Selfishness Writ Large

Our President's selfishness and political self-interest is harming the country.

Atrios has the details here.

The rub is, if Bush calls for all Americans to sacrifice and join his crusade, the first two enlistees he will be asked about are his daughters Barbara and Jenna. But he's too selfish to call for a greater sacrifice by all Americans to win the war in Iraq, it might put his family in harm's way.

.game.set.match.

The Gazette - Telegraphing its Bias

The Gazette letters section has really sucked since the election. I was actually quite satisfied with their minimal bravery in printing letters from leftys and such prior to that fateful day. They may have had one of those attacks of conscience that are so very rare in Republicans. But the editors and owners have healed up nicely (for them), and the number of letters from our side have been few and far between since then. This unfortunately leaves plenty of space for our neighbors who need to change their radio dial a little more often. Let's excercise those index fingers, folks!

In the interest of fairness, here's a letter from today, edited for truth, and left chock full of the bigoted generalizations that are just A-OK for the Gazette to print:

WHERE’S THE OUTCRY?

Quran being misused to justify atrocities

One of the problems with Muslim Christian terrorists is that no matter how disgusting an act they have committed, it can always be excused by some innocuous, vague, indecipherable phrase in the Quran Bible. And the Quran Bible is filled with such phrases.

How many Qurans Bibles have been desecrated with the blood of Muslims Christians kneeling in worship when a mosque church has been blown up by other Muslims Christians? (anyone ever heard of Northern Ireland? - ed.) This act is often excused in the name of defeating the infidels and nonbelievers heathens and atheists.

More Muslims Christians around the world have been killed by other Muslims Christians in the name of Islam Jesus than Muslims Christians have been killed by other religious groups — justifiable in the name of Islam Jesus and words in the Quran Bible.

Ross Moon

Colorado Springs

Thanks for your views, Ross! - Z.

Not Good For The Gander

In arguing for the end of the filibuster, many Republicans mention that it is "undemocratic" or "gives the minority power over the majority." In the aftermath of Gov. Owens setting a Colorado record with 40+ vetoes this year and President Bush threatening to veto the stem cell research bill that will get a majority of votes in the Senate (and already has in the House), one wonders where the Republicans are claiming that the veto, by requiring a supermajority to override, is undemocratic. Making matters worse, one Senator is threatening to filibuster the bill. Maybe I'm flawed for not seeing the distinction between the more common historic occurrence of filibustering bills compared to the rarer appointment filibuster. Thus I still feel any Republican filibustering is hypocrisy by itself.

Now, unlike these Republicans, I understand that the United States isn't a democracy. The majority is checked by a variety of methods including the veto, the filibuster, and the judiciary. Even though right now the veto is hurting Democratic policy, I respect the role of the veto in our political system just as I do the filibuster. Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to lack any basic respect for the United States political system, too intent on passing their policy at any cost. Now THAT is unamerican. Thankfully, it looks like the American people are slowly realizing this and the political winds are shifting.

Hidden Agenda

As sure as the sun rises in the east (oh please, don't let Karl get any ideas about that), it's given that the thing we are accused of by the right wing is the exact thing they are doing in spades, in the open, with no shame. The lie that homosexuals have a hidden agenda and are trying to jam it down the right wingers' throats is just one example.

Now, some homosexuals may want to jam some things down some wingers' throats, but others handle that issue much more competently than I, so I'll take a pass. Regarding gay marriage: the morally consistent position, that a conservative should want, is for people to strengthen the social compact by getting married. That is obvious. You'd think they would want more people to revel in that sanctified act, and would want to encourage a stable society by encouraging families of all shapes and forms. To me this can only be a good thing. But it's obvious they really have no such desire, and their hypocrisy on this issue screams out.

The hidden agenda that's getting more notice and is growing by the day has become clear to me: pharmicists who don't want to dispense legally prescribed drugs to their patients. This is part and parcel with the anti-science, religious fundamentalist leanings of our President, and starts to make the country look more like Afghanistan every day. (Is there some Newtonian Law of Democracies that for each democracy spreading action, there is an equal and opposite democracy inhibiting action? That seems to be the pattern with this administration.)

This fundamentalist Christian trick is deeply troubling, and has far more potential for harming our society than gay marriage does. These oh-so-conscientious Christians are jamming their agenda down the throats of their patients - everyday folks like you can me. Aaron Brown aired a good story by Jonathan Freed on CNN last night. But as Aaron is want to do, he left a few questions unanswered.

The most obvious question is what the hell are these people doing in a highly trained professional field with strict ethical guidelines when they have no intention of fulfulling their duties? If I was a sanitation engineer and didn't want to pick up people's trash, I'd probably be doing something else within a matter of days. Most likely with the insistence of my boss (ahem). Secondly, and everyone here knows this answer: what would the reaction be of wingers if lefty pharmicists started pushing natural organic medications that didn't allow for massive profits to Big PHARMA and were developed in nature or with very little chemical manipulation? Been there, done that.

But finally, to take this theory to its logical conclusion, what if a wave of Christian Scientists headed for our pharmocoligical programs, went out into the world, and then summarily refused to dispense any medicine to anyone, because this is the moral imperative of their religion? I'm sure Doctor Senator Bill Frist™ would be wracked with guilt.

Now put these together with the other pieces of the puzzle: Janice Rogers Brown to roll back the new deal, industry executives "fixing" environmental reports, and Bush waiting for enough evidence on global warming. Together they are the agenda of the radical right wing - not-so-hidden, destructive to our democracy, disdainful of the world, and dismissive of science.

There truly is no rest for the weary.

The Democrats and Howard Dean

The Rude Pundit says it best.

Note: NOT for the faint of heart.

The Pardon

All this wallowing in Watergate has brought back many memories. It's given the press an excuse to run a lot of the news reports and stories from that time. And it has also shown the depths of depravity to which those die-hard Nixonites would go to try to justify their crimes and rationalize the war in Viet Nam, the bombing and genocide in Cambodia, and the use of the FBI as a personal spy service for the White House. The shortsightedness of the American public will surely help them in their task. (Note to Ben Stein: you should've kept your profile as an affable game show host and not exposed your vicious lying self for what it really is. That constitution thing is still a little over your head, eh?)

But one thing struck me when they showed a clip of Gerald Ford, as he just took over the Presidency, pardoning that crook Richard Nixon. Here's the text:

I, Gerald R. Ford, president of the United States [...] do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon onto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States, which he, Richard Nixon, has committed, or may have committed, or taken part in, during the period from July 20, 1969, through August 9, 1974.

Notice anything funny? Like the beginning date? (I highlighted it in case any Republicans read this post). Everyone can assume this was done very carefully, in consultation with Nixon's lawyers. I'm sure they wouldn't have specified that date if they didn't have to. There must be a reason.

Unfortunately, this will be a job for historians, as the news value is likely low. But where there's smoke there's fire. And when historians do find out what Nixon was doing in the days immediately after he took office - spying on war protesteers, abusing the IRS, monitoring the civil rights movement - I hope Liddy, Buchanan, Stein, Noonan, et. al are around to try to explain those assaults on the Constitution. I want to see them squirm again.

Enough

These data losses, which will ruin thousands of people's credit histories, are getting real old real fast. I have an account with them.

My former employer also lost my employee data. A duh-rector had it on her PC in her unlocked car. I haven't been there for 5 years, but it was still laying around someone's portable system. And she became a director how?

Banks are trying to improve things, but for every step ahead in new technology, there's a major data loss or another company sending your data to India, Brazil, or even Egypt (pdf). Don't get me wrong: I love my fellow man, I just don't want him to have my credit history on his kitchen table at home.

So now I'm going to take all my credit card apps - reply to them with questions about the company's data security, and mail them back using the prepaid envelope. I'm also going to ask my lenders where my data is and if it is secure. I will also hassle any new telemarketing callers those same questions about their data security procedures.

I hope these people can take the hint.

Project much?

Our President speaking today, never with a lack of irony, lays out his views on democracy to our neighbors in the hemisphere (and inadvertently tells the truth):

In the new Americas of the 21st century, bringing a better life to our people requires choosing between two competing visions. One offers a vision of hope -- it is founded on representative government, integration into the world markets, and a faith in the transformative power of freedom in individual lives. The other seeks to roll back the democratic progress of the past two decades by playing to fear, pitting neighbor against neighbor, and blaming others for their own failures to provide for their people. The choices we make will determine which vision will define the Americas our children inherit -- we must make tough decisions today to ensure a better tomorrow.

Sheesh, how does he get through these with a straight face?

Good News

probably not new news, but this is good news wrt the Bolton travesty -

Dear Worthy Constituent:

Thank you for sharing your concerns with me regarding the President's nomination of Undersecretary of State John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

[snip...]

It is unclear when the nomination confirmation vote will take place in the full Senate. Having reviewed all the information on this nomination, I wanted to let you know that I cannot in good conscience vote to confirm Mr. Bolton for this important position.

Sincerely,

Ken Salazar
United States Senator


And I wish to thank you, Senator Salazar, for your common sense on this issue.

Reality Bites

The President is urged to face reality by those of his own party.

The President said: "I'm pleased with the progress."

Cheney: the insurgency "is in the last throes."

Let's look up throes. Nope, he's wrong.

Now for the advice, from some Republicans who are looking at the electoral calendar:

Several Republicans questioned that evaluation. "I cannot say with any confidence that that is accurate," said Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), a member of the House International Relations Committee. "I think it's impossible to know how close we are to the insurgency being overcome."

[John] McCain said Bush needs to carefully balance his reassuring statements to a troubled nation with frank talk about the arduous and unpredictable future. "It's a long, hard struggle and very gradually maybe we are making progress," McCain said. "There are tough times ahead." (my emphases - Z)

Will the President and his administration listen? No, his accountability moment has passed. Will other Repbublicans, who will be in DC long past the regime changes of 2006 and 2008, be forced to admit reality and push for changes in policy on this national security mess? I hope so. Will Republicans be known for the next few generations as the party that squandered our military strength, mistreated our vets, and blew giant holes in the economy? They should be.

As Drudge says, developing................