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 Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:00:36 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/2005/11/14/180036.php ProgressiveDepotIn the 1992 movie Singles, Steve (played by Campbell Scott) has a grand vision of a "supertrain" for Seattle -- it will cut down on traffic and be good for the environment. He explains the idea to his friend, who nods in approval, then hesitantly replies, "But I love my car."Steve eventually gets a meeting with the mayor, where he explains the great benefits of the supertrain. The mayor is silent for a moment, then says, "People love their cars." The supertrain dream is dead.I bring this up not because I loved that movie so much (although it's pretty good, and Campbell Scott really should have become a star, he was excellent as the car salesman in Big Night just as a quick example of other prime work, but he seems to have gotten more into producing, and in the most recent picture I've seen of him he had grown an unfortunate mustache), but because today's op-ed from William Rasberry about oil company executives explaining their astronomical profits as some sort of benevolence made the movie come to mind.The Exxon Mobil chairman with the 7 chins, Lee Raymond, attempted to explain that $32.8 billion in profits by the largest oil companies in a single quarter was a result of supply and demand, and the record gas prices were simply the result of the demand, and that massive oil company profits were not at all related to pumped-up gas prices so it would have made no sense to keep gas prices at a lower level because... in other words, a bunch of f***ing lies to try to get you so confused you would forget that the obvious answer was simple price gouging.Piling on oil companies for being greedy profiteers isn't exactly news, though. They not only make massive amounts of money, the government subsidizes them so their profits can grow even higher, and no one ever gets too upset about the whole thing.Why? People love their cars.Our country is made of people that love to drive, that love to take vacations, that love oil and its byproducts. It may not feel great to see our president constantly make oil companies' lives easier, but we can't get too worked up because we've all got a little guilt in the matter.We don't want to take the supertrain. We love our cars. We'll dabble in hybrids, maybe. But we want freedom to hit the open road whenever the mood strikes us.I'm as guilty as anyone, although I pat myself on the back a little because I work out of my house and have no commute. Nevertheless, at the height of gas prices, my family took a Labor Day drive to Chicago, 300 miles both ways. I'm sure the Exxon Mobil chairman would be happy to hear it.This post isn't to scold anyone else on their use of oil; I haven't dedicated my life to only riding bikes and heating my home with thousands of gerbils running really fast on those little wheels.It's just a reminder that we can villify oil company execs all we want, but we're the ones that make their lives easier by doing nothing to curb our oil-dependent lifestyles. And while lip service is paid to "reducing our dependence on foreign oil," the truth is we only want new technologies that will make our cars run on cow shit or some other easily-renewable source instead of making any changes that would help fix the problem.More from ProgressiveDepot at Now That's Progress. Culture39538@blogcritics.org Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:00:36 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/10/222125.php ProgressiveDepotToday's Washington Post is reporting on a new test that can detect Down Syndrome earlier in a pregnancy. As early as 11 weeks after conception, as a matter of fact:Screening women before the second trimester allows those who might opt to terminate a pregnancy to make that decision when doctors say an abortion is safer and less traumatic. It also gives those who want to continue the pregnancy more time to prepare emotionally for their child's condition, and provides earlier reassurance to those whose babies are healthy, avoiding weeks of anxiety...The story goes on to discuss the inevitable moral and political issues that go along with this -- namely the aborting of fetuses predicted to have Down Syndrome.I used to think I understood my position on most everything related to the abortion debate. Then it was my turn to have a child.For a number of reasons, my wife's doctor monitored her closely at the very early stages of her first pregnancy. She was having ultrasounds long before many women do. I remember the first one, although I can't remember the exact number of weeks -- at that point, while no discernible human shape could be detected, there was a heart beating away a mile a minute. And, sure, a lot of people had had a lot of babies before, but for us it was still pretty damn cool.That thing was alive in there.And my rock-solid pro-choice stance quickly turned squishy. We could agree to abort that beating heart if we chose to (yes, I know technically only my wife could, but that's not relevant here). Some might not like to hear it said this way, but the fact is we had the right to kill that living thing that is today my preschool-age son, who's learning to cut carrots and has already picked out the girl in his class that he will marry.And yet I understand that many people are not in the same situation we were -- it's not generally happily-married, fairly well-off couples who are having abortions. So I stick to my pro-choice stance. While my moral compass tells me abortion is wrong, it also tells me that creating a law that dictates this decision to others, a decision that will affect every moment of the rest of their lives, is not necessarily right.Later in the pregnancy we had the opportunity to undergo tests such as the Down Syndrome test to make sure the baby would be OK. We decided against it, mostly because we didn't trust ourselves should the results be "bad." But, boy, do I remember the thoughts I had about dealing with a child who had a major problem -- how every day would be a colossal chore, just to take basic care of a child who might never live a normal life, who might still be in diapers five years or more after the other kids. I thought about that case a few years ago in which a couple anonymously dropped their developmentally disabled teenager off at an agency because they couldn't take it anymore. (They got in trouble, as they should have, but what kind of depths must they have sunk to in order to do such a horrible thing?)So I can't judge anyone who would want this early test for Down Syndrome, but I don't envy them if they find out Down Syndrome is likely. Is it better to know and make some sort of decision, or not know and have the decision made for you?Both of my kids were born early, had a few problems in the first couple of weeks, but are now healthy and beautiful. I thankfully never had to deal with the big questions that others sometimes do, but every time I read a story like today's, I think to myself: What would I do?More from ProgressiveDepot at Now That's Progress.Edited: nd Politics39363@blogcritics.org Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:21:25 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/04/094413.php ProgressiveDepotThis isn't necessarily news, but nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median. Forty-four percent came from rural areas, forty percent from the South, 20 percent from the West. These people are dying to get out, and willing to risk dying if that's their ticket to escape.Read today's Washington Post article and you don't get the impression these recruits are stupid. They know the score. They're not brimming with patriotism, although they're patriotic enough. Mostly they're just stuck, with no money for college and home towns with nothing to offer beyond climbing the ladder into a fast food managerial position. The military provides money, a way to college if they choose, and/or the chance for a life-long career that people respect.They could get their heads blown off in Iraq, but if they don't, the military will give them a big step up in life. They fantasize about seeing the world, flying jets. In a few months they may be seeing Iraq, which is part of the world, and in a few years they may be completely disillusioned with the military -- but they're already disillusioned with life in general.It's easy to sit back with an education and work that requires mostly sitting on your ass and think that these people are blinded by the patriotic words of Republicans who want to chew them up and spit them out as part of their war machine. But someone has to make up our military. Someone has to be willing to go and fight. I'm not planning on doing it. You're not planning on doing it (are you?).For those of us who don't plan to pick up a gun, the best we can do is continually question why these rural recruits looking for a way out are being sent off to war, to continually say we don't want them to die, even if we've never known them or even known anyone that knows them. We have to continually pressure the leaders in this country to think very long and very hard before committing troops, and to be very sure they are doing it for the right reasons.It may be too late for these new recruits. Despite the sporadic calls for withdrawal, the United States is not pulling troops from Iraq anytime soon, and many, many of these recruits will be sent there, and some will die there. Not to be crass -- it's the simple truth.At some point Iraq will reach stability (or our leaders will say it has even if all evidence points to the contrary), and our country will move on. But some future leader with an ax to grind will no doubt want a war without a plan to win it or a solid reason to wage it in the first place. And hopefully more of us will hit the streets to say "no" instead of watching the exciting war footage on CNN, safe in the knowledge that it's only those poor kids in Martinsville, Virginia who are dying for our country.More from ProgressiveDepot at Now That's Progress. Politics39028@blogcritics.org Fri, 4 Nov 2005 09:44:13 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/27/173810.php ProgressiveDepotA first draft of Harriet Miers' withdrawal letter to President Bush has surfaced:Dear God Mr. President:I write to withdraw as a nominee to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. I almost crapped my pants when you picked me have been greatly honored and humbled by the confidence that you have shown in me and have appreciated immensely your support and the support of well, no one else, really many others. However, we both know there is no way in hell I'm going to make it through I am concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of my mental state the country.As you know, members of the Senate were actually planning on asking me questions about my qualifications have indicated their intention to seek documents about my service in the White House in order to judge whether to support me. I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to actually answer their questions, which John Roberts totally didn't have to do testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy. While I believe that my lengthy career as your Number One Fan provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced they're going to want to quiz me, and I get very confused when they ask these questions about some old justice Warren, like that has anything to do with getting rid of abortion the efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information will continue.As I stated in my acceptance remarks in the Oval Office, well, to be honest, I have no idea what I said, I was so nervous, but my boyfriend said I did fine the strength and independence of our three branches of government are critical to the continued success of this great Nation. Repeatedly in the course of the process of confirmation for nominees for other positions, I have been asked what those three branches of government are and that's hardly fair, I could remember two and I think that should be acceptable steadfastly maintained that the independence of the executive Branch be preserved and its confidential documents and information not be released to further a confirmation process. I feel compelled to figure out what that means adhere to this position, especially related to my own nomination. Protection of the perogatives prerogatives of the Executive Branch and continued pursuit of my confirmation are in tension. I have decided that this might convince a few of the stupider Americans as to why I am withdrawing seeking my confirmation should yield.I share your commitment to everything and anything you might be committed to, and I think I've made that clear appointing judges with a conservative judicial philosophy, and I look forward to hopefully still having some sort of job continuing to support your efforts to provide the American people with more proposals that will kill their will to live and allow us to crush them under our mighty wheels judges who will interpret the law, not make it. I am most grateful for the opportunity to have seen myself on TV a lot have served your Administration and this country.Most respectfully, Harriet Ellan Myers MiersMore from ProgressiveDepot at Now That's Progress. Politics38641@blogcritics.org Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:38:10 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/14/144818.php ProgressiveDepotPresident Bush admitted yesterday that "Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government."Realizing the public relations nightmare on their hands, the White House moved quickly to screw more recovery workers as a sign of good will:In what may become the next major post-Katrina policy, the White House was working yesterday to suspend wage supports for service workers in the hurricane zone as it did for construction workers on federal contracts last week, administration and congressional officials said.When you need a lot of help fast to spur a recovery, the best motivator is always going to be lower wages. It's a simple human truth that people will work harder for less money, because if they made more money they'd start eating better and lose the hunger to get the job done. (It's like the championship team that has a hard time repeating; the hungrier team that lost last year is going to be more determined than the fat and happy champs.)I should be working for this administration. I could really help sell their ideas.More from ProgressiveDepot at Now That's Progress. Politics36167@blogcritics.org Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:48:18 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/12/154615.php ProgressiveDepotThe Washington Post has a story today about Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers lobbyist Frederick L. Webber and his "epiphany" in the wake of Katrina. It seems Mr. Weber has realized that the constant political donations he shells out would be better spent helping people, and that the non-stop fundraising politicians feel the need to do hurts our democracy.The Post seems to think this is significant news, never bothering to point out that lobbyists are part of the problem to begin with. The esteemed Mr. Webber might be frustrated with the system for a few minutes, but he obviously hopped right in, pressuring politicians to vote the way his association would prefer, and using political donations as the carrot to get his wishes fulfilled.And now he wants out, and wonders why everyone won't follow.Well, at least he'll be getting out of the game. One less lobbyist attending fundraisers and bugging the politicians supposed to be representing the little people would be great.Spoke too soon:Even Webber found himself attending a small political breakfast by week's end because, he said, "it was a reasonable request."Congratulations, Mr. Webber, you've really struck a blow. I feel the winds of change.More from ProgressiveDepot at Now That's Progress. Politics36025@blogcritics.org Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:46:15 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/09/085158.php ProgressiveDepotAn interview with Colin Powell by Barbara Walters will air tonight on ABC, and the New York Times has some excerpts today:The former Secretary of State, Colin L. Powell, says in a television interview to be broadcast Friday that his 2003 speech to the United Nations, in which he gave a detailed description of Iraqi weapons programs that turned out not to exist, was "painful" for him personally and would be a permanent "blot" on his record.While Powell laments how painful it is to have been the one who sat in the UN and made statements about Iraq that were false, I'm not buying his act that he was "devastated" about being misled by intelligence agents who didn't inform him that the information was unreliable.Come on. Colin Powell was by far the smartest person in any room he entered, and he was the only one in the Bush administration who ever bothered to ask questions that bucked the party line. To believe that he was unaware of the many serious questions about the accuracy of the information he was presenting on Iraq is ridiculous.Powell acknowledges the importance he places on loyalty, and this is the only reasonable explanation for not only the Iraq debacle, but for his toeing the line so many times while it was obvious to everyone that he disagreed with what Bush was up to.And that's why I don't respect Colin Powell. When an issue of such importance is before you (as the runup to the war obviously was), you don't place your loyalty to a flunkie who finagled his way into being president over your loyalty to the United States of America.Powell is right about the "blot" on his record. Everything good he's ever done, and there's been plenty, is overshadowed by his willingness to be the stooge for BushCo.(And that goes for you, too, John McCain.)More from ProgressiveDepot at Now That's Progress.Ed:LM Politics35799@blogcritics.org Fri, 9 Sep 2005 08:51:58 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/07/171405.php ProgressiveDepotGotta give some kudos to the press for not letting up on asking the tough questions about the response to Katrina, especially in New Orleans. Below are some exchanges between reporters and White House spokesman Scott McLellan yesterday (I've bolded some things that stood out to me): Q Scott, the reality at hand right now is that the President said that we still live in an unsettled world. This is an administration that has told us since 9/11 that it's not a matter of "if," but "when" that we could be struck by a terror attack and, obviously, other disasters that are the result of Mother Nature. So at this point, where is the accountability? Is the President prepared to say where this White House, where this administration went wrong in its response to Katrina?MR. McCLELLAN: You know, David, there are some that are interested in playing the blame game. The President is interested in solving problems and getting help to the people who need it. There will be a time --Q Wait a minute. Is it a blame game when the President, himself, says that we remain at risk for either another catastrophe of this dimension, that's not manmade, or a terrorist attack? Isn't it incumbent upon this administration to immediately have accountability to find out what went wrong, when at any time this could happen again?...Q But, Scott, more concretely, an officer of the Northern Command is quoted as saying that as early as the time Hurricane Katrina went through Florida and worked its way up to the Gulf, there was a massive military response ready to go, but that the President did not order it. It could have been ordered on Sunday, on Monday, on Tuesday -- the call didn't come. Why not?MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, let's point out a couple of things. There were a lot of assets that were deployed and pre-positioned prior to the hurricane hitting. And you have to look back --Q These assets were deployed, but the order to use them never came. The Bataan was sitting off behind the hurricane.MR. McCLELLAN: I know these are all facts that you want to look at and want to determine what went wrong and what went right. I'm not prepared to agree with your assessment just there. There is a much larger picture here that we have to take a look at, and --Q It's not mine, it's an officer in the Northern Command.MR. McCLELLAN: -- in terms of the President, the President issued disaster declarations ahead of time so that we could make sure we're fully mobilizing resources and pre-positioning them. But this was a hurricane of unprecedented magnitude.Q Right, but the military can't go into action without his order....Q I just want to follow up on David's questions on accountability. First, just to get you on the record, where does the buck stop in this administration?MR. McCLELLAN: The President.Q All right. So he will be held accountable as the head of the government for the federal response that he's already acknowledged was inadequate and unacceptable?MR. McCLELLAN: The President's most important responsibility is the safety and security of the American people. He talks about that often. That is his most important responsibility. Again, there's going to be plenty of time to look at the facts and determine what went wrong and what went right and how the coordination was between the state and federal and local authorities. Right now we've got to continue doing everything we can in support of the ongoing operational activities on the ground in the region to help people.Q Well, the President has said that this government can do many things at once: It can fight the war on terror, it can do operations in Iraq, and aid and comfort people in Louisiana. Can it not also find time to begin to hold people accountable? It sounds, Scott, as if the line that you're giving us -- which is, you don't want to answer questions about accountability because there's too much busy work going on --MR. McCLELLAN: Wrong. No, wrong.Q -- is a way of ducking accountability.MR. McCLELLAN: You don't want to take away from the efforts that are going on right now. And if you start getting into that now, you're pulling people out that are helping with the ongoing response, Terry. Not at all. The President made it very clear, I'm going to lead this effort and we're going to make sure we find out what the facts were and what went wrong and what went right. But you don't want to divert resources away from an ongoing response to a major catastrophe. And this is a major catastrophe that we -- and we must remain focused on saving lives and sustaining lives and planning for the long-term. And that's what we're doing.Q And there are people in Louisiana and Mississippi who are doing that job very well. Your job is to answer the questions.MR. McCLELLAN: And I have.Q By saying you won't answer....Q Is "Brownie" still doing a "heck of a job," according to the President? ...Q Well, let's talk about it. Are you saying the President is -- are you saying that the President is confident that his administration is prepared to adequately, confidently secure the American people in the event of a terrorist attack of a level that we have not seen? And based on what does he have that confidence?MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and that's what he made clear earlier today, that obviously we want to look and learn lessons from a major catastrophe of this nature.Q Yes, but you're telling us today there will be time for that somewhere down the road. Well, what if it happens tomorrow?MR. McCLELLAN: We can engage in this blame-gaming going on and I think that's what you're getting --Q No, no. That's a talking point, Scott, and I think most people who are watching this --MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's a fact. I mean, some are wanting to engage in that, and we're going to remain focused --Q I'm asking a direct question. Is he confident --MR. McCLELLAN: We're going to remain focused on the people.Q -- that he can secure the American people in the event of a major terrorist attack?MR. McCLELLAN: We are securing the American people by staying on the offensive abroad and working to spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East.Q That's a talking point. That's a talking point.MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's a fact.Go ahead.Q No, it's not. And you think people who are watching this think that's -- from what does he derive that confidence, based on the response --MR. McCLELLAN: David, I'm interested in the people in the region that have been affected and getting them help. We can sit here and engage in this back and forth --Q The whole country is watching and wondering about some --MR. McCLELLAN: The time for bickering and blame-gaming is later. The time for helping people in the region is now.Q How soon can we look for the start of this investigation? I mean, are we talking about weeks, months? How far down the road --...Q And you're saying there is not a blame game, but you open the door to the response --MR. McCLELLAN: I can't tell you that everything you said is factually correct, and they've got -- we've got to look at all the facts. We've got to determine what worked, what didn't work, and apply --Q Well, what's not working? What's not working in your view right now?MR. McCLELLAN: -- and apply lessons from that.Q What do you see that's not working right now? What is not working? Because these people are dying from dysentery now --MR. McCLELLAN: Well, last week --Q -- infection now; they're displaced, homes are gone. Does anyone in this administration know anyone that's down there --MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you need to talk to people on the ground --Q -- beyond Trent Lott?...Q Scott, two questions. Louisiana's Senator Landrieu announced on network television, "I might likely have to punch him, literally." And my question, since "him" is the President, and both punching and threatening to punch the President is a felony, has her qualifying words might likely saved her from arrest and prosecution? And what was the President's reaction --That last one's not so hard-hitting; it just makes me laugh. I hadn't heard that Senator Landrieu was considering punching the prez.For more from ProgressiveDepot, visit Now That's Progress Politics35668@blogcritics.org Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:14:05 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/06/113149.php ProgressiveDepotIn case you missed it...FREUDIAN?: From Scott McClellan's press briefing yesterday..."(President Bush) said the results are not acceptable. He's deeply concerned about the people who continue to suffer. I don't know how you can be more clear than that. But there is a massive effort to see that it continues." THAT SWEET ELDERLY LADY: Barbara Bush, living up to her reputation as an elderly wolf in sheep's clothing, offered NPR this assessment of the plight of Katrina refugees now living in the Houston Astrodome:"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this (she chuckled)--this is working very well for them." QUALIFICATIONS: FEMA director Mike Brown, in charge of disaster relief for the Federal government, was originally hired by FEMA after a nine-year stint as commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association. ("With 46,000 members, the Arabian Horse Association (AHA) provides many opportunities for you to tap into the Arabian horse lifestyle.") QUALIFICATIONS, PART TWO: Keith Olbermann, on the protection our war president and his administration are providing:"And most chillingly of all, this is the Law and Order and Terror government. It promised protection -- or at least amelioration -- against all threats: conventional, radiological, or biological.It has just proved that it cannot save its citizens from a biological weapon called standing water."More from ProgressiveDepot at Now That's Progress. Politics35572@blogcritics.org Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:31:49 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/01/114527.php ProgressiveDepotThe Washington Post has a story today about a potential bloggers code of conduct which doesn't seem like much more than an attempt to stifle some speech.Who wants a seal of approval on their blog? I'd be willing to bet that many of us would rather NOT have a seal of approval, as approval is not what what we're after. (Well, maybe some ego-stroking approval, but not approval in the "official" sense.)Would YOU be proud to show that you are somehow an "approved" blogger?Read more from ProgressiveDepot at Now That's Progress Sci/Tech35256@blogcritics.org Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:45:27 EDT