer) DeLay, who caused the walkout with a stupefying redistricting map, threatened to send the federales after the recalcitrant D's. Yup, he wants to send the FBI and the U.S. Marshals to bring the runaway solons home in cuffs. ... Now, on the redistricting map that touched off this mess, I have seen maps that are works of art. I have seen districts that look like giant chickens and districts that look like coiled snakes. But this map is a masterpiece, a veritable Dadaist work reminiscent of Salvador Dali's more lunatic productions. ... Thursday brought us a kinder, gentler Speaker Craddick, the Disney version if you will. Come home, he said, all is forgiven. Redistricting is dead. There will be no retribution. This was widely disbelieved by a churlish press corps. ... They come home heroes to their people. A Boise Democrat said he planned to confront the state's legislative D's with headlines and pictures of the Texas Killer D's and to label the montage, "Democrats With Cojones." Unfortunately, it was pointed out, there aren't enough Idaho Democrats to break a quorum. This episode has nothing to do with "payback." The Texas congressional redistricting plan currently in effect was drawn by the courts and was a great disappointment to Democrats. It is not outrageous Democratic gerrymandering: Texas Republicans vote for D's like Charlie Stenholm because they like them. Nor is Speaker Craddick's session-long performance combining the best elements of "Dracula" and "The Eggplant That Ate Chicago" payback for some heavy-handed Democratic domination. For the past 10 years, the speaker of the House has been a decent, honorable and exceptionally fair man named Pete Laney. If you don't believe me, go ask George W. Bush. (Of course, Laney does sound exactly like Boomhauer on "King of the Hill," but that's a different problem.) ... Molly Ivins Killer D's attack! May 16, 2003 Truth Hurts (So Good)! posted Fri, 16 May 2003 15:58:18 -0700 A Berkeley-based peace group intends to place advertisements depicting U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in mass transit systems from coast to coast. The photo is real - it was taken Dec. 20, 1983, when Rumsfeld, then a special envoy for the Reagan administration, visited Saddam to discuss U.S. support for Iraq in its war with Iran. California Peace Action and its sister Peace Education Fund incorporated the photo into an ad emblazoned with the words, "Who are we arming now?" "U.S. troops die for the failures of policy makers," the ad says. "The war in Iraq marked the seventh consecutive time that American troops have been sent into combat against a regime the U.S. had previously backed. We aided both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. While American soldiers and innocent civilians paid the price, policy makers avoided accountability." ... California Peace Action Executive Director Peter Ferenbach said Monday that his group had collected about $41,000 since launching its fund-raising appeal five days earlier. It will cost about $55,000 to place the ads in BART stations and in the mass transit systems of Washington, D.C., Boston and Chicago, as well as more detailed full-page ads in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times. ... It is understandable if people are disturbed by the photo, [Ferenbach] said. "They should find it upsetting. On some level, there's the old adage that 'the truth hurts.'" Ad depicts Rumsfeld, Saddam Oakland Tribune May 15, 2003 Or Is It Just a Little Too Close to Home? posted Fri, 16 May 2003 15:07:43 -0700 The CBS affiliate in Corpus Christi, Texas, has opted not to air a two-part miniseries dramatizing the young life of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. Dale Remy, general manager of KZTV Channel 10, said he was concerned that the film could give harmful ideas to white supremacists and disturbed young people. "The Nazi concept, if you will, is still very real, and I think anything we do to give that particular thinking a venue, a format, is a mistake," Remy said. "More people that are already on the fence on this and have issues might find something in this character to identify with, and that bothers me tremendously." The company that owns KZTV has a second CBS affiliate in Laredo, Texas, that has also chosen not to air "Hitler: the Rise of Evil." CBS spokesman Chris Ender said that of the more than 200 CBS affiliates in the country, he knew of no others that have declined to show the film. "It is a story that everybody knows how it ended, but very few know how it began," Ender said. "We think the story is compelling, and we think the producers have done an excellent job of presenting it in a compelling and thoughtful manner." The network considers "Hitler: the Rise of Evil" - scheduled to run Sunday and Tuesday - its event mini-series for the May sweeps, Ender said. Locally, KZTV plans to run "Superman II" and "Naked Gun 2 1/2: The Smell of Fear" in those slots. "If Nazism had risen, fallen and gone away, I would not have the issue with it that I do," Remy said. "My issue is that Nazism is real in our society. I think that we as the media have to take some responsibility and I just felt like the Hitler life story was a line I wasn't willing to cross." ... According to CBS, the company that developed the mini-series, Alliance Atlas, drew on biographies, periodicals, documentaries, archival information, journalistic accounts and consultations with prominent academics for research. The miniseries has inspired other controversies. Early on, the Anti-Defamation League, the New York-based group dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, came out against the mini-series. But the league has since publicly endorsed it, saying the film shows how fragile democracy is and how potent evil is. "You can't look at films like 'The Pianist' or 'Schindler's List' or a TV series like 'Shoah' without being repelled by what Hitler and his followers did," said Rabbi Kenneth Roseman of Temple Beth El in Corpus Christi. "I generally tend to think that it is more worthwhile to tell the truth and that people are smart enough and ethical and moral enough to draw the proper conclusion. I trust people." Texas TV stations pull CBS 'Hitler' TV miniseries Scripps Howard News Service May 15, 2003 Messin' with Texas & Flirtin' with Feds posted Fri, 16 May 2003 14:47:11 -0700 Willie Nelson has(marginally, at least) redeemed himself in my eyes: He sent bandanas, T-shirts, and whiskey to the exiled Texas Democrats, along with a note that said, "Way to go - stand your ground." Whaddya mean you haven't been following the saga of the Texas Dems? It's not exactly "Run, Bambi, Run" - but it is the most entertaining story of the week: There are - aside from Howard Dean and my mom - at least 51 Democrats in the United States with guts: the Democratic wing of the Texas state legislature. Rather than allow the Republicans to re-district Texas to suit the GOP agenda, the Texas Dems walked out (or rather, fled the Lone Star State) so there wouldn't be enough bodies for a quorum. See, the Repubs wanted to re-map Texas voting districts to give the GOP an unfair advantage. That's called gerrymandering - which is actually illegal in some parts - except when it's not. (I don't make the rules, folks - this is just politics.) Take Colorado, which has been going through a similar brouhaha, but hasn't been getting as much attention. Standing between the Colorado Repubs and their gerrymandering is the state constitution, which requires a minimum of three days to pass a law. To speed things up, the Repubs moved to suspend a rule that requires a proposed bill be read aloud. This is okay if everybody votes to waive the reading. But this time, the Dems said no. Of course, the Repubs tried to worm their way around the law: When Republicans tried to suspend the rules anyway, Democrats pointed out that these rules derive directly from the Colorado Constitution... At that point, Senate President John Andrews tried to outflank the requirement to read the 28-page bill by having 14 clerks each read two pages - simultaneously. The result was a cacophony that clearly violated both the spirit and the letter of the law - which was clearly intended to ensure that legislators understood laws before voting on them. (In 1876, it was by no means certain that all members could read.) Gerrymandering misstep Denver Post May 16, 2003 Which is all amusing, perhaps, but just the usual GOP tricks - skirting, flying in the face of, and throttling the law in order to get their own way. (They're spoiled, you see; they've gotten so used to having their way for the past couple of years, they tend to go into terrible temper tantrums when somebody tries to make them follow the rules for a change.) What will happen with Colorado is anybody's guess; the whole mess will probably end up in federal court. (By the way, the same sort of thing is going on in Montana - a state that really doesn't get any attention, unless it's on fire.) Anyway, back to Texas, where the story gets a lot more interesting... and where the Repubs are finding themselves in hot water - not for messin' with Texas law, but for messin' with Ashcroft Nation! The Repubs wanted to hunt down the runaway Dems and drag 'em back to Austin (or, as Ragtime Cowboy George would put it, "hunt 'em down and bring 'em to justice"). So House Speaker Tom Craddick (a Repub, of course), sent state troopers to find the Dems (who by this time were holed up 300 miles away in an Oklahoma Holiday Inn). Now, never mind the obvious waste of law-enforcement resources and taxpayer money just yet; the real problem isn't what Craddick & Co. did, but how. They lied. Well, okay, maybe they didn't all lie, but somebody told an un-truth - and the Texas cops were left with the story that one of the Dems, James E. "Pete" Laney, had shuttled the rest of the Dems out of the state in his private plane - and now, the plane was "missing." What would you call that? A half-truth? A quarter-truth? 1/1000 of a truth? Technically, the whereabouts of Laney's plane weren't known - to the Repubs - but the cops were misled into thinking that it was "missing" - as in lost, downed, hijacked. The whole thing snowballed - precisely because a state investigator did his job: He called the Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center in Riverside, Calif., part of the Homeland Security Department, to ask officials there to use their nationwide radar network to help locate the plane. The call from the unnamed investigator came as an "urgent plea," describing a plane with state officials aboard that was overdue, according to a statement issued yesterday by the Homeland Security Department's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "We got a problem, and I hope you can help me out," the statement quoted the officer as saying. "We had a plane that was supposed to be going from Ardmore, Okla., to Georgetown, Tex. It had state representatives on it, and we cannot find this plane." Believing they had an emergency on their hands, agency officials called the Federal Aviation Administration in Fort Worth, and airport officials in two other Texas cities, but were unable to find the plane. "When law enforcement calls us asking for assistance in locating an aircraft that may be missing or lost or downed, it's certainly an appropriate response to try to locate that aircraft," said Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the bureau. "We take these statements at face value." In fact, there was no plane. Most of the Democrats had taken buses to Ardmore, where they holed up in a hotel. They were expected to stay there until at least midnight last night - the deadline for new bills to be brought to the House floor. The only thing in jeopardy was the GOP legislative agenda. Bid to Find Tex. Lawmakers Decried Washington Post May 16, 2003 It reminds me of an "I Love Lucy" episode, where one of Lucy's "harmless" little white lies lands Lucy and Ethel in the pokey. Now, get this: A spokesman for Craddick... said Craddick did not tell the state police to seek federal help. "He called [state police] in and let them do their job ... There was an effort made to find out if they could get some federal help in that. ... I think Craddick is getting credit for a lot of things other people did. He may have said, 'Let's do what we can to find them.'" Or: "I didn't mean for it to get out of hand! Nobody was supposed to call the feds! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Oh, Rickyyyyy!" What a mealy-mouthed pile o' crap. I like what the Dems are saying - and not because they're Dems, but because they're absolutely right: "Not since Richard Nixon and Watergate 30 years ago has anyone tried to use law enforcement agencies of the federal government for domestic political purposes," [said] Rep. Martin Frost... "This is an abuse of criminal- and terrorist-fighting resources of the U.S. government for a domestic political matter. ... There should be a complete investigation." Rep. Jim Turner (Tex.), ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, said it was "deeply disturbing" that federal resources were diverted to try to track down Laney... "We created the Department of Homeland Security to track down terrorists, not law-abiding citizens." Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, joined eight other House Democrats yesterday in asking the acting inspector general at Homeland Security to investigate what happened. "If true, this report represents a shameful diversion of taxpayer resources for partisan purposes," the lawmakers wrote to Clark Kent Irvin. There are other anecdotes - which are either hilarious or horrifying, depending on your P.O.V.: See the big, brave Texas trooper hunt down a Daddy Dem in the hospital where his newborn twins are in intensive care! Watch the Dems' wives and teenage daughters harrassed in the streets, and on their cell phones! Witness the Dems' triumphant return! Sung to the tune of Yellow Rose of Texas: You can send the Texas troopers, you can threaten all our wives But we'll stayed holed up in Ardmore, in a dozen different dives We're all fed up with your bullying, you hot old bags of gas And for once your sneaky tactics brought you blowback up the ass! (Yes, I wrote it.) With Every New "Scramble," Another Reminder (3/3) posted Thu, 15 May 2003 20:33:31 -0700 This is Part 3 of 3. Make sure to read Parts 1 and 2 (below) first! Let's take one more look at the Russert-Cheney interview: Russert: "So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?" Cheney: "Yes. The president made the decision... that if the plane would not divert... as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by... terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?" And what was the alternative, Dick? Kill a couple of hundred people by shooting down the planes - or sit on your hands, watch the planes crash, and kill a few thousand? Playing along with the idea that it was ever "your" decision to authorize intercepts: NORAD managed to get not one, but multiple F-16s into the air to intercept Payne Stewart's plane. But "you" couldn't manage to scramble a single jet the morning of September 11th - until after American Flight 11 had already crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center. The USAF was ready to shoot down Payne Stewart's plane and didn't, because there was no danger of it hitting a densely-populated area - like Pierre, South Dakota (population: 13,876). But "you" couldn't manage to get a single jet in the air before the crash of the first of two planes you already knew were headed straight for New York City (population: 7,322,564). Sounds to me like the Air Force was more prepared to take out a plane containing nine people to prevent it from crashing into a rural town of 13,000, than "you" were to take out four commercial jets, containing a total of 245 people, from crashing into two of the most densely-populated metropolitan areas in the United States (one of which, incidentally, is the nerve center of the federal government). Now, I don't mean to make it sound as though the lives of the folks in South Dakota are any less important than the lives of those in New York or Washington. It's as great a tragedy, in my eyes, to lose nine souls - or even one - as it is 3,000. And, in fact, I commend all involved for their handling of the Payne Stewart incident; shoot it down or let it crash - what else could be done? But I do find it curious, Dick, that "they" could hold the total death count in South Dakota to a mere nine, while "you" allowed... Wait, let me do some math here... 87 aboard Flight 11, plus 59 aboard Flight 77... carry the one... 40 aboard Flight 93, plus 59 aboard Flight 175... carry one... plus 2,629 in the WTC, and another 125 at the Pentagon... zero on the ground in Penn... Got it. As I was saying: I find it curious, Dick, that the USAF was authorized (without any need to clear it with President Clinton) to use all means available to hold the South Dakota death toll to nine, while "you" used none of the means available to avoid the deaths of 2,999 - until it was much too late. Granted, there's probably nothing that could have been done to save the lives of the 245 aboard those planes. But as far as I'm concerned, Dick, somebody - maybe not "you," but somebody on your watch - had more than enough time to do something about saving the lives of the other 2,754 people on the ground. But it looks like "you" didn't even try. Of course, there are countless questions about September 11th aside from the failure to scramble F-16s - but you no doubt realize what a monumental task it would be to compile them all here. Besides, every time I delve into the details, my eyes nearly roll back in their sockets at the overwhelming volume of information, and the mind-boggling contradictions all screaming for attention at once. So, when the subject of 9-11 comes up, I intend - as I did here - to try to concentrate on just one aspect, and in fairly brief form, so as to overwhlem neither myself nor you. I want you, dear reader, to become aware of facts you may not have heard before, and to be able to digest those facts - and realize why it really is so important that you know these things, and start asking your own questions. September 11th wasn't something that happened "out there"; no matter where it was, or who died, or why, it was the trigger the PNAC boys had been waiting for; they were desperate for some excuse - any excuse - to unleash decades of carefully-worked back-room plans on the unsuspecting public. With 9-11, they got their excuse - in spades. As a result, your life has changed in ways you may already feel, and in ways you may not recognize until the next time you try to board a plane, take a day trip to Tijuana - or say the "wrong thing" in class (and suddenly find yourself hauled off for questioning by Secret Service agents). It seems to me that the only reasonable way to absorb the reality of 9-11 is to look at one small aspect at a time. However, if you'd like to try to digest the whole enchilada (and it's one damn-big enchilada), you couldn't find a better starting point than 911 Timeline.net (which also provides links to many more sites guaranteed to overwhelm you with detail). Good luck. I feel my eyes starting to roll back in their sockets... With Every New "Scramble," Another Reminder (2/3) posted Thu, 15 May 2003 20:15:04 -0700 This is Part 2 of 3. Make sure to read Part 1 (below) first! One might argue that, even if NORAD protocols have not changed since 9-11 (which they have not), then NORAD has become more vigilant in the past 20 months. It hasn't. Whenever I think of September 11th - and the complete failure to scramble Air Force jets in any reasonable (much less expedient) time - Payne Stewart always come to mind. If you're not familiar with the story: Payne Stewart was a professional golfer who was killed in the crash of a Learjet on October 25, 1999. The flight left Orlando for Dallas, then inexplicably turned north, and kept flying until it ran out of fuel over South Dakota. The last transmission from the plane to ground control was at 9:27 a.m. At 9:33 a.m., ground control radioed instructions to the plane to change frequencies, and waited for acknowledgement. Over the span of the next four and a half minutes, the controller made five more calls to the flight, but received no response. Thus, at about 9:38 a.m., the ground controller ceased calls to the plane. By 9:52 a.m., "a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm" of the doomed aircraft. That's a total of 14 minutes from the time the ground controller gave up on raising a response from the plane, and the time NORAD was contacted, ordered an F-16 intercept, and the F-16 was in the air and a mere 8nm from the Learjet. After making two calls to Stewart's plane and receiving no response, the F-16 began its visual inspection at about 10:00 a.m. And here's the punch line: The F-16 from Eglin AFB was only the first plane scrambled to intercept the Learjet: Over Missouri, four F-16s from an Air National Guard unit based in Fargo, North Dakota, took over the escort mission, and stayed with the plane until it crashed. The Air Force says additional F-16s were also scrambled from the Oklahoma Air National Guard unit in Tulsa, but were not used because the Fargo planes arrived first. ... Investigators arrive at Payne Stewart crash site CNN October 26, 1999 The CNN article also goes on to note that shooting down the Learjet wasn't an option - but only because there was no need to shoot it down: The Pentagon said Monday it never came close to shooting down Stewart's wayward plane in order to prevent a possible crash into a heavily populated area. Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon said, "Once it was determined it was apparently going to crash in a lightly populated area, we didn't have to deal with other options, so we didn't. ... At 11:10 p.m. [sic] CDT (12:10 p.m. EDT) the Northeast Air Defense sector estimated the Learjet would run out of fuel in one hour, and calculated the plane would likely to go down in a sparsely populated area near Pierre, South Dakota. And it's not as if the Air Force wasn't ready to shoot the plane down if necessary: In fact, a Pentagon spokesman said, the F-16 fighter planes that monitored the jet's flight were not armed with air-to-air missiles. ... Two other F-16s on "strip alert" at Fargo, South Dakota, were armed, but never took off. So, if the F-16s weren't about to shoot down Stewart's plane, what could they have done? The FAA routed air traffic around the Learjet and kept planes from flying underneath it in case it crashed. Pentagon officials say the fighter jets could do little but watch as the plane completed it fatal fight. ... In theory, the fighters could have tried to tip or nudge the wings of the plane to change it's [sic] course, but it's not clear if the Learjet's auto-pilot would have simply automatically corrected its course. It's impossible to say what those jets might have done, had the Learjet been headed straight for a densely-populated area - and "other options" had to be considered. But one wonders: Who would have been responsible for making the call? Curiously, Vice President Dick Cheney would have you believe that the responsibility for the decision to intercept errant aircraft belongs to the Commander-in-Chief - and on the morning of September 11, 2001, that would have been George W. Bush. Five days after the September 11th attacks, Cheney appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," and, in discussing American Flight 77 (the plane that hit the Pentagon), Tim Russert asked, "What's the most important decision you think he [Bush] made during the course of the day?" Cheney: "Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft." Russert: "And you decided?" Cheney: "We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time... It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate." There are some glaring problems with Cheney's statements: Cheney confused (deliberately? that's not my judgment to make) "intercept" with "shoot down." "Intercept" means to deflect, divert, or just get the attention of another aircraft by any number of means (from a simple radio call to signalling the errant plane visually to the more desperate "wing-nudging"); it does not necessarily mean "shoot down." Cheney knows that. And if he doesn't, he should. The decision to intercept errant aircraft is not that of the President of the United States. Intercepts are more frequent than you can imagine - and if the decision to intercept fell to the president, no president since the start of the jet age would have had time to do much else. Bill Clinton was not consulted about the Payne Stewart intercept - regardless of whether "interception" included a shoot-down. Cheney knows that, too - or should. Cheney said it "doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act." Ignoring the fact that neither Bush nor Cheney needed to issue any order to intercept (and/or fire), it sounds to me like the pilots who finally did get into the air on 9-11 had carte blanche to take out any subsequent commercial flights gone astray. Of course, the point is moot; once the fourth and final plane went down in Pennyslvania (and all other commercial flights were either grounded or diverted), there was nothing left to shoot out of the sky. The only thing that was "diverted" - temporarily, at least - was the public's attention, away from questions which beg answers. Continued... With Every New "Scramble," Another Reminder (1/3) posted Thu, 15 May 2003 19:57:31 -0700 This is Part 1 of 3. An F-16 fighter jet was sent to investigate a plane carrying Gov. Jeb Bush after it lost radio contact Wednesday on approach to Reagan National Airport in Washington. It was unclear why the plane lost radio contact at 7:30 a.m., FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said. Once contact was re-established, controllers were able to "authenticate that they were who they said they were," she said. The plane, en route from Tallahassee, was allowed to land about an hour later, and Bush went on to conduct his planned business in Washington. The fighter jet was sent from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland because Bush's plane was approaching restricted airspace around the nation's capital. "But we realized very quickly there was no threat to the capital, we never did an intercept, and we brought our fighter home," said Canadian Army Maj. Douglas Martin, a spokesman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command. ... Jet Sent to Probe Fla. Gov. Plane Associated Press May 15, 2003 Now, this is all fine and good - the Gov's plane lost radio contact, and our flyboys were scrambled to go see what was wrong. And, despite the temptation to point out the irony of the Bush boys' plane troubles this year (come on, struck by lightning, twice, within a month? how Old Testament can a message get?), I am sincerely glad to see Jeb back on the ground, safe and sound.  (Yes, people, sincerely - I think Jebby's as bad as his big bro, but I wish no harm to anyone - and with the way I feel about - or, rather, crashing - I certainly wouldn't wish my worst nightmare on anybody... not even Jesse Helms). However (you knew there'd be a "however"), I have questions: Why did Maj. Douglas Martin say "we never did an intercept," when sending an F-16 into the air to investigate is an intercept? (More about this later.) Jeb's plane lost radio contact at 7:30 a.m. When was NORAD notified? When did NORAD give the order to send up the F-16? How much time elapsed bteween that order and the takeoff of the F-16? How was an F-16 scrambled from Andrews AFB yesterday morning, when it was apparently impossible to scramble one from Andrews on the morning of September 11, 2001? How was it possible to scramble the jet before the governor's plane had even entered restricted airspace (it was "approaching," not "in" restricted airspace), when on September 11th the first jet was not scrambled until a full 32 minutes after contact was lost with American Airlines Flight 11 - and after Flight 11 had already deviated from its flight path, and after flight attendants made two separate emergency calls to report "a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew"? Why is the text transcript of Mindy Kleinberg's testimony to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States now missing from the commission's Web site (http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/witness_kleinberg.htm)?  Kleinberg testified on March 31, 2003, and asked many of the most logical (and damning) questions all Americans (or nearly all) want answered.  Specifically regarding the failure to scramble F-16 intercepts, Kleinberg noted: Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings. ... Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to "intercept" commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot. If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a semiannual exercise known as "Vigilant Guardian". This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, "fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board." ... American Airlines Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control. Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost (although planes can still be seen on radar - even without their transponders). Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency. Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. - a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11. Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace? Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC. Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases. For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C. As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11th. At 9:41 a.m. one hour and 11 minutes after the first plane was hijack confirmed by NORAD, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles away. Why? On September 11th both the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating procedures. Who were the people that delayed the notification? Have they been questioned? In addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed. Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of engagement, MACH-12, they would have reached NYC and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airliners before they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives. Continued... Special "Hunt 'em Down & Bring 'em to Justice" Edition posted Wed, 14 May 2003 19:44:32 -0700 President George W. Bush vowed on Tuesday to bring to justice the culprits in the fatal apartment bombings in Saudi Arabia, saying the attacks showed that the war on terror continues. "These despicable acts were committed by killers whose only faith is hate and the United States will find the killers and they will learn the meaning of American justice," Bush told an audience in Indianapolis. ... Bush vows to bring Saudi bombers to justice Reuters May 13, 2003 We're not just going out there to win - we're going out there for glory! We're going to yank 'em, tear 'em, and rip 'em! We're going to roll 'em around and rip 'em up! Then we're going to slaughter 'em! After the slaughter is over, we'll come back here, and ring that victory bell... like we always wanted to! -- Coach, Grease Oh, that's rich! Excuse me for a moment - I have to wipe the tears from my eyes. This guy is such a card... cracks me up every time... We will find these people... We will find those responsible and bring them to justice. George W. Bush September 11, 2001 We will find those who did it. We will smoke them out of their holes, we'll get them running, and we'll bring them to justice. ... We will find them in their hiding places, and we'll get them moving, and we'll bring them to justice. George W. Bush September 15, 2001 Our military action is also designed to clear the way for sustained, comprehensive and relentless operations to drive them out and bring them to justice. George W. Bush October 7, 2001 We won't forget what took place. And we will bring them to justice. We'll bring them to justice in Afghanistan, and we'll bring them to justice... And if it's in our national security interests to bring people to justice, I will use a military tribunal. ... My job is to protect the United States people... And that's exactly what I'm going to do and, at the same time, bring al Qaeda to justice. ... Those nations... better be aware... because they will be brought to justice. ... But, evidently, there are terrorists who can't stand the thought of peace, and they must be brought to justice. George W. Bush December 5, 2001 We get all kinds of reports - that he is in a cave, that he is not in a cave... But when the dust clears, we will find out where he is and he will be brought to justice. ... He is not escaping us. ... He's on the run. ...we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. George W. Bush December 28, 2001 [We must] hunt down the killers and the terrorists wherever they try to hide and bring them to justice. George W. Bush January 24, 2002 First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans and bring terrorists to justice. George W. Bush January 29, 2002 ...the surest way to make sure our children grow up in a peaceful and free society, is to be relentless in our pursuit of those who would harm America, those who hate freedom, and bring them to justice. George W. Bush February 4, 2002 We've got to find those al Qaeda killers and bring them to justice. George W. Bush April 5, 2002 ...it reminds me of what was done to us there on September 11th, and how important it is that... we chase down these killers one by one, and bring them to justice. George W. Bush May 14, 2002 ...this country must have the will and the determination to chase these killers down, one by one, and bring them to justice. And that's exactly what is going to happen, so long as I am the President of the United States of America. George W. Bush May 17, 2002 The best way for me to do my most important job... is to go on the offense and chase them down one by one, and bring them to justice, which is precisely what America is going to do. George W. Bush June 3, 2002 You need to know that the United States of America will track the terrorists down, one by one, and bring them to justice. ... We're going to get 'em on the run, and we're going to keep them on the run until we bring them to justice. George W. Bush July 18, 2002 I know that the best way to secure the homeland is to hunt these cold-blooded killers down, one by one, and bring them to justice. And that's what we're going to do. George W. Bush July 22, 2002 I made the pledge to myself and to people that I'm not going to forget what happened on Sept. 11. So long as I'm president, we will pursue the killers and bring them to justice. George W. Bush September 11, 2002 I have told Vladimir Putin ... an objective that's important for the United States - and that is to get the al Qaeda killers and bring them to justice. George W. Bush September 16, 2002 We're going to hunt them down one at a time... As we work with our friends, we will find them and bring them to justice. George W. Bush November 22, 2002 And overseas we're chasing the killers down one person at a time. ...this nation will stay on course to find them, to bring them to justice... George W. Bush November 27, 2002 What's important is we continue to disrupt his network, to bring people to justice and to "haul 'em in," as I like to put it. And, you know, [Osama is] holed up somewhere evidently... and when we find him holed up somewhere we're going in, either we or our buddies are going in to, to bring him to justice. I promised the people right after September the 11th that we would not - we would not tire in our effort to make sure that not only people were brought to justice, but that our children could grow up in a peaceful society, and I will continue to uphold that promise and continue to do everything in our power to bring people to justice. ... I want to know whether or not the top al Qaeda generals have been brought to justice. George W. Bush December 13, 2002 The terrorists who struck the United States are still determined... But we are even more determined to hunt them down one by one, to disrupt their plans, and to bring them to justice. George W. Bush February 20, 2003 Stay tuned for the Special "We Will Find WMD" Edition - that is, if I can hunt 'em all down... and bring 'em to justice! Sources for 20/23/21 posted Wed, 14 May 2003 17:18:43 -0700 Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain; Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. -- Mark Twain Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain. Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain. -- Johann Schiller No god, The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782 no deity will save us; While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves. -- Humanist Manifesto II, 1973 We must become the change we want to see. We must become the change we want to see. -- Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi But how is it possible But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. -- Henry Abbot, rebuttal to James Iredell, Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention, July 30, 1788 to enlighten the masses And God missed an even better chance, if there were a God who wished to punish rebels against his majesty and inscrutability. Just a few hundred miles north and east of Bethany, Okla., is Girard... the center of American free thought where an enormous stream of atheistic literature and godless modern knowledge pours forth to enlighten the masses. If there were a God directing hurricanes and he wanted to really "get" an uncompromising foe, whom he has no chance of persuading in the ordinary way, it would have been a devastating stroke for him to send his howling Punitive blasts through the town of Girard. -- E. Haldeman-Julius, The Meaning Of Atheism doped with religion and sex and TV? Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV, And you think you're so clever and classless and free, But you're still fucking peasents as far as I can see, A working class hero is something to be, -- John Lennon, Working Class Hero Vagueness is all Ask a man which way he is going to vote, and he will probably tell you. Ask him, however, why, and vagueness is all. -- Bernard Levin in the kingdom of the blind: In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. -- Desiderius Erasmus Fools and fanatics, The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russell a nation of finks; Thanks, for a country where nobody is allowed to mind his own business. Thanks, for a nation of finks. -- William S. Burroughs, A Thanksgiving Prayer A scream is better; Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson The great consolation in life is to say what one thinks. The great consolation in life is to say what one thinks. -- Voltaire I either choose the truth or I am deceit. In all things there are three choices: Yes, No, and no choice, except in this - I either choose the truth or I am deceit. -- Sovereign Truth does not change because it is, or is not. It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people. -- Giordano Bruno Most people would rather die than think; Most people would rather die than think: many do. -- Bertrand Russell Give me the storm and tempest of thought! Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith! Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge! -- Robert Green Ingersoll, The Gods, 1872 When the need for illusion is deep, A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep. -- Saul Bellow Men willingly believe what they wish. Many things persuaded the Gauls to this measure; the delay of Sabinus during the previous days; the positive assertion of the deserter; want of provisions, for a supply of which they had not taken the requisite precautions; the hope springing from the Venetic war; and because in most cases men willingly believe what they wish. -- Julius Caesar, De bello Gallico (The Gallic Wars) Silence gives consent -- Silence gives consent. -- Canon Law show the world its own shame: The books that the world calls immoral are the books that show the world its own shame. -- Oscar Wilde Stick in their throats like a pufferfish! Don't become a well rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a pufferfish. -- Bruce Sterling For My Fellow Mavericks posted Tue, 13 May 2003 22:33:22 -0700 The following poem - expressing my own feelings about dissent, individuality, and the angry refusal to be silenced - is composed of 20 lines, from 23 different quotations, by 21 different writers and other thinkers who have, in one way or another, inspired and influenced my thinking over the years. (I'll identify the sources, in context, soon; for now, see how many lines nag at you in their familiarity.) While the rhyme works, the meter is admittedly awkward - but after reading it aloud a couple of times, I've found a rhythm comfortable to my ears. I dedicate this to my fellow mavericks - you know who you are. 20/23/21 Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain; Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain. No god, no deity will save us; We must become the change we want to see. But how is it possible to enlighten the masses doped with religion and sex and TV? Vagueness is all in the kingdom of the blind: Fools and fanatics, a nation of finks; A scream is better; The great consolation in life is to say what one thinks. I either choose the truth or I am deceit. Truth does not change because it is, or is not. Most people would rather die than think; Give me the storm and tempest of thought! When the need for illusion is deep, Men willingly believe what they wish. Silence gives consent - show the world its own shame: Stick in their throats like a pufferfish! Where There's Smoke, There's... posted Mon, 12 May 2003 17:08:39 -0700 ...Fire! U.S. Sen. Bob Graham told a national television audience Sunday that the Bush administration is hiding intelligence information from the American people to "cover up" failures both before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Graham, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, helped author a House-Senate intelligence report concerning terrorist activity and the role of the nation's intelligence community. ... [T]he Florida Democrat said the report completed in December remains classified because the Bush administration is afraid to release it. Calling the White House "one of the most secretive administrations in American history," Graham... said even testimony given in public has been classified by the White House. Unable to reveal details because it remains classified, Graham said the report provides detailed information that "the American people have been denied" which would help in the continuing fight against terrorists. ... Graham said the adminstration is worried about the Congressional report because, "We have connected the dots." ... Graham alleges Bush 'cover up' Palm Beach Post May 11, 2003 Now, while I accord Senator Graham a lot more credibility than I do some of the folks you'll meet in the following piece (my awe at the uncanny clairvoyance of Mike Ruppert notwithstanding), and I do not believe that BushCo actually ordered 9-11 (if forced at gunpoint to choose between crazy conspiracy theories, I would lean toward LIHOP, not MIHOP), this is nevertheless worth the read in full. As with anything, take what you like from it, and leave the rest: The greatest deception ever launched. That is how Canadian broadcaster Barrie Zwicker described the U.S. government's "official" version of 9/11 at an activist-organized event in San Francisco April 21. ... Zwicker called the government's story of 9/11 "The Big Lie" and likened it to the Reichstag Fire which Adolph Hitler and the Nazis used to launch their murderous attacks against people they deemed undesirable. ...   Zwicker said the 9/11 deception was "perpetrated by powerful special interests to jumpstart the war on terrorism," which he called the "toxic tip" for world domination, and was leveraged by neo-conservatives in the U.S. government who have "hijacked U.S. foreign policy at the behest of Big Arms and Big Oil."   Media critic of Canada's non-profit Vision TV, Zwicker produced the video The Great Deception, which analyzes the events of 9/11 and received the largest response of any television program in Canada.   The event featured the film AfterMath: Unanswered Questions from 9/11... Questions the film addresses include: What did the Bush administration know and when; why did the U.S. military fail to intercept the hijacked planes; what ties did the U.S. military and intelligence agencies have with the terrorists and their supporters? ... Zwicker asked the audience for a show of hands about four questions. How many believe, he asked, that elements of the U.S. government not only knew about but also participated in 9/11? ... A majority-possibly 80 percent-answered affirmatively to Zwicker's first question. ... Mary Schiavo, former inspector general for the Department of Transportation and an aviation disaster attorney who appears in the GNN film, says that in the year 2000, the Air National Guard scrambled fighter jets to intercept U.S. planes which were off course 80 to 100 times. On 9/11, when four planes were hijacked, these procedures and those of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) were not followed. ... Enteen said the Bush administration is creating fear to justify "their repressive legislation" like the USA PATRIOT Act and to perpetuate the war on terrorism and dissent. ... Zwicker called the American people "ignorant of the extent of the deception about 9/11" and urged the media's hypnotic hold on the public be broken so people can begin to "even question" 9/11. Canadian Broadcaster: "U.S. government's 'official' version of 9/11 is the greatest deception ever launched." GoOFF!com May 10, 2003 Dean Supporters, This One's for You! posted Mon, 12 May 2003 17:02:25 -0700 Howard Dean in 2004 Web Portal Support the Troops? Good. Now, Let's Talk About DU posted Mon, 12 May 2003 16:30:28 -0700 Most young Americans who enlist in our all-volunteer armed forces... do not expect to be shot at. ... But what the Pentagon is not saying to the Private Lynches and their families is that they stand a very good chance of dying or being catastrophically disabled precisely because they chose the U.S. military as a route of social mobility. There are serious unintended consequences to our most recent "no contact" or "painless dentistry" wars that contradict the Pentagon's claims of low casualties. The most important is the malady that goes by the name "Gulf War Syndrome," a potentially deadly medical disorder that first appeared among combat veterans of the 1990-1991 Gulf War. Just as the effects of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War were first explained away by the Pentagon as "post-traumatic stress disorder," "combat fatigue," or "shell shock," so the Bush administration is now playing down the potential toxic side effects of the ammunition now being widely used by its armed forces. ... The first Iraq War produced four classes of casualties - killed in action, wounded in action, killed in accidents (including "friendly fire"), and injuries and illnesses that appeared only after the end of hostilities. During 1990 and 1991, some 696,778 individuals served in the Persian Gulf as elements of Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Of these 148 were killed in battle, 467 were wounded in action, and 145 were killed in accidents, producing a total of 760 casualties, quite a low number given the scale of the operations. However, as of May 2002, the Veterans Administration (VA) reported that an additional 8,306 soldiers had died and 159,705 were injured or ill as a result of service-connected "exposures" suffered during the war. Even more alarmingly, the VA revealed that 206,861 veterans, almost a third of General Schwarzkopf's entire army, had filed claims for medical care, compensation, and pension benefits based on injuries and illnesses caused by combat in 1991. After reviewing the cases, the agency has classified 168,011 applicants as "disabled veterans." In light of these deaths and disabilities, the casualty rate for the first Gulf War is actually a staggering 29.3%. Dr. Doug Rokke, a former Army colonel and professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University, was in charge of the military's environmental clean-up following the first Gulf War. Dr. Rokke notes that many thousands of American troops have been based in and around Kuwait since 1990, and according to his calculations, between August 1990 and May 2002, a total of 262,586 soldiers became "disabled veterans" and 10,617 have died. His numbers produce a casualty rate for the whole decade of 30.8%. A significant probable factor in these deaths and disabilities is depleted uranium (DU) ammunition... In 1991, U.S. forces fired a staggering 944,000 DU rounds in Kuwait and Iraq. The Pentagon admits that it left behind at a bare minimum 320 metric tons of DU on the battlefield. One study of Gulf War veterans showed that their children had a higher possibility of being born with severe deformities, including missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems, and fused fingers. ... Young Americans being seduced into the armed forces these days are quite literally making themselves into "cannon fodder," even if they have been able to secure non-combat jobs. Before we begin to celebrate how few American casualties there were in the brief Iraq war, we might pause to consider the future. ... Chalmers Johnson Our Latest Wars Are Killing a Lot More Americans than You Think TomDispatch, via History News Network May 12, 2003 The Creepiest, Sickest Story I've Heard All Day posted Mon, 12 May 2003 15:11:09 -0700 This is actually quite a good piece (as all of Signorile's op/eds are) about GOP hypocrisy, rhetoric, and pandering to the extreme Religious Right - but the opening is what threw me for a loop, and I feel I owe you a caveat: If you're of an especially sensitive nature (or easily upset by the mention of infant death), skip this. Otherwise, don't say I didn't warn you... It's true that Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum's comments last week about homosexuality were more outrageous than even the most garish gay pride parade. In a now infamous Associated Press interview, he defended sodomy laws, equating homosexuality with incest, polygamy, adultery and bigamy. And Santorum later refused to apologize. But the creepiest bit in the article actually had nothing to do with gays or sodomy. It was this buried little factoid: "He and his wife, Karen, have seven children - including, as Santorum puts it, 'the one in Heaven.' Their fourth baby, Gabriel Michael, died in 1996, two hours after an emergency delivery in Karen Santorum's 20th week of pregnancy. The couple took Gabriel's body home to let their three other young children see and hold the baby before burying him..." That's been reported before - it is in fact often repeated in the context of Santorum's crusade against abortion - but having this weirdness brought forth within the context of the guy's condemning other people's behavior is pretty jarring. I mean, how much more perverted can you get than walking around with a dead, five-month-old fetus and having your kids caress it? ... Michelangelo Signorile Santorum's Slip 365gay.com Those Darn Bushisms! posted Mon, 12 May 2003 01:45:05 -0700 Since GrammarGirl seems to have become even more interested in Bush quotes lately, I thought I'd post two of Georgie's quotes I find especially funny. Of course, "funny" doesn't necessarily mean "ha-ha funny." So, these are for you, GG... I hope you're not disappointed that they're not exactly model examples of "incoherence and inanity." In fact, I think their meanings are quite clear.  But I hope you enjoy them all the same. :) Dear Ken, One of the sad things about old friends is that they seem to be getting older - just like you! ... Laura and I value our friendship with you... Your younger friend, George W. Bush." George W. Bush 1997 letter to Enron CEO Kenneth Lay Originally published in USA Today February 26, 2002 [Lay] was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994, and she named him the head of the Governor's Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that's when I first got to know Ken, and worked with Ken, and he supported my candidacy. George W. Bush January 11, 2002 In distancing himself from Enron, President Bush said that CEO Kenneth Lay 'was a supporter' of Democrat Ann Richards in his first race for Texas governor in 1994. But records and interviews with people involved in the Richards campaign show that he was a far bigger Bush supporter. Mr. Lay and his wife gave Mr. Bush three times more money than Ms. Richards in their gubernatorial contest, according to a computer-assisted review of campaign finance reports by The Dallas Morning News. ... Mr. Bush, a Republican, collected $37,500 from the Lays in his successful bid to unseat the Democratic incumbent, state records show. Ms. Richards received $12,500. Lay Gave More To Bush Dallas Morning News January 12, 2002 When Governor Bush, now President Bush, decided to run for the governor's spot, [there was] a little difficult situation. I _ d worked very closely with Ann Richards also, the four years she was governor. But I was very close to George W. and had a lot of respect for him, had watched him over the years, particularly with reference to dealing with his father when his father was in the White House and some of the things he did to work for his father, and so did support him. Ken Lay PBS "Frontline" March 27, 2001 The relationship between Mr. Bush and Mr. Lay is close, and old: the two men got to know each other in the 1980's, when Mr. Lay was a big political supporter of Governor Bush's father, former President George Bush. For a Generous Donor and Bush, the Support Is a Two-Way Street New York Times June 30, 2000 Lay, as chairman of the University of Houston board of regents in the late 1980s, tried to bring the senior Bush's presidential library to his school. George W. Bush was involved in setting up the library, which eventually went to College Station, Texas, instead. Lay also was co-chairman of the host committee for the Republican National Convention when it was held in Houston in 1992. George W. Bush played an active role in his father's unsuccessful campaign for a second term that year. Bush's friendship with Enron chief dates back to late 1980s Associated Press January 12, 2002 The president also does not recall specifics of his dealings with Enron, and was unaware his oil company had joint ventures with Enron. White House communications director Dan Bartlett March 5, 2002 A few weeks after the U.S. presidential election in 1988, [Argentina's minister of public works, Rodolfo Terragno] received a phone call from a failed Texas oilman named George W. Bush, who happened to be the son of the president-elect. "He told me he had recently returned from a campaign tour with his father," the Argentine minister recalls. The purpose of the call was clear: to push Terragno to accept the bid from Enron. Don't Cry for Bush, Argentina Mother Jones March/April, 2000 Now, aren't those funny? FLASH: Disney Picks Up Michael Moore! posted Sun, 11 May 2003 21:58:58 -0700 No, I'm not on drugs - and I don't do fiction: Filmmaker Michael Moore, fresh from his Oscar night bashing of President Bush, will be financed in his next movie project _ explaining how Osama bin Laden was enriched by the Bush family _ by none other than Walt Disney, reports Daily Variety. Disney subsidiary Miramax is providing millions in bridge financing for "Fahrenheit 911," Moore's documentary on what happened to the U.S. since Sept. 11. The movie is set for release before the 2004 presidential election. The director claims he will document on film how the "senior Bush kept his ties with the bin Laden family up until two months after Sept. 11." Mel Gibson's Icon Productions abruptly dropped the financing deal it made right after Moore won the Oscar for "Bowling for Columbine" and assailed Bush's Iraqi invasion. Miramax is stopping short from saying the studio will be the movie's distributor. Disney to finance Moore's Bush-bash Gibson drops project, Miramax picks up 'Fahrenheit 911' WorldNet Daily May 11, 2003 If this pans out, the fundies are going to go ballistic! You may (or may not) remember that... In June of 1997, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in Dallas voted overwhelmingly to boycott the Walt Disney Company to protest the company's gay friendly policies. The boycott, originally aimed solely at Disney theme parks and stores, was expanded on the floor to include the whole of the Disney empire, including movie studios, cable TV channels, book and magazine publishers, trade publications, newspapers, television and radio stations and the ABC network. Since then, smaller evangelical denominations in Florida and radical fringe groups such as Operation Rescue have lent their support to the Disney boycott. The boycott has had absolutely no impact on Disney's earnings according to industry analysts. The company reported record revenues of $22.5 billion in 1997. Disney Boycott and Gay Days Protests The Data Lounge Like, that really worked, eh? Well, I'll tell yuh whut: If the Disney Corp. has suffered from anything, it's this royally-screwed economy, specifically the near-death of the American tourism industry. And whose fault do you think that is? Rhetorical question. Anyway, say what you like about the Disney Evil Empire (death coverups and - gasp! - smoking bans aside) - but Diz has remained one of the stellar role models in the big-business world for inclusion and diversity. The fundies hate that. And they can protest their bigoted little asses off about anything they want - Michael Moore included - but the simple truth is that the hard-right-wingers already hate Disney - not just for the Gay Days thing, but over TV's "Ellen," all the "sexual imagery" their twisted little minds conjured up in films like Aladdin, The Little Mermaid and The Lion King, and a hundred other "atrocities" - so how are they going to "hurt" a mega-giant they're (supposedly) already boycotting? Like Moore himself, Disney has nothing to lose! And - like Moore himself - Disney is the only independent media giant there is - meaning, The Mouse is not owned by defense contractor. Anyway... This news is sweet. Of course, it's not sweet to Matt Drudge, that bastion of right-wing drivel who fancies himself a real newsman; it's obvious his take on the story is designed to enrage his fellow neo-cons and other frothing reactionaries. Of course, Matt is probably still stinging over the cancellation of his short-lived ABC Radio show. Poor baby. P.S. I never did like Mel Gibson, either. Blue eyes or none, he's an anti-choice, pro-death penalty, gay-bashing revisionist. And he's not even an Australian - he just plays one in the movies. Achtung, Omaha! Get Yer Gas Masks Out - A Hot Wind's A-Comin'! posted Sun, 11 May 2003 01:29:21 -0700 As if Junior wasn't (weren't?) pleased enough with himself for his little aircraft-carrier stunt costing us taxpayers a million bucks, he's going to stick it to the little guy again: He's due to appear Monday at an Omaha plastics factory, which will have to shut down in order to roll out the red carpet for the Boy King: Airlite, which will shut down for its first shift and part of the second shift to provide a photogenic backdrop for Bush's speech, will be the Monday afternoon stop on a two-day swing by Bush to pressure senators to support a large tax cut as the measure heads to the Senate floor. Bush will stand near a production line that makes polystyrene containers for shipping steak, vaccines and other goods. ... Bush Visit Could Cost Some Omaha Workers a Day's Pay Washington Post May 11, 2003 Workers can either lose their pay for the day, or make up the lost workday the following Saturday. That, in a word, sucks. O'course, this is just another of Junior's staged stops on his cross-country crusade campaign to shove his doomed-to-fu screw-up-the-nation tax cut. But we won't talk about that, because it just gets me all hot under the collar.  (Is there anybody who doesn't understand why I - and everybody else with working grey matter in this country - is so dead-set against Bush's tax-cut plan? If so, tell me - leave a comment - and I'll expain it in 25 words or less.) This little photo-op also reminds me of a couple of other staged Georgie Love Fests - the leaked details of which would be an embarrassment to any legitimate president - so, of course, Georgie wasn't fazed a bit. Let's flash back, shall we? At first look, the stage for President Bush's speech on the economy in St. Louis was set perfectly. The White House, long known for its catchy, attention-grabbing backdrops, had designed a gigantic banner made to look like stacked boxes stamped with "MADE IN U.S.A." ... The problem was that the real boxes surrounding the president at the scene of his speech _ a small shipping and receiving plant, JS Logistics _ should have read: "NOT Made in U.S.A." ... Next to the banner and stacked around his podium were hundreds of boxes labeled "Made in China" _ and Taiwan and Hong Kong. Someone apparently became aware of the mixed message, for white stickers and brown packing tape were mysteriously taped over the true origin of the real boxes that travel through the trucking and warehouse business daily. ... White House officials traveling with the president today said the tape job came as a complete surprise to them. Backdrop Snafu in Bush Speech ABC News January 22, 2003 Fun stuff, eh? Okay, get ready to get riled: The theme involves working Americans. Visually, this will involve a sea of hard hats, which our construction and contractor and building groups are working very hard to provide. But the Speaker's office was very clear in saying that they do not need people in suits. If people want to participate - AND WE DO NEED BODIES - they must be DRESSED DOWN, appear to be REAL WORKER types, etc. We plan to have hard hats for people to wear. Other groups are providing waiters/waitresses, and other types of workers. Slate Whopper of the Week Memo from Russ Freyman, associate director for media relations National Association of Manufacturers soliciting participants for staged publicity photo to rally support for Republican tax-cut plan First published in the Washington Post March 9, 2001 You think I make this stuff up? Florida Shunts Off Foster Kids, with Tragic Results posted Sat, 10 May 2003 22:57:06 -0700 Ironically, April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month. Child protection officials placed three children in the home of a North Port man who had a lengthy criminal arrest record which included sex offenses. After Mervin Kitnurse, 36, got custody of the niece and twin nephews last summer, he struck them every day with a switch, a hose or a shoe, and sexually molested the girl, according to North Port police. ... Family Continuity Program, the Pinellas County agency which placed the children in Kitnurse's home, only did a local background check, missing a string of arrests in south Florida. ... Social Workers Place Kids With Southwest Florida Sex Offender Associated Press May 10, 2003 The story is even more disturbing when you learn that just three months ago... In a stark change of philosophy, Florida's social services director said Thursday the state should put new emphasis on keeping families together and remove fewer children from parents accused of abuse or neglect. ... Gov. Jeb Bush last year chose [DCF Secretary Jerry Regier] to replace Kathleen Kearney, a former judge who was considered an advocate of "family safety," the philosophy that favors protecting children even when it means removing them from their home. Regier insisted his reforms would be implemented "without lowering any standard of safety." Children still would be removed from dangerously abusive and neglectful parents. But his plan for changing which calls to Florida's abuse hotline merit investigation will get careful scrutiny. As recently as 1999, the Florida Legislature expanded the number of allegations that prompt mandatory abuse investigations, upset over DCF's failure to catch obvious signs of abuse in a 6-year-old Lake County girl who was killed by her father. Regier says some requirements could be relaxed. ... DCF policy shift aims to keep families together St. Petersburg Times February 7, 2003 And just one month before that... Even as he promises to hire more child welfare workers and pay them better, Gov. Jeb Bush is pushing to put more of the responsibility of safeguarding kids in the hands of local agencies and police. Bush used his annual press interviews Thursday to promote taking key child welfare duties away from the Department of Children and Families, leaving that agency to do mostly administrative work. Community agencies could do the job better, he said, because they think differently. ... That means shifting more work to contractors ... Despite remarks he made at his inauguration on Tuesday that adding caseworkers will not solve Florida's social problems, on Thursday, Bush said he does support DCF Secretary Jerry Regier's plea for more money to hire more case workers and to pay them better. ... Bush seeks to ease DCF's load: Gov. wants local agencies responsible for safeguarding kids Gannett News Service January 9, 2003 As much as we might like to hope that the Kitnurse story is an isolated case, it's not; the truth is that the Family Continuity Program faces a long list of alleged charges: A state-funded agency sent children into abusive foster homes, falsified records, failed to report new cases of abuse and allowed foster parents to swap children, according to a lawsuit filed this week. And when workers at another agency complained, their employer fired them, the lawsuit says. The lawsuit alleges that the Family Continuity Program, which handles foster care and other programs in Pinellas and Pasco counties, violated some of the most basic rules for ensuring the safety of abused and neglected children. That's an explosive charge, because the Family Continuity Program works under contract for the Department of Children and Families, the state agency that this year came under a firestorm of criticism for many similar problems. ... Agency fostered abuse of kids, lawsuit alleges St. Petersburg Times October 17, 2002 What makes this even more appalling is that one of Gov. Bush's prime reasons for taking kids out of the state system and putting them in the hands of community agencies was, supposedly, to ease the caseload on DCF workers: Billed as a solution to the state's perpetually troubled social services agency, a private organization in Pinellas and Pasco counties is supposed to make life safer for foster children. But the workers are swamped. Staff at the Family Continuity Program, hired two years ago to work with foster children and abused kids, is "consistently working 50- to 60-hour weeks" without overtime, according to a state Department of Children and Families report. ... The troubles cited in the report have a familiar ring for the Department of Children and Families... When children have died under the department's supervision, later investigations often have turned up a troubling pattern of overworked staff, poorly maintained case files, and crucial information that leaked through holes in the system. But this time, the DCF is making the criticism instead of taking it. ... State criticizes private program for foster kids St. Petersburg Times February 13, 2002 Now, here's the kicker: The State of Florida has sub-contracted child protective services to private companies. This means that, instead of channeling state funds back into a state agency and improving that agency's services (as Gov. Bush indicated he would do by allotting funds for more caseworkers and better pay), Florida is shirking its responsibility to its children - and funneling taxpayer dollars into a privatized network. Why? Let's talk money: Privatization has its roots in economics as well as ideologies. Economically, it is widely believed that the private sector offers cost and administrative efficiencies not available in the public sector. Ideologically, privatization provides a rationale for decentralized government and local responsiveness to social service needs. ... CBC Foster Care and Related Services Implementation (Procurement/Contracting) in Pinellas and Pasco Counties (.PDF) Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) The real question is this: How can a private company provide better services unless it receives sufficient funding from the state - which Florida has never provided for its own state agency in the first place? Your Assigned Weekend Reading posted Sat, 10 May 2003 17:45:31 -0700 Want to know what we're doing wrong - and why we're not winning yet? Cal Berkeley professor, and author of Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, George Lakoff explains it all for you: Liberals have no idea that language is not neutral, it is framed - they walk into these things all the time. So, liberals have the idea that if you just tell people the facts, people will be rational, and reach the right conclusion. ... They won't! ... People won't reach the appropriate conclusions. It is very important that the facts be understood in some moral framework. The conservatives have understood that, and they frame everything they have in a moral framework.... I don't want to say that all conservative communication is deceptive. ... But there is something in the worldview that leads to seeing deception as a reasonable thing to do. It has to do with the idea of ... if you are fighting evil, you can use evil to fight evil - you can use fire to fight fire. The assumption is that, you know, if you are out there in a world against evil-doers, you may have to do some not very nice things. That is part of the conservative worldview. So they see liberals as doing something that they believe is simply wrong and immoral by their perspective. They can fight it anyway they can. Deceptive practices are all part of the game. ... The conservatives understand that language is framed - that it is not neutral, that it expresses ideas, that ideas are important, that ideas govern the way people act as well as the way they think. When they put out news releases or have interviews, they have learned to frame things very carefully. ... Conservatives have discovered ... that everything has a point of view. That even the idea of episodic news, where you report the news without its context, that is a political decision on the part of the news room. That political decisions are made all the time, and they have gone out and started to make those decisions. They will put in their context on their stories. They will frame it in all sorts of ways by using appropriate language, and Fox News is completely slanted toward a conservative world-view... Left Out By Right Rhetoric TomPaine.com May 8, 2003 And here is Part 2: Look at the way [Bush] did the State of the Union address. That address was very carefully crafted. What you have in the first part of it is examples of how he cares, and how conservatives care. Now, all of the examples are deceptive. So, for example, they say, "We are going to give $3 billion additional to AIDS in Africa." Well, they didn't say where the money is coming from. The money is coming from inoculations and drugs for other diseases in the Third World. They didn't say, "We are going to take money away from other health problems in the Third World and give it to AIDS in Africa." So it sounded as if they were going to give the $3 billion - as if they had it to give. They are taking it from somewhere else. They said, "We are going to give $1.5 billion to fuel cells so we can clean the air." What they didn't tell you is that the $1.5 billion is going to support the getting [of the] hydrogen from coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear stuff. So that it is going to these industries. And then where is it coming from? It is coming out of money for developing alternative clean fuels! ... Conservatives have spent 40 years developing a conceptual system that they can all pretty much agree on. Forty years ago, they were in disarray, they disagreed with each other, they hated each other, they fought. They have spent a lot of time on their think tanks with their intellectuals, developing an overall approach to conservatism and to conservative politics and morality that they largely agree on, and they have developed a language for that.... It is not easy, because you really have to do a lot of long-term work. But does that mean you can't fight it at all? No. You certainly can, but there are certain things you have to do... The Moral Imperative TomPaine.com May 9, 2003 More Good News: GOP Backs Down on Patriot Act! posted Sat, 10 May 2003 17:19:33 -0700 It's not a repeal of the whole invasive bloody thing (yet!), but at least you can exhale a bit come 2005... Senate Republicans backed down yesterday from an effort to make permanent the Patriot Act's sweeping anti-terrorism powers, clearing the way for passage of a less divisive measure that would still expand the government's ability to spy on foreign terrorist suspects in the United States. In an agreement finalized over the last week, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dropped his effort to extend provisions of the Patriot Act whose broad powers to investigate and track terrorists suspects were scheduled to expire in 2005. ... The day's developments represented a key test of the balancing act between fighting terrorism and protecting civil liberties, and the result delivered a mixed verdict as many lawmakers expressed reservations about giving law enforcement officials too much power to fight terrorism. ... The overwhelming passage of the measure masked intense behind-the-scenes maneuverings in recent weeks over the powers that the federal government had been given to fight terrorism. Hatch led a push beginning last month to attach to the bill an amendment that would have repealed time restrictions built into the Patriot Act of 2001. ... Hatch's effort to try to make the Patriot Act permanent set off immediate criticism from civil liberties groups and lawmakers, including some Republicans, who said that Congress needed more time to scrutinize how the Patriot Act was working - and whether law enforcement officials were abusing it - before revisiting it. ... As part of a tentative deal reached last week and finalized over the last several days, Republicans on the judiciary committee agreed not to seek a repeal of the Patriot Act's sunset provisions at yesterday's vote on the terrorism bill if Democrats pulled some of their own amendments that the Republicans considered objectionable. ... Senate GOP backs down on Patriot Act New York Times via Marin Independent Journal May 9, 2003 Good News: Estrada May Bork Himself posted Sat, 10 May 2003 16:14:20 -0700 Miguel Estrada Wants Name Withdrawn From Nomination, CNBC Says! Huh? Who? What? In a nutshell, lawyer Miguel Estrada was nominated by George W. Bush for a federal judgeship, and Senate Democrats have been filibustering to block Estrada's nomination. Now it appears that Estrada has finally given up hope of donning a black robe. It's no secret that Bush has been trying to "stack the courts with ultra-conservative ideologues." And - shockingly, if not surprisingly - in early March (and obviously in response to the Estrada block), Bush called for a permanent "ban on judicial filibusters and a mandatory vote on all court nominations he and future presidents send to the Senate." Talk about trying to subvert the system! Never mind that the Repubs are no strangers to filibustering - or that Congressional Republicans killed more than a third (167 out of 377) of President Clinton's nominations as too liberal for their liking.*** Of course, the opportunistic and hypocritical GOP have cited the Dems' block of Honduran-born Estrada as "racist" - as if anybody (besides a Republican) is going to believe that the GOP is the "inclusive party." The truth is that the Estrada nomination is a racially and ethnically motivated straw man set up by the GOP. By naming a minority candidate, the Repubs knew this was a no-brainer win: They figured the Dems would give him a free pass solely on the basis of ethnicity - and if they blocked the nomination, the Repubs would get to cry foul and charge the Dems with racism. It's like saying those who opposed Clarence Thomas did so because Thomas is black, when everyone - especially Republicans - know the real reasons he never should have reached the highest court in the nation: You don't have to be white to be an off-the-scale right-wing crackpot. Either way, the Repubs are trying to court the Hispanic vote - and if Estrada is blocked, they get the added bonus of telling Hispanic voters, "See? We tried - but the Democrats are anti-Latino!" (Yeah, right - and so is the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.) Only a fool would buy the GOP's crap: They scream about racism when the opportunity arises, yet scream even more about "racial quotas." And (and at the risk of using a loaded "color" word in this sentence) talk about calling the kettle black: Looks like the Repubs have conveniently forgotten all about submarining Clinton's nominations of Judges James Beaty, Jr., James Wynn, Andre Davis, and Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals; how do they explain shooting down four different African-Americans when two of the five vacancies were deemed "judicial emerg