Those Wascally Democwats!

One of the greatest satisfactions in life is watching someone get hoist on their own petard; I think of it as a kinetic flavor of hypocrisy. So when I saw a promising situation unfold on Fox News last week, I couldn't help but smile.

A few days before the general public became aware of the great Gatorade Terrorist Plot of August 2006, British authorities quietly informed the White House that arrests were imminent. True to form, the Bush/Cheney White House swung into action and prepared to exploit the as-yet-unpublicized news for as much political mileage as they could. From behind the portable missile battery that guards his ranch in Wyoming, Vice President Dick Cheney uncharacteristically took time out from his holiday to conduct a conference call with the press, during which he blasted the Democrats for being "weak on terror" and giving comfort to "al Qaeda types" - laying the psychological groundwork for the news he was planning to break in the coming days.

By the time the arrests in London, the White House had set in motion the Republican propaganda machine, so that Fox News and other complicit mouthpieces could hit the ground running with loaded talking points and "TERROR IN THE SKIES" slug lines the moment the arrests became public. These "useful idiots" in the media pontificate about their journalistic ethics, but the fact remains that they all spout the same Republican talking points on the same day.

In their zeal to outdo each other in criticizing the Democrats' supposed "softness" on terror, it's perhaps inevitable that a few of them would make a meal of it. None, however, can hold a candle to The Weekly Standard's William Kristol, who released this beauty:

The Bugs Bunny Democrats
They're all carrot and no stick.
by William Kristol
08/21/2006, Volume 011, Issue 46

The content of the article doesn't really matter; the important thing is that the title is a snappy sound-bite/slogan that can be repeated during the sixty seconds that network news devotes to politics, or that can be plastered on the bottom third of the screen when you appear on Fox News (Kristol is a regular).

But think about this for a minute: if you look beyond the fact that Bugs Bunny is, yes indeed, a bunny rabbit - and as such can be occasionally seen eating the odd carrot - is calling someone Bugs Bunny really what you want to do?

In nearly every single Bugs Bunny cartoon, Bugs ends up defeating his opponent- through a combination of wit, humor, good planning, skill, and mental agility.

Kristol's criticism of Democrats as being like Bugs Bunny implies that he thinks Republicans are just the opposite: the "anti-Bugs", if you like. And Warner Bros has kindly provided for us a character who fits this description: Elmer J. Fudd.

George W. Bush, hot on the trail of those wascally terrorists.

I have to agree with Kristol: Elmer Fudd is a brilliant metaphor for Bush and the Republicans on a number of levels:

• Bush and Fudd are both simplistic morons with a single-minded obsession on pursuing a foe whose importance they have inflated as a means of justifying their ridiculous (and often hilarious) actions
  
  
• Fudd and Bush both have speech impediments and frequently commit dreadful social blunders

• Fudd is obsessed with guns yet an inept hunter; he frequently shoots himself or innocent bystanders in his fanatical rapture. While hunting cage-bred birds from the safety of his car, Vice President Dick Cheney shot a 78-year-old man in the face.

• While everyone else can see the fuse sticking out of the cake, Fudd is staring cross-eyed in the wrong direction, mumbling one of his homilies and plotting how to divide up the prize. Think Iraq.

• When frustrated as his inability to make progress, Fudd blasts away indiscriminately with his shotgun. When Bush's approval ratings fall, we suddenly start getting terror alerts.
  
  

And finally:

• Fudd's downfall is usually his own making. Were he only able to keep his mouth shut, his gun holstered, and think before taking action, Fudd might stand a chance of actually capturing his prize.

And Bill Kristol might have a chance of coming up with a decent metaphor.

Hypocrites Du Jour

An interesting day today, one sure to go down in the annals of hypocrisy:

First up, we have professional pinhead and lying loudmouth Rush Limbaugh. Back in October 1995 he was in fine form, railing against durgs and those who use them:

Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.
-- Rush Limbaugh, October 5 1995 show transcript

Can you guess what happened to Limbaugh today?. Let him dig his hole a little bit deeper first, before you make your guess:

What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use, too many whites are getting away with drug sales, too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.
-- ibid.

Ready to find out?

Today, Rush Limbaugh was arrested on drug charges, specifically fraud to conceal illegally obtaining prescription painkillers. We're not talking about faking a bad back in order to score a few pills from a sympathetic quack, we're talking about serial doctor shopping to the tune of 4,350 pills in one 47 day period.

Limbaugh's mugshot, shopping list

This case has been brewing for a few years; the highlight of course was Limbaugh's October 10, 2003 on-air announcement that he was entering rehab to overcome his addiction to OxyContin and Lorcet. Today's arrest and immediate release was part of a plea deal in which he will avoid incarceration if he continues his rehab, pays a token fine, and stays out of trouble for 18 months.

Hybrid Hypocrisy

Gas prices in the USA have gome from around $2/gal to over $3/gal this year. Everyone has their own opinion as to the reason for such an increase; personally I believe it's no coincidence that over the same period of time Exxon/Mobil made a record three-month profit of $9.92 billion.

The recent public outrage has naturally been followed by an avalanche of politicians attempting to use it to their own advantage.

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R) and a few other political hacks held a press conference at a BP gas station in Washington D.C. today. Touting their support for alternative energy sources and hybrid cars, they promised to investigate the matter thoroughly, and proudly pontificated on their own responsible approach to energy conservation.

Such support apparently only exists as a show, however: shortly after driving away from the press conference in a hybrid vehicle, Hastert was caught abandoning it for his gas-guzzling SUV to complete the three block trip back to his office:

Rapture

"And when Allah alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the hereafter shrink, and when those besides Him are mentioned, lo! they are joyful."

The Holy Qur'an, The Companions [39.45]

The Man-Beasts of Mass Destruction

There were a number of "What the #$%@#$%?" moments in President Bush's State of the Union speech this week.

Firstly, we have the announcement - straight out of left field - that Bush seeks to eliminate America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil. This is bizarre, because virtually every part of Bush's business and political career has been defined by cozy relationships with oil companies.

Recall that in 2003, Congress's investigatory arm declared that an energy task force, led by Vice President Cheney, relied for outside advise primarily on "petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas, electricity industry representatives and lobbyists," while seeking limited input from academic experts, environmentalists and policy groups. Even after 9/11, Bush was determined to tie America's future to fossil fuels.

An acquaintance of mine who works in the Pentagon and is privy to much of the inner workings of the administration nevertheless reported that this announcement took most of Washington by surprise. To me, the lack of consultation and planning that occurred indicates that Bush is not sincere about this commitment -- but remember that lack of consultation and planning turned out to be the signature of an impending massive invasion of Iraq.

Despite being involved with it his entire life, Bush has a history of being confused about foreign oil:

I've been talking to Vicente Fox, the new president of Mexico... I
know him... to have gas and oil sent to U.S.... so we'll not depend on foreign oil. - Presidential debate, Oct. 3, 2000

The question remains: is Bush serious about eliminating dependence Middle Eastern oil, or is this merely election-year rhetoric? My guess is that this will go into the same bucket of empty promises as "I'm a uniter, not a divider"; "I want to be known as the 'education' president'"; and "I'm a fiscal conservative."


Much more bizarre, however, was when Bush waded into the field of science:

Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research... creating human-animal hybrids...

Where did that come from? Perhaps, in a semi-conscious state after choking on another pretzel, Bush watched The Island of Dr. Moreau and woke up believing it was the Discovery Channel? Pray he doesn't start watching the Sci-Fi channel, which earlier this year featured a truly terrible/hilarious movie:

When he began fusing human and shark DNA, his colleagues laughed at him. Now his creation is taking his revenge, they're not laughing any more.

So if Bush had been watching that movie we might have been treated to something like this in the State of the Union address:

We have recently learned that Iran has sought to reconstitute its program of cross-breeding sharks with terrorists and arming them with weapons of mass destruction.

If that sounds too ludicrous even for a bad Hollywood movie, think again:

Drs. Nathan and Marla Collins are shark experts working on a top-secret government project: To protect our shorelines by creating controlled shark patrols. When their project is sabotaged, the mutant great white sharks are released into American waterways. Out among the general population the smartest of the sharks, Red Dog, carries a neutron bomb on a mission to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge.

Z-grade movies aside, Bush's desire to thwart valid, scientifically sound medical research reveals he is wading well out of his intellectual depth. An acquaintance of mine wrote an opinion on this subject that was so perfect I shan't try to top it:

Transgenic pigs/goats/cows/whatever have the possibility of creating entirely new classes of drugs that are highly targeted and specific. Chimeric animal studies are beginning to provide fruitful basic research on all sorts of physiological systems.

The Bush administration's desire to halt work in these areas is akin to their desire to quash stem cell research, reinstate school prayer, push intelligent design, and pretend global warming isn't a result of human activities - it's all driven by emotional (religious) and political ($$$) concerns.

I'm coming to believe more and more that the current geopolitical situation is shaping up more along the lines of the Reformation (with a pan-religious break between fundamentalists and 'protestants'[realists]) than the clash of civilizations crap we're being fed.

We have a status quo driven administration that seeks to return the U.S. to past levels of glory through new conquests and overt demonstrations of power and control instead of forging new visions and goals suited to the new world order.

With the bulk of the populace reacting childishly to fear, uncertainty, and doubt, it's no wonder that the current administration won't treat the people of the U.S. as adults by being bold in their ideas and complex in their execution: it would erode their base.

It seems that the only thing left for the U.S. to do now to complete this arc is to invade the Falklands.

Fast Rewind Hypocrisy

A late update on our favorite hypocrite Tom DeLay -- the Republican Congressman who promised:

My defense in [the money-laundering/conspiracy case] will not be technical or legalistic. It will be categorical and absolute.

Not content with immediately contradicting himself by filing to have the charges dismissed on a legal technicality, DeLay has subsequently plumbed new depths in both hypocrisy and legalistic weaseling. His lawyers presented the following argument:

No criminal money-laundering occurred because the transactions at issue involved checks... and the state law only mentions transfers of cash.

Another categorical and absolute denial of any wrongdoing by Mr. DeLay, which I'm happy to report the judge didn't buy at all.

New Land Speed Record in Hypocrisy!

The Majority Leader of the House, Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was a featured participant in a previous article I wrote on hypocrisy -- you will remember him as the one who fought to deny the ability of a brain-dead comatose patient's husband to make decisions regarding her care. This, despite having pulled the plug on his own father in order to alleviate his suffering. Based on his actions today, he may have set a new world record for the quickest hypocritical statement by a politician.

Having already been admonished three times in the last twelve months for ethics violations, he was late last week formally indicted on conspiracy charges, relating to his fundraising activities in Texas. There aren't many rules restricting campaign finance in Texas -- in fact there is precisely one: you can't accept money from corporations and give it to candidates. DeLay and his associates are accused of collecting money from corporations via their "Texans for a Republican Majority" committee, then sending the money on to the Republican National Committee, who then cut a check for the exact same amount to give directly to candidates. Shady? Definitely. Illegal? We shall see!

If this sounds to you like money laundering, then you're not alone: prosecutor Ronnie Earle today (Monday) further indicted DeLay on two money-laundering charges, making DeLay by far the most indicted US politician in the last 100 years.

When the original indictment came out on Wednesday, DeLay was "outraged" at how he was being singled out for political persecution by a "partisan hack Democrat" (Earle). DeLay did not explain how Earle's prosecution record (13 Democrats and 3 Republicans) is proof of a bias against Republicans.

So on Friday, DeLay let rip with this zinger:

My defense in this case will not be technical or legalistic. It will be categorical and absolute.

Yet today Fox News reports:

[DeLay's] lawyers asked a judge Monday to throw out the first indictment, arguing that the charge of conspiring to violate campaign finance laws was based on a statute that didn't take effect until 2003 — a year after the alleged acts.

Congratulations, Mr DeLay: a categorical and absolute denial of the charges, based on solid fact-based refutations of the evidence. Guinness will be contacting you shortly.

And while on the subject of alcohol, another politican has made the headlines for unbelieveable antics. David Graves (Republican, naturally) attempted to get out of a drunk-driving charge in Georgia by invoking a two-hundred year old law granting immunity from arrest to government officials travelling to or from official meetings during legislative sessions. The law was enacted to prevent corrupt local sheriffs from arresting and detaining politicians in transit just long enough to miss a vote -- hardly something that is common-place today.

This story would be funny enough, even without the other salient points: the "official meeting" that he was returning home from was basically a private party at which he and a bunch of colleages got roaring drunk -- he would have us believe this is government business as usual! More hilariously, though, the scandal has forced him to resign his position on an official state government committee: the one regulating the sale of alcohol.

Behold the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

I've found religion. Let me explain.

Forbidden by the US Constitution from promoting any one religion (or, arguably, religion in general), publicly-funded schools in the US have been increasingly exposing students to the theory of evolution over the last few decades, but not to the concept of creationism. This has never sat well with the more religious elements of US society; witness the Scopes Monkey Trial, which was the basis for the excellent play/movie Inherit the Wind.

Historically, religious conservatives have responded to this trend in one of two ways: (a) attacking science as somehow being inferior or detrimental to religion; or (b) insisting that religion is a fundamental part of the country's heritage and foundation, and therefore entitled to be included/preserved in our school system.

These arguments have met with little success; largely I believe because they're easily countered with both logic and evidence. Argument (a) is refuted by pointing out that science is incapable of promoting atheism (it's a fundamental tenet of science that you cannot prove the non-existence of something), whereas point (b) can be easily disposed of with documentary evidence thus:

Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution states "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." And in 1796 the US entered into the Treaty of Tripoli, which is notable for a phrase in Clause 11:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any way founded on the Christian Religion" -- Treaty of Tripoli, 1796

This document, and therefore the sentiments expressed therein, was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, President John Adams, and the US Senate, becoming law on 10 June, 1797. It is difficult to imagine a more clear-cut statement of the secular intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Retreating to heavily-funded think tanks for a few years, Christian Conservatives have reemerged with a new and admittedly more clever strategy: do battle with science on science's terms. Recognizing (but not necessarily admitting) that arguments based outright on "religion vs. science" have proved ineffective, they have come up with a concept that is "creationism without religion": they call it "intelligent design".

The argument basically goes like this: "There are things in the universe that are so well-constructed or well-organized that they must have been the result of intelligent decisions rather than random processes such as natural selection."

Emboldened by support from a White House and Congress that owes it a favor for electoral victory, the proponents of "intelligent design" have been assaulting school boards across the nation with a smoke-and-mirrors campaign designed to confuse them into thinking that "intelligent design" is a scientific theory, and therefore ought to be taught as an alternative to the theory of evolution. This strategy is quite clever: formerly, their attempts at introducing creationism into the classroom were easily shot down due to their religious content - but with religion removed - or more accurately (and significantly, as we will see later) unspecified - it's not as easy to detect and expose.

Witness their success with the Kansas State Board of Education, which stands poised to change the definition of science. Yes, that's right: in October, the conservative majority on the board will permit the redefinition of "science", as taught to children in Kansas. Of course, once you change the definition of science, it isn't science any more.

Science basically says: "Look at the evidence, and form a theory based on what you see. Use the theory until you find evidence that doesn't fit; at that point, adjust your theory and repeat." Note the fundamental difference here between science and religion: changing your position is unthinkable in religion, yet it is required as part of science.

The "intelligent design" argument puts the cart before the horse: it leaps to the conclusion ("the universe was designed by an intelligence"), and then seeks to provide explanations for how the evidence supports this goal. This is not science; under no circumstances will its supporters change the conclusion.

To their credit, the scientific community has refused on principle to even engage in arguments on the matter, wisely realizing that you can't use logic to defeat an argument that doesn't respect logic, and further recognizing that zealots of this kind are immune to any form of persuasion: as long as they don't admit defeat, they believe that they have won - their faith is intact. Such a strategy may be the high road, but it's not going to stop kids in Kansas being taught pseudo-scientific dogma in their science class.

The significant critical flaw in the "intelligent design" proposition is that it doesn't (dare) explain anything about this "intelligence"; mentioning any specific "God or gods" immediately exposes their position's religious motivation. We're therefore left in the curious position of having the "intelligence" being intentionally and necessarily left as an open, unanswered question, in order to avoid the Constitutional prohibition against promotion of any one specific belief system.

By carefully avoiding any promotion of any one specific religion, all religions are neatly placed on a level playing field: an "intelligent design" curriculum must be compatible with any and all religious explanations for the "intelligence" component.

Enter the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Bobby Henderson, a self-described "concerned citizen", declared himself the prophet of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and sent a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education, demanding equal time in science class for his explanation of the origin of the universe, namely, that it was created by an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster. If "intelligence design" is to be accepted into the school curriculum, then the same arguments can be used to demand equal time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.

The believers in this religion (who call themselves Pastafarians) have "discovered" the truth of human origins: we were all created by this Flying Spaghetti Monster, who deliberately planted evidence of evolution in order to hide the truth about human origins. To quote the gospel: "[Scientists do not] realize that every time we makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this."



Henderson's letter continues on to satirize the idiocy of the anti-science movement, claiming that global warming has been caused by a decline in the number of pirates in the world -- and indeed, a graph of "number of pirates" versus "average global temperature" shows a definite correlation! The fact that there is no causal relationship between pirates and global warming serves as a parody of the pseudo-scientific arguments used to promote intelligent design. For more laughs at the expense of creationists, see Colin Purrington's spoof of the warning labels required on science textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia!

The next year or so should prove interesting, if not decisive. As well as the Kansas affair, the US Supreme Court will address the question of the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. The court weaselled out of having to rule on its constitutionality a few months ago by ruling 8-0 to reject the case on a technicality. Attorneys general from all 50 states have urged the court to reconsider the case; the technicality has been resolved and the case is headed back up the hill. Unfortunately, by that time Bush will have made his second Supreme Court appointment, no doubt tilting the bench heavily in favor of the religious conservatives.

I find it ironic that the pledge, as originally written in 1892 by a Baptist minister does not include the phrase "under God":

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America , and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The "under God" phrase was added during the 1950s, as a knee-jerk McCarthyist attempt to flush those godless communists out of the woodwork. For the record, I also have a problem with the words "In God We Trust" appearing on US currency.

I'm amused by the hypocrisy of those who on the one hand demand the preservation of the county's (non-existent) religious heritage, but on the other insist upon a revisionist version of the pledge. I doubt they see it this way, but that's the beauty/curse of hypocrisy.

Bush Accepts Responsibility; Satan Catches Pnemonia

CNN must be playing a joke on us. They're reporting that George W. Bush has taken responsibility for something. They've obviously been hacked; check it out before it gets taken down.

In other news:


You know something is seriously wrong with the world when articles at The Onion start making more sense than those in the mainstream media.

F%&#% You, World!

John Bolton shows how much
respect he has for the UN

During the 2000 election campaign, George W. Bush described himself as "a uniter, not a divider". One would assume from this statement that he would therefore seek consensus on issues of great importance: national security, constitutional law, judicial nominees, and international relations.

Of course, it was all a giant lie.

In the latest affront to the citizens of the United States, it's constitution, and to every other sovereign nation in the world, Bush has unilaterally installed as Ambassador to the United Nations the notorious John Bolton. Before we examine the manner of his appointment, let's meet this certifiable, frothing-at-the-mouth, war-mongering lunatic.

Bush introduced Bolton thus:

I'm sending Ambassador Bolton to New York with my complete confidence. Ambassador Bolton believes passionately in the goals of the United Nations Charter, to advance peace and liberty and human rights. His mission is now to help the U.N. reform itself to renew its founding promises for the 21st century. He will speak for me on critical issues facing the international community. And he'll make it clear that America values the potential of the United Nations to be a source of hope and dignity and peace. White House press conference, Aug 1 2005

Here, in his own words, is John Bolton's opinion of the United Nations:

There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along. 1994 Global Structures Convocation, New York, NY.

I kid you not; you can even watch a video of him saying this, as well as several other diplomatic gems, such as:

The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost 10 stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Ibid.

I particularly love the part where his voice starts to crack as he jabs his finger and bellows:

The United States makes the U.N. work when it wants to work. And that is exactly the way it should be, because the only question... the only question for the United States is "What's in our national interest?" ...and if you don't like that, I'm sorry, but that is the fact.

From a country that likes to think of itself as the leader of the free world, this is a shamefully ignorant and selfish statement to make.

Bolton's Reputation

During the Senate confirmation hearings (see below), numerous colleagues from Bolton's past came forward to testify that he is a bully, hounding people whose opinions he doesn't like. One woman described (under oath) being chased through the corridors of a Moscow hotel by Bolton, who disliked a position paper she had written. One colleague described Bolton as a "quintessential 'kiss-up, kick-down' kind of guy," and confirmed his reputation as a vindictive, blundering pig-headed lout. Bolton is currently under investigation for demanding the sacking of a lower-level employee who disagreed with him. The White House refuses to release the documents that could shed light on this situation.

Bolton's Appointment

As a means of checks and balances, the U.S. Constitution requires the appointments of ambassadors and high-ranking judges to be confirmed by a Senate. Nominees are typically grilled for days on their past statements and opinions on certain topics. In the words of one Senator Chuck Schumer, "The burden is on a nominee ... to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy."

Bolton was grilled for several days in front of a Senate subcommittee, which eventually sent his nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation. Considering that the subcommittee was stacked in favor of Republicans, this was a remarkable vote of no confidence in Bolton. Senate Democrats subsequently blocked the senate from a vote on Bolton by filibuster.

The filibuster (endless speech-making) is a technique available to the party in the minority; a supermajority is required to end it. This ensures that there is no tyranny of the majority: minority parties can, under extraordinary circumstances, use this technique to forestall progress.

Predictably, the Republicans cried foul, claiming that this was an unprecedented affront beneath the dignity of the senate, and that it was shamefully to delay such an important nominee due to partisan politics.

Of course, this was complete crap: Clinton's nominee for U.N. Ambassador (Richard Holbrooke) was blocked by a procedural maneuver by a single (Republican) senator for fourteen months, not because he wasn't suited to the job, by instead as a protest over an unrelated State Department employee.

The Constitution gives the President the power to make a recess appointment, which installs the nominee without Senate confirmation, for a limited term. The idea is to give the President the flexibility to make an emergency appointment without having to recall the entire Senate, which was quite an ordeal when the Constitution was created.

Clinton offered Holbrooke a recess appointment, but he refused, stating that being sent to the U.N. without the approval of the U.S. Senate would leave him hopelessly compromised; not having the full authority of the government behind him.

Today, Bush used a recess appointment to install Bolton. This was entirely legal, and there is no question that the President has the authority to do so.

Personally, I find it telling that we are reduced to evaluating the actions of the President by asking "is it legal or not?" -- as if "not breaking the law" was the only yardstick by which we are measuring him. For someone who prides himself on "moral character" and being "a uniter, not a divider", Bush certainly can be accused of hypocrisy (there's that word again!)


The Mesasge This Sends

At a time when the United States is seeking to regain it's reputation as a leading democracy, Bush's use of the recess appointment sends a clear message to the rest of the world: he doesn't need his government's authority to do what he wants. Democracy and due process are optional.

I particularly like Hal Crowther's take on the situation:

Bolton is simply the Republican fist with its middle finger held erect, a calculated insult aimed at Democrats, the media and the world -- a rude gesture of unprecedented arrogance and defiance. Is this a coarse joke, irony served White House-style? For America's most visible and sensitive diplomatic post, they offer the ultimate anti-diplomat, an obnoxious bully so incapable of diplomacy or common tact that he offends everyone he encounters, Democrat or Republican, ally or enemy....

"Making him ambassador is like thumbing our nose at the UN, and foreign diplomats understand that."

There are a number of conspiracy theories surrounding just why Bush is so desperate to get Bolton to the U.N. The scariest of these relates to Bolton's association with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a conservative think-tank which was urging a U.S. invasion of Iraq as early as 1998. John Negroponte was considered the leading hawk on an Iraq invasion; Bolton apparently had a thing for.... Iran. Watch this space.

The Public Report of The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

9/11 has been the subject of innumerable discussions around the world for the last few years, but nobody I had ever talked to admitted to actually reading the official commission's report. Even if you're the most partisan and cynical person in the world, and dismiss the report as propaganda, a whitewash, cover-up, hatchet-job, full of cheap-shots, or waste of time, the historical significance of the event and the commission itself makes the report vital reading. Having now read it, I am even more deeply disturbed at the level of ill-informed rhetoric coming from those who haven't.

Note: the entire report is available for free online at the commission website.

The Report

Overall, I found the report excellent, with an objective tone. While mostly fact-based, there is some conjecture, but it is always clearly labeled as exactly what it is: the best guess, based on available evidence. Structurally, the report is broken out into a riveting and thoroughly detailed account of the events of 9/11 and the ensuing invasion of Afghanistan, followed by an analysis of the political, society, and intelligence failures that allowed the events to occur. The last section of the report gives a lengthy set of recommendations to reshape the entire country in response to the disaster.

The initial section, describing the events on the hijacked planes, is as captivating as any fictional thriller, with the added horror of knowing these events actually occurred. Both ABC and NBC have announced plans for mini-series based on this section of the report, although NBC has subsequently blinked and is looking to sell their project to a cable network such as HBO. I believe the formerly-at-NBC project will end up being the better one; it's produced by Ron Howard's Imagine Entertainment, and is being written by Graham Yost (who also wrote part of Band of Brothers for HBO).

Immediately following 9/11, I was prepared to accept that the attack was so audacious and unexpected that nobody could have possible predicted it: security was lax, and by all accounts the entire financial cost of the operation was less than $100,000. The commission report confirms, however, that all the warnings signs were there: they knew Bin Laden was interested in hijacking planes, and more than one intelligence analyst had worried specifically about terrorists flying hijacked planes into buildings.

The report spends a lot of time showing how the critical intelligence in the years prior to 9/11 was ignored, confused, lost, sat on, not communicated, deprioritized, and misinterpreted. Rather than coming out of left field, the report makes it clear that authorities knew such an attack was imminent. I've therefore reluctantly abandoned my position that 9/11 was not preventable.

What went wrong?

The report very diplomatically describes the disaster as "a failure of the imagination", but again notes that the government-at-large had all the pieces of the puzzle, but wasn't structured in a way that allowed it to see all of it at once. It should be stressed that the hijackers's plan was very well executed, particularly the preparation. There were numerous opportunities for it to fail, and they made some terrible decisions which were overlooked:

• the flight center where they trained notified the FBI that they had some incompetent students who were interested in learning to fly but refused to learn to land the plane
  
• when checking in for their fateful flight on one-way tickets, two of the hijackers did not have proper id, could not speak English, had suspicious-looking photographs, and were considered by the staff to be security risks
  
• Hani Hanjour was frisked when he repeatedly set off the metal detector
  

The list is embarrassingly long, and is a savage indictment of an intelligence community which was still structured to deal with a Cold War-style enemy. There's also plenty of blame to go around: presidential administrations as far back as George Bush Sr. made critical missteps that enabled Al Qaeda to grow and operate.

Vilified Hero

Like most people, I hadn't read the report when much of the finger-pointing and blame was being dished out. I had a keen interest in the subject, but after reading the report I realized just how much of the truth had been twisted for political gain and ass-covering. I'm speaking specifically about the treatment of Richard Clarke.

Throughout the report's description of the years of activity leading up to the attack, time and time again the name of Richard Clarke stands out as the only person who understood the seriousness of the situation and as a tireless servant who continually found innovative ways to get around political and bureaucratic barriers placed in his way.

I'm reminded of Roger Boisjoly, the Morton Thiokol employee who was literally standing on the table screaming at NASA to not launch the Space Shuttle Challenger the night before it blew up: he alone recognized the situation and the potential of what could happen. For Clarke to appear before the 9/11 commission and apologize for failing the American people is one of the greatest acts of humility I've ever heard of. If there was one person involved that could escape blame, it would be Richard Clarke.

Of course, this is completely at odds with opinion of Clarke held by the general public. In an effort to dodge their own culpability, the Bush administration and GOP attack-dogs launched a disgraceful smear campaign against Clarke, claiming he was "out of the loop", or that he was somehow a disgruntled employee with an axe to grind. These claims are both ludicrous and insulting: the report makes it clear that Clarke was more "in the loop" than Rice, Bush, Cheney, or Tenet, and they would have you overlook the fact that Clarke has served in the intelligence community since his appointment by Ronald Reagan.

Sadly, the current tactics of the GOP are highly successful: throw enough mud, and some of it sticks. Clarke has been effectively sidelined when he should be hailed as a national hero.

Aftermath

You may have often heard people say about something they've read that "this book changed my life", and for me, this book did. Not in a touchy-feely, new-world-outlook kind of way, but in a way much more practical.

Many survivors of the World Trade Center collapse credit their escape to the fact that they were able to locate a flashlight. Smoke and power loss made locating escape routes nearly impossible; the report details how people missed fire exits because they weren't located at the end of the hallways as expected.

After reading this, I decided that I could afford the $3.95 to have a flashlight at my desk at work. I'm only on the seventh floor, but experts will tell you that the danger in a real fire (as opposed to the smoke-less BBQs that Hollywood produces) is the smoke, not the flames. Several colleagues have noticed the flashlight, and when I explain why it's there, they go and buy their own.

Of Bush and Buffet

President Bush has just finished a 60-day tour of the country, attempting to portray the Social Security "crisis" as an urgent problem that desperately needs to be fixed by pulling money out of it and putting it into the stock market.

On CNN just now, Warren Buffet made an intersting observation:

Well, it's an interesting idea that a deficit of $100 billion a year, something, 20 years out, seems to terrify the administration. But the $400 plus billion dollars deficit currently does nothing but draw yawns. I mean the idea that this terrible specter looms over us 20 years out -- which is a small fraction of the deficit we happily run now -- seems kind of interesting to me.

Warren Buffet ought to know what he's talking about; class "A" shares in his investment company are currently trading at around $85,000 each.

Book Review: A Short History of the Future

Author: W. Warren Wagar

Wagar is a historian, which makes writing about the future as it if was the past an interesting idea; he terms the concept "prognostics". What's refreshing about the book is his admission up front that the further one looks into the future, the less likely your predictions are to come true (history is a cumulative process). Too often I've found a giant chasm between pure speculation, and dry predictions about the state of technology.

Wagar had the dreadful misfortune to publish the first edition mere months before the fall of the Berlin Wall. To his credit, he had correctly predicted the fall of European communism, but he had expected it to take 50 years longer than it actually did. The book's second edition was published just before the advent of the communications/internet revolution, and so this aspect of the present is conspicuous by its absence in his work.

The third edition of the book (the one reviewed here) continued the streak of bad luck: it was released a few years before 9/11. Terrorism and the "problem" of fundamentalist Islam is given scant mention in the book -- a huge cry from its importance in reality.

As with nearly every single work which attempts to portray the future, this one falls into the trap of predicting that Sci-Fi dream concepts are going to happen very soon. Within the next few hundred years, Wagar has an immortal human race populating the solar system and even travelling to the nearest stars. Although these kinds of things are the fantasy of many-a Sci-Fi buff, actual progress towards these fantasies from a scientific research point of view indicates that it's going to take a lot, lot, lot longer than we think.

By way of example: most futurists and prognosticators routinely ignore the cold, hard, unglamorous facts about space travel: it literally kills you. Absent some huge sheild (like the earth's magnetic sphere), you're going to be cooked by the sun. And if you do make it as far as Mars, living there is much more difficult than is generally realized. Of course, this assumes that you can get off the ground in the first place. Best case, humans will return to the moon in 2015. In other words: despite the technological progress made in the last 40 years, we're no closer to getting to the moon than we were before we started, back in 1960. Wow; let's hear it for progress!

The other thing that I don't agree with Wagar on is his idea of what will happen after World War 3. Wagar sees humankind engaged in a vicious backlash against consumerism and capitalism. While I might be able to accept that the generation who actually lived through the holocaust might be radically transformed, it's more difficult to believe that every generation thereafter will no longer experience greed, drive, ambition, or jealousy.

Wagar's post-apocalyptic society "eliminates" poverty by providing a standard stipend for every human being. While this may sound good in theory, the plain fact of the matter is that if you give 100 people each $100, after a week some of them will have nothing, and some will have $1000. The failure of communism underscores the fundamental aspect of human/animal behaviour: people are more motivated if they get something personal out of it. It's human nature, and no amount of wishing or prognosticating is going to change that.

Next book: The 9/11 Report

Calculated Acts of Senseless Hypocrisy

The recent media and political frenzy over Terri Schiavo's predicament has sharply exposed the opportunism and hypocrisy of the Bush administration and Republicans in general. I never intended use the tragedy of Terri's situation to make a political point, but the shameless and blatant way with which George W. Bush and the Republicans have opened the door to such crass political opportunism begs a reply in kind.

For those outside the USA or otherwise unaware: Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state for over 15 years. Her husband Michael has for the last 7 years been seeking legal approval to remove her feeding tube on the grounds that she had previously expressed a desire to not to be kept alive by such means and under such circumstances. Michael is opposed by Terri's family, who claim she may recover and want the feeding tube to remain in place. Terri's feed tube was removed in March, and she died twelve days later.

The Facts

Michael Schiavo has won every single one of the nearly 30 court proceedings regarding his wife. This perfect record applies to not only the motions that he has made, but also in the defeat upon initial and final determination of all motions made to overturn or halt actions he wishes to take.

The courts have determined (and recertified upon appeal):

• Terri's condition is the result of brain damage following a cardiac arrest, caused by abnormal potassium levels
• Terri suffered from the eating disorder bulimia, which frequently causes such abnormal potassium levels
• Terri is in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of ever recovering
  
• Michael is Terri's legal guardian and is accorded full legal rights and duties of care and decision-making

The Hypocrisy

During the 2004 election, Bush railed against what he called "activist judges" who try to "legislate from the bench" (source), accusing them of writing their own laws to push their own agenda.

Bush and Republicans are tripping over each other in their rush past the limits of their own authority. Congress was recalled over the Easter weekend specifically to pass a bill aimed at reinserting the feeding tube of the individual, Terry Schiavo. Such an attempt reeks of attainder against Michael Schiavo, given it's primary goal would be to thwart him in his duties as guardian.


Congress was recalled on Easter Sunday specifically to debate and pass a resolution calling for Terri's feeding tube to reinserted. Bush immediately flew back to Washington from his Texas ranch to sign this law.

Bush made the admittedly symbolic gesture of flying back from holiday to sign the bill which specifically addressed one person, yet took three days to publicly speak about the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami which killed over 200,000 people. Despite the apparent haste and zeal for saving lives, Republican house speaker Dennis Hastert has refused to allow a vote on the Mental Health Parity Act which would have provided more help for Terri in her fight against the bulimia which was the root cause of her predicament.


"While I believe there's a role for the federal government, it's not to impose its will on states and local communities". George W. Bush, Jan 6 2001

These comments came merely weeks after Bush asked the Federal Supreme Court to overturn a decision of the Florida State Supreme Court (Bush vs Gore). In the Schiavio case, Bush and the Republicans again demonstrate their hypocrisy by creating a law specifically designed to circumvent the judiciary.


When the law was struck down as unconstitutional, Republican Whip Tom Delay said: "We will look at an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president." (source)

The constitution of the United States provides for the separation of powers (Marbury vs Madison, 1803), clearly defining the responsibilities of each branch of the government, without fear of interference from the other two. This is taught in Year 4 Civics class, but it's apparently news to DeLay. To quote Justice Greer's ruling in the matter:

By arrogating vital judicial functions to itself in the passage of the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, Congress violated core constitutional separation principles, it prescribed a “rule of decision” and acted unconstitutionally.

This is polite judicial language for saying "Mr DeLay, the judiciary is not your bitch to slap around. You can create and install whatever "laws" you like, but we are the ones who can throw them away."


Republicans trumpet their regard for human life; Bush declares that in complex cases one ought to "err on the side of life"

Bush's record on capital punishment speaks for itself. During his four years as governor of Texas, 152 people were executed. Far from being cautious and "erring on the side of life," Bush has admitted spending typically less than 15 minutes on each clemency request, usually at the urging of the then state Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales who didn't feel it necessary to mention in his case summaries such irrelevant facts as that a defense lawyer had fallen asleep during the trial, or that a conviction was secured largely on the basis of a confession written in a language that the defendant couldn't read, speak, or write.

Bush's regard for human life is further confirmed by his subsequent nomination of Gonzales for U.S. Attorney-General following his legal opinion justifying the use of torture during interrogations.


Republicans position themselves as the defender of family values and marriage; Bush indicates his "support for marriage" by proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Bush and the Republicans have sided with Terri's parents instead of her husband. This belies their support for the sanctity of marriage, placing ideology above respect for marriage and the judicial system which gave Michael Schiavo guardianship over his wife.


Republicans have declared this an issue of "morality", and present themselves as being concerned only with protecting the rights of those unable to do so for themselves.

Behind closed doors, Republicans make no effort to maintain the facade of caring. During an invitation-only speech to the conservative Family Research Council, the ubiquitous Tom DeLay declared "[O]ne thing God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo to elevate the visibility of what's going on in America."

Not content with making political hay from a disabled woman's personal tragedy, DeLay feels the need to make personal gain from it. He continues in this speech to liken the "save Terri" effort to his own personal fight against yet another ethics investigation.

In yet another further layer of hypocrisy, The Los Angeles Times uncovered the fact that DeLay withheld life-extending medical treatment from his own father so he would die more quickly following an accident that left him in what doctors called a "vegetative state".


Republicans stand for conservative values, limited government and the rights of individuals.

Florida governor and presidential brother Jeb Bush attempted to take custody of Terri Schiavo by force, alleging unspecified and unsubstantiated "abuse" at the hands of her husband.

Such claims of abuse are ludicrous: Michael Schiavo was awarded $1 million in his civil malpractice suit against doctors who failed to diagnose Terri's bulimia. If there was any evidence of abuse, this would have surfaced at the trial. It did not.

Attempting to seize custody of Schiavo shows the respect that the Republicans have for the rights of individuals to live and even die without government interference. It is no surprise that the court immediately denied Bush's request.

Interlude: Peabrains and Peacocks

Exposing the hypocrisy of Bush administration's involvement in the Schiavo case is easy -- but not nearly as easy as exposing the blatant right-wing agenda of the Fox News Channel. By way of illustration, let's examine Sean Hannity's coverage of the Schiavo case.

Background: Hannity is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, masquerading as a journalist. He has a talk-radio show and a TV show on the Fox News Channel, and is demonstratably wrong on many of his "facts". For more information on Hannity and Fox's bias, see Outfoxed. (Possibly unavailable in Australia, thanks to Rupert Murdoch)

Hannity took his TV and radio shows down to Florida, and broadcast from in front of Schiavo's hospice for nine days. Each night he would interview Schiavo's parents, as well as a loaded slate of guests who gave an extremely one-sided set of opinions. Hannity has long been accused of self-aggrandizing and posturing for media attention; I was disgusted by his blatant nightly exploitation of a family broken by tragedy.

After the feeding tube had been removed, Hannity decried the cruelty, decried the inhumanity, and decried the "rush towards death". "With all these things in dispute... bulimia: in dispute; abuse: in dispute; vegetative state: in dispute... why not slow down and let the court take a look at the issues?"

This is absurd rubbish from an intellectual midget. Terri's case has been the subject of lawsuits for the last thirteen years; every single issue has been kicked to death, resurrected for appeal, and then put to bed again -- 100% of the time in favor of Michael Schiavo. This case reached the U.S. Supreme Court six times; far from being a rush to judgement, it's difficult to imagine how this case could have had more meticulous judicial oversight.

The Irony

Two more points to consider:

1. Terri's medical care was largely funded by Medicaid, which the Bush administration is attempting to cut.
   
   
2. Drowned out by the media circus covering the Schiavo case, a similar case was playing out. On March 15th, a Texas hospital disconnected life-support from a six-month-old infant against the wishes of his mother. This was done under the authority of a Texas state law which some lawyers claim is being applied in cases where the parents lack money to pay for continued medical treatment. The law was signed into the books by then-governor George W. Bush.

Post Mortem

So what's really going on here? Why was this case so important to the right, and how could they make such a mess of it?

Ironically, I agree with the answer a Republican has suggested. Former Republican senator and Ambassador to the United Nations John Danforth recently wrote an op-ed for the New York Times:

High-profile Republican efforts to prolong the life of Ms. Schiavo, including departures from Republican principles like approving Congressional involvement in private decisions and empowering a federal court to overrule a state court, can rightfully be interpreted as yielding to the pressure of religious power blocs.

Since moving to America, and more increasingly since 9/11, I have been alarmed at the degree with which religion and American politics has become intertwined -- all in the name of morality. To me, the Schiavo case indicates that with the legislative and executive branches controlled by Republicans, we must look to the judicial branch to provide a sense of balance. It's worth remembering the wisdom of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis:

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

I want to ensure that the last word on the subject is about the victim in this case: Terri Schiavo. Amidst the ugliness of lawsuits, partisan bickering, and familes torn apart by tragedy, the fact remains that there could be no happy ending for Terri, regardless of the whether she was taken off life-support or not.

Progressive commentator Al Franken was right when he said "The real tragedy was not when her feeding tube was removed; it was not when she died; the real tragedy was 15 years ago when she suffered brain damage."

I wonder what would have happened if the feeding tube had remained in. We could count on the "Rapture Right" to celebrate and declare the salvation of Terri's soul and the nation's morality.

But I fear that after this celebration they would have quickly departed for their next moral crusade. Terri would be left behind, exactly how they found her: motionless and vegetative, but now soiled by being forced to play the role of martyr for a cause she didn't believe in.