Department of Propaganda Redux

First, thank you, Heather, for your comments. It was good to hear that someone is reading this and I appreciated your comments. As to intolerance, all of us are intolerant in some way or another, including me. I'm most intolerant of misrepresentation which is one of the reasons I'm writing this blog.

It is a journalistic misrepresentation to fake a by-line. When the Government does it, it's propaganda. This summer, the Bush administration appointed our first Minister of Propaganda (Karen Hughes, Deputy Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy, an euphemism if there ever was one). Now the Pentagon is releasing stories to Iraqi newspapers under false by-lines and under false pretenses. Sounds like propaganda is becoming an accepted American practice to me, at least among our so-called leaders. That vibration you feel is Jefferson rolling in his grave.

Now when I was in the Air Force I was public affairs officer for four of my squadrons. We never really lied; we never painted anything in a negative light but at least we always stated truthfully who wrote the piece. It wasn't balanced journalism but we weren't writing for a civilian audience nor were we pretending to be a free press. Extending the practice to show only one side of an issue or to write to a pre-determined conclusion is spin, the practice of Karl Rove and the writers of those disguised advertising supplements in the Sunday papers. Spin isn't intended to be balanced or to inform. Its intent is to pursuade someone of a point, Bush's more-0f-the-same speech today before a is a prime example. If the Pentagon's one-sided reporting in Iraq were claimed by the Pentagon, it would be spin, people could read it and take it with a grain of salt or as gospel, depending on their opinion of the Pentagon. Instead, they hid the actual authors under paid Iraqi by-lines and paid editors to print the stories.

Here in the States, that material would have to have been marked "Paid Advertising" or some such. Iraq apparently has no such editorial scruples. The problem here is the lack of ethics: We're attempting to set up a democracy and a free press, then violating the ethics of a free press for short-term gain. This says to our nominal allies that propaganda is acceptable journalistic practice "as long as the ends are good." I'm sure many gulag residents (Soviet-era, not ours) would disagree.

Of course, no one at the actual Pentagon is claiming knowledge of this. Like torture, someone in the field did it without the higher-ups' knowledge. To any military veteran, this is about as plausible as saying that Headquarters didn't know the jets were flying under the ski lift cable - Headquarters knows what the field units are doing. That's their job. Donald It's Not an Insurgency Rumsfeld, Minister of War, claims we're setting up a free and open press in Iraq. That was yesterday. Today we find out that we're teaching our nominal allies what their previous government knew well, how to mislead the public in the name of a free press.

Climate Change

I rode home with a wingnut today who, hearing about Tropical Storm Epsilon (that's number 26 for the year), proceeded to tell me all about why climate change is a completely natural phenomenon and there's nothing we six billion humans could do about it. I was touched by his loyalty to the party line, to Haliburton and Big Oil. We'll even benefit, he claimed, as there's more heat and carbon dioxide in the air, the plants will grow better and know what, it'll even clean out those nasty coastal cities as the sea level rises. It's part of the Earth's self-cleaning cycle.

I also read some more comments: The United States has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by more than any other country in the world, they crow. They're right, we've reduced our emission of carbon dioxide by one percent and, since we're the world's largest producer with twenty-five percent of the world's emissions, we've probably reduced more tons of carbon dioxide emission than any other country. This is the same type of spin that tells us, truthfully, that millions of Iraqis favor our presence in the country. Put another way, eighty percent of Iraqis want us out: Twenty percent of millions is still millions.

Where do the reductions come from? Let's see, we've lost a city. Gas hit three dollars a gallon this summer. We continue to export manufacturing and its accompanying carbon dioxide emissions to countries without our piteously inadequate environmental standards. The Bushies brag about the five billion dollars they invest in clean technologies. That's ten bridges to nowhere, people, or about a week's cost of Iraq.

Numbers lie, but they can also tell the truth.

It Really Isn't Torture

"What we do does not come close to torture," Porter Goss, Director of the CIA said in a televised interview today. Care for a little waterboarding, anyone? He would not comment on the gulag system recently exposed or on rendition. It is all done in the name of the war on terrorism.

Ours or theirs?

Damage Control

The Shrub has dispatched Condi, aptly named after my girlfriend's aunt's cat, to Europe to control the damage caused by the revelation that the American Gulag system extends onto Eurozone soil. The Republicans are promising to answer the questions as forthrightly and honestly as possible, Bush-speak for lie, misdirect, misinform. The European Union, rightly so, has indicated it will sanction any member caught supporting U. S. secret prison - read human rights violations. Several European contries are complaining that their airports were used in rendition flights, read flights of prisoners of CIA interest to places where torture is legal, not merely being debated. While it would be interesting to hear what Condi really has to say, I'm sure we'll never know unless some European country has the wherewithal to reveal what we already know: The Bush administration tortures prisoners in secret jails.

Further damage control is required to justify the Shrub's claims that we're winning the war on terrorism. Aside from the debacle that is Iraq, the Congressional Research Service reported to Congress on Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, that the yardsticks the Shrub's minions use to gauge progress in the War on Terror are mostly a few inches off - namely, useless. Of some interest is that the report was issued on Friday after Thanksgiving. A common tactic in Washington is to issue bad news on Friday afternoon to lessen its impact. Releasing it on Friday afternoon after Thanksgiving pretty much guaranteed no one would know about it. Thanks to the attentive folks at Reuters, we know about another Bush misinformation campaign, measurement of progress using defective measurements. The inventor of the phrase "fuzzy math" (an outflow of an inadequately pursued Ivy League education, perhaps, one wasted on booze and cocaine?) uses numbers instead of meaning, the study states. Interesting, given the fact that figures lie and liars figure. The study indicated that it was hard to see if and in what cases progress has been made. Pretty much contradicts the oft-repeated we're winning the war on terror.

Further damage control: Twenty percent of the criminal investigations of U. S. Congressmen are against Democrats! Horrors! Furthering the numeric theme, the percentage of one investigation against the Bush administration resulting in indictment of an Administration official: one hundred. The percentage of the seven investigations into the Clintons' conduct that resulted in indictment of an Administration official: zero. So, mathematically, the Clinton administration was infinitely less criminal than the Bush administration.

Numbers are such wonderful things! You can torture them into saying anything. Reminds me of a CIA interrogation. Waterboarding, anyone?

Christmas in Colorado

Today's Denver Post went into painful detail in a controversy over whether a float depicting a Nativity scene could be in the Parade of Lights.

Now first let me simply state I don't care whether you call the American festival of consumeristic and gastronomical excess Christmas, Holidays, Hannukah, Festivus or simply a day off with pay. The holiday, a Christian adaptation of a Celtic winter festival, has so little to do with religion or the man it's named after I really don't care to celebrate it at all. I honor Christ and his teachings and the day I see James Dobson selling all his riches and giving them to the poor and Pat Robertson in contrition for his advocating murder, I'll begin to believe they're sincere about the holiday.

As nearly as I can determine from the Denver Post's article, no one cares about the float except those building it. Agitating the base by insinuating the left is anti-Christ is a great way to generate donations. It's easy to do, there are a few athiests out there agitating and the Right would love to attach that label to all of us on the more liberal side of the political spectrum. In a similar vein, I got an e-mail from a cousin in Kentucky last night showing a group of Marines with bowed heads, possibly praying but there's no way to tell from the picture. The accompanying text claimed the ACLU was sueing to prevent public prayer by the Marines since they're technically Government employees. A quick check of Google revealed urban legend - neither the ACLU representative or the Marine commander cited in the clever little work of fiction exist nor has the ACLU ever sued to restrict public prayer among Government employees. Reading the rebuttal I thought, what a clever way to agitate against the left.

See, there's a belief among the Right that all of us Lefties are against any intrusion of religion into public life. I couldn't agree less. The sight of a creche on public property doesn't set me off, nor does "merry Christmas" in lights on the public square make me grit my teeth. I can't remember the last time I read a dollar bill or the fine print on a coin. It's a non-issue. Making it an issue serves those who would have us believe they're the victims.

Bush's Plagiarized Exit Strategy

On September 21st, Democratic Senator Joe Biden outlined an exit strategy for Iraq. Today, quite disingenuously, Scotty Mclellan claims it's nearly identical to the President's previously unpublished version. Scotty goes on to claim "broad bipartisan support" for the plan. Duh! When you steal it from the other side, it's guaranteed to have bipartisan support. I'm not claiming it's a bad plan by any stretch but it is rather interesting the lengths the Shrub will go to to keep "looking Presidential," even if it means plagiarizing a plan from the Democrats.

Now there may be a link between the Shrub's vaporware exit strategy and Joe Biden's published one. I'm a bit reluctant to believe that the Shrub, who has actively resisteded even talking about an exit from Iraq, is suddenly converted to the notion that we need to have a somewhat better strategy than to stay the course. By the way, what's our reason for being there this week? Pardon the digression. We had to have something better than honoring our fallen as a reason to stay. In the absence of a reason in our national interest to continue staying the course, Biden and the Democrats provided a way out. I can't blame the Shrub, who apparently has never considered how to end the war he lied to start, for copying it.

Gentlemen's C's, plagiarizing.... Hmmmm....

Global Warming, What I Can Do

<>This morning I read that scientists had drilled a core into Antarctic ice twice as deep as any before. The analysis of air trapped in the ice reveals that the amount of carbon dioxide in our air is at the highest level it’s been in about 600,000 years. With tropical storm Delta churning about in the mid-Atlantic, it’s rather hard even for a hard-core Bushite to deny that the Earth is heating up.

Of course, if you’re a dispensationalist and are anxious to completely destroy the planet so God will come and save the righteous, you’re not really concerned. It’s all good, right? Since I‘m not anticipating the Rapture and I have no desire to live in a world where skiing in Colorado is an impossibility, I firmly believe we should be taking steps to check global warming. Unfortunately, with his ties to Big Oil, the Chief Shrub What In Charge and Dick the Torturer Cheney don’t believe in such nonsense. Or, with his gentleman’s C grasp of physics, the Shrub believes that all we have to do is build more oil-powered air conditioners to cool the planet. Now even children are smarter on thermodynamics than that, evidencing their concern about what we’re doing to their planet by protesting. Reiterating: It’s their planet, we’re just borrowing it.

Given our government’s suspension of disbelief on global warming, I believe it’s very important to take what steps we can to reduce our use of energy and thereby our production of greenhouse gas. I don’t have the financial wherewithal to go out and buy a Prius, GM’s love of the gas-guzzler and their failure to produce a working hybrid vehicle be damned, but I can drive less, combine trips and keep to the speed limit, notwithstanding the gas guzzling Suburban 4x4 in my rear-view mirror flashing its lights and sounding its 90+ decibel horn. I can replace all the lights in my house with compact fluorescents, eliminating the use of three conventional light bulbs and seventy-five percent of the energy they would use. I can get a programmable thermostat and let the temperature of my house drift up or down during the day, depending on the season. I can insulate, weatherstrip, replace the leaky kitty door, any number of measures to save energy, money and the planet while driving Excel Energy absolutely bonkers.

Efficient transportation, low energy demand facilities and micro-generation of energy are keys to a sustainable future in which we can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Our Government, shortsighted and ignorant, believe the future looks like the past, more wells, more (dirtier) power plants, more coal and oil use. Most educated people believe the future is one of efficient houses, industry and transportation and micro-generation of electrical energy. The Shrub and his Fundamentalist Republican Christian brethren believe the Rapture is coming to save him. God, please make it soon so the rest of us can get about the business of cleaning up after them.

Shrub vs. Blair - The Bombing Raid

<>Some days it really must suck to be a Shrub. Take yesterday as an example. First, some English hero revealed that Tony Blair had to talk the W out of bombing al-Jazeera. Let’s take a look at that one. Since the British Home Office is pursuing the leaker under England’s Official Secrets act, it’s a fair bet that there’s some truth to the story. After all, if there’s no truth, there’s no leak. That means that in April of last year, our Shrub was seriously considering sending our bombers to take out a civilian news agency located in Doha, Qatar, one of our allies. Aside from the outrage in the Moslem world such an attack would have caused, what does it tell us about Republican values?

<>No matter what the collateral damage, silence the bearer of bad news.

<>The Englishman that leaked that memo should be given a Medal of Freedom.

Then there is the issue of Jose Padilla. He’s the American citizen held without rights in a South Carolina brig for three years because he allegedly wanted to make a dirty bomb. In their indictment yesterday, the Administration as represented by Alberto Gonzales’s Justice Department didn’t mention the dirty bomb, only that Padilla had trained as a terrorist overseas. So here’s the rub: The President by edict has held an American citizen without rights for three years. Only when the case was to come before the Supreme Court, most likely costing the Shrub the right to hold Americans based on his decree, did the Administration decide to do the “right” (meaning cover your ass) thing and put the man on trial. The Republican value here is that the Constitution is a meaningless document to be trampled as much as possible before finally conceding to follow it. The second value is to hold power at all cost.

<>Is anyone else outraged that the President can hold an American citizen for three years without charge, trial, bond or attorney? Didn’t we fight a revolution in the eighteenth century to prevent these abuses of power? <>

And in a real yawner of a newsflash, Condi Rice is now saying that we can start drawing down the troops in Iraq beginning in 2006. Now I might be a dumb redneck but isn’t 2006 an election year? Anyone who didn’t expect this one raise your hand….

Republican War Resolution Rejected (Yawn)

The House voted 403-3 to reject the sham resolution offered by Republican syncophants of the Bush administration who support the war to pull out of Iraq immediately. What could be more false than the Republicans introducing a resolution to withdraw from Iraq immediately. Democrats, wisely, voted against the measure. Now comes the spin. The Republicans will claim (and 34% of the nation will believe them) that Democrats voted against pulling troops out of Iraq. In actuality, they voted against pulling troops out of Iraq immediately, a position no one in their right mind espouses. Rep. Murtha spoke out in favor of a phased withdrawal. Many Democrats have spoken out in favor of a phased withdrawal under proper conditions. It was the Republicans who tried to twist the words of the Democrats into a resolution to pull out immediately.

In a strange twist of fate, Democrats could now honestly claim that the Republicans introduced measures to pull out of Iraq immediately and that the Democrats worked to defeat the measure. Now a smart Democrat should introduce a resolution to support a phased withdrawal of American troops based on the political situation and, like the Senate, demand regular updates. Let the Republicans vote against that one and see which way the spin turns.

In fact, I think I'll write Sen. Salazar and suggest that very thing, although I'm sure someone much smarter than me has already thought of it....

Today in Republican Values

You knew it would be quite a day beginning with the Today Show. Since Scott Mclellan has no credibility left, they rolled out Nicolle Wallace, a sweet faced white chick you'd probably not mind being seen with. Not a single sentence was missing its parenthetical element nor was a single unpracticed word uttered and it's all the evil Democrats' fault. How anyone can't see through this ruse, present a sweetly spun message through a sweet-looking white chick evades me.

Apparently the ranks of the blind are down to 34%. These performances, these (with deference to Rod Stewart) well-rehearsed ad-lib lines are having the opposite of their desired result. Mr. Bush, here's something you may have never considered. When your credibility is in the toilet, as yours is, there's only one strategy that works, the full, unadulterated truth. Fortunately we can look forward to further sagging poll numbers because, Mr. President, I don't think you're capable of telling the truth.

Congressional Republicans' antics today were a reflection of their values, starting with the attempted swift-boating of Rep. John Murtha. House Republicans took his words, effectively a recommendation to withdraw our troops from Iraq as soon as possible, and turned them into circus by proposing a resolution designed to fail: Withdraw immediately. It doesn't take a five-deferment Vice President with more important things to do to see that one of these things is not like the other. It also doesn't take an AWOL from the Air Guard President to see that the Republicans' stunt is designed to reflect badly on those of us who want our troops back from a senseless war as soon as possible. My thought is that the American people are smarter than their leaders and will see through the ruse. In either case, the value demonstrated here is to avoid debate. Attack, prevaricate, submit bogus proposals but don't debate the issues, particularly when you don't have a leg to stand on.

Then there's the budget. The Bridge to Nowhere is gone, de-earmarked, as it were but don't expect Katrina victims or food stamp recipients to see any of it. It stays with Senator Ted Stevens's home state of Alaska to spend as they see fit, even on the Bridges to Nowhere should they decide to go ahead and build them. Republicans can now truthfully claim they removed the Bridge to Nowhere from the budget. Now Alaska has a cool half-billion to see as it sees fit, Stevens has lost nothing and the Republican "Stump the Chump" tactic has been aptly demonstrated.

The House and Senate budget machinations are even more sadly amusing. The House today passed a "Deficit Reduction Act", one they claim "slows the growth of mandatory entitlements". Here's what happens. Medicaid is cut so more poor children don't get medical care. Two hundred twenty thousand working Americans lose their Food Stamps so they can try to eat while earning minimum wage. There are fifty billion dollars of cuts in this bill, most aimed at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. Remember that number, fifty billion. The Republican Senate passed a tax cut on the same day worth sixty billion dollars. First, that's ten billion dollars more added to the deficit - we're giving up sixty billion dollars in income for fifty billion in savings. Deficit reduction? Second, the tax cut will benefit those of us with money to invest by extending the reduced taxes on capital gains and dividends. Most of us drawing capital gains and dividends won't be affected by a cut in food stamps or Medicaid. Here a couple of Republican values come into play: Do it fast enough and they'll never know it's really a deficit increase and rob the poor to pay the rich cause the rich give campaign contributions.

You determine values by observing actions. The Republicans have demonstrated theirs adequately today. I don't think their values represent the American people or the values we have as a nation. Unfortunately, they've managed to fool a number of people into believing they do.

Hero!

This morning it seemed the Senate Republicans would get away with some cosmetic changes to the Patriot Act. By afternoon it appeared Frist would have to go back to telediagnosis of brain death. A group of six Senators of both parties including our own Ken Salazar rebelled. While the Administration attempted to defend its lies by accusing those who supported them based on their lies of supporting them, the Pentagon defended burning people to the bone with white phosphorous and the Shrub attempted to look tough and presidential, six heroes rebelled against the attempt to establish a KGB within the United States.

The right-wingers wanted to extend all provisions of the Patriot Act for seven years, meaning the thirty thousand or so fishing expeditions the FBI has historically made per year can continue or even escalate. By the way, they never trash that data. If you've read Mein Kampf or Das Kapital or Dirty Bombs for Dummies or Catcher in the Rye, it will be on file in Washington forever, ready to jump out of the file whenever They think it "Necessary". If you've ever gotten an e-mail from an arabic-sounding sender, they can get everything from your ISP and keep it forever, including, one may think, how many porn sites you've visited and how much you've donated on-line to the Democratic National Committee. That Google search on "al-qaida" could mean that one day the men in black show up to question you about your terrorist ties. The Paranoia Department claims the extraordinary search and seizure powers granted under the Patriot Act are necessary and if you demand proof, they're obligated to give none. They're under no control. They're happy in a black world where your house is readily violable and your privacy doesn't exist.

The six heroes want simple American civil rights. They want you to be free of fear that some FBI functionary can obtain all your records just because he or she wants to without you being tied to any suspicion or investigation of terrorism. The six also want you notified if the FBI conducts a "sneak and peek" search of your property. Judicial oversight of the FBI and a right to privacy would seem to be basic American values but who would have thought we'd ever be debating whether it is acceptable to torture prisoners?

We already know Allard the Torturer's position on this: Sneak and peek and obtain records to your heart's content. And bring out the black leather and waterboards for anyone you catch after you've rendered them to some less principled country (but we're discussing torture as a valid interrogation means, how can we claim principles?).

Kudoes, too, to the Republican rebels in the House who voted down the benefit cuts for the poor and middle class - we don't need to be cutting taxes for the rich and food stamps for the poor. And to the Democrats who unanimously confirmed our values of offering aid and support to those who need it, praise. In the past, these people would be named statesmen. In today's Washington environment, the only word that works is hero.

How to Tell When They're In Trouble

These days I'd love to be a fly on the White House wall listening to Rove scheme, Cheney rant and Bush mumble. Cheney must be a lot of fun to listen to these days, accusing Democrats of "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city." The city, of course, is Washington and the charge is that the Republican administration manipulated, misdirected and misinformed to get their war in Iraq started.

Does anyone know the reason we're there this week?

Cheney accuses Democrats of hypocrisy, an interesting charge. More interesting is the charge itself. Rather than rely on some proof, rather than bringing forth some additional evidence that would have exonorated the Administration for making a bad decision, rather than admitting they were mistaken about the intel, Cheney joins Rumsfeld, the Republican National Committee and the Misguided One Himself in attempting to discredit those who would gainsay the Word of the Shrub. This tactic, more than anything else, indicates that the Administration is lying through their teeth.

The Administration provided the intelligence, they filtered it, they spun it, they massaged it, they presented it in ways that would produce the maximum confusion and they classified anything they didn't want to see. They swift-boated anyone with information that contradicted their pre-ordained conclusions, Joseph Wilson and Hans Blix come to mind. They wanted Saddam out at any cost, the first of which was the truth. Is it any wonder they managed to fool 29 Senate Democrats and all the Senate Republicans? They might have fooled me but I get my news from sources other than the networks and Fox News.

Cheney attempts to criticize Democrats for changing their mind. His perfection of reason must be a terrible burden to bear in our imperfect world. Hell, I must have changed my mind three or four times today, mostly about what I would write about tonight. There's a word for staying the course in spite of all evidence that the course is straight toward the rocks, stupidity. Others come to mind but none are complementary.

The Administration's persistent attempts at misdirecting debate about its policies to attacks on its opponents must backfire. The Administration has the power in all branches of Government now that we have a neocon Supreme Court so how can it blame its ills on the minority party? The American people have begun to see through the thin veils of lies and deceit the Administration and by extension the Republican party have attempted to sell us and I'm sure they will respond appropriately the next time we choose our government.

It's good to be back....

Let's Crow (a little)

How many Republicans does it take to screw in a light bulb? What, the way they spin?

Today is a day we Democrats can crow about, a little. The actual victories we won yesterday were minor but one thing is certain, except in homophobe Red Texas, the social conservatives got their butts kicked (Even there, the town of White Settlement voted to change their name to a more PC version). We kept the two governors' seats, we won big over the Governator (Gropen macht spass) in California, last week here in Colorado we proved that government can rely on its citizens to fund it, we won in Maine and in a number of districts so small no one outside of them have ever heard of them. Most importantly, those polled said the Shrub's attempt at influence worked, albeit not in the direction the Shrub planned. Swift boating didn't work in either New Jersey or Virginia, not even trotting out ex-wives worked. They couldn't wrap themselves in the flag they desicrate by torturing prisoners and holding them in secret jails. They couldn't claim ethics while the majority of their leaders are under some form of investigation. They couldn't claim fiscal responsibility while refusing to eliminate funding for a bridge for fifty people. They couldn't claim economic development when real wages have declined every year for the past five. The number one play in the Republican playbook, character asassination, just didn't work. What will Karl do next time around? He may actually have to run on issues.

So let's crow, a little. We won minor victories in a mid-term election. The Republicans are already trying to spin this using the "all politics are local" theme. I read of Republican strategist Carl Forti, a man with a limited grasp of statistics, attempting to prove that Virginia and New Jersey are poor political indicators based on the results of two previous elections. Some statistician please calculate the margin of error on that one. In Texas, though, the homophobes won out over equal rights but in Maine, voters defeated a measure that would prevent discrimination against gays. In Pennsylvania, voters turned out a school board that would have approved teaching of intelligent design even as Kansas approved it. The Kansas legislature is expected to define pi as equal to three in an upcoming session, citing the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circular basin in the first Jewish temple as defined in the Old Testament.

We made progress, that's certain. The Shrub was quiet today, apparently choking on that healthy serving of crow the results of his last-minute appearance in the Virginia race served him. They won't be quiet long. The spin machine will engage, the Swift Boats will be raised and repaired and all will be readied for the next campaign. Hopefully, they'll have to run on issues and their record.

That All you Got?

Floundering, directionless and desperate, the White House deployed the flotilla of swift boats against Sen Harry Reid (hero) this evening. Imagine Cheney accusing Reid of malicious conduct unbecoming his role, echoed in rapid succession by the Mouthpiece of the Torturers Scott McClellan and by Cheney's pet shyster Steve Schmidt. It isn't the Republican thing to do, but let's look at the facts:

Cheney wants permission to torture detainees. When he didn't get his way, he asked for an exemption so that, with Presidential approval, the CIA can trot out the ropes, the bare light bulbs, the dobermans and the black leather.

This week it came out that the chief witness linking Al Qaida to Iraq did so under torture in an Egyptian prison and was deemed by the CIA to be unreliable. Cheney and his pet President went ahead and used the intelligence as if it were fact to sell the war.

Cheney's office is under investigation and his chief of staff under indictment for an act that, once, would have been labled treason, the leaking of a covert operative's name and position, i. e. leaking classified information to quell critics of his policies.

All Harry Reid has done is to shine the light of truth on the corruption in the Vice Torturer's office and the conduct unbecoming that has gone on there for five years. Can't stand the message, swift boat the messenger. That, my friends, is Republican values in action. We can only hope the increasing loss of credibility Cheney and Bush are experiencing lead to a bit of critical thought, that people see through Cheney's increasingly malicious, desperate attacks.

Two Parties, Two Letters

A few weeks ago, I wrote both my Senators concerning my dismay at the fact that we needed a Minister of Propaganda (Euphemistically, Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy) and that Karen Hughes was the choice. I mean, if we're going to resort to propaganda, we might as well have a competent propagandist in charge. I also expressed my dismay at John Bolton's nomination to be our ambassador to an organization he'd love to dismantle. Here are the replies, the first from Ken Salazar, moderate Democrat, member of the Gang of 14 and hero. The second is from Wayne the Torturer Allard, Bush syncophant and proponent of stress positions, dobermans and black leather. Here's Senator Salazar's response:

Dear Stephen:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about the current state of affairs in our government. I understand your frustration and appreciate your taking time to express your concerns directly to me.

I share your concerns about the appointment of Karen Hughes as Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, as well as your opposition to the appointment of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Both of these positions are critical to improving the reputation of the United States abroad.

Ambassador Hughes was approved in the Senate on July 29. 2005. I question if she is the right person to for this position, and I am troubled by her recent comments in Jakarta, Indonesia in which she grossly misrepresented statistics regarding Iraq.

Ambassador Bolton was appointed by President Bush without Senate confirmation. On July 29, 2005, I joined 35 of my colleagues in signing a letter to President Bush asking him to not make a recess appointment of Mr. Bolton. This appointment undermines our efforts and sends the wrong message to the world by appointing someone who has not been confirmed by the United States Senate and who has admitted to not being truthful to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the questionnaire he swore was truthful.

Thanks again for writing.

Sincerely,

Ken Salazar
United States Senator

And now, Wayne the Torturer's reply:

Dear fellow Coloradoan:

Thank you for taking the time to e-mail me. This e-mail is an
acknowledgment that your comments and concerns have been received by my
office.

While this response is automatically generated, your e-mail and thoughts
are important to me. Based on the topic you have chosen, you should expect
to receive an issue-specific response either by e-mail or U.S. Postal
mail. If it is not the correct answer, please re-visit my website,
http://allard.senate.gov/contactme/index.cfm, to find a more appropriate
topic. It is important to note this response is automatically generated
and therefore I am unable to receive any reply sent back to this specific
e-mail.

I thank you for visiting my web page and encourage you to continue
checking my website for important updates concerning Colorado issues.

Thank you for your interest.

Sincerely,

Wayne Allard
U.S. Senator
Colorado

Because of a vendor email problem, this may be a duplicate email. If that
is the case, we apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you for your
understanding.

Lacks that certain je ne sais quoi, doesn't it....

Shoot the Messenger - Investigate the Leak

Damn, they move fast when it's their butts on the line! Frist and Hastert are already calling for investigation into who leaked the existence of secret prisons. Now here's a lesson in Republican ethics: Where were these calls when Valerie Plame's name and occupation were being leaked to the press? Probably hidden behind the giggles and the whispers, "we got that sumbitch now." Where is the outrage at the manipulated intelligence leading up to the Gulf War? How about what it took to get a 9/11 commission?

And notice it's not an investigation into whether the prisons exist (although the demand for investigation into who leaked classified information pretty much implies their existence), but into who leaked the information. No need to investigate the crime, just the person reporting it. I can hear the swift boats warming up on the Potomac, ready to throw slime over the hero who reported this gross violation of American values.

Ironically, today, after the heat on our unfortunately elected leaders reached the boiling point, the Pentagon announced it was prohibiting torture of any detainees. This veteran thought it was already prohibited.

Related, the Senate rejected calls for a commission to investigate abuses of U. S. detainees in a 55-43 vote. Want to guess who comprised the majority? The Republicans don't want the facts to come out, be it on abuse of detainees, existence of secret prisons, intelligence manipulation, who established the drill-and-chill energy policy, Plamegate or any of the other abuses, conspiracies and crimes they've committed in the past five years. Instead, just shoot the messenger. Misdirect, misinform, mislead and mistake, that's the Republican leadership mantra as personified by George "Torturer in Chief" Bush, Dick "Vice Torturer" Cheney, Wayne Allard the Torturer, Donald "Weasel Word" Rumsfeld, and the remainder of the gang of uncommon criminals we have in power in Washington.

To think that we in America are actually having a serious debate over whether torture should be allowed. We do need a change in leadership.

"We do not Torture!"

This past week we learned of "black site" prisons, hidden from public view and American justice by their placement in former Soviet gulags. John McCain introduced legislation to prevent Americans from torturing anyone. Bush and Cheney, despite the Senate's 90-9 vote in favor of the legislation, want it either killed or weakened so that, with Presidential approval and in accordance with U. S. law, of course, the CIA could trot out the dobermans and the black leather. After all, what is a little torture in the greater world of the war on terrorism?

It's the reason we're having to fight the war on terrorism. Too often, we've taken the low road in our relations with other nations, particularly in the last five years. We hold ourselves up to be an example, challenge others to imitate our judicial system. It's a system that now holds prisoners indefinitely without trial, that frees most white-collar criminals because they can afford better lawyers, that allows its intelligence services to imprison without any shred of oversight. Our diplomats are told to sell our economic system, one that has seen real declines in worker spending power over the past five years, that doesn't provide health care to our workers, that increasingly is polarized into haves and have nots. We preach but do not practice. The shining light of America is directed back and what it reveals isn't pretty.

Ten years ago, who would have thought we would be having a serious debate about whether it is legal to torture people? The answer would seem to be self-evident yet Bush, Cheney, Allard et. al. argue that we need the right for extraordinary circumstances. So far have the morals of the country's leadership slid that we are actually discussing whether it is legal to hold people indefinitely, without trial, without access to lawyers, without rights. We are being lectured on morals by Fidel Castro and guess what, he's right.

The answer is for the American people to reassert themselves and their morals. Despite our failed leadership's attempts to justify themselves and their practices, Americans should stand up and shout We do not torture. We need to stand up and shout on many issues, the unconstitutional search-and-siezure rights granted under the Patriot Act, the building of a bridge to nowhere while thousands of poor people will lose food stamps, the pharmaceutical industry's darling prescription drug coverage that will require seniors making over $13,000 per year to pay for their medicines out of their pockets. We are a moral, just people. We need leadership that reflects our values.

Rebranding

Rebranding is a term from the marketing world. Instead of re-creating your product, you create a new image for it or you recast your competition's product in a negative light. Properly done, it can work wonders: See Classic Coke following the New Coke fiasco, Wal-Mart's attempt to recast itself as an environmentally-friendly, good neighbor, great place to work and the Republican party's recasting of both itself and of Democrats.

Say the word Democrat and what answer do you get? Tax-and-spend, gay rights, baby killer, soft on defense, liberal (the latter isn't all wrong). Now try it with Republican. Values. Fiscal discipline, patriotism, strong defense, responsibility, conservative (the latter isn't all right). Given the historical record and the current state of the Bush administration, none of the statements about either party prove to be true. Yet they're almost automatic responses. We've been rebranded.

The Republicans in actuality are socially conservative and fiscally liberal. By socially conservative, I mean their policies favor organizations such as churches, the States, companies and wealthy individuals. They are anti-Federal government except where it benefits the organizations they support. They favor simple, uniform solutions to social problems. They are pro-status quo. At one time they were also fiscally conservative. In Ronald Reagan's day, the Democrats ran things, the highest U. S. tax bracket was 70 percent and the common joke was the Welfare Cadillac. Reagan reasoned, rightly so, that by lowering the upper tax brackets, he would stimulate the economy through increased investment (although the newly-created wealth never "trickled down", an error Reagan himself admitted to be the worst of his presidency). Seventy percent was excessive and needed to be trimmed. Social excesses also needed to be reduced. He was effective, although an ethical breach (Iran-Contra) limited his success in his second term.

Fast-forward to today. Today's Republicans are still socially conservative: They want prayer in school, they want to eliminate basic rights, they want to support the big institutions that support them, the Churches (Government support of faith-based initiatives), big business (relaxation of environmental laws, tax breaks), wealthy individuals (eliminating capital gains and dividend taxes) and they support simplistic solutions to complex social problems (take away the money and they'll find jobs). Unfortunately they no longer have fiscal discipline, see the highway bill for a stunning example of fiscal liberalism. The Republicans have become socially conservative and fiscally liberal. They're using tax money to fund the organizations that support them and to fund them handsomely while running up huge Federal deficits.

Despite the Republican rebranding of us so-called liberals, we are fiscally conservative. We've just been rebranded as socially and fiscally liberal. Social liberalism favors the individual in their rights and their benefits at the expense of organizations. Civil rights legislation is an example of granting rights at the expense of business, social and political organizations. We do not dabble in the religious other than to keep us free of it at any Governmental level. We favor progressive taxation. If this sounds like good policy, it is. The only place in the political spectrum that compares is moderation in both dimensions, John McCain providing an example. What we need to do is communicate our position: We favor individual rights and will only infringe on the rights of business, social, religious and political organizations when they impose unfairly on the rights of the individual. Then it's no longer gay rights, it's extending basic freedoms to all individuals. It's progressive taxation rather than unfairly burdening the rich. It's championing rights rather than imposing our will on others. It's the respect of a moment of respectful silence that a child can do with what he or she pleases before beginning the school day including pray. It's about fairness and justice for the individual, what the Founding Fathers really meant when they wrote the Constitution, not about the furtherance of corporate America or mega-Churches.

We need to rebrand ourselves as the protectors of individual rights, as measured on national defense, as fair and just. The Republicans are currently doing a great job of rebranding themselves, as they did under Nixon and to a lesser degree under Reagan. Clinton had his shortcomings but they were his own. Borrowing a page from Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, we need to sieze the initiative and rebrand ourselves as well.

Another Bad Week for the Shrub

It seems the Torturer in Chief can't buy a break these days. Even after Harry the Horrible bailed on her nomination, saving her boss from the embarassment of having his dirty secrets revealed, he just can't seem to get things going his way. It seemed a good start, nominating Scalito brought the poor, betrayed Radical Right back into the fold. Scalito, whose mother even says will overturn fundamental rights, seemed the perfect start to a comeback.

Then Harry Reid (hero) invoked an obscure Senate rule and threw the body into closed session. The subject, Iraq and the intelligence leading up to the war. The effect: Scalito disappeared from the headlines almost before he had a chance to appear. Bush's red-meat diversionary tactic was lost with one simple refocusing of the Nation's attention where it belongs: The conspiracy, the misinformation and the marketing of an unnecessary war for nebulous purposes (does anyone remember why we're still fighting? Is it still to honor the sacrifice of those who have fallen or has it changed again this week?).

It might have still been a decent week but then, Scooter Libby, The Vice Torturer's former Chief of Staff, confidant and sacrificial lamb, decided not to plead guilty, not to take one for the team, not to take the fall. Now we have at least until February to wait for a pre-trial hearing provided a) Scooter doesn't end up with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the back of the head, b) Scooter doesn't see the error of his ways, repent, be born again and take the fall by pleading guilty or c) the President pardons him. It appears we may get our wish, that we may see the Vice Torturer on the witness stand or we still may see Rove indicted, provided Scooter cuts a deal to talk in exchange for a lighter sentence. In either case, poor Shrub didn't get a break on that one, either.

Some disgusted CIA heroes then started leaking and the Washington Post broke a story that had been in the rumor mill for months: The CIA is owner and operator of several secret prisons abroad. This dovetailed nicely with a second passage of language to prohibit torture in the Senate, a measure the Vice Torturer has begged to have changed so the CIA is free to break out the black leather as long as it does so in accordance with the Constitution, Federal law and treaty. I didn't know we had laws permitting torture, the Constitution bans both holding prisoners without charge and without access to attorney and cruel and unusual punishment and the Geneva Convention bans torture. Of course, terrorists are non-persons by edict of the Torturer in Chief so the prohibitions don't apply.

Finally the Summit of the Americas left the Shrub with no free trade agreement. Argentine farmers are still safe from Archer Daniels Midland, thanks to action by their own leaders. The Shrub, well, we may have found out why he's having so much trouble. When asked how he would react if he met Hugo Chavez, an avowed enemy of the Bush administration, how he would act. He said he would act politely. The American people expect their president to be polite. There's your problem, Shrub. We expect our President to lead with the best interests of the nation in mind and to be a man of integrity. Politeness, well, it's a nice to have.

Well, Shrub, it's been a bad week but you do get to stick Cheney's dikes in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge, provided global warming hasn't turned the whole place into a lake before you can drill. That is, unless your syncophants in the House have a rare surge of backbone and throw the measure out of the final bill. But you're vetoing it anyway, first time in your administration, because it contains anti-torture legislation.

This week, for the first time, a majority of Americans doubt Bush's integrity. Sixty percent seem to think his presidency has failed. His approval ratings continue to sink as even the most devout Neocon shrinks away from their poster child. As a poster child for Republican values, I think the decline in his approval ratings, his perceived integrity and support for his war are long overdue.

Republican Values: Let the CIA do the Torturing

Cheney the Torturer appealed to Republican Senators who voted 90-9 to ban the United States from torturing prisoners and detainees to please let the CIA do it instead. He joins Allard the Torturer and the Torturer in Chief in opposing a simple American value: We don't torture people.

His rationale: The President may need to use torture to extract information to prevent a terrorist attack. His rationale is false. Under torture, the tortured will say anything to stop the pain. There is no intelligence gained from torture. Apparently the Administration attaches great importance to the ability to sidestep the Constitution, the Judiciary branch of the Government and the American values they claim to espouse. As poster children for the Republican party, Bush and Cheney exemplify their values, or at least the values of the party's radical right wing.

Now that there seems to be an audit trail leading from Lindy England to Dick Cheney, I'm not surprised that the VP of Torture and Indefinite Incarceration would ask the Senate to legalize what he's already done. Ninety to nine the Senate said no, Allard the Torture being one of the whips-and-chains crowd, or is that dobermans and stress positions. Bush, exemplifying Radical Republican values, has promised to veto the measure to prohibit torture. Cheney is asking for an exemption for the CIA. Now here's a thought: Exempt the CIA from the ban on torture, then render all prisoners taken to the CIA. Think that might have gone through the Torturer's mind? Now the exemption would have to be approved by the President. How hard do you think Dick would have to beg to get the Torturer in Chief to let him trot out the black leather? All actions taken would have to be in accordance with the Constitution, Federal law and treaty obligation. We've seen the Torturer in Chief's desire to follow that established precedent, law and values. Let's just say I'm pretty sure the Torturer in Chief would demonstrate the same integrity as he did in the run-up to war in Iraq, the same respect for the Constitution that has him still holding prisoners in Guantanamo without trial despite the Supreme Court's order to give them access to the U. S. courts and the promise to fire anyone involved in Plamegate.

Allard, Cheny, Bush, et al simply don't want to be hampered in their power. In that, they exemplify the Republican values that got them where they are. John McCain seems to be the exception in this respect, perhaps because he remembers being tortured in a North Vietnamese prison for five years. Cheney wants an out, a way of justifying what it seems he's already done, approving the use of torture to extract information. I only hope the puppet House of Representatives can find the integrity to represent America on this and approve anti-torture language of its own, one that doesn't offer Cheney and the CIA a way to evade the basic American value, we do not torture people.

Republican Values: The Secret Prisons

To begin with, I have to express a bit of schattenfreude. Poor President Bush, he can't buy a break these days. To add to all the bad news of the last few weeks, his nomination of Judge Wingnut Scalito to the Supreme Court is overshadowed by Harry Reid calling his hand on the misdirection, misinformation and miscalculations in Iraq and by mainstream media's reporting on secret black prisons for prisoners in the war on terrorism. Since the CIA placed them in Europe where such things are illegal, the Administration has little chance of dodging this investigation.

Before we continue let's get one thing straight: George W. Bush is completely representative of the Republican party. The Party of Lincoln has been completely pre-empted by the radical right political wing and radical evangelical Christianity. The party I was once a member of, the party of Ronald Reagan, has been subverted into a platform for the most radical of the right wingers and in George W. Bush, they found their perfect dupe. A C-average frat boy, reformed party animal, born-again Christian and all-hat-no-cow rancher, he looked like an updated version of Reagan. He had a track record of hands-off leadership as evidenced by the string of corporate failures he watched happen. He was the perfect representative of the new Republicans. They got him elected on a platform of values, of returning honor to the White House, then pushed all the moderates out of the party. For five years, he's been able to hide behind the lies.

One more bold-face statement before I continue: The values evidenced by the Bush administration are exactly those of the Republican party. If the party had the values they espouse, there would already have been investigations into the "intelligence failures" leading up to the Iraq war. The 9/11 commission wouldn't have been an uphill fight. Tax reform would be fair to the lower end of the taxpaying spectrum. Tom Delay wouldn't be facing felony charges in Texas, Bill Frist wouldn't be facing insider trading investigations, Scooter Libby wouldn't have had to lie to protect his boss and we wouldn't be at war in Iraq. The Gang of Fourteen wouldn't be facing two defections merely because the Wingnuts say Scalito is the best thing since pantyhose in an egg. All these failures of values indicate that there is no difference between Bush's values and the Republicans' values in general.

So, since shortly after 9/11, we've had secret prisons run by the CIA in out of the way places, mostly former Soviet gulags, if one is to believe the news reports. Ironic that they would use precisely those facilities. The White House has refused to confirm or deny their existence but come on, if they didn't exist don't you think they'd deny it? Rumors of these sites have been floating around for at least a year, tales of people disappearing, of extraordinary rendition (exporting people to other countries where the laws of the U. S. don't apply such as Cuba). So what does that tell you of Republican values?

The Republicans think that the Constitution of the United States is at best an inconvenience. The constitution guarantees the right of access to an attorney, of habeas corpus, to a swift and speedy trial but most importantly, it forbids the Government from holding prisoners without charges. How do we get around this? Move the prison offshore where U. S. law doesn't apply. Also indicative of this is the Republican contempt of law. In June 2004 the Supreme Court ruled that the prisoners at Guantanamo have the right of access to the U. S. court system. Today they sit there without access to attorney or to the courts while the Bush administration thumbs its nose at the order. The Republicans also think the means justify the ends. Torture is allowed as long as it's in defense of the nation. Unlimited detention is also fair for even U. S. citizens as long as they can be connected to terrorism. Look at the Administration's plight and see Republican values. They're the values of power corrupted absolutely.

I suppose the most telling thing about the "black sites" is that they're kept so secret. If they're doing nothing wrong, why are they secret? To protect the identity of the prisoners? Don't you think they bad guys know who is missing and don't you think they even know who's in these facilities? They're being kept secret because they violate American values and the Constitution, something the Republicans really don't want you to know about.

Dems Grow Balls!

Way to go, Harry! You sure shocked them out of their complacency yesterday by closing the Senate for two hours. We need more of this: Democratic leadership, demanding accountability, showing our principles. Keep them on their toes, be ready to filibuster Scalito and if they change the rules to win the game, shut them down again. October was a good month. The Press finally began to regrow their backbone. November is off to a good start. Harry showed 'em that Democrats can grow balls.

(With respect to the ladies, of course.... :-) )

Cervical Cancer and Social Conservatives

According to the American Cancer Society, approximately 10,400 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer this year. Thirty-seven hundred will die of the disease. According to a Monday Washington Post article, a vaccine will shortly be available that will prevent infection by the papilloma virus, implicated in the majority of cervical cancers. And of course, since human papilloma virus is sexually transmitted, radical conservative groups are coming out to oppose the vaccine.

The Bush administration has taken the abstinance-only clique and put it in decision-making positions in Washington despite the abject failure of abstinance-only education in Texas. As the Administration and its syncophants preach abstinance-only, anti-abortion, anti-contraception and anti-condom, they cut programs to help the poor to fund their failure of a war and their tax cuts for their rich cronies. Dobson and Robertson get a tax cut while a single mom gets her food stamps cut. Is that conservative compassion?

The vaccine will sabotage our abstinance message, they claim in the mistaken hope that the Silver Ring Thing is somehow altering two million years of human sexuality. I would bet that most of these misinformed parents and preachers aren't aware of the phrase "technical virginity," a common phrase most often used, "Well, I'm technically a virgin...." Kids are doing it, people. We did it. You did it. Our forefathers did it. They did it in caves and they did it before our ancestors put the sapiens in genus homo. We like it. The intelligent designer made us to like it yet social conservatives somehow think they can alter human sexuality simply by saying don't do it. They said that two generations ago and look how many seven-month ten-pound babies were born. Social conservatives think sex education advocates promiscuity. They're wrong, humanity advocates promiscuity. Sex education gives alternatives.

These are the people claiming that the vaccine against papilloma will somehow encourage promiscuity among young women. They are the same ones who claim that over-the-counter sales of the Morning After pill will encourage promiscuity, never mind the fact that it might prevent an abortion or a decline of two lives into poverty. Where is the compassion of a group of people who will condemn 3700 women to death just to discourage sexual activity among their sexually active daughters? They are the same compassionate people who will demand that you keep your rape child, bear it to term then raise it on your own because we've cut eighty-eight million dollars for food stamps from the Federal budget. This is not a right to life movement, it's a right to birth movement. After birth, both you and your baby are on your own in their minds and any problems you encounter are God's righteous wrath for your sins in conceiving that child.

The most effective program against abortion is contraception and education. Social conservatives can't have it both ways and they can't change human nature. Abstinance is the only surefire protection against both unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases but we're not wired for abstinance. What abstinance-only education leads to is ignorance and abstinance will fail for over ninety percent of Americans. I prefer frank, open education making the point that abstinance is the only sure prevention, then informing our young what to do when abstinance inevitably fails. To me, that is compassion.

Scalito: The More Serious Problem

Today Senator Ken Salazar, the Colorado Senator to be proud of, spoke of caution concerning Justice Nominee Samuel Alito. Allard the Torturer has yet to weigh in but I'm sure that he'll parrot whatever Dobson, Robertson and Bush tell him. Senator Salazar may soon have a very influential role to play as part of the Gang of 14 in whether seventy years of progress in this country are scrapped for a return to nineteenth century lassiez-faire capitalism and absentee government.

We know that Scalito will vote against Roe v. Wade every chance he gets. He has in the past, there's no reason to think the zebra will change his stripes. His mother, God bless her, has already stated as much, that he, as a devout Catholic, will vote against Roe every chance he has. (So tell me, Shrub, does religion count on this one or not?) More disturbing to me is his dissent in a case involving sale of machine guns. He wrote, paraphrased, that since the sale of machine guns is a point sale, the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution doesn't apply and the law is unconstitutional. This is the seventy years of legal precedent we have to worry about.

Once home, I got out my copy of the Constitution and looked the clause up. It states:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States and with the Indian tribes....

This clause limits the authority of the Congress over states. Strictly interpreted, it means that Congress has no authority over issues that remain with in a State's boundary and strict Constructionists hold the view that it limits most of the contentious laws we have in effect today. I can imagine a scenario: A company within a single state decides to impose a discriminatory hiring practice such as no homosexuals may work for the company. A fired employee brings suit which is appealed to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, the Court decides the Civil Rights act violates the Interstate Commerce clause and then Alabama can fire all its blacks. Or this: Suit is brought against a company for dumping dioxins in a landfill. The dioxins aren't crossing a state line so Congress has no authority to regulate. There go our Federal environmental laws. The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, various Civil Rights legislation, a number of laws designed to protect us, everyday citizens, will be struck down based on what the Wingnuts euphemistically call "strict constructionism."

Scalito is dangerous to our civil rights, to the environment, to our few rights as employees. His position as concerns Roe v. Wade is disturbing but it doesn't impact everyone. His interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution will. It is in this area that we need to exercise the most vigilance. It is also in this area that we have a chance to display our values and, I hope, the Group of 14 come to the conclusion that Scalito is just a bit too radical and Bork him right out of a job.