"In a statement published on the department's Web site, the head of its Office of Legal Counsel declared that "torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and international norms" and went on to reject a previous statement that only "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" constitute torture punishable by law."It took the Bush Regime until now to revise this definition, even though there had been strong public outcry since the old policy was announced in 2002. Now that Alberto Gonzales is a public political appointee, the Justice Department has a little bit of a heart again. He was the original author of the policy that essentially allowed for torture of detainees. My guess is that in an effort to make his confirmation run a bit more smoothly, they changed the policy to get Senate Democrats to confirm him expediently. This leaves me to assume that they're done getting all the information out of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq. Since they really don't have any more constant sources of information flowing in (read: illegal detentions in these places) the Regime now finds that this point in time is ok to back to a standard definition of torture. I'm sure if the need ever arises again, we'll change the definition back to its more harsh form. |W|P|110447010677647398|W|P|Justice Dept. redefines torture--again|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
- "House to Consider Relaxing Its Rules"
- "Lowering The Bar On Ethics?" (News Analysis)
"A House leadership aide said a package of rules changes to be presented to the House when Congress convenes on Tuesday could include a plan that would require a majority vote of the ethics panel to pursue a formal investigation. Now, a deadlock on the panel, which is evenly split between parties, keeps a case pending. The possible change, the aide said, would mean that a tie vote would effectively dismiss the case. The aide said the change would instill more bipartisanship in ethics cases. But Democrats and outside groups said the proposal would dilute an already weak ethics process. It remained uncertain whether Representative Joel Hefley of Colorado, the current chairman of the panel, would stay in that post. A spokesman for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, who would play a chief role in determining the appointment, said no decision had been made. Many Republicans expressed dissatisfaction with Mr. Hefley after the committee reports critical of Mr. DeLay were issued, saying he had allowed Democrats to score political points against Mr. DeLay for conduct that did not merit such scrutiny. But the potential for change in the chairmanship has drawn fire from Democrats. "It is our responsibility to uphold a high ethical standard," Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, said in a statement Wednesday. "Removing a chair of the ethics committee for upholding that standard would be a stain on the House of Representatives." Democrats are planning to try next week to force a floor vote on a proposal requiring any member of either party's leadership to step aside if indicted on a criminal charge. The move would reverse last month's vote by Republicans, in a closed-door party meeting, to eliminate such a requirement for Republicans to protect Mr. DeLay should he be indicted in a campaign finance inquiry under way in Texas."Just what Americans need--another reason to dislike Congress. We don't like Congress because we find them slow and because we don't think they do enough--or that they do too much. And now, when one of them makes an ethical violation, we're making it even harder for them to face a punishment from their peers. What's more, the GOP is planning on removing the chair of the Ethics committee--BECAUSE HE DID HIS JOB! If they're going to follow that logic, I guess that is why Bush and Rummy are both in still in office. They never did their jobs; matter of fact, they still haven't. If they did, the RNC would have to remove them. Nothing like job stability for incompetence.|W|P|110438467173275609|W|P|What ethics?|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"It is now impossible to believe this was just three nights ago, the official death toll from the Christmas Tsunami in the Indian Ocean stood at only 24,000. Now, the latest Reuters count, is 125,282. But according to Indonesia's ambassador to Malaysia, three days from now, we may find it equally impossible to believe that this number was so low. The State News Agency in Malaysia, Bernama, quotes Indonesia's ambassador to Malaysia as saying today that three large communities in the Acheh province appear to have been totally destroyed— but are, as yet, inaccessible. "Aerial surveillance found the town of Meulaboh completely destroyed with only one building standing," said Ambassador Drs H. Rusdihardjo. Until Sunday morning, Meulaboh had 150,000 residents."There are other cities and towns in that area of Indonesia that have still not been searched yet at all because of limited fuel resources and the utter devastation of the area. One town of 76,000 people appears to be completely destroyed. Olbermann also points out that European vacationers are already back on the beaches of Phuket, Thailand. That is disturbing. ***And on to the Votes*** Olbermann confirmed from Rep. John Conyers' office this afternoon:
"[T]he office of Representative John Conyers of Michigan confirmed late this afternoon that he and several other Congressmen are planning to object— to formally challenge— the vote of the Ohio electors when the Electoral College ballots are opened before the joint session of Congress next Thursday. Conyers says he is still seeking a Senator to join the House members— whom he does not name— and has written to each member of the Senate asking them to join him."US Code requires that there is at least one challenger in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and that any objection must be submitted to the President of the Senate (Dick Cheney) when he asks for objections when approving the vote. Congress reconvenes on January 6th, at 1 PM to certify the vote. Stay tuned for that. Full text of today's letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) here. |W|P|110446100180428087|W|P|Tsunamis and Votes|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"In the most expensive presidential contest in the nation's history, John F. Kerry and his Democratic supporters nearly matched President Bush and the Republicans, who outspent them by just $60 million, $1.14 billion to $1.08 billion."However, our problem was spending it. As Josh Marshall points out, there are two expenditures that stand out:
"[T]he Swift Boat ads (we'll have long memories too) and some much less conspicuous spending on a data-mining company that allowed them to vastly improve the targetting of their voter outreach."Unfortunately, there wasn't much we could do to control the Swift Boat ads--the right's media machine (not just the MSM, but pundits, columnists, and talk radio as well) just had the better ability and access to spin the story the way the RNC wanted it spun. And the Democrats reliance, or maybe simply the fact that there were more on left, on 527s and the new legislation that disallowed message coordination between the campaigns and the organizations left us with somewhat of a boggled message. The Republicans just didn't rely on them as much, and that could've been part of their reasons for success. As Marshall points out, it is indeed a "sobering, fascinating article." |W|P|110446010866866585|W|P|Washington Post offers some more post-election analysis|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Robert Schumacher|W|P|A Republican, talking about making sure the voters can have confidence in the election? After 2000 (and, in Ohio in particular, 2004)?Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I need a drink...
"I have a dream of a world where people are equals, regardless of the color of their skin or the god they pray to. I have a dream of a world where, when disaster strikes, people say, “how can I help”, not “let someone else help, it’s not our problem.” I have a dream of a world where all people have the basic needs of life met; food, shelter, medical care, and clothing."|W|P|110438628908046040|W|P|Rob's Dream|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent."|W|P|110438594802370006|W|P|We ARE stingy|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"The organization, which played a huge role in the passage of Medicare drug legislation last year, said it was prepared to spend much more in the next two years to block the creation of private accounts financed with payroll tax revenues. "This is our signature issue," said Christine M. Donohoo, chief communications officer for AARP, which represents 36 million Americans 50 and older. "We will do what it takes." The full-page advertisements, to appear next week in more than 50 newspapers around the country, say the accounts would cause "Social Insecurity." "There are places in your retirement planning for risk," the advertisements say, "but Social Security isn't one of them." One advertisement shows a couple in their 40's looking at the reader. "If we feel like gambling, we'll play the slots," the message says. Another advertisement shows traders in the pit of a commodities exchange. "Winners and losers are stock market terms," it says. "Do you really want them to become retirement terms?""Fabulous! The AARP's ad or marketing leader and his staff are geniuses for these ads. They are short, sweet, and directly to the point. Moreover, they all carry good images for the upcoming debate. President Bush doesn't have a war chest for this proposal--the opposition and fierce Democrats do. Let's make sure we make our voices heard. Remember, most Americans probably won't see much benefit from this plan. Furthermore, Americans don't want the plan. Couple these facts with any of the problems that privatization causes and we can create a strong message and force for opposition. |W|P|110438411138889830|W|P|AARP launches ad war|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"The link between the current economy and a Social Security deficit that will begin to strike benefits in decades is every bit as speculative and theoretical as the link between Hussein and the war on terrorism in late 2002. But few people in the political mainstream would dismiss the idea out of hand, and arguing that Bush's predictions are a bit too dire seems unnecessary to most Democrats at this stage."I think he gets the point right on. But if you don't, check out Kevin Drum (writer of The Washingon Monthly's blog "Political Animal") and his post on the same article. And if you like that stuff by Kevin, check out his op-ed in today's LA Times on Social Security. Its a good one.
"Ten years ago Social Security trustees predicted that the system would become insolvent in 35 years, meaning 2029. Five years later they were still predicting that insolvency was 35 years away — doomsday had been postponed to 2034. Today, they're predicting that insolvency is 38 years away, in 2042."|W|P|110435000311072403|W|P|Social Security and the war in Iraq|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Seems many Americans feel it's not as newsworthy or worthy of their time or interest if it's not in the US. I recognize that 9/11 was closer to home, but this tsunami is on the order of a world-changing event (it went so far as to affect the rotation of the planet). The death toll is estimated at over 63,000, which is enough people to fill an NFL size stadium, and many, many thousands more are missing, injured, and newly homeless."Point well taken. Estimates today say that the total dead may reach 100,000. I realize that it would be impossible to cover this disaster story for 24 hours a day for the next week or so, like America did after 9/11. But they should devote more than just a few minutes of reporting with their international or SE Asia correspondent. Moreover, they need to show names, phone numbers, addresses, and website links to all the different aid organizations that are contributing relief for the victims of this horrific incident. Finally, to the gist of my post. These are comments from people on multiple different blogs and discussion fora on why the US shouldn't care. Please be as disgusted as I am:
- Jordan Golson (website): "As for the news coverage, like it or not, American's dying is BIG NEWS, other countries people dying, ESPECIALLY poor people, is not news. That's just how it is."
- From a Yahoo! Message Board: "send $15 million in ICBMs to Muslims: to finish off any Muslims who may still be alive in indonesia. That's the only money I want going to Muslims who want to kill us."
- Yahoo! again: "dead, bloated, rotting muslims: floating on shore line or washed on shore. is this a great sight or what? puts a spring in my step........gonna be a great day"
- Yahoo!: "It's not my problem: I guess that makes me a moron. But maybe not as much a moron as our politicians who are competing with the EU to see who can send the most aid money to a terrorist haven governed by corrupt officials and overrun by militant separatist movements with suspected al-Qaeda ties. All the tear jerking scenes of devastation in Indonesia just makes me feel about as much sympathy as if it was just rats washed down a street sewer. It's not my problem!"
Robert Schumacher|W|P|The new sum Bush has pledged, $35 million, is about $5 million less than the cost of his '05 inauguration.And it sickens me to no end to see how people are sometimes...if it's not "us" then it's not a big deal...and the crowd that writes anti-Muslim trash at directed towards this disaster are the scum of the planet. "Americans" indeed...not any Americans I know. Chris Woods|W|P|Good point, Rob. Unfortunately, I think Bush is more about pomp and circumstance than really ever fixing or finishing anything.Look at the whole "Mission Accomplished" fiasco. That is a prime example.
Robert Schumacher|W|P|I still laugh (bitterly) when I see pics of the "Mission Accomplished" stunt.Bush is a jackass.
Jordan Golson|W|P|Why are you criticizing me for that comment? Was I saying that their deaths were not important?No, I was merely pointing out that some things are big news in America and some things are not big news in America. Don't take my words out of context.
Your blind hatred of American's is showing through, you might want to make an effort at hiding that if you want to be taken seriously.
Chris Woods|W|P|I apologize for seemingly criticizing you. I probably shouldn't have done that.My problem was the perceived attitude from your comment. I am sure it was probably the heat of the moment when I wrote the post and made the compilation.
Moreover, I don't hate Americans. I dislike how uninformed so many of us are. And from that state of disinformation, some feel like they can make presumptions or assertions based on just the tiny bit they know.
I live in a so-called "red state." But I don't hate anyone in the state, especially based on some kind of political affiliation. As a matter of fact, I don't think I really, truly hate anyone of an alternate political party (besides maybe Ann Coulter, which to me is quite justified--she hates me since I'm a liberal). I take offense to the notion of being called an America hater.
Anywho, thanks for your comments. Please stop back by The Political Forecast. I always enjoy hearing from folks who don't agree with me.
"With its 6-to-1 order on Tuesday, the court put the House into a 50-50 tie, but state law mandates that the House speaker come from the party of the governor. Democrats acknowledged that their hold on power would be tenuous and far from the control Republicans exercised in the last few sessions, when they had a 2-to-1 margin in the House, and controlled the State Senate and governor's office as well."Finally, some good news. However, I don't know if its overall good news for the state of Montana and for Democrats. The man who won governor is a very moderate Democrat, who ran with a Republican running mate for lt. governor. These are centrist Democrats--similar to some of the ones we saw during Bill Clinton's presidency. I'm not sure if this is overall where the Democratic party wants to be nationally, or even if it should try to be this way at all. But in states with traditional strong conservative majorities, I think its the way to go. Compromising on issues near and dear to the hearts of values-voters and typical American moderates should be one of the new measures the Democratic party should take in 2006 and 2008 when looking to win in the South and in the rural West. Liberals and democrats don't have to be equated to radical socialists or far left nutjobs, we need to fight for who were are. We aren't centrists, but we aren't radical either. We're the party of progressives and those for change. We are the party for those Americans who need help and who are compassionate enough to share in the wonderful gifts that America has for each of its citizens. That is the type of message that we need to get across. And with more and more of these red states becoming more and more urban and suburban, its time to cultivate their votes and bring them into the blue state column--the party they can trust to protect them, tell them the truth, and to be there when they need us. |W|P|110429370100688628|W|P|Montana solid for Democrats statewide|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|I don't suspect a substantial national voting shift in the Montanas. But I think its good to see that Democrats can at least spread a message in the big red state as well show examples of bipartisan ship.I think it would be worthwhile for the next chair of the DNC to check out the message Democrats in Montana ran with and see if any parts of it can be put into a strong and coherent national message.
- American Red Cross Contributions should be sent to International Response Fund P.O. Box 37243 Washington, D.C. 20013 For more information about donating, call 800-435-7669. For information about friends or relatives who may have been affected, call 866-438-4636
- Asia Relief The Maryland-based nonprofit organization is accepting donations of cash, nonperishable food, clothing and toys for victims in Sri Lanka. Donations should be dropped off or mailed to Asia Relief 19409 Olive Tree Way Gaithersburg, MD 20879 Contact Rizwan Mowlana at 301-672-9355 for more information.
- Association for India's Development Inc. The Maryland-based nonprofit organization is accepting cash donations to help relief work in India. Contributions can be made on the Web at AidIndia.org or mailed to AID Zone 3 P.O. Box 4801 Mountain View, Calif., 94040-0801, with checks made payable to AID. Contact Priya Ranjan at 301-422-4441 for more information.
- Tsunami Relief Inc. The Virginia-based nonprofit group has been set up to help victims in Sri Lanka. Donors can call 703-934-6922 or mail checks payable to Tsunami Relief Inc. to 9302 Lee Hwy. Fifth Floor Fairfax, Va. 22031
- B'nai B'rith International Donations can be made online at BnaiBrith.org or mailed to B'nai B'rith Disaster Relief Fund 2020 K St. NW, Seventh Floor Washington, D.C. 20006
- More information about donations to humanitarian organizations can be found on the U.S. Agency for International Development's Web site, USAid.gov. Donors can also call the Center for International Disaster Information at 703-276-1914.
Robert Schumacher|W|P|http://tsunamihelp.blogspot.com/They keep a running list of aid organizations and on the scene informtion (a group of the contributors are in the area hit by the quake/tsunami).
"To The People Of Islam:
Just think: If we'd invaded your countries, killed your leaders and converted you to Christianity YOU'D ALL BE OPENING CHRISTMAS PRESENTS RIGHT ABOUT NOW!
Merry Christmas"
|W|P|110417766878358357|W|P|I hate Ann Coulter|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.comI hate the bitch.
Robert Schumacher|W|P|Unbelieveable.Un-fucking-believeable.
I thought she could hit now new lows. She has, however, hit rock bottom and begun to dig.
Robert Schumacher|W|P|Come on...you can't expect to export American style democracy without all the trimmings (like setting up the beginnings of cronyism)...:)
How was Christmas?
Chris Woods|W|P|Mine was excellent. Got The West Wing Season 3 on DVD and have been enjoying a good liberal president via that.How was yours?
"My only problem is that there is no solid, set-in-stone proof that any of these things happened or that they would significantly change the outcome of the election. I want to challenge the results as much as any other Democrat and Bush-hater. However, this Constitutional provision was put there for flagrant disregard of election results or clear fraud. Rep. Conyers has said the same thing. He needs something conclusive, some massive piece of evidence to prove that hundreds of thousands of votes were tampered with. I know there had to have been tons of minor problems at multiple different polling places across the country--whether they were intentional or not. And that is just more evidence that we need more significant and broad national election reform. However, challenging this vote won't do it. It'll heat up into a partisan debate that ignores the voting problems but focuses on the politics of the situation. We should spend our time on enacting meaningful election reform. That is where the future is. Once we get the reform done, it will prevent things like this from happening in the future. And finally, if you can point me to substantial and massive evidence of clear fraud that would overwhelmingly change the outcome of this election, drop a comment on The Political Forecast or email me at ThePoliticalForecast@gmail.com."|W|P|110386469563113849|W|P|Challenging the electoral vote|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"The first displaced residents were briefly allowed back into war-ravaged Falluja on Thursday, even as American marines and warplanes battled insurgents in another corner of the city, leaving three marines dead. Thursday was the official start of the resettlement of Falluja, the former insurgent stronghold that was conquered block by bloody block last month, leaving a virtual ghost town, with many homes damaged, sewage running in the streets and electrical and water facilities demolished. But it was a gingerly first step, at best, toward repopulating a city that once held some 250,000 people. About 900 of them, almost all men and all from the single northwestern neighborhood of Andalus, re-entered for a few hours to see the condition of their homes and decide if they want to move their families back, according to marine officers there. Returning families will face serious privation. With water purifying plants and distribution systems largely destroyed, officials have built 24 temporary water tanks. They will give out water cans; returnees will have to fetch supplies by hand. Residents will also receive food aid, and kerosene to fuel generators for lighting. Every returning family will be given the equivalent of $100, the interim government has said. Families whose houses were destroyed will receive $10,000 worth of Iraqi currency."Nothing like $10,000, a destroyed house, no water, no power, an ID card, and a retina scan. When will the occupation and destruction end? |W|P|110386193050284149|W|P|Fallujans on the way back|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"The secretary, who has been criticized in recent weeks for his stewardship of the Iraq war effort, arrived in Iraq amid tight security, accompanied by media after a 13-hour flight from Washington, D.C. Rumsfeld landed before dawn at Camp Marez and visited a combat surgical hospital where victims of the bombing were treated. Many of the wounded have since been transferred to a U.S. military hospital in Germany. Addressing reporters en route to Iraq, Rumsfeld said the purpose of his trip was to wish U.S. troops a Merry Christmas. He also said he had been making plans to visit Iraq prior to Tuesday's bombing, which killed 14 members of the U.S. military and eight others.President Bush this week said Rumsfeld has his continued confidence. But numerous lawmakers, including several Republicans, have complained that Rumsfeld failed to adequately plan for the occupation of Iraq and equip U.S. troops to battle the insurgency as it spread."What a jerk. He (and the White House's publicity manager) must've been thinking: "Let's make this old scrooge look like a real man. His job's on the line--let's show him interacting with the troops without any planted questions. We've got to prove he's a 'caring fellow.'" Here's a link to the CNN story on the recent demands for his resignation. |W|P|110386110670525892|W|P|Rummy kisses ass|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"It has been noted that the Bushes' holiday card this year includes a Scripture verse. But, again, it does not mention Jesus. This card has a line from Psalms, 95:2: "Let us come before him with Thanksgiving and extol him with music and song." First lady Laura Bush supervises the card selection. She also picked cards with Bible verses when her husband was Texas governor."What a bitch. I hope the right-wing MSM picks this up and runs with it. O'Reilly is gonna be pissed. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I admit, I haven't been following this story too closely, but evidentally their a bunch of folks on the right who think saying "Happy Holidays" demeans the Christian majority and their Christmas wishes. Those particularly looking out for Christmas instead of the holidays include Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs. Here are some Media Matters for America links on the subject: But today I couldn't resist releasing the name of the leader of the anti-Christmas movement. . . . It is none other than the President of the United States of America George W. Bush. From today's press conference:
"Good morning and happy holidays to you all."Uh-oh. He's gonna feel the backlash from the Christian right, I know its coming soon. And this from "It Affects You" (sarcasm, just in case you didn't notice):
"Happy holidays? Why does Bush want to banish Christmas? I can't wait to tune in to O'Reilly and listen as he has the courage to stand up against those who wish to banish Christmas. I look forward to the press releases from James Dobson and the Christian Defense Coalition on Bush's attack on Christianity. And next weekend I'll get on my feet and cheer as Pat Robertson hits the Sunday talkies coming to the defense of Christmas everywhere. Won't somebody think of the children growing up without Christmas?"|W|P|110358184120914573|W|P|The War on Christmas|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"President Bush will spearhead an election-style public relations campaign early next year to try to convince Americans that Social Security is in urgent need of change but will keep dollar and cent details deliberately vague, analysts and officials say. With Bush's political capital riding on a successful overhaul of the popular retirement program, the White House and its allies plan to bombard the public with presidential speeches, television and radio ads, newspaper op-ed articles and grass-roots rallies between now and early 2005. "It's going to be a battle royal, very much like an election campaign but over an issue rather than a candidate," said Stephen Moore, executive director of Club for Growth, a Republican group that hopes to spend $15 million on a media campaign backing the White House."These are lies. This is going to be similar to the build-up right before the war in Iraq. We can't let the lies lead us to deception this time. Flood your congressmen and local newspapers with letters explaining that the crisis is fake and privatization is not the way to go. |W|P|110375986039361547|W|P|Social Security battle begins now|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"So Democrats should clamber down from the window ledges, roll up their sleeves and get to work on some of these issues. Because I'm embarrassed to say that Democrats have been so suspicious of Republicans that they haven't contributed much on those human rights issues where the Christian right has already staked out its ground. Take sex trafficking. Paul Wellstone, the liberal from Minnesota, led an effort with Mr. Brownback and others to pass landmark legislation in 2000 to battle sex slavery around the world. But since Mr. Wellstone's death in 2002, the leadership on the issue has passed to the Christian right and to the Bush administration. Or Darfur. Conservative Christians have been jumping up and down about Sudan for years because of its repression of Christians. So when Sudan's government launched its genocide in the Darfur region, Democrats were slow to speak out, perhaps perceiving it as a conservative issue. Then there's North Korea. Democrats have properly lambasted Mr. Bush for his disastrous approach toward North Korea, which has reacted to his policy by turning into a nuclear arms assembly line. But it has been Mr. Brownback and other conservative Christians who have turned the heat on North Korea's human rights record and laid the groundwork for more radio broadcasts to undermine the regime there. So, all in all, I find Mr. Brownback perhaps the most intriguing man in Washington - so wrong on so much, and yet such a leader on humanitarian issues. He is also working with liberals like Ted Kennedy to press for immigration reform, prison reform, increased funds for AIDS and malaria, construction of an African-American history museum and even an apology to American Indians. The other day, Mr. Brownback told me enthusiastically about his trip to northern Uganda and urged me to write about brutalities there. I was disoriented - I thought I was the one who tried to get people to pay attention to remote places. So why is a conservative Kansas senator traveling to the wilds of Uganda?"The answer to that question and more are in the full text of the article (linked above). Democrats need to follow through on the wonderful work that Paul Wellstone began. He was a wonderful man, kind, compassionate, and caring. Its scary to think that those who we've been condeming for years as ignorant towards the third world are now taking the lead in helping them. I'm not encouraging liberal competition to provide more foreign aid and support to these humanitarian issues. But what I am encouraging is a bipartisan effort for humanitarian issues--because God knows we need more good, caring folks in this crazy world. |W|P|110375910727316535|W|P|Let's get our humanitarian act together|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"The situation has left the White House sending two somewhat contradictory messages. One, alluded to by Mr. Bush at his news conference on Monday and stated explicitly by other administration officials on Tuesday, is that no one should expect either the violence to abate after the first round of elections on Jan. 30 or the United States to begin bringing troops home next year in substantial numbers. "There should be no illusion," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said on Tuesday, "that suddenly right after the election the Iraqis are going to be able to take over their own security. Certainly, we're going to be there through '05 in significant numbers." The other message is that progress is being made in Iraq, that the insurgency will eventually be quelled and that there is no reason to change course. "The idea of democracy taking hold in what was a place of tyranny and hatred and destruction is such a hopeful moment in the history of the world," Mr. Bush said Tuesday after visiting with wounded troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. "I'm confident democracy will prevail in Iraq.""I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees that conflicting messages coming out of the White House and from the Bush Regime. Moreover, this was particularly interesting:
"For a year, the administration has suggested that Iraq would move closer to stability as it reached one milestone after another: the capture of Saddam Hussein; the handover of sovereignty and the appointment of an interim government; the deployment of Iraqi security forces; the military campaign to expel the insurgents from strongholds like Falluja; and the first round of elections next month. Yet most of those milestones have passed with little discernible improvement in the security situation. Now some analysts are concerned that the elections could make the political situation in Iraq even more unstable by producing an outcome in which the Sunni minority feels so marginalized by the Shiite majority that it fuels not just further violence against Americans and Iraqis working with them but also more intense sectarian strife or even civil war."Nothing like pointing out failure after failure. Thank God for the New York Times. |W|P|110373801891665624|W|P|A much harder second term|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"In "The Plot Against America," the novelist Philip Roth imagined what might have befallen this nation if the appeasing Charles A. Lindbergh had defeated the anti-Hitler F.D.R. in the 1940 election. Here's my idea for the sequel: Opening scene in the Oval Office in winter 2001, after U.S. and allied forces crushed the Taliban in retaliation for their part in 9/11, with bin Laden not yet found in Afghanistan. President Bush tells his national security aides he wants to continue to wage war against the web of terrorists, lest America be attacked again with nukes or germs. The C.I.A.'s Tenet notes that Saddam's Iraq harbors the terrorists Nidal and al-Zarqawi. Adviser Rice adds that world intelligence services agree that Saddam seeks awful weapons. The Pentagon's Rumsfeld warns it is "only a matter of time" before Iraq shoots down one of our planes enforcing the no-flight zone protecting Iraq's Kurds from genocide."|W|P|110369143288598060|W|P|Safire is insane|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Yes, these were a series of unfortunate events. And yet here we are in this hopeful moment. It almost makes you think that all those bemoaners and condemners don't know what they are talking about. Nothing they have said over the past three years accounts for what is happening now. It almost makes you think that Bush understands the situation better than the lot of them. His judgments now look correct. Bush deduced that Sharon could grasp the demographic reality and lead Israel toward a two-state solution; that Arafat would never make peace, but was a retardant to peace; that Israel has a right to fight terrorism; and that Sharon would never feel safe enough to take risks unless the U.S. supported him when he fought back. Bush concluded that peace would never come as long as Palestine was an undemocratic tyranny, and that the Palestinians needed to see their intifada would never bring triumph."Bush didn't conclude all of this. He gambled and got lucky. These next four years he won't be so lucky, mark my words. And to David Brooks: Almost is the key word in the stuff above. Sometimes you have good stuff to say. But today you didn't. Please don't publish when you're not making sense. And remember--just because Egypt and Mubarak are working with Israel doesn't mean its a good thing. Egypt is under the authoritarian control of Mubarak, and democracy barely exists. If we want democracy promoted in the Middle East, we shouldn't be so friendly to our allies who are barely democratic. |W|P|110365146011261947|W|P|Brooks gives too much credit to Bush|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"F.B.I. memorandums portray abuse of prisoners by American military personnel in Iraq that included detainees' being beaten and choked and having lit cigarettes placed in their ears, according to newly released government documents. The documents, released Monday in connection with a lawsuit accusing the government of being complicit in torture, also include accounts by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who said they had seen detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, being chained in uncomfortable positions for up to 24 hours and left to urinate and defecate on themselves. An agent wrote that in one case a detainee who was nearly unconscious had pulled out much of his hair during the night. One of the memorandums released Monday was addressed to Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, and other senior bureau officials, and it provided the account of someone "who observed serious physical abuses of civilian detainees" in Iraq. The memorandum, dated June 24 this year, was an "Urgent Report," meaning that the sender regarded it as a priority. It said the witness "described that such abuses included strangulation, beatings, placement of lit cigarettes into the detainees' ear openings and unauthorized interrogations." The memorandum did not make clear whether the witness was an agent or an informant, and it said there had also been an effort to cover up the abuses. The writer of the memorandum said Mr. Mueller should be aware of what was occurring because "of potential significant public, media and Congressional interest which may generate calls to the director." The document does not provide further details of the abuse, but suggests that such treatment of prisoners in Iraq was the subject of an investigation conducted by the bureau's Sacramento office. Beyond providing new details about the nature and extent of abuses, if not the exact times or places, the newly disclosed documents are the latest to show that such activities were known to a wide circle of government officials. The documents, mostly memorandums written by agents to superiors in Washington over the past year, also include claims that some military interrogators had posed as F.B.I. officials while using harsh tactics on detainees, both in Iraq and at Guantánamo Bay."Argh. . . Why are we such terrible people?|W|P|110365042858844878|W|P|Abuse|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Since his 3-percentage-point win over Sen. John Kerry, Bush has experienced a complete lack of bounce in the polls. In fact, in at least one national survey, Fox News' Opinion Dynamics poll, conducted Dec. 14-15, Bush's approval rating has fallen five points in the last month, to 48 percent. In other polls, including Washington Post-ABC, NBC/Wall Street Journal, Pew Research Center, Associated Press-Ipsos, Zogby, and Gallup, Bush's already soft approval numbers have flat-lined since the election. That phenomenon stands in sharp contrast to U.S. history, when presidents voted into office for a second term, even after close elections, routinely have received robust approval ratings. According to an analysis posted on the Gallup Web site in mid-November, Bush's current 53 percent approval rating "is actually the lowest of any of the last seven presidents who won a second term in the first poll conducted after their re-election." Right after securing their second terms, Bill Clinton received a 58 percent approval rating, Ronald Reagan 61 percent, Richard Nixon 62 percent, Lyndon Johnson 70 percent, Dwight Eisenhower 75 percent, and Harry Truman 69 percent."Yikes. Bush is gonna be in company all by himself after this innauguration. Meanwhile, a majority of Americans now believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Its about damn time. From an MSNBC story:
"While a slight majority believe the Iraq war contributed to the long-term security of the United States, 70 percent of Americans think these gains have come at an "unacceptable" cost in military casualties. This led 56 percent to conclude that, given the cost, the conflict there was "not worth fighting" -- an eight-point increase from when the same question was asked this summer, and the first time a decisive majority of people have reached this conclusion."Wow. It looks like folks voted to reinstate the Bush Regime thinking he'd turn things around immediately if re-elected. And since he has now evidentally failed, we don't like him. Goddamn the American public. . .we just can't make up our minds Some analysis from the Daily Kos on the same topic:
"What to make of these numbers? First of all, Karl Rove got screwed by Time Magazine. He deserved that Man of the Year award after selling this lemon to the American people. But what makes me angry was Kerry and his gang's inability to take advantage of the situation. I may regret saying this later, but fuck it -- they should be lined up and shot. There's no reason they should've lost to this joker. "I voted for the $87 billion, then I voted against it." That wasn't nuance. That was idiocy. And with a primary campaign that consisted entirely of "I'm the most electable", Kerry entered the general without a core philosophy or articulated vision for the job. I could deal with losing to a popular incumbent. But it's tough to deal with the most unpopular incumbent to win reelection. Of course, there's a silver lining to all of this. A Kerry presidency would've been an unmitigated disaster, with a hostile congress, budget woes, the mess in Iraq, etc. Not a good time to be in charge. Those Supreme Court seats would've been nice (whoever we would've been able to push through a hostile Senate), but we've got an opportunity for long-term gain. The left is already working to build it's own version of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy -- the $300 million annual machine that developes the conservative message (think tanks), disseminates it to the public (Fox News, Rush), and trains their leaders in how to wield it. The war isn't going well, and Bush will be hard pressed to rescue anything positive from that quagmire. The budget is a mess, and budget cuts will cause great resentment while savings get eaten up by his Iraq misadventures. The GOP's right wing is screaming for payback with an agenda that doesn't sell on Main Street. GOP moderates may be emboldened by Giuliani's and Schwarzenegger's popularity to reassert themselves. The economy is going nowhere, housing starts are down, and interest rates are rising. This Christmas season has been the worst for retailers in years. That is, unless you are a high-end retailer. Thing are going great for those who can afford $360 Christian Dior glasses for their teenage daughters. Most people have to scavange the clearance rack at WalMart. The Democrats need to offer an alternative agenda over the next four years. It won't be enacted, so they can shoot for the moon. The hell with good policy, make proposals that sound great. The GOP used flag burning and gay marriage to rally their side. We can find equivalents. Don't worry about them becoming law, because they won't. Worry about branding the party and placing every bit of bad news (and there will be plenty) squarely at the feet of the party that controls all levers of government. We need to make the GOP radioactive. Their incompetence is providing the ammunition. It is our job to wield it. Remember, they control everything. We don't need to be bipartisan. We don't need to work with them for them to pass their agenda. So we offer up clear alternatives to everything they propose. We have to be aggressive. We have nothing to lose. Being in the minority is being in the minority. Yet we have much to gain."Wow, Markos hits the nail on the head. Happy holidays, fellow minority members. May your resolutions be ones of hope and faith towards the Democratic party. |W|P|110364977552558574|W|P|Unpopular|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Robert Schumacher|W|P|:) As to the American public not being able to make up their minds...Bush will probably label us "flip-floppers" :)"Clearly the American election system needs significant improvement, starting with voter-verified paper trails for every vote cast electronically. In the current flawed system, the best chance we have of producing accurate results is to be on guard for manipulation of electronic voting machines and tabulation software, and to conduct conscientious recounts when the outcome is at all in doubt."Go to the site and read the rest of their editorials on the subject. Maybe someday they'll make a significant difference across the country. |W|P|110356153087782762|W|P|Election reform|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Robert Schumacher|W|P|Politicians, especially those on the "winning" side, don't care that much about election reform...because the flawed system got them in/keeps them in power."From the earliest planning stages until now, the war in Iraq has been a tragic exercise in official incompetence. The original rationale for the war was wrong. The intelligence was wrong. The estimates of required troop strength were wrong. The war hawks' guesses about the response of the Iraqi people were wrong. The cost estimates were wrong, and on and on. Nevertheless the troops have fought valiantly, and the price paid by many has been horrific. They all deserve better than the bad faith and shoddy treatment they are receiving from the highest officials of their government."If only our government could admit this. . . And then try to fix it. |W|P|110356041188282756|W|P|Herbert gets it|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"The Bush administration appears determined to build on its "mandate" and push Social Security privatization early in Bush's second term. This seems an ill-advised plan for several reasons. First, there is little compelling evidence that Social Security is in any kind of crisis and none at all that carving out private accounts will improve Social Security's fiscal position. In fact, it will almost certainly worsen that position. Second, there is no evidence that the public is thirsting for this particular "reform". The new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that only 35 percent believe Bush has a mandate to allow "workers to invest some of their Social Security taxes in the stock market", compared to 51 percent who believe he does not. And when asked whether they thought it was "a good idea or a bad idea to change the Social Security system to allow workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market", half said it was a bad idea and only 38 percent said it was a good one."
I guess the Regime needs to recheck its strategy.
The essential part of this debate, that Teixeira notes and that I do too, is that Democrats can't just be the party of leave it alone and don't privatize it, but we need a clear, coherent, and easy to understand economic message. And if anyone has any ideas what we should say in that message, leave a comment.
|W|P|110355962931754064|W|P|America doesn't want privatization|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com Chris Woods|W|P|This is quite true. If I remember correctly, Joseph Stalin was Man of the Year once.- Summary post on the Kerik stuff that I might've missed the past couple of days
- News on the 656th Transportation Company (click the Fair Treatment for Our Soldiers link in the sidebar, and you'll learn all about them if you didn't already know)
- A posted debate between myself and The Political Forecast contributor Chase Nordengren on Social Security and privatization
- Should Iowa and New Hampshire keep their top spot in the primary system?
"As the Bush administration tries to persuade America to convert Social Security into a giant 401(k), we can learn a lot from other countries that have already gone down that road.Information about other countries' experience with privatization isn't hard to find. For example, the Century Foundation, at www.tcf.org, provides a wide range of links.
Yet, aside from giving the Cato Institute and other organizations promoting Social Security privatization the space to present upbeat tales from
Chile, the U.S. news media have provided their readers and viewers with little information about international experience. In particular, the public hasn't been let in on two open secrets: Privatization dissipates a large fraction of workers' contributions on fees to investment companies.
It leaves many retirees in poverty.
Decades of conservative marketing have convinced Americans that government programs always create bloated bureaucracies, while the private sector is always lean and efficient. But when it comes to retirement security, the opposite is true. More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. In Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. And that's a typical number for privatized systems."
Krugman also goes on to note that he doesn't believe the idea of privatization is in an effort to help big supporters on Wall Street, but its merely a bad ideological issue.
As long as those on the left can keep hammering away at the terrible problems with privatization, we can win this battle.
|W|P|110326226882483300|W|P|Krugman hammers away on Social Security|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com" As we close the books on 2004, and not a moment too soon, it's clear that, as far as the culture goes, this year belonged to Mel Gibson's mammoth hit. Its prurient and interminable wallow in the Crucifixion, to the point where Jesus' actual teachings become mere passing footnotes to the sumptuously depicted mutilation of his flesh, is as representative of our time as "Godspell" was of terminal-stage hippiedom 30 years ago. The Gibson conflation of religion with violence reflects the universal order of the day — whether the verbal fisticuffs of the culture war within America, as exemplified by Mr. Donohue's rant on national television or, far more lethally, the savagery of the actual war that radical Islam brought to our doorstep on 9/11. . . . Yet if you watch the news and listen to certain politicians, especially since Election Day, you'll hear an ever-growing drumbeat that Christianity is under siege in America. Like Mr. Gibson, the international movie star who portrayed himself as a powerless martyr to a shadowy anti- Christian conspiracy in the run-up to the release of "The Passion," his fellow travelers on the right detect a sinister plot — of secularists, "secular Jews" and "elites" — out to destroy the religion followed by more than four out of every five Americans. . . . What is this about? How can those in this country's overwhelming religious majority maintain that they are victims in a fiery battle with forces of darkness? It is certainly not about actual victimization. Christmas is as pervasive as it has ever been in America, where it wasn't even declared a federal holiday until after the Civil War. What's really going on here is yet another example of a post-Election-Day winner-takes-all power grab by the "moral values" brigade. As Mr. Gibson shrewdly contrived his own crucifixion all the way to the bank, trumping up nonexistent threats to his movie to hype it, so the creation of imagined enemies and exaggerated threats to Christianity by "moral values" mongers of the right has its own secular purpose. The idea is to intimidate and marginalize anyone who objects to their efforts to impose the most conservative of Christian dogma on public policy. If you're against their views, you don't have a differing opinion — you're anti-Christian (even if you are a Christian)."Read the full article. Rich is brilliant when it comes to cultural insight and affairs. His weekly column is always a great read. I hope you enjoy. |W|P|110324686839422270|W|P|Frank Rich: The Year of "The Passion"|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"You once offered your viewers your definition of the word "coward." On the January 5, 2004, O'Reilly Factor, you declared: "If you attack someone publicly, as these men did to me, you have an obligation to face the person you are smearing. If you don't, you are a coward." Well, Mr. O'Reilly, you have attacked me publicly on numerous occasions, and you refuse to face me. You, sir, are a coward -- by your own definition of the term."Ouch. Read the full letter to Bill O'Reilly here. |W|P|110324601769898639|W|P|O'Reilly is a Coward|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Bush was not specific about his own ideas for solving the problem, but laid out a few do-or-die principles.He said that for an undefined group of seniors "nothing will change'' in their benefit structure, that there should be no increase in payroll taxes and that younger workers should be moved toward private accounts for some portion of their Social Security contributions."
Yeah, the undefined group of seniors is the top little group of folks who are on their deathbed and won't keep feeding off the system for too much longer.
Moreover, the AP adds to the impending "doom" of Social Security:
"In 2018, the system starts paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes. In 2042, the system will be able to cover 73 percent of promised benefits, according to Social Security's trustees.
The White House acknowledges that allowing younger workers to invest funds in private accounts would do little to help plug the shortfall.
"It will take more to solve the problem than just personal accounts,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday. The transformation would be part of a "comprehensive solution to strengthen Social Security.''"
First of all, Social Security will be able to cover 100% (full) benefits up until 2042, by most estimates. After that date, it will most likely drop down to about 80% of benefits.
And granted, there is a problem with Social Security, but is gambling with it on the stock market and Wall Street really the wise thing to do? Most young folks have no idea how to invest in the stock market and how to play it safe. Its a risky business--and for the capitalist system to work, someone has to lose. If Bush's plan comes about, it'll be the big businesses on Wall Street and the few lucky folks that win. . .and just about everyone else who loses.
Finally, I refer you again to Josh Marshall's excellent post on the future of Social Security. And here is a link to Media Matters for America and their excellent look in to the MSM's falsehoods about the "impending doom" of Social Security.
|W|P|110322433479378442|W|P|Social Security fear-mongering and lies|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com"Several former high-ranking military lawyers say they are discussing ways to oppose President Bush's nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales to be attorney general, asserting that Mr. Gonzales's supervision of legal memorandums that appeared to sanction harsh treatment of detainees, even torture, showed unsound legal judgment. Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination are expected to begin next month. While Mr. Gonzales is expected to be confirmed, objections from former generals and admirals would be a setback and an embarrassment for him and the White House. Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, who served as the Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000 before he retired, said that while Mr. Gonzales might be a lawyer of some stature, "I think the role that he played in the one thing that I am familiar with is tremendously shortsighted." Mr. Gonzales, as White House counsel, oversaw the drafting of several confidential legal memorandums that critics said sanctioned the torture of terrorism suspects in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and opened the door to abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. A memorandum prepared under Mr. Gonzales's supervision by a legal task force concluded that Mr. Bush was not bound either by an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation. The memorandum also said that executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons, including a belief by interrogators that they were acting on orders from superiors "except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful." Another memorandum said the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan. Mr. Hutson, who is dean and president of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H., said that Mr. Gonzales "was not thinking about the impact of his behavior on U.S. troops in this war and others to come." "He was not thinking about the United States' history in abiding by international law, especially in the wartime context," he said. "For that reason, some of us think he is a poor choice to be attorney general.""Hmm. . .if only this would stop his confirmation. Does anyone think its possible tha the might have a "nanny" he didn't pay for? If not, let's just keep the pressure on the Regime to find someone else better and more qualified for the job of America's top cop.
|W|P|110321797269148436|W|P|Ex-military lawyers speak out against Gonzales|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Last night, Mr. Kerik was told that skeptics in city government circles were questioning the very existence of the nanny, and he was pressed to provide any kind of evidence to document that she was real. But after taking time to consider the request, Mr. Kerik again decided to remain silent on the subject."It seems that the question over whether there really was ever a nanny has become quite "legit" as Josh Marshall put it. He's got a lot more stuff on Kerik here, here, here, and here. This story keeps spinning out of control, all while Kerik's hole is dug deeper and deeper. |W|P|110321724296445424|W|P|No nanny?|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com