http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:11:14 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/11/151114.php BalletshoozPresident George W. Bush is accusing his Iraq War critics of rewriting history and endangering U.S. troops. In a Veterans Day speech at an Army depot in Pennsylvania, the president said Democrats and other critics who claim he manipulated pre-war intelligence to justify war are flinging "false charges." He called them "baseless attacks," and said they send the wrong signal to U.S. troops in Iraq, as well as an enemy bent on shaking America's will.No wonder a majority of American's think Bush is a liar. He simply cannot stop lying. It is without dispute that his administration lied America into Iraq. There were no WMD there as he claimed, there were no nukes there as he claimed, there were no ties to Al-Qaeda as he claimed, Iraq did not attack us on 9-11 as he claimed, the war was not going to make us safer as he claimed, and muslims were not going to embrace American imposed Democracy as he claimed. For a proven liar to mount a "comeback" by continuing the same lies when time has proven them false is sickening. For Bush and Cheney to use the troops for this campaign style activity on Veteran's Day, and to speak for them, when both of them ran like cowards from the front line is even more sickening. The fact that many Democrats and other Americans once believed his wild claims about the need for a pre-emptive war does not prove that Bush was right, it proves that Bush is an effective liar. More liberal politics at Alpha Liberal Blog, News, and Opinion. Politics39407@blogcritics.org Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:11:14 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/28/173806.php BalletshoozMore undeniable evidence has emerged showing that what is bad for the Bush administration is great for America. On the same day that high-level aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted on 5 criminal counts including perjury and obstruction of justice, the stock market soared in a manner not seen in months.Bloomberg news and other clueless media outlets are quoting conservative corporatists who have the audacity to claim that the rally is due to the fact that Karl Rove avoided indictment today. This argument does not hold up to even the most superficial scrutiny, since prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made it clear to anyone listening that Rove is still in serious legal jeopardy and the investigation is expanding to a new grand jury, on new charges, directed toward additional high-level Republican officials.If today's huge stock market gain can be called a "relief rally" at all, it is because the third Bush official this month has been indicted criminally. The market is relieved that the culture of corruption, the root cause of the troubles the economy is having, are starting to be brought to justice.Look forward to more indictments in the near future of Rove and others, as well as an associated market rally each time. As the market absorbs the news that the corrupt leaders, (who enable companies to siphon off the fair-share of the revenue that should be returned to investors) are being taken off the scene, the market has nowhere to go but up.More liberal politics at Alpha Liberal Blog, News, and Opinion. Politics38711@blogcritics.org Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:38:06 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/26/135124.php BalletshoozKay Bailey Hutchinson, in a pre-emptive strike against the perceived, imminent indictments for perjury and obstruction of justice, of Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, has come out and said such charges are not severe ones, just "technicalities" in her words, and the Senator implored the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald not to indict them for anything frivolous like that.Its an amzing turn of events, because Hutchison voted to impeach Bill Clinton for an imagined "perjury" and "obstruction of justice" that he was never charged with in a court of law. Hutchison and the other Republicans dreamed up "perjury" and "obstruction of justice" charges, which Bill Clinton was never shown to have committed, and those were the ONLY charges the partisan Republican Congress leveled against President Clinton. In fact, given the number of special prosecutors and partisan zealots like Ken Starr hounding the former President, it is guaranteed that if Clinton had actually perjured himself and / or obstructed justice he would have at least been charged with something, somewhere, in a real court of law.Hutchison should know about "technicalities" anyways. She once escaped criminal covictionin Texas on a "technicality", when a partisan Republican judge refused to rule in advance on whether the evidence showing her guilt could be admitted for the jury to see, thereby destroying the prosecutor's case.But uncharged political "crimes" against Bill Clinton were serious enough for Hutchison and the partisan Republicans to play judge and jury and to distract the attention of the American government for years, away from Osama Bin Laden and towards investigating whether they could detect DNA from the President's semen on a woman's dress. Then she and her cohorts had the audacity to pretend that Clinton's imagined, uncharged "crimes", were actually "high crimes" under the constitution --serious enough to impeach a sitting president.Wow, what a flip-flop Hutchison has undergone regarding these "technicalities", or maybe she is just a complete hypocrite. Shouldn't a "real" perjury and obstruction of justice charge be enough to sideline a devious political aide who harmed America's national security, if a dreamed up one was enough to impeach a President who "lied about sex"? More liberal politics at Alpha Liberal Blog, News, and Opinion. Politics38566@blogcritics.org Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:51:24 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/25/120407.php BalletshoozGeorge Bush illustrates the level of contradiction you must live with to be a conservative in America. First he says the "jury is out" on the theory of evolution, meaning he does not believe evolution is a "fact", then he warns the nation in a press conference that bird flu, heretofore only passed between birds, is poised to mutate and make the huge evolutionary leap to be able to be passed between humans.Well the President is right about one thing --evolutionary theory is not a fact. On the contrary, it is a theory and a pretty solid one at that. In fact, evolutionary theory, along with gravitational theory, the theory that the earth is round, and the theory that the sun is at the center of the solar system, are some of the most solid theories man has ever devised.They help explain the past, they help explain what we see today, they help predict the future, and most importantly, they are testable so that our children in science lab actually have some real scientific experimentation and learning to do --instead of just praying to the "intelligent designer" hoping he will make everything better.Intrinsically Bush seems tounderstand all of this, even though he is loathe to admit it to his base. At a recent press conference Bush fear-mongered by warning that the H5N1 virus, known as bird flu or avian flu, might jump between humans soon --requiring drastic measures including imposition of a quasi-police state, which he outlined in his speech.So lets get this straight Mr. President, you believe evolution is some fiction dreamed up by atheists, in order to make people doubt the existence of your minority-version of God? You further believe that the hypothetical possibility that bird flu will evolve and mutate so that it will be able to be passed between humans is virtually a sure thing --so much so that you devote an inordinate amount of time in a national press conference to the subject?Sounds like a flip-flop of biblical proportions to me. First of all, there is no evidence that bird flu can be passed any other way than between birds and other fowl. Now, from an evolutionary standpoint, it would be real advantageous (to the H5N1 life form) if it mutated and evolved into a strain that could be passed from human to human; but it has not happened yet, it may never happen, it may be impossible to happen for reasons we don't yet understand, or alternatively it may happen at some indefinite time thousands of years from now.That is a fact.But for an evolution denier like George Bush to state with practical certainty that bird flu will evolve into a human-transmittable strain seems hypocritical. Maybe he said it because it is good material to fear-monger with, rather than actually believeing it will happen.Read about more liberal politics at Alpha Liberal Blog, News, and Opinion. Politics38486@blogcritics.org Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:04:07 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/22/123742.php BalletshoozIn a Texas courtroom yesterday, Tom DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, said MoveOn.org has been selling a T-shirt showing Delay's mugshot and since the judge, Bob Perkins, has donated money to the group, he asked the judge to recuse himself. The liberal political group denies it's been selling T-shirts bearing the likeness of DeLay's mug shot.Judge Perkins replied that he's neither seen nor bought such a T-shirt, and that the last time he contributed to MoveOn.org was before last year's election, when they were mostly helping Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.In a statement, MoveOn.org says that DeLay's lawyer "has either bad information or lied in court." DeLay appeared in court for the first time today in connection with his indictment on conspiracy and money laundering charges. But his arraignment was postponed pending a hearing on his request for a new judge.Lets analyze the request of DeLay's attorney briefly. First, DeLay's lawyer either lied to the court or is reckless with the facts he is presenting, both situations could land the attorney in ethical hot water. Secondly, the request is ludicrous. DeLay's attorney will have us believe that because a judge is a Democrat he cannot remain on the case. Utterly ridiculous.The judge is a Democrat, but it isn't MoveOn.org that is being judged for a crime, its Tom DeLay. Remember the Antonin Scalia precedent? Scalia was seen duck hunting with Dick Cheney shortly before Cheney's secret, energy task-force case came before the Supreme Court, and with Scalia's help Cheney won.Scalia refused to recuse himself and so should Tom DeLay's judge. To insinuate that only a Republican judge can be used in DeLay's criminal case or that this judge is unfit because he is a Democrat or contributed to a Democratic group is a serious perversion of the way the justice system works. The motion should be dismissed.Balletshooz blogs at Alpha Liberal: Blogs, News, and Opinion. Politics38337@blogcritics.org Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:37:42 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/21/142232.php BalletshoozJerry Kilgore has invoked Hitler in the race for Virginia Governor against Democrat Tim Kaine. Kaine is against the death penalty because he has deeply held religious beliefs and his church prohibits the taking of life. Kilgore flouts his religious teachings and has a blood-lust for death so severe that even knowing innocent people have been put to death in Virginia does not give him pause. Kilgore, with his obsession to kill people, can count himself as one of the Americans who are out front on the death penalty issue --where the only countries still doing it are barbaric dictatorships like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea.Kaine pledged to carry out death sentences in Virginia "because it's the law," just as any anti-choice Republican, save Roy Moore, would carry out the laws providing the right for a woman to choose when to end her pregnancy. But that is not good enough for the death-obsessed Jerry Kilgore.In a political hit piece he suggests Kaine "would not favor sending even Adolph Hitler . . . to the gallows." One commercial states: "Tim Kaine says Adolph Hitler doesn't qualify for the death penalty. This was one of the worst mass murderers in modern times."Aside from trivializing the holocaust, Kilgore completely misses the mark when referring to Hitler. Tim Kaine is a religious man who does not believe in taking life under any circumstance. Kaine is also an officer of the court who has upheld Virginia law for decades without a hitch. Kilgore is a hypocrite who accepts church teaching when it comes to prohibiting a woman from ending her pregnancy --but thumbs his nose in the church's face when it comes to putting living, breathing human beings to death.Hitler was a madman who gave the death penalty to millions and like Kilgore, did not care that innocent lives were taken. Kilgore's obsession with the death penalty has led to a disproportianate number of blacks and other minorities being put to death in Virginia. If there is any comparison to Hitler, it is Kilgore's blood-thirsty nature and his obsession with death, which makes him similar to the despot --in that neither of them gave it a second thought to condemn a human bring to death, even if there is a chance they were innocent, even though the ultimate penalty was being applied mostly to certain minority groups, and even if their religion expressly forbid such a barbaric act. Balletshooz blogs at Alpha Liberal. Politics38296@blogcritics.org Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:22:32 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/18/184546.php BalletshoozAir America Radio has been sued by defense contractor and alleged Abu Ghraib torture-accomplice CACI International, Inc. CACI has alleged defamation per se, according to documents filed last week in federal court. CACI claims material used by Randi Rhodes on her show in late August harmed the company and they are asking for 1 million dollars in damages and 10 million dollars in punitive damages.While Air America Radio has not elaborated in detail on their litigation strategy, Rhodes made a statement on her show that Air America will fight the suit visorously --a partial transcript of her statement is available here.Air America Radio will likely counter-sue CACI accusing them of violating the SLAPP suit statute, because CACI , who in all probability has employees who are guilty of torture at Abu Ghraib, is trying to silence a media critic who is focusing on their alleged criminal acts.To prevail CACI would likely have to prove Rhodes knew she was stating false information and did so with malice. It has been documented widely that employees of CACI were involved in the torture that transpired at Abu Graib in Iraq. In fact, a military investigation, which produced a document known as the Taguba report, has identified CACI employees by name who were involved in the torture. For that reason, CACI has a huge mountain to climb to prove that Rhodes' statement is false. Even if CACI could prove that Rhodes' statement is false, it would be even more difficult for it to show that Rhodes knew it was false, since the abuse by CACI was so well documented, any reasonable person would have thought CACI was deeply involved in human rights abuses in Iraq.As such, CACI's case is extremely flimsy. Couple that with the fact that reporters such as Rhodes have broad First Amendment rights to report newsworthy information and you have a heavy-handed, frivolous-litigation strategy by CACI, which is likely to backfire. To boot, CACI may now be giving Air America's attorneys an opportunity to discover documents and depose witnesses, which might help defeat CACI's case and/or embarrass the company. Thus, it is likely now that more information will become available to the public about a serious crime against humanity caused, in part, by this US company and the resulting severe damage it has caused to the reputation of the United States of America.Balletshooz blogs at Alphaliberal.com. Culture38130@blogcritics.org Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:45:46 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/14/171021.php BalletshoozIn a carefully crafted and disgraceful form of devious propaganda, the Bush administration has tried to create the false appearance that everything is going wonderfully in Iraq. Now the administration has even gone as far as to use the troops, whose lives are on the line, as a propaganda tool having no other purpose than to rally Republicans around his troubled presidency.The president spoke via a video link. His event planners cherry-picked 10 Army soldiers and one Iraqi soldier. The soldiers were told what topics the president would ask about, and officials watched them rehearse their presentations before going live. The soldiers did not disappoint the dishonest Bush propaganda team. Each one praised the President, the war, and the progress in training Iraqi troops. Several spoke in a monotone, as if determined to remember and stay on the script.It quickly became obvious that this was staged since Bush can't face the troops, the American people, or the truth. What is he scared of? That one of the troops might ask him a real question?Of course he is.They might ask him why the National Guard has spent two years fighting in a foreign country when they have no business doing anything except guarding the American homeland. They might ask him to present an actual plan to win in Iraq that doesn't consist completely of "stay the course" sound-bites. They might ask him how he justifies years of massive stop-loss orders on wary troops, many of whom just want to go home and resume their lives. They might ask him how he justifies sending the reserves to Iraq, thereby depriving America of the police, firefighters, and medics we needed to respond to Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters.After the utter disgrace of this taxpayer-funded charade the deceit and cover-up began without delay. Before he realized the rehearsed session was caught on TV, Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the soldiers were not told what they could or could not say. Another official, Allison Barber, later said the soldiers were told only about broad themes Bush wanted to discuss, not specific questions, however, before the session began, she was captured on video asking one of them, ''Who are we going to give that [question] to?''Barber also explicitly cautioned that if something unscripted happened, to immediately give the microphone to one of the officers. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita, issued a statement saying, "On behalf of these fine young men and women, we certainly regret any perception that they were told what to say. It is not the case."But subsequent footage of the event before it began proves that these officials are lying. Now military officers are upset that "military people would be coached as to how to talk to the President", said a senior military official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's against everything that people in uniform stand for."But George Bush wouldn't know that. When it was his time to "support the troops" in Vietnam he decided his time was better spent working on a political campaign. He certainly doesn't believe strongly enough in the mission in Iraq to encourage his own family members, both of which are of fighting age, to join the war effort. So it is only natural that Bush would not want to face the same troops, whom he is requiring to make a sacrifice, that neither he nor his family is willing to make. And he certainly does not want to face the truth -- that would require coming to terms with the fact that his decision to start a war of aggression against the disarmed country of Iraq is going to have negative consequences on the future of America, which can only be corrected with a "regime change" at home. Balletshooz blogs at Alpha Liberal: Blogs, News, and Opinion. Politics37928@blogcritics.org Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:10:21 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/12/165606.php BalletshoozLike many conservatives, Bill Bennett is either clueless when it comes to racial issues or he is an outright bigot. You would think at this point someone would have told him where he went wrong in his comments about African-Americans, but it appears he only takes advice from other clueless conservatives, who only know how to throw gas on a raging racial fire.In a recent speech, instead of apologizing to African-Americans, many of which were offended, Bennett went as far as to blame the news media for distorting his remarks about how hypothetically aborting black babies would lead to a reduced crime rate in society.Bill Bennett and his supporters continue to totally miss the mark. No one thinks he meant his statement literally. No one cares that he personally finds it a repugnant statement. The point is, Bill Bennett believes the statement to be literally true, however repugnant.Yes, Bennett does believe, (without basis), that aborting only black babies would reduce the crime rate more than, say, aborting only white babies.I have a few hypotheticals for Bennett as long as we are engaged in a "freakonomics" fantasy. Aborting all conservatives would lead to a raising of the minimum wage and universal health care. Aborting all conservatives would lead to equal rights for gays and strengthening of social security. Aborting all conservatives would lead to a more peaceful planet, less government sanctioned death, and a balanced budget. Aborting all conservatives would eliminate the culture of corruption, improve democracy in America, and help alleviate racial tensions.While those statements are repugnant as well, there is one big difference. The hypotheticals above about conservatives are true. The statement Bill Bennett made as a hypothetical about African-Americans is literally false. Bennett's insistence that his statement is true --without any study to back it up, and without accounting for other factors that occur after birth, such as poverty or prejudice, exposes his underlying bigotry. That is why people are angry, not because the "liberal media" took him out of context. Balletshooz blogs at Alpha Liberal: Blogs, News, and Opinion. Politics37837@blogcritics.org Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:56:06 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/11/163434.php BalletshoozOne conservative contradiction is that they claim to favor judges who don't "legislate from the bench", who obey the "will of the voters", and who aren't "judicial activists". They also claim to favor limited federal government, respect for the plain meaning of the constitution, and judicial deference to law-making bodies, like legislatures. Typically this meant that conservative judges paid attention to the 10th Amendment to the constitution, which specifically reserves ALL RIGHTS to the states that aren't EXPLICITLY given to the federal government in the text of the constitution.The Rehnquist court led forcefully in the degredation of the 10th amendment, except when it achieved a result the judge wanted. For instance, Rehnquist had no problem leaving decisions up to the states when those states wanted to deny gay marriage or enforce anti-sodomy laws --because those are the positions he espoused.However, when it came to allowing medical marijuana to ease the pain of the sick or the right of the terminally ill to die with dignity, Rehnquist, like an activist, twisted court reasoning any which way he could to ignore the plain meaning of the 10th amendment and to legislate against those voter-passed laws.There were hopes that new chief Justice Roberts would break from this hypocrisy, specifically with regard to Oregon's right to die laws, and become a true enforcer of state's rights. The people of Oregon have twice affirmed through referenda that their terminally-ill citizens should have the right to die with dignity. The elected Oregon Legislature affirmed the will of the people and added a law providing that doctors and the pharmacists could not be punished for upholding the law.When John Ashcroft became Attorney General he immediately set out to thwart the will of the people of Oregon. His tool was an administrative task assigned to the AG, which requires doctors and pharmacists to have a federal license to handle drugs. Ashcroft twisted the wording of the license requirements and announced he would destroy the career of any doctor or pharmacist who had the audacity to follow Oregon law.The people of Oregon appealed and have won through the federal appellate court level. Alberto Gonzales, who replaced Ashcroft, continued his crusade to the Supreme Court. The arguments were the first heard recently by the newly-minted Roberts court.Roberts immediately raised concerns that states could undermine federal regulation of addictive drugs. Roberts said the federal government has the authority to determine what is a legitimate medical purpose and "it suggests that the AG has the authority to interpret that phrase" to declare that assisted suicide is not legitimate.David Souter said that it's one thing for the government to ban date-rape drugs and harmful products but "that seems to me worlds away from what we're talking about here." On the other side, Roberts and Scalia appeared skeptical of Oregon's claims that states have the sole authority to regulate the practice of medicine.Roberts hypothetical and unrealistic slippery-slope is reminscent of Rick Santorum's response to gay marriage by hypothesizing about the need now to legalize man-on-dog sex. Roberts and Scalia simply refuse to read the constitution like a strict constructionist should. If they did they would instantly recognize that the document does not give the federal government the right to control the practice of medicine. By default, that right is given to the states and the state of Oregon has spoken.Roberts in his first case appears intent on ignoring the constitution, the will of the people, and the will of the legislature. Roberts, an unelected official, is poised to legislate from on high. He believes that the voters of Oregon don't matter, the legislature of Oregon doesn't matter, and the 10th amendment to the US constitution doesn't matter. What matters is that Roberts is against death with dignity and he will do anything to stop it. That is the definition of an activist judge.Balletshooz blogs at Alpha Liberal: Blogs, News, and Opinion. Politics37772@blogcritics.org Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:34:34 EDT