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, 26 Jan 2005 12:35:52 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/2005/01/26/123552.php spiderleafYes, one more conservative columnist was paid with taxpayer money to promote the Bush agenda. Surprise. Surprise.Only this time it's a paltry $21,500 vs. $241,000 that Armstrong Williams received... man, she sure got a raw deal... she must not have taken any negotiation classes in school.But shill she did for the proposed $300mm "Defense of Marriage" act... with the publics money.So once again, you can't 'sell' a policy proposal on its merits, so you pay from the public purse to propagandize it under the cover of objectivity.I can't wait to hear how much more money the 'fiscal conservatives' running the government have paid out in the last 4 years to push their policies. I'm sure we won't have to wait long to find out.From the Washington Post today:In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families."The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples" and "educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage," she wrote in National Review Online, for example, adding that this could "carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children." But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal. Her work under the contract, which ran from January through October 2002, included drafting a magazine article for the HHS official overseeing the initiative, writing brochures for the program and conducting a briefing for department officials."Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?" Gallagher said yesterday. "I don't know. You tell me." She said she would have "been happy to tell anyone who called me" about the contract but that "frankly, it never occurred to me" to disclose it. ...Gallagher received an additional $20,000 from the Bush administration in 2002 and 2003 for writing a report, titled "Can Government Strengthen Marriage?", for a private organization called the National Fatherhood Initiative. That report, published last year, was funded by a Justice Department grant, said NFI spokesman Vincent DiCaro. Gallagher said she was "aware vaguely" that her work was federally funded....National Review Editor Rich Lowry said of the HHS contract: "We would have preferred that she told us, and we would have disclosed it in her bio.""Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?" Gallagher said yesterday. "I don't know. You tell me."... well since you asked Maggie, the answer is YES. Politics24731@blogcritics.org Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:35:52 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/25/115508.php spiderleafOr how to lose friends and influence with the neocons.Paul Craig Roberts used to be an influential guy. He was US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during 1981-82 in the Reagan administration and a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute. He was also Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review, as well as a columnist for the Washington Times. Pretty impressive conservative resume all in all. He was quoted regularly by Rush and G. Gordon Liddy. So why is he now receiving death threats from the neocons supporters?He became a critic of the War on Iraq and the policies of the Bush admin. He recognized that the "liberal media" is a myth perpetuated to help conservatives win elections and deceive the public. And he saw conservative values and traditions thrown out the window by the neocons in the White House and on the airwaves. He sees a frightening new America and as a good conservative (yes, I said it... I'm a flaming liberal, but I don't hate conservatives) he decided he had to speak out.I'll let him tell his own story:Not so long ago I would have identified the liberal media as the New York Times and Washington Post, CNN and the three TV networks, and National Public Radio. But both the Times and the Post fell for the Bush administration's lies about WMD and supported the US invasion of Iraq. On balance CNN, the networks, and NPR have not made an issue of the Bush administration's changing explanations for the invasion.Apparently, Rush Limbaugh and National Review think there is a liberal media because the prison torture scandal could not be suppressed and a cameraman filmed the execution of a wounded Iraqi prisoner by a US Marine. Do the Village Voice and The Nation comprise the "liberal media"? The Village Voice is known for Nat Hentoff and his columns on civil liberties. Every good conservative believes that civil liberties are liberal because they interfere with the police and let criminals go free. The Nation favors spending on the poor and disfavors gun rights, but I don't see the "liberal hate" in The Nation's feeble pages that Rush Limbaugh was denouncing on C-Span.In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush.The Iraqi War is serving as a great catharsis for multiple conservative frustrations: job loss, drugs, crime, homosexuals, pornography, female promiscuity, abortion, restrictions on prayer in public places, Darwinism and attacks on religion. Liberals are the cause. Liberals are against America. Anyone against the war is against America and is a liberal. "You are with us or against us."This is the mindset of delusion, and delusion permits no facts or analysis. Blind emotion rules. Americans are right and everyone else is wrong. End of the debate.....The conservative movement that I grew up in did not share the liberals' abiding faith in government. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."Today it is liberals, not conservatives, who endeavor to defend civil liberties from the state. Conservatives have been won around to the old liberal view that as long as government power is in their hands, there is no reason to fear it or to limit it. Thus, the Patriot Act, which permits government to suspend a person's civil liberty by calling him a terrorist with or without proof. Thus, preemptive war, which permits the President to invade other countries based on unverified assertions.There is nothing conservative about these positions. To label them conservative is to make the same error as labeling the 1930s German Brownshirts conservative.American liberals called the Brownshirts "conservative," because the Brownshirts were obviously not liberal. They were ignorant, violent, delusional, and they worshipped a man of no known distinction. Brownshirts' delusions were protected by an emotional force field. Adulation of power and force prevented Brownshirts from recognizing implications for their country of their reckless doctrines.Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy. I went overnight from being an object of conservative adulation to one of derision when I wrote that the US invasion of Iraq was a "strategic blunder."It is amazing that only a short time ago the Bush administration and its supporters believed that all the US had to do was to appear in Iraq and we would be greeted with flowers. Has there ever been a greater example of delusion? Isn't this on a par with the Children's Crusade against the Saracens in the Middle Ages?Delusion is still the defining characteristic of the Bush administration. We have smashed Fallujah, a city of 300,000, only to discover that the 10,000 US Marines are bogged down in the ruins of the city. If the Marines leave, the "defeated" insurgents will return. Meanwhile the insurgents have moved on to destabilize Mosul, a city five times as large. Thus, the call for more US troops.There are no more troops. Our former allies are not going to send troops. The only way the Bush administration can continue with its Iraq policy is to reinstate the draft.When the draft is reinstated, conservatives will loudly proclaim their pride that their sons, fathers, husbands and brothers are going to die for "our freedom." Not a single one of them will be able to explain why destroying Iraqi cities and occupying the ruins are necessary for "our freedom." But this inability will not lessen the enthusiasm for the project. To protect their delusions from "reality-based" critics, they will demand that the critics be arrested for treason and silenced. Many encouraged by talk radio already speak this way.Welcome to the new America folks. No dissent. No reason. No facts. Just blind worship.There is nothing conservative about that. Politics24677@blogcritics.org Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:55:08 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/20/131619.php spiderleafOne of the under-reported parts of Condi Rice's confirmation testimony was the grilling she received on Venezuela by Lincoln Chafee (R-RI). What's up with Venezuela you ask? Well, it seems the Bushies are none too happy about the democratically elected President Hugo Chavez and see his government as a threat.A threat? How can that be? It's just a country in South America... no WMDs, has never invaded anyone else... so what's the deal?They have oil. And lots of it.In fact, they are the 5th largest oil producer in the world and provide the US with about 15% of their imports.So what's the deal then? Well, Chavez is making deals with the Chinese and Russians to reduce their relationship with Washington (seems there can be repercussions for trying to stage a coup...)[Chavez told] Washington to not "even think about trying something similar in Venezuela," referring to what he claims was Washington's orchestrated coup against former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in February, 2004. Should the U.S. follow this course, he optimistically observed that Venezuela "has enough allies on this continent to start a 100-year war," and that "U.S. citizens could forget about ever getting Venezuelan oil."In fact, they said they may suspend shipments to the US in the event of a conflict. And what drives the US economy? Yup, oil. So you can see how this is deeply disturbing to the oilmen in the White House.But it doesn't end there. Chavez has also visited Castro in Cuba twice in late 2004 for secret meetings. Why you may ask... well, it seems Cuba has discovered oil as well, reserves with approx. 100 million barrels, just off shore. This is not good news for Washington. It may just be me, but I don't think Castro will be rushing to supply the US...And then there's that pesky socialism that Latin America seems to like. Chavez was instrumental in setting up a new company, PetroCaribe, to offset high oil prices by distributing crude and refined oil products to the Caribbean at lower prices than other dealers in the area.Now most people would be cognizant of this and try to play nice (you know, the guy was elected by the Venezuelan people and it is their oil after all)... but that ain't the Bush way... seems the US feels they have a right to Venezuelan oil.Enter Chafee and Rice. When asked if she could find anything good to say about the Venezuelan government of Chavez (after Chafee pointed out repeatedly that it was disrespectful to the Venezuelan people who had elected him to continue with the hard stance), Rice couldn't do it.She reserved some of her harshest language, not for China or Russia, but for President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, whose government she said had "not been constructive" because of his tough tactics against the news media and the opposition."Is it possible for you to say something positive about the Chávez administration?" Mr. Chafee asked, apparently taken aback at the toughness of her words.When Ms. Rice said "it's pretty hard, Senator, to find something positive". China has no such reservations and has been quite active on the international scene after the invasion of Iraq. Experts anticipate they will surpass the US in oil consumption by 2030. They are signing deals all over the world to undercut the US and shore up their own supply (including with Canada)... The Great Game moves on... and Washington is behind. Way behind. Politics24467@blogcritics.org Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:16:19 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/17/015155.php spiderleafFirst it was WMD's. Then links to 9/11. Then just because he was a terrible human being and oppressed his own people and used WMD's in the past (of course no mention of the US' support for him while he was doing so). Then it was bringing democracy to the Middle East. And now...It's the political process that will eventually bring democracy to Iraq.When exactly does the US admit they made a horrible, disgusting, immoral "mistake"?Yes folks, the US government is finally admitting the vote on January 30th won't mean anything because half the country won't get to vote.This would be funny if it weren't so utterly tragic and if 100k Iraqi civilians had not already lost their lives, let alone their right to vote."I think a successful election will be an election where most of the population has gotten a chance to vote, and even though we may not get the same kind of numbers in the Sunni area, we're going to have to go forward and use the results of this election to build on," Secretary of State Colin Powell.Would that be considered a successful election in the US or any other democracy? Isn't democracy predicated on "one person, one vote" and "equal opportunity"? (Btw - one of the areas to which Powell refers is Baghdad... you know, the Capital of the country...)Many experts feel this will only continue to inflame the already volatile region and risk damaging the opinion of democracy in the Middle East. Not to mention continue to call into question the motivations of the US.But don't worry good citizens, Bush thinks it's all hunky-dory and it's really your fault anyway... facts don't matter, the fact that you elected him is the only 'truth' that's necessary."President Bush said that the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath."Quick question -- isn't it the Constitution and the International laws and treaties of which the US is party that decides who should be held accountable? Politics24303@blogcritics.org Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:51:55 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/12/130018.php spiderleafIn the never-ending cable news cycle, Bill O'Reilly is King. And he knows it. It matters not to the master of disinformation what the "facts" are or who he slanders, the great beast must be fed. Many have tried over the years to take on O'Reilly and provide their point of view, only to be shouted down, insulted, and ridiculed. Enter George Clooney.Back in the aftermath of 9/11, Clooney and many celebrities, in coordination with the United Way, of which Clooney is a board member, hosted a telethon for the victims families... America: A Tribute To Heroes raised over $129 million for the families. But O'Reilly didn't like it. Not one bit. O'Reilly believed the money was being mismanaged and not reaching those it was intended for. He interviewed Ralph Dickerson, Jr., President of the United Way.(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)O'REILLY: Less than 10 percent of the money that you've raised from the September 11 Fund, and that was the big fund with the special with the movie stars and everything, has been distributed. Now do you have to be cautious about giving the money? Do you have to take this long? RALPH DICKERSON, JR., PRESIDENT, UNITED WAY: Well, I tell you what. There's both an immediate need of cash assistance.O'REILLY: Right.DICKERSON: Rental payments, mortgage payments. O'REILLY: Right. DICKERSON: Just some longer term needs.(END VIDEOTAPE)O'Reilly then went on to claim the fund was being mismanaged and the remaining money given to other charities.Clooney fired back with a scathing (and quite snarky) letter:On the evening of October 31st you ran a story that has no basis in truth. What is not important is your attack of the performers who gave their time to raise money during the telethon for the September 11th fund. What is important is your accusation that the fund is being mishandled and misused. That sir, as you know, is nothing short of a lie.The fund is intact and has already handed out some 36 million dollars to victims' families (fifteen thousand checks), with over $230 million more to be allocated as The United Way sorts through the complicated process of who is in the most need. To have given out all of the money only six weeks after it was raised, would truly be irresponsible. If you were a journalist you would have known that. ... The fund is not only the most successful single fundraiser ever (over 260 million dollars); it is also doing exactly what it is designed to do. Responsibly. The money is going out to the right people and to make certain of this, the United Way is taking some time.It took one phone call to find this information. One phone call you did not make. But hey, it's the first week of sweeps and you need to run a hard-hitting expose' of irresponsible, pampered performers and try to bait them on your show with inflammatory statements. I'm sure it must have been frustrating for you that not one person took the bait. Hell Bill, even McCarthy got a few people to show up.Here's the problem, and why I'm forced to respond: People are coming up to me and asking if it's true that the telethon was a fraud. That means the next time we try to raise money, like when the CD from the telethon comes out this month, fewer people will participate. Because of your unsubstantiated, untrue statements about the September 11 Fund, You, Mr. O'Reilly will be taking money away from people who need it....and all because it's the first week of sweeps.I will say this; you were right about one thing. You accused all of the performers of lying. You named them one by one and read each of their excuses for not responding to you. Tom Cruise, "Too busy". Brad Pitt, "Too busy to respond". Tom Hanks.....you get the idea.You're right, Mr. O'Reilly, we lied...all of us. Of course we weren't too busy. And if you were Peter Jennings, or Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Charlie Rose, The Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, or pretty much anybody else, we would have dropped everything and explained what we know. You see Bill, these are journalists. So, yes we lied when we said we were too busy to do your "entertainment show". We were just trying to not hurt your feelings.I can't wait to see what's in store for the February sweeps.Now if only that were the end of it. Now O'Reilly is back and his target, once again, is Clooney and a disaster relief fundraiser. This time for the tsunami victims. In his "Talking Points Memo" of January 6th he lets George know that he is watching...As Yogi Berra once said, "it is deja vu all over again." You may remember that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, there was a celebrity-driven TV telethon that raised millions for the affected families. And now, there will be another telethon raising money for those hurt by those the tsunami.And once again, our pal George Clooney will be involved. You may also remember that Clooney strenuously objected to "The Factor" investigation that uncovered problems in distributing the 9/11 money, even though we proved our case and the Red Cross revamped its entire operation because of it.Clooney objected to many things, but one of them was my insistence that if celebrities ask for money, they have a moral obligation to see the donations go where they're supposed to go. -- Clooney disagreed.So now we're back in the same spot. A national TV telethon will raise millions and "The Factor" will be watching to see if the money gets to the tsunami victims. If it does not, there will be trouble. And this time nobody can say they weren't warned.Seems reasonable enough on its face, but if you notice, nowhere in the letter does he mention what happened the last time they "investigated"... there were claims thrown around that the money didn't reach its target -- was this true? Did it eventually reach the victims as Clooney said it would? From the tone of this dispatch it appears it did not, hence why The Factor would be keeping a close watch. Now, you may say, but O'Reilly says they proved their case and the Red Cross revamped its entire operation because of it. Yup. But it was The United Way that held the fundraiser with Clooney. Another nice piece of Fox disinformation... throw in a moderately correct, although completely irrelevant fact and trust your audience won't know the difference.On Monday Clooney responded (I nominate him for the King of Snark):In response to your lead story on January 6, where you attack the Sept. 11 telethon, it is incumbent upon me to help you get your facts straight.First, to clarify, it was not the Red Cross but the United Way that sponsored that telethon... an easy mistake to make... if you're 3.Second, contrary to what you claim, no one objected to you investigating where the funds were going, but we strenuously objected to you insinuating that it was a fraud (which is what you did) as we were still waiting for a list of names of the dead. 6,000 was the number when you broadcast your attack (some 3,000 was the real number), that is simply a fact... no spin. There's no question, sir, that you have become quite powerful. The panic that you started that week scared other charitable organizations into simply handing out money to anyone who walked into their office. I suppose the threat of a Senate investigation would scare most anybody. It was an interesting week though... you showed up on the Today Show to talk about the telethon, but when pressed by Matt Lauer, admitted that you would only talk about the scandal if they hawked your new book. Fact... no spin. You said your tactics weren't about ratings, and that same week took out ads bragging about beating Larry King for the first time, all while Eliot Spitzer and Frank Thomas and Josh Gotbaum were weeding through the difficult task of who was dead and who was not.I don't make as much money as you, Mr. O'Reilly (a fact that's easy to check), but I'm fascinated by your use of the word CELEBRITY as if you're not one... you put on make up, you do Leno, The Today Show, go on book tours, and do junkets, so let's be clear... you are a well paid celebrity. Period. No spin. And, to quote you last week, "with power comes responsibility"... people canceled their pledges because YOU told them that the telethon was flawed... a lot of money that should have gone to a lot of needy families didn't, because you wanted a controversy... and controversy has made you a celebrity... remember, sir, that this is me you're talking to publicly. I was the one you called several times the day before the telethon to say that we "had to include 'The Factor'" in the press interviews, and that it "wasn't fair to leave us out, we're a news program". Fact... no spin. I think people should know that.Now, here's the only important fact: the 9/11 telethon was an unqualified success from the beginning to the present and we make sure of it. (I say WE because I'm on the board of directors of the United Way).Your report last Thursday was a preemptive strike... NOT to protect the families affected by the tsunami, but to create more controversy for your own personal gain. Because of it, fewer people will donate money to help truly traumatized victims; they'll be afraid that their money will do no good.So all right, Mr. Journalist... come on in. I'm booking the talent for the Tsunami event... and you, Mr. O'Reilly, are now officially invited to be a presenter... (at this point, not one of the people I've invited to donate their time has said "No")... this way, You can personally follow up on our fundraising... this is your chance to put your considerable money where your considerable mouth is... show up... help raise money... and if we're doing something wrong, point it out. I believe firmly in the check and balance system... you'll get nothing but a handshake and a "Thanks for helping out" from all of the rest of us "celebrities".So what do you say, Mr. O'Reilly... either you ante up and help out AND be that watch dog that you feel we clearly need... or you simply stand on the sidelines and cast stones, proving that your January 6 TV show was nothing more than a "box of lights and wires" designed to make you wealthy.We do the show this Saturday, it's across the street from where you shoot "The Factor".I'll need a quick response.Bill's response?That sounds good to me but I have to see what the format is. I would like to go over there and check things out whether I make a pitch or not depends on how organized things are."Right, criticize & obfusticate all you want, but when it comes time to ante up you need to see how "organized things are"? For a UW telethon... to help tsunami victims... fine, don't participate, but how much of your own money and time have you donated so far, Bill? Not so much fun once the so-called controversy is gone, is it? People in glass houses....ps - due to overwhelming negative press, O'Reilly has capitulated and will appear. Maybe his only complaint now will be they didn't have enough falafels for him in the Green Room.... Culture24168@blogcritics.org Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:00:18 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/07/004136.php spiderleafI can't even believe this, it is so antithical to any Christian beliefs, but, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, in his twisted version of God's will, chose to grace us with this verse from the Bible at a Congressional Prayer Service held on Tuesday January 4, 2004.First some context before DeLay's wonderful interpretation and his outreach to humanity...The Prayer Service was held at a Church on Capitol Hill. The initial prayers were for Bob Matsui and Shirley Chisholm, both Democratic members who are recently deceased. There followed scripture readings, claims from a few of the members of Congress as to the Christian foundations of the US (although a majority of the Founding Fathers were Diests) and prayers for the victims of the Indian Ocean Tsunami. Then DeLay (who btw is subject to a potential indictment for ethic violations) got up to speak. No opening statement and no closing statement. Just this passage (transcript or MP3):"A reading of the Gospel, in Matthew 7:21 through 27.Not every one who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven; but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.Many will say to me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?"Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you: depart from me, you evil doers.'"Everyone who listens to these words of mine, and acts on them, will be like a wise man, who built his house on a rock:The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew, and buffeted the house, but it did not collapse; it has been set solidly on rock.And everyone who listens to these words of mine, but does not act on them, will be like a fool who built his house on sand:The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew, and buffeted the house, and it collapsed and was completely ruined."He finishes reading and sits back down.Is this what the neo-Christian right in America really believes? If not, a strong denunciation of DeLay would be in order. I have heard many calls by fundamentalist Christians to Muslim Americans to denounce Fundamentalism. It is time for good Christians to do the same to the Pharasies who inhabit the positions of power in this nation and spew vile hatred in the midst of mass human tragedy.Or perhaps DeLay believes the hurricanes in Florida were God's will and it was in retaliation for the corruption stemming from the 2000 election... doesn't sound too good when the shoe is on the other foot does it?Of course, they will argue that isn't what he really meant, but it is hard to discern any other meaning from these statements.The most encouraging aspect of this of course is that not everyone feels the same... in today's Globe & Mail, a Buddhist Temple in Vancouver, BC is selling their temple and donating all the proceeds to the Red Cross. As the temple's spokesman puts it "they don't need the real estate to practice their religion, "we can have a temple of compassion instead."Someone could use a lesson in compassion evidently. Politics23988@blogcritics.org Fri, 7 Jan 2005 00:41:36 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/12/29/023633.php spiderleafAs controversy continues to swirl surrounding the last Ukrainian election, one of the top election officials filed papers with the highest court asking for a "protective order" that would recuse him from being interviewed or testifying due to his status as a high-ranking public official, and accused the voters challenging the results of 'frivolous conduct' and abusive and unnecessary requests of elections officials.Mr. Bavkwyl serves as party chairman for the re-election effort of Presidential candidate Yanukovich and has been accused of utilizing his influence as an election official to deliver the vote in a key part of Ukraine.The opposition was quick to point out that no one was above the law in a democracy and that even the President himself would have to testify if called on to do so by the courts or parliament. "Does Mr. Bavkwyl truly feel that as an official serving the public will that he does not have to answer to the same public? If so he would be right at home in the old Soviet system where party officials ruled with impunity!", opposition spokesperson Vitali Yarzab said.The issues raised during the election and recount and for which the court case is seeking answers from Mr. Bavkwyl include: In Faryev, a full recount should have been ordered when the 3% test sample did not match the official vote totals. Instead, based on what county officials said was a recommendation from Mr. Bavkwyl's office, the recount was "suspended" so that they would not have to do a full recount. Votes on electronic machines provided by a funder of Mr. Yanukovich's switched votes for Yushchenko to Yanukovich multiple times while voters attempted to cast their ballots. This was witnessed by many voters and election officials across multiple precincts and counties. More votes than registered voters were recorded for Yanukovich in at least one precinct and there were many similar reports of machines malfunctioning on election day. Unfortunately the machines are not equipped to provide a receipt to the voter to ensure the vote was counted and enable a hand recount should it be deemed necessary. A careful review of nearly 200 precincts in Kolich county revealed a considerable discrepancy between the number of certified absentee votes and the number of registered absentee voters identified in the poll books. The investigation showed some 650 more absentee votes than there were absentee voters identified in the poll books examined. Bavkwyl refused to allow the poll books to be examined prior to the election being certified and the discovery of these types of discrepancies. In districts that heavily supported the opposition candidate, Mr. Yushchenko, voters were required to wait in lines of up to 8 hours to cast their votes. Mr. Bavkwyl removed voting machines from these precincts and moved them to precincts expected to favor Mr. Yanukovich. Long established voting locations were moved at the last minute in districts favoring Yushenko and ballots cast provisionally were often discarded for being cast at the wrong location. A precinct signature book, necessary to verify that the number of votes that were cast, will not be made available to opposition recount observers until four days after the election is certified by parliament per orders of Bavkwyl. A technician from one of the electronic voting machine companies who wrote voting software used with punch-card machines in 41 of Lyvov province's 88 counties, dismantled Havel County's tabulation computer days before the recount and "put a patch on it." The technician then provided a "cheat sheet" to the board of elections in order to ensure the machine and hand count totals matched. In the Mysola County town of Conyavk, certified returns show that all but 10 registered voters cast ballots on Election Day. But the election challenge team has already identified more than 10 registered Conyavk citizens who did not vote, an incongruity that may point to election fraud. The companies who provided the electronic voting machines have consistently refused requests to examine the source code and it had been demonstrated prior to the election by voting rights activists that it is relatively easy to hack the vote. These are but a few of the many irregularities and deliberate instances of vote suppression that have been documented in hearings and testimony the last few weeks in the Ukraine. Citizens had taken to the streets to protest the series of alleged fraud after the exit polls showed Yushenko with a 4.2% lead over Yanukovich, but the vote results gave Yanukovich an alleged 2.5% victory over Yushenko, a 6.7% final vote tally percentage shift toward Yanukovich. [/snark] If you made it all the way through and haven't figured out that Mr. Bavkwyl is really Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Co-Chair of Bush's 2004 re-election effort and the Ohio Secretary of State, then you probably only get your news from the SCLM (so called liberal media). For all of the above has been documented in Ohio.The source links follow below... check it out for yourself. This type of vote suppression and questionable behaviour should not be tolerated in a democracy, regardless of party affiliation. This is about "one person, one vote".... right?What would Ukraine do?Election links:Cobb Recount HQ The Free Press House Judiciary letter to Triad(pdf) Wired News TruthOut.org AP - Blackwell refusing to testify Politics23708@blogcritics.org Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:36:33 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/12/21/233142.php spiderleafSubcomandante Marcos, the leader of the Zapatista's, is co-writing a novel with Mexico's top crime writer. The novel, written by Marcos and Paco Ignacio Taibo II in alternating parts, is being published in installments in Mexico's La Jornada. The tale, Muertos Incomodos (Awkward Dead), is supposedly loosely based on Marcos' real story.Marcos has been dubbed the new Che and is widely popular in the Mexican countryside. He became known on an international scale after the 1994 Indian uprising in the state of Chiapas.Mr Taibo, a Zapatista sympathiser, told the Associated Press... "We all know that it will not be an innocent novel."The novel is obviously written in Spanish, and as my Spanish is a bit rusty I only read Chapter III (one of the Marcos' written chapters). From what I can gather, Marcos does indeed touch on socialist and progressive subjects. The main character openly discusses homosexuality, biodiversity and corporatism. In one passage Marcos references Wal-Mart and the impending crush of capitalism on aboriginal societies. He puts it rather succinctly when he writes that if we allow Wal-Mart, Pizza Hut and McDonald's to take over the pyramids of Teotihuacan the gods will abandon us and we will have "Bush, Blair, Berlusconi, Aznar and the IMF to forever."As this is his first effort, his style could use some polish and I can't imagine why he would choose to put forward his revolutionary ideas through a mystery novel, but regardless, it seems to be working. La Jornada has reported increased sales of 20% for the Sunday paper.The book will be originally published for the Spanish & Italian speaking world. An English version may follow. Books23524@blogcritics.org Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:31:42 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/12/21/202442.php spiderleafThe battle over global warming took a new turn last week at the latest UN environmental conference as the Inuit asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to rule the United States was threatening their existence by not addressing and seeking to stem emissions that contribute to global warming. The US contributes 25% of the world's emissions, yet is only 5% of the global population.The commission, an investigative arm of the Organization of American States, has no enforcement powers. But a declaration that the United States has violated the Inuit's rights could create the foundation for an eventual lawsuit, either against the United States in an international court or against American companies in federal court, said a number of legal experts, including some aligned with industry. Such a petition could have decent prospects now that industrial countries, including the United States, have concluded in recent reports and studies that warming linked to heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe emissions is contributing to big environmental changes in the Arctic, a number of experts said.The Inuit, who number approximately 155,000, depend on the seal hunt for their survival and With arctic ice receding due to climate change, their ability to survive is in jeopardy. The Inuit are represented by the non-profit law firm EarthJustice and the Center for International Environmental Law.This is the latest effort by small nations to make their voices heard about an issue that effects their survival through no fault of their own. The Inuit do not drive or build cars, or fly jet planes. They live on the ice and hunt. During the conference they planned on meeting with representatives of other small nations to discuss options for working together and continuing to press their case, including legal means if necessary. One of those nations is Tuvalu. Tuvalu is a series of small atolls in the Pacific. The islands are only 3 meters above sea-level. In 2002 on a beautiful day a tidal surge from the warming, rising Pacific Ocean flooded nearly all of the capital island of Funafuti.The future looks bleak for Tuvalu if climate change is not addressed immediately. This is not a question of consumer rights, it has become a question of human rights. Who are we in the west to say our SUV is more important than the life of an Inuit or Tuvalu?"We once again appeal to the industrialized countries, particularly those who have not done so, to urgently ratify and fully implement the Kyoto Protocol". Tuvalu, having little or nothing to do with the causes, cannot be left on its own to pay the price. We must all work together. May God Bless you all. May God Bless the United Nations. TUVALU MO TE ATUA." -- Tuvalu Statement at the 57th Session of the U.N. General Assembly, delivered by His Excellency Rt Hon Sir Tomasi Puapua, Governor General of Tuvalu, New York, 14 September 2002.The conference also saw the US further water down their global commitment to curb greenhouse gases...Two weeks of negotiations at a United Nations conference here on climate change ended early Saturday with a weak pledge to start limited, informal talks on ways to slow down global warming, after the United States blocked efforts to begin more substantive discussions.....It would seem the "Compassionate Conservative" believes the Inuit and Tuvalu should be on their own after all. Sci/Tech23513@blogcritics.org Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:24:42 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/12/18/025613.php spiderleafIt has been a busy few days for Rumsfeld and the WH. Republicans are starting to call for Rummy's head for the remarks he made to the troops regarding "going to war with the army you have"...Republicans and neo-cons call for 'arrogant' Rumsfeld to quit..But wait a second... Rummy, arrogant? Just a few months ago he was the 'Marlboro Man'... my what a difference an unscripted press conference makes...Add to that the continuing trend of soldiers looking for a way out... a report in today's New York Times states the National Guard is 30% behind in its recruiting goals in the last two months and is implementing bonus recruitment 'incentives' of up to $15,000... There is also a whopper of a stat in the latest issue of Harper Magazine's (Jan 2005) Index: "The G.I. Rights Hotline (800-394-9544) has received approx. 34,800 phone calls this last year from soldiers seeking a way out of the military." -- G.I. Rights Hotline, as of November 2004That's a big number. It would be interesting to determine how many of these calls were from soldiers currently under 'stop loss' orders vs. regular enlisted.Back in Iraq, the new government continues to have a rough go of it. The deputy head of the Communications Ministry was the latest official to be murdered; he was shot dead on the streets of Baghdad yesterday and three more National Guardsmen were killed in a roadside bombing.Moving along to the paradise that is Mosul, we find a... "Westerner beheaded on Mosul street as American forces lose control of key city". Did we really have control of this city (or Fallujah, or Tikrit, or Basra, etc...) to begin with? Regardless of the White House and Pentagon spin machine, this does not sound like we have any situation in Iraq under control... (see also "US Military Obstructing Medical Care in Iraq").And just when you thought you had heard about enough bad news... multiple new abuse claims have surfaced... New Documents Show String of Iraq Abuse Claims... and Osama has risen again just in time to remind everyone right before the busy holiday travel season that he is still on the loose...How would you like to be Rummy this week?[updated with correct NY Times link] Politics23394@blogcritics.org Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:56:13 EST