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 Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:17:06 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/2005/12/28/161706.php The Bulldog ManifestoBack when former President Clinton was being impeached, many of our current Congressmen and Senators were involved in the process. Men like Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and Henry Hyde, among others, came out strongly in support of the impeachment of Clinton based upon the highest standard of "rule of law." Today, as impeachment makes its way back into the American vernacular, this time related to George W. Bush, the following quotes become quite illuminating. While reading them, perhaps ask yourself, 'What happened to the "rule of law?" Tom Delay (R-TX):"This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country."Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.): "I suggest impeachment is like beauty: apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a different view. And it's not a vengeful one, it's not vindictive, and it's not craven. It's just a concern for the Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law. ... as a lawyer and a legislator for most of my very long life, I have a particular reverence for our legal system. It protects the innocent, it punishes the guilty, it defends the powerless, it guards freedom, it summons the noblest instincts of the human spirit.The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door." James Sensenbrenner: (R-WI): "What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law. Our failure to bring President Clinton to account for his lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under law, will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations. I want those parents who ask me the questions, to be able to tell their children that even if you are president of the United States, if you lie when sworn "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," you will face the consequences of that action, even when you don't accept the responsibility for them."Chuck Hagel (R-NB): "There can be no shading of right and wrong. The complicated currents that have coursed through this impeachment process are many. But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice. How can parents instill values and morality in their children? How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America--one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?"Bill Frist (R-TN): "I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail."Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas): "When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority -- for example, a business executive, a military officer of a professional educator -- had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment had he not resigned contain this statement: "The office of the president is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States." Politics41533@blogcritics.org Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:17:06 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/15/091500.php The Bulldog ManifestoOn June 29, 2005, the Bush Administration took action to implement the WMD Commission's recommendations. The WMD Commission was formed pursuant to Executive Order 13328 in order to address the myriad "intelligence failures" the Bush Administration claims resulted in the misdiagnosis of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, or better yet, its apparent lack of a WMD program.The commission came back with 68 recommendations. Of those 68 recommendatons, the Bush Administration agreed to follow 65.Funny thing, though, as it relates to the very last recommendation (see the bottom of this page), the Bush Administration held that "further study" was needed.The final recommendation reads: "The Director of National Intelligence should hold accountable the organizations that contributed to the flawed assessments of Iraq's WMD programs." Why would the White House need "further study" in order to determine whether it is sound policy to "hold accountable those organizations that contributed to the flawed assessments of Iraq's WMD programs"?And more importantly, where is the White House's "further study?" It's been nearly six months! Surely it should have concluded its own in-house investigation by now, n'est-ce pas? Is it possible that the White House doesn't want to execute the last recommendation because it would mean that Bush Administration "friends and family" would be held accountable? Is it possible that the White House doesn't want to execute the last recommendation because it would also mean holding itself accountable? Ah hah! BINGO! Something tells me that this administration will need a lot more time to "study" recommendation #13.17. Perhaps, three more years?Obviously, the adminstration is stalling. We need to press Bush and his staff to conclude their "further study" on the final WMD commission recommendation.Edited: nd Politics39560@blogcritics.org Tue, 15 Nov 2005 09:15:00 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/11/005509.php The Bulldog ManifestoTorture in 1971On April 14, 1971, 1st Lt. Michael Uhl, an intelligence officer with the America Division from 1968-69, testified before a congressional committee with regard to standard "interrogation techniques" (i.e. torture) in Vietnam, as applied to military and civilian prisoners captured by U.S. forces in Vietnam.His testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Operations revealed not only a pattern of endemic beatings, but also rapes and similar "sexual" atrocities, electric shock, and water torture. He also testified to the use of summary executions as a regular occurrence.In 2004, while commenting on Abu Ghraib, Uhl wrote the following for Antiwar.com:"Some of the parallels between what I witnessed in Vietnam as leader of a small military intelligence team, and the details reported by [Seymour] Hersh about Abu Ghraib, reflect, in my view, disturbing patterns of American military practice over decades that the American public would prefer not to know about. As one of Hersh's informants puts it, "The process is unpleasant. It's like making sausage. You like the results, but you don't want to know how it's made." The more serious of these wartime parallels have grievous consequences for both victims (typically civilian non-combatants) and perpetrators, who in time reenter the U.S. population as damaged veterans." (Emphasis added.)White Phosphorus and Napalm in 1971On April 16, 1971, a reporter named Fred Branfman, who had spent the period of March 1967 through February 1971 in neutral Laos, testified before a congressional committee, unmasking a "secret" US policy of saturation bombing over Laos-- using white phosphorus and napalm. Branfman later wrote:"Village after village was leveled, countless people buried alive by high explosives, or burnt alive by napalm and white phosphorous, or riddled by anti-personnel bomb pellets" Later, a Senate report concluded that: "...throughout all this there has been a policy of subterfuge and secrecy through such things as saturation bombing and the forced evacuation of population from enemy held or threatened areas-we have helped to create untold agony for hundreds of thousands of villagers." As I blogged a few days ago, it has been reported that white phosphorus and a napalm-like substance have been used to again decimate civilians in Fallujah. Yesterday, it was uncovered by The Daily Kos that the US Army's March edition (PDF file) of Field Artillery Magazine even admits to the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah: "WP [i.e., white-phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."Branfman and Uhl testified within two days of each other. Here we are, 34 years later, and we apparently haven't learned one damn thing. Once again, we are talking about torture, white phosphourus, and napalm.Wake me up from this bad dream...PLEASE!Edited: nd Politics39348@blogcritics.org Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:55:09 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/20/081343.php The Bulldog ManifestoRecently, many bloggers have reminded us of President Eisenhower's 1961 speech wherein he presciently warned us of the need to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."But there is another speech by President Dwight D. Eisenhower that is just as timeless, and perhaps just as important. It is known as the Cross of Iron speech. In that speech, delivered in 1953 to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Eisenhower humanely set forth five precepts which the United States should be governed by:"First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations." Today, as our military occupies Iraq, and as our government attempts to impose a form of government and economy on the people of Iraq, we must ask ourselves-- 'what happened to these precepts?' Why have they been so ignored?Could it be that, as Eisenhower warned us, the military-industrial complex has "acquired unwarranted influence"? Examining current events in light of Eisenhower's Cross of Iron speech, can there be any other explanation?"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.This world in arms in not spending money alone.It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." Now that we have already spent approximately $220 billion dollars on the war in Iraq, it bears asking-- 'How many schools could we have constructed?' How many homes could we have built?How many bushels of wheat could we have purchased to feed the hungry?How many hospitals to aid the sick? "This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace.It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honesty.It calls upon them to answer the questions that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?" How do YOU respond? Is there no other way? Politics38202@blogcritics.org Thu, 20 Oct 2005 08:13:43 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/18/074857.php The Bulldog ManifestoYou are a conspiracy theorist, and you probably don't even know it. You read about conspiracy theories every day in your newspaper. You hear about conspiracy theories every night on the evening news telecast. You gather around office watercoolers, and you talk about conspiracy theories --and most of the time, you believe in them without realizing that you have made a leap of faith to do so. You see, you believe in conspiracy theories in such instances where the conspiracy theory does not make you feel uncomfortable.Then suddenly, along comes a well-supported, factually based conspiracy theory to make you feel squeamish. A conspiracy theory that challenges your beliefs. A theory that causes you to question your worldview, and perhaps even your identity. A conspiracy theory that would require you to make a paradigm shift just in order to examine it. And it is at this point that you "rationally" decide to denounce conspiracy theories. It is at this point where cognitive dissonance takes place, and you belittle the entire notion of conspiracy theories altogether (even though you believe in them elsewhere, perhaps unknowingly). It is at this point where you scoff and make references to "tin foil hats" and a living Elvis Presley. It is only when a non-dominant, progressive, or controversial alternative theory or description of events is set forth, that you choose to backhandedly dismiss conspiracy theories with absolute finality. If a particular conspiracy theory illicits an uncomfortable feeling, beckons self-examination and/or a paradigm shift, more likely than not, you will deem that theory 'irrebuttably false.' At the point where a conspiracy theory challenges your world view, you suddenly use the term "conspiracy theory" as a perjorative term. Oh, the hypocrisy!A "conspiracy" is defined as "an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action." A "theory" is defined as, "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."Let's look at a couple examples, shall we?Story #1 First we have the following news item reported by Reuters today: "HARARE, Zimbabwe (Reuters) -- President Robert Mugabe's guards briefly detained the U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe after he entered a restricted security zone near the African leader's residence, state television reported Thursday....[snip]....a calculated disregard of the rules governing relations between states ... clearly intended to provoke an unwarranted diplomatic incident." In this story, Reuters is reporting that more than one guard calculatedly (e.g. by agreement, either expressed or implied) broke rules governing relations between states. This is a story about an alleged conspiracy-- a group of people coming together to break a rule or law.Now, who would question this story's veracity? In my estimation, most people would likely accept this story without any extra scrutiny. After all, the story does not cause us any personal discomfort, nor does it provoke us to examine ourselves. The story does not challenge any of our world views. Yet this story is unquestionably a conspiracy theory. Is the story true? We really do not know for certain, we are left to either trust the media's description of events or not. Story #2 Next, on Aug. 5, 1964, American news media reported that North Vietnamese forces -- for the second time in three days -- had launched unprovoked (e.g. illegal) attacks on U.S. ships in the Tonkin Gulf. The New York Times claimed that the U.S. government was retaliating "after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin." The Washington Post's headline stated: "American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression."Once again, here we have a conspiracy theory set forth by the news media. Similar to the present-day Zimbabwe story, the Gulf of Tonkin story was, at that time, not too hard to swallow. In fact, the conspiracy theory was so believable when it was reported that, two days later, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed by Congress authorizing the president "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression." Essentially, the public's unflinching acceptance of the government and media's "conspiracy theory" set the stage for America's entrance into what became known as the Vietnam War. How many Americans even realized, at the time, that they bought into a conspiracy theory? In the Tonkin case, history now shows us that the government and media presented a false conspiracy theory to the American public. Little did most people know at the time, but the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as theorized in the newspapers, was a lie. Recently released tapes of White House phone conversations indicate the attack probably never happened. Now consider this. What would have happened if, at that time, another newspaper (or alternative media source) reported that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie? What if somebody challenged the mainstream theory with credible evidence? In 1964, how many people would have considered the possibility that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was indeed a lie? In order to believe a "conspiracy theory" like that, one would have to face the uncomfortable possibility that the government or media was fabricating the truth. One would have to face the uncomfortable possibility that their country was capable of lying on a grand scale. Most likely, a person would have to experience a complete paradigm shift just to entertain critical examination of the alternate theory.Essentailly, we would have two opposing conspiracy theories. Which one should we believe? The easiest theory to digest? The theory with the most evidence? The easiest theory to explain?You see, this is where most people get a bit squeamish. This is where most people begin to invoke the "be rational" or "commonsense" card. What many people do not realize though, is that they are invoking "rational thinking" and "common sense" not because they have suddenly partaken in critical examination, but merely because they are viscerally repugnant to the alternate theory. In essence, they are not being rational at all. They are being emotional.Are conspiracy theories ever true? Of course. Generally speaking, preachers don't tell on preachers; soldiers don't tell on soldiers; cops don't tell on cops; doctors don't tell on doctors; and so on. Politicians will not turn on one another unless there is a greater goal to be gained. Conspiracies, for the most part, develop quite organically. Most of us don't tell on our friends, and from this, you can understand why we shouldn't just immediately shut ourselves off to the notion of a conspiracy.Just look at the run up to the Iraq War. There may have been a conspiracy amongst the Neocons to take this country to war. Shouldn't we investigate it? Of course we should. We should investigate all colorable conspiracy theories, even the ones that make us feel squeemish. Even the ones that challenge popularly held theories of "facts." Are conspiracy theories ever false? Of course. In fact, it's safe to say that they are false more often than they are not. But, we are not served by dismissing conspiracy altogether, we ARE served by investigating it. And by investigation, I mean critical investigation. The worst thing we could do is simply turn our attention away from conspiracy (or any other quest for knowledge, for that matter). By doing so, we allow them to go unchecked. We deny ourselves potential knowledge, and perhaps even justice.This is why I laugh when I hear somebody use the term "conspiracy theory" as a perjorative term. I laugh because most people fail to recognize that conspiracy theories are everywhere, and more often than not, most people swallow conspiracy theories without recognizing that they have done so. Gulp! What we need is critical examination. What we need is an open mind. We need to examine theories, even when they make us feel sick to our stomach. And we need to dismiss theories only when they are no longer colorable. But so long as they are colorable, we must, at the minimum, keep our minds open to the possibility that they may be true.As humans, we tend to seek absolute order. We crave answers. Generally speaking, we do not feel comfortable with the inherent insecurity of chaos. But it is from chaos and disorder that we typically and ultimately find knowledge and wisdom, even when we don't find absolute answers. It is the balance between order and chaos, knowing and not-knowing, believing and not believing, which brings us the greatest fruit. It is the marriage of doubt and faith which illuminates the never-ending path of knowledge. ed/pub:NB Politics38065@blogcritics.org Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:48:57 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/09/091529.php The Bulldog Manifesto In 1937, Adolph Hitler's Luftwaffe indiscriminately bombed the Spanish town of Guernica, killing 1,650 civilians. The New York Times reported, "The object of the bombardment seemingly was demoralization of the civilian population....not a military objective." Soon after, America rightfully denounced the bombing as a "monstrous crime."But this wasn't the first time anybody had bombed civilians. The French, Germans, and British had all partaken in limited civilian bombings in World War I -- killing thousands. In 1925, France and Spain defeated a Berber uprising in Morocco by use of civilian bombings. American volunteers, under French command, bombed the city of Chechaouen, similar in size to Guernica. And from 1926 through 1928, the US Marines utilized civilian bombing to force regime change in Nicaragua. There was no public outcry within the United States for either of these actions. For some reason, these were not considered crimes.But when Japan bombed civilians in Shanghai in 1932 and claimed thousands of lives, the New York Times reported that those bombings brought a "literal avalanche of denunciation" upon Japan (and rightfully so!) In fact, it is said that the Shanghai bombing caused Americans "to view the Japanese as 'butchers' and 'murderers'." And again in 1937, when Japan again bombed Shanghai, the bombing was viewed correctly by Americans as "an atrocity of the most appalling kind."In 1938, as a result of all of these civilian massacres (and others), the League of Nations unanimously passed a resolution outlawing "the intentional bombing of civilian populations." In 1939, nearing the outbreak of World War II, FDR made a public plea that the warring parties refrain from the "inhuman barbarism" of bombing civilian populations, acts which "sicken[ed] the hearts of every civilized man and woman," and "profoundly shock[ed] the conscience of humanity." As a result, Hitler pledged he would limit his air force to attacking only military targets. And British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stated that "Britain will never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children and other civilians for the purpose of mere terrorism."In 1940, however, the British War Cabinet approved plans for "indiscriminate" bombing of civilian German targets even before the Germans had ever bombed British civilians. But Hitler drew first blood with the bombing of British civilians in August of 1940. Then, in a series of back-and-forths, the Germans and British exchanged civilian bombings in the cities of Munich, Coventry, Mannheim, and London.By July of 1941, Winston Churchill wrote, "There is one thing that will bring [Hitler] down, and that is an absolutely devastating exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland." (Emphasis Added.) Soon enough, the British exterminated 42,000 people in Hamburg.It wasn't until 1945 that the United States broke its oath to refrain from the bombing of civilians. With the protest of General Doolittle who went so far as to claim that such a course of conduct would amount to "terrorism," America went ahead with civilian bombings in Berlin. Then Dresden (killing approximately 60,000 civilians). Meanwhile, in the Pacific theater of the war, the US military brass decided that precision bombing of Japanese military targets was having limited success. Thus, tactics were changed. Between November of 1944 and August of 1945, 160,000 tons of ordinance was dropped on 64 Japanese cities. 83,000 were killed in Tokyo alone! The Japanese condemned the American bombings of civilians (and rightfully so!).August 6 will commemorate the 60th anniversary of the United States' atomic bombing of Hiroshima. On August 6, 1945, 70,000 lives were taken in the blink of an eye-- almost all were civilians, including a score of American prisoners of war held captive there. Within a few days of the bombing, 90,000 were dead. And the final count is put at about 200,000.On August 9, 1945, another atomic bomb was dropped, this time on Nagasaki. This second bomb killed about 75,000 people.While we most certainly must assign guilt to the then-fascist governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan for the indiscriminate killings of civilians, we must also hold the United States and Great Britain accountable. After all, by the end of the war, more than 1 million German and Japanese civlians had been killed, and another 7 million Germans and 8 million Japanese had been bombed out of their homes. Of these victims, it is estimated that twenty percent were children.Before the outbreak of WWII, America was morally justifiable in its condemnation of the Guernica terror bombings of Spanish civilians. Unfortunately however, within years the US itself had perfected the terror on a much grander scale. Therefore, while Americans rightfully object to the failure of the Japanese to apologize to China for its war crimes or to cite them in the historical record taught to Japanese schoolchildren, Americans should not gloss over their nation's own attendance to terror bombings in WWII (and beyond!).In fact, the failure of our society to recognize these faults may have impaired our own moral vision to the point where we confuse our reckless interventions abroad as noble and morally righteous endeavors. Perhaps many of our fellow citizens fail to pay sufficient attention to the fact that we too have exterminated hundreds of thousands of civilians, be they Japanese, German, Vietnamese, Panamanian, or Iraqi. How could we still be so outraged by civilian attacks when we participate in such attacks in places like Nagasaki, Fallujah, or My Lai? How could we still be so outraged by barbarism when we participate in it?Civilians are civilians.Ed:LM Politics35792@blogcritics.org Fri, 9 Sep 2005 09:15:29 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/06/171751.php The Bulldog ManifestoI laugh every time I hear someone try to claim that the Bush administration and Republicans, in general, want a smaller government. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Yes, they want a smaller government when it comes to issues like social security, public education, health care, and poverty (I wonder why?). But when it comes to the issue of sex, for example, the so-called "small government" Republicans seem to be on Viagra, always swelling into "big government" patriarchs. As it relates to one of the most crucial of individual liberties, the right to have sex with whomever we choose, however we choose, the 'Party of the Sex Fearing' want the rest of us to entertain their own sexual fears and hang-ups. Did you know that in 2004 alone, the Bush administration allocated $270 million dollars to "abstinence only" sex education groups? In other words, George W. Bush allocated money that could have otherwise gone to pay for, say, a certain levee system in New Orleans, but chose to spend it on government programs relating to how we, the citizens of the United States, have sex!In fact, since Bush has taken office, we are spending over $100 million each year on "abstinence-only" programs which teach our children things like this:THERE IS NO WAY TO HAVE PREMARITAL SEX WITHOUT HURTING SOMEONE. (Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p.35)There is no such thing as 'safe' or 'safer' premarital sex. (FACTS, Middle School, Teacher's Guide, p. 9.) The liberation movement has produced some aggressive girls today, and one of the tough challenges for guys who say no will be the questioning of their manliness. (Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p. 85.)There are more examples at NoNewMoney.Org. Oh, it gets worse. Not only is Bush mandating our sex life, he is attempting to do it overseas too. In 2002, the Bush administration undermined an international drive to provide teenage sexual education because of his own belief in chastity. In fact, Bush refused to sign a United Nations declaration on children's rights which was designed to set funding priorities across the Third World unless pledges on sexual health services were scrapped altogether. So much for the notion that 'Sexual Rights are Human Rights'. In its intransigent opposition to any acknowledgment of condom use as a way to fight AIDS and adolescent pregnancy, the United States was also joined by such beacons of enlightenment as Sudan, Libya, Syria and the Vatican. Arrayed against the US-led obstructionist effort was an overwhelming majority of the 180 delegations and sixty world leaders participating in the conference, including not only nearly all the Western democracies but the largely Catholic countries of Central and South America. (The Nation) Did you know that in July 2004, the Bush administration, via the CDC (Center for Disease Control), published new regulations requiring that organizations teach abstinence as the only way to prevent the spread of HIV instead of disease-preventing safe-sex education? In fact, only organizations that teach "abstinence-only" may receive federal funding now as a result of the new regulations. When asked about the CDC regs, Representative Barney Frank told The Nation that "one has to reach back to Stalin and Lysenko to find an ideological distortion of science this complete." And Representative Henry Waxman called the CDC guidelines "shameful," and only the latest anti-condom move by an Administration whose policies have been "overwhelmingly suppressing and distorting science" for political purposes (as a sop to the Christian right). (The Nation) And what about the most recent revelation? Recently, it was revealed that the top priority for the Bush Justice Department would not be terrorism, organized crime, or public corruption. Nope, it was revealed that the Attorney General (and Grandmaster of Torture) Alberto Gonzalez, would make pornography the number one priority for the justice deparment! Not child pornography, but pornography featuring consenting adults!So much for "small government". When it comes to sex, the Bush administration is all about big government. The bigger, the better. Apparently, 'we the people' must be coerced and legislated into a sex life that meets with George W. Bush's approval. And it seems, if they had it their way, we would all be virgins until marriage. We would all refrain from viewing pornography. We would all strictly limit our love to heterosexual relationships. In essence, we would all be fearful of our innate, unique, and varying sexualities.The funniest thing is--George W. Bush fails to recognize that, so long as he is president, it is impossible for any of us to remain monogamous. After all, aside from our respective sexual partners, we are all getting fucked by George W. Bush.Ed/Pub:LM Politics35586@blogcritics.org Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:17:51 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/03/070907.php The Bulldog Manifesto"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." -- John Kenneth GalbraithA few days ago, the US Census Bureau reported that nearly 12.7% of all Americans currently live below the poverty line. That figure was higher for the fifth consecutive year in a row. Meanwhile, according to Forbes magazine in 2004, "the combined net worth of the nation's wealthiest [400 people] climbed to $1 trillion, up $45 billion in 12 months." Of the richest 400 Americans, there were 313 billionaires, a record number! "How many yachts can you waterski behind? How much is enough?" -- Bud Fox (played by Charlie Sheen)in Oliver Stone's classic movie Wall Street. Using the last major US Census Bureau statistics from 1998, the richest 1% of households own 38 percent of all wealth. The richest 5% own more than half of all the wealth. To put it another way, the top 5% maintain more wealth than the remaining 95% percent of the population, collectively.To put the 'Great American Divide' in context, assume there are 100 people who have $100 to split up amongst them. Although nobody expects the money to be shared evenly at $1.00 per person, everybody expects that some basic fairness may be applied in the process.But suppose the $100 gets divided as follows:1 person gets $38.10 4 people get $5.32 each 5 people get $2.30 each 10 people get $1.25 each 20 people get $.60 each 20 people get $.23 each 40 people get 1/2 cent eachThat is how the money is divided in America. As the one person who now makes $38.10 begins to take even a greater share as time goes by, the divide gets wider. Eventually, you have a situation where the people become quite upset with the situation, perhaps feeling that the system is skewed a bit unfairly.According to the economic measure called the Gini coefficient (which measures the concentration of wealth as an index that goes from zero to one, one being the most unequal), wealth inequality in the United States, as of 1998, has a Gini coefficient of .82. According to some economists, .82 is "pretty close to the maximum level of inequality you can have". Speaking to a congressional panel in June of 2005, conservative icon and boy toy, Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, showed remarkable concern for the growing wealth divide. "As I've often said, this is not the type of thing which a democratic society - a capitalist democratic society - can really accept without addressing." (Christian Science Monitor, June 14, 2005) Yes, that's right, the divide is so great that even Alan "Fucking" Greenspan starts sounding like a liberal! ""He is the conventional wisdom," says Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank. "When I'm arguing with people, I say, 'Even Alan Greenspan....' " " (Christian Science Monitor, June 14, 2005) So, what are our leaders doing about this divide? Abso-fucking-lutely nothing! Unless, of course, you consider repealing the Estate Tax, shielding corporations from liability, giving tax cuts to the upper class, and blowing up major segments of our nation's bankruptcy laws helpful to the situation. You see, rather than bridge the gap, it seems as if our "leaders" are only making it worse. More than that, they are instituting measures that, for all intents and purposes, concretize the current class divide for future generations. The ultra-rich are guaranteed their familial dynasties for generations to come. "We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price of paper clips. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everyone sits around wondering how the hell we did it." -- Gorden Gekko (played by Michael Douglas)in Oliver Stone's classic movie Wall Street But what can we do about it? First off, we need to realize that there are more of 'us', than there are 'them'. Second, we need to stop coddling the aristocracy, including politicians from our own political party. Using party politics of "Democrats" and "Republicans", the ruling class always gets to play us off against one another in a football game of sorts. As we senselessly beat the crap out of one another in this football game, they are robbing us blind. That needs to stop. Lately, as Thomas Frank, editor of The Baffler said, we have "a French Revolution in reverse -- one in which the sans-culottes pour down the streets demanding more power to the aristocracy."Brainwashed by television programming and pop culture, most Americans don't even recognize that they work four months out of the year for a government that basically serves at the pleasure of the most wealthy. Some Americans actually give their lives fighting in wars catered to the profit of the most wealthy. It's sheer insanity. And when national disasters happen, like Hurricane Katrina, that same government who has catered to the whims of the richest, has nothing left to give to the ones who suffer the most. Instead, it calls upon the generosity of the ones with the least to pitch in and help. The people need to wake up!Although it might not happen any time soon, you never know. If things get bad enough, it could happen sooner rather than later. After all, football gets quite unimportant when gas starts costing $5.00 a gallon and the mortgage cannot be paid. (Perhaps this is why uber-conservative Alan Greenspan is smart enough to recognize the danger of a Great Divide -- because eventually, the 'have nots' are going to rise up.) Lastly, we need to fight. I'm not advocating violence here, I'm advocating spirit. We need a fighting spirit. We need to recognize bullshit when we see it and we need to call it out. "A little boy and his father go to the circus. The little boy sees a full-grown elephant with a rope tied around his leg. At the other end of the rope is a wooden stake driven into the ground. The little boy is amazed that the big elephant doesn't break the rope and pull the stake out of the ground.The father explains that when the elephant was a baby, his trainers tied a heavy chain around his leg. The other end was tied into an iron stake driven deep into the ground. The baby elephant pulled and tugged many, many times and was finally conditioned to believe he couldn't get away. Now they keep a rope tied to his leg to remind him, and when he feels resistance he stops trying.If the elephant gave it 100% one more time, he would be free and gone." -- Positive Mental Imagery Well, this elephant is ready to tug again! Pub:NB Politics35369@blogcritics.org Sat, 3 Sep 2005 07:09:07 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/01/070024.php The Bulldog ManifestoI'm always amazed at how seemingly reasonable people quickly deny the possibility that we, the American people, could be lied into a war by our "leaders". I'm amazed because our very history is rife with examples where our government has wrongly deceived us into war. Certainly, if they did it once, twice, three times, they would do it again, wouldn't you agree? Then why is it that people have a hard time swallowing what should now seem so obvious?Lets go back and look at some history, shall we? "Remember the Maine! To Hell With Spain!" We can start all way the back on February 15, 1898. On that day, the USS Maine, an American battleship, blew up and sank in the stillness of Havana Harbor, offshore from Cuba. Our government declared a month later that the ship blew up because of an explosive mine in the water. The tragedy was a precipitating cause of the Spanish-American War that began in April, 1898. At the time, it was used as pretext for war by those who were already inclined to go to war with Spain. The government used the rallying cry "Remember the Maine! Death to Spain"As it turned out, the USS Maine was not blown up from an enemy mine. With the benefit of modern forensic science, the explosion is now widely believed to have been an accident caused by the spontaneous combustion of gunpowder magazines situated too close to heat sources. Modern analytical tools, especially computer simulations, have all but confirmed this. Furthermore, recently revealed government documents suggest that our government was aware that the USS Maine was not actually sunk by an enemy mine. In essence, the American citizens were lied to, and soldiers gave their lives for an expansionist war.Avenge Pearl Harbor! In recent years, many controversial texts have uncovered facts revealing that our government likely had knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack prior to December 7, 1941. On their accounts, not only had we broken Japan's codes, but a British double agent had also uncovered the plot to attack Pearl Harbor well before the attacks and warned our government. But even if you don't buy into the "Roosevelt knew" revelation, nobody can dispute that our government did everything possible to lure Japan into war.FDR began his program of economic warfare by embargoing strategic goods. In September, he banned exports of iron and steel to Japan. In June 1941, he restricted oil shipments to Japan. Soon thereafter, FDR froze Japan's funds in the United States. This was followed by many public demands for Japanese capitulation. Roosevelt also refused to meet with Japan's Prime Minister.Caught in an economic trap, Japan did not hide their intention of going to war with the US, and went so far as to speak of war if no settlement were reached by November of 1941. In any event, Pearl Harbor happened and it galvanized the American public's willingness to enter WWII behind the rallying cry "Avenge Pearl Harbor!" Regardless of whether it was a good thing or a bad thing, the point is, the citizens of the USA were likely lied to.Operation Northwoods Operation Northwoods was a government plan devised and approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and likely to be carried out with the help of the CIA in order to manufacture consent for a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. The documents exhibit a considerable willingness on the part of our government to deceive, severely endanger and/or kill its own civilians. In particular, the Joint Chiefs recommended the following actions:1. Using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba. 2. Start false rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios. 3. Stage mock attacks, sabotages and riots and blame it on Cuban forces. 4. Sink an American ship at the Guantanamo Bay American military base - reminiscent of the USS Maine incident at Havana in 1898 which started the Spanish-American War - or destroy American aircraft and blame it on Cuban forces. 5. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions. 6. Destroy a fake commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". 7. Stage a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees. 8. "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute [sic] to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized."The plan was devised in 1962. For nearly 40 years, Operation Northwoods remained merely a "conspiracy theory" until it was finally uncovered via the Freedom of Information Act. But it clearly shows that our government has no problem with lying to us, or even considering harming us for the purpose of provoking war.Gulf of Tonkin Incident The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was presented to the American public as two attacks by North Vietnamese gunboats without provocation against two American destroyers (the USS Maddox and the USS C. Turner Joy) in August of 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin. The Pentagon Papers later revealed the Johnson administration of the United States had virtually fabricated the attacks. The US-supported South Vietnamese regime had been attacking oil processing facilities in North Vietnam, with planning and support from the CIA, for the very purpose of providing a pretext to initiate the Vietnam War.9/11-- "We Will Never Forget!" Anthrax - 'We Will Immediately Forget!' I've discussed it at length before, and I won't go into it further today. You can look into my past posts at The Bulldog Manifesto to see what I think about 9/11, and how we were lied to for the purpose of taking this country into a series of wars designed to capture valuable oil fields and oil pipelines. Heck, the Project for a New American Century, the Neocon think tank, spelled it our for us. They planned many of the events of today years ago. Namely, they planned to confiscate the Afghan oil pipelines and the Iraqi oil reserves. If you haven't opened your eyes to this yet, all I can say is, "wake up".You should also be familiar with my views on Anthrax, and how those attacks were of major significance in scaring the pants off the American public. You should be aware that the Anthrax spores came from an army base at Fort Detrick, as you should also know that once the FBI uncovered this fact, the Anthrax story has been buried - never to be discussed. But that never stopped Colin Powell from waving a vial of faux anthrax before the United Nations in the run up to the Iraqi War.The Downing Street Memos So now we come to the Downing Street Memos. Here we have a smoking gun document that shows that the American and British governments decided to "fix the facts and intelligence around the policy" of going to war in Iraq. And yet, even with all of our history, many otherwise reasonable people cannot bring themselves to admitting that "yes, we were lied to!"What more does it take? How many lies does it take until you look at your government in the proper light? What does it take for you to hold your government accountable? Or could it be that you want to be lied to? Politics35236@blogcritics.org Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:00:24 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/29/071022.php The Bulldog ManifestoIt's funny how some of the right wingers get all loopy when they hear somebody speak the truth. They can't handle hearing it (i.e., Cindy Sheehan, Ambassador Joe Wilson, Scott Ritter, Sen. Max Cleland, Richard Clarke, and Hans Blix). Nothing bothers these people more than the truth. It drives them up the friggin' wall. They will smear anybody who speaks the truth. There is a reason for this, and it comes from the very foundation of the Neoconservative belief system.The Neoconservatism movement is built upon the notion that it's better to get people to believe in "noble lies" than have them unsettled by the truth. The father of Neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, argued that: Contemporary liberalism was the logical outcome of the philosophical principles of modernity, as practiced in the "advanced" nations of the Western world in the 20th century. He believed that contemporary liberalism contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to the nihilism that he saw as permeating contemporary American society.-- Wikipedia on Leo StraussThus, for Strauss, overcoming relativism was of primary importance.Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether "noble lies" (Plato) have any role at all to play in uniting and guiding the cities of man. Are certain, unprovable "myths" taught by wise leaders needed to give most people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can society flourish on a foundation of those "deadly truths" (Nietzsche) limited to what we can know absolutely? You see, neoconservatism is a political school of thought that suffers from an elevated ego. The proponents of the theory believe they know "what's good for the rest of us". These people believe that the American people are better off ignorant and blind, than with actual freewill. In their view, freewill can lead to nihilism. And to them, nihilism will lead to the end of civilization. To put it another way, in the view of the Neocons, people are no different than a pack of wolves. In a wolf pack (no relation to neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz), the dogs need to know their place in the pecking order or the pack will become unstable and inefficient. Through dominance, submission, and aggression, each dog will find it's place, and the pack will be happy. The Neocons believe that people need a hierarchy of order-- people need to be given commands that are easy to understand, and they need to have a routine. Freewill is bad for the pack. Uncertainty is bad for the pack. Questioning the alpha-male puts the balance of the pack in danger. If the leader of the pack wants you to roll over, do it. Don't ask questions, just do it. Good dog!You see, if the wolf pack can't understand quantum mechanics, evolution, the general theory of relativity or esoteric spiritual or philosophical texts-- teach them something they can understand, regardless of whether it's right or not. Make it simple, make it rigid, and do not waiver from it ever. Stay the course, or the rest of the wolves may get restless. The pack needs, above all else, uniformity and security. They need to know what is good and what is bad. There is no grey area for a wolf. A wolf hunts, it doesn't question it's existence, it's habitat, or the alpha-male.You see, neoconservatism does not give Man much credit (or compassion). It is anti-humanist. It is sheer wolf. It believes ignorance is better than knowledge. It values power more than love. It fears science, knowledge and enlightenment. It fears foreign packs. But most of all, it fears its true nature as a human being. And thus, it fears truth. Mythologically speaking, Neoconservatism plays only to Man's masculine attributes (power, violence, discipline, order, etc.) without care for it's feminine attributes (love, compassion, chaos, etc. - think of the Goddess Aphrodite, goddess of Love and Chaos) As such, neoconservatism is completely out of balance. It fails to recognize half of our given human nature. It is out of touch with the moon-- the mother. It exhalts the sun-- the father. It disregards compassion, and knows not how to forgive. It thrives on competition and cannot handle cooperation. Neoconservatism is a philosophy of self-destruction.So next time you see some neoconservative doing everything under the sun to avoid the truth-- have pity on him. He has not yet realized that he is a human being. His world view does not permit him to seek the truth. On the contrary, a neocon has not evolved from his animal past. He has no other choice than to just "howl at the moon." PLEASE NOTE: THE BULLDOG MANIFESTO DOES NOT WISH TO INSULT ANY FELLOW CANINES WITH THE PRECEDING POST. THE BULLDOG MANIFESTO BELIEVES WOLVES ARE BEAUTIFUL ANIMALS, AND HAVE SOME VERY GOOD THINGS TO TEACH US. WOLVES ARE NICE. HUMAN BEINGS BEHAVING LIKE WOLVES ARE NOT NICE. ed: JH/Pub:LM Politics34985@blogcritics.org Mon, 29 Aug 2005 07:10:22 EDT