deal-with-it!

American Suicide?

2004-02-09T12:16:00.000-08:00

The Washington Monthly has just published a very important article in my opinon. Titled Creative Class War by Richard Florida, the piece details the impact Bush and the Radical Right's culture war on the most creative sectors of our population is having on the willingness of foreign scientists and other highly skilled people to immigrate to the US. It also describes the harm paranoid immigration policies are doing to the ability of the best foreign graduate students to attend American universities, damage that has already led to the shut down of major research projects.

As the world becomes increasingly dependent on knowledge rather than brute strength, those dominating our nation have come to worship strength and fear knowledge. One likely outcome if these policies are not reversed is that the scientific and technological breakthroughs of the future will be more likely to happen in Europe and Canada than in the US.

Florida is the Heinz professor of economic development at Carnegie Mellon University and the author of The Rise of the Creative Class.

Truth and the Culture War, Georgia Style

2004-01-31T13:49:00.000-08:00

Right wingers love to complain that we don't teach enough history. I agree - so long as it is real history. But our agreement turns out to be pretty superficial. Here is how the state of Georgia wants high school American history taught, according to Joseph Jarrell's report in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Teachers "will spend two or three weeks discussing the foundation of our country, with the remaining time devoted to studying events from 1876 to the present. Gone is any mention of the Louisiana Purchase or Lewis and Clark. There will be no discussion of Indian removal and the Trail of Tears.

"Students probably will not be remembering the Alamo; it won't be a topic of discussion in Georgia's high schools. Daniel Webster and Henry Clay will be omitted, as well as Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass and the Underground Railroad.

"Search in vain for discussion of the Civil War; that topic is off limits. In a course entitled 'American History,' students will not study our most devastating war. There is no mention of Fort Sumter, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee or anything else associated with those years."

The proposed cut off in knowledge from the Founding to 1876 says it all.

Ignorance of the Civil War period is particularly important in the South. There the Religious Right and their allies do all they can to claim the Confederacy was more true to the principles of 1776 than was the North. The old Confederacy was in many ways their ideal of what a conservative should approve today - states 'rights' and a utter repudiation of liberalism. Therefore Georgia's students should never read what the Confederacy was really about.

What was it about? In 1861, Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, contrasted the ideals of the Declaration of Independence with those of the Confederacy:

"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. . . . These ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of the races. This was an error. . . .

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its corner stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition.

"This, our new governmant, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

The real unAmericans are men like John Ashcroft, Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, and others who do their best to perpetuate the lie that the Confederacy stood for anything at all worth salvaging in a decent world. If the rightwingers in charge of georgia today have their way, the lie will be strengthened by ensuring young Georgians never learn about the treason of their ancestors, ancestors venerated by today's leaders.

Is This Man Sane?

2004-01-30T17:41:00.000-08:00

John Ashcroft has taken legal analysis to unsuspected lows in his opposition to a proposal by several Congressmen to repeal parts of the so-called "Patriot" Act. In the New York Times for January 30, Ashcroft claimed the result of such legislation "would make it even more difficult to mount an effective antiterror campaign than it was before the Patriot Act was passed. . ." This passage came from a letter Mr. Ashcroft wrote to Senator Orrin G. Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Taken literally, Ashcroft is arguing that the rest of the "Patriot" Act actually weakens our capacity to fight terrorism from what it was before the act was passed. Only these supposedly key parts undid the harm contained in the rest of the act, and then further strengthened us in our capacity to fight terrorism. This argument is surreal.

It also suggests that Ashcroft is either suffering from an impaired memory, or treats truth with the same respect as his boss.

As we now know, government agencies knew all we needed to know to prevent 9-11. the problem was not lack of power before 9-11, it was lack of competence on the administration's part about what to do with the power it already had.

Medicare Lies

2004-01-30T17:25:00.000-08:00

Our site has listed many many lies George Bush and his cronies have told the American people. Because war seems to cause a decline in any country's collective IQ, those most fervently equating patriotism with doing whatever dear leader says have been very very slow to catch on. But some of America's conservatives, the worst offenders in this respect, are beginning to see that this man and all he really stands for are as alien to their principles as he is to liberalism.

The latest example concerns Medicare reform and the deficit. Only two months after the medicare reform and welfare-for-the-pharmaceutical-industry bill was passed, the White Hiouse admits its estimate for its cost is one third more than they claimed. That means the deficit will be around $520 billion (and rising) instead of the $477 billion as originally claimed.

Before it was passed, Bush and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, along with other key administration figures, assured doubtful Republicans that the actual cost would be close to the Budget Office's estimate of $395 billion. The measure passed narrowly, and many conservatives who should have known better said the administrations assurances on its costs were key to their finally voting for it.

Bait and switch.

Like the American people as a whole, they were misled. Will they have the strength of character to do anything about it?

Conservatives and Liberals for the Constitution and Against the Patriot Act

2004-01-20T18:02:00.000-08:00

I have argued on our web site that the Bush reginme is as anti-conservative as it is anti-liberal because, at bottom, underneath the rhetoric wrapped in the flag, it is deeply anti-American. Bit by bit, both groups are awakening to this fact. The Boston Globe today has a important story on the growing movement at the local level against the Patriot Act and its pretensions of political royalty and citizen subservience.

How the U.S. Can become a One Party State

2004-01-19T12:32:00.000-08:00

Over at the American Prospect, Robert Kuttner has an important article on the Radical Right threat to American democracy, and the very real possibility that we are evolving into a single party state, Mexico style, even as the rest of the world becomes steadily more free.

read it!

2004-01-19T12:12:00.000-08:00

Today Atrios reports on the latest outrage against honesty and integrity by Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: Well, Jim, on the Wesley Clark issue, you know, a four- star supreme allied commander of NATO, how much do you worry about a debate between Wesley Clark and President Bush?
JIM DYKE, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, RNC: Well, the first thing you have to do is win the primary, obviously.
And what we've seen in the last week is sort of a shifting in General Clark's positions. He was for the war. He testified in front of Congress and, in fact, gave very compelling testimony, which this week he suggested we took parts of. So maybe it'd be a good idea if we put the whole transcript of the testimony up. We don't want to misrepresent him.
But I think anybody who reads that would have trouble pulling from that a compelling case against the war.
BLITZER: Has Wesley Clark, Donna, gotten a free ride so far? Have people not scrutinized his words as closely as, shall we say, Howard Dean?
~~~
BLITZER: Let me let Carlos weigh in on the General Clark phenomenon.
CARLOS WATSON, CNN POLIITAL ANALYST: Well, I want to say several things.
One, I think what Jim and the RNC have done is brilliant. I mean, they've...
DYKE: Thank you, Carlos.
WATSON: ... inserted themselves in the Democratic campaign very early. They ran -- or, they didn't run, but the Club for Growth ran an ad here in Iowa which was part of what ultimately stemmed some of Howard Dean's momentum here.
And again, part of the reason why they're weighing in on Wesley Clark and on Howard Dean and on John Kerry is to weaken all of these candidates, because I think the RNC is smart enough to know this is still an evenly divided country, you know, the red states and the blue states. And Jim knows that Wesley Clark would be a formidable competitor. And Karl Rove has said as much.
BLITZER: Go ahead and respond, Jim.
DYKE: I think the reason we weigh in is almost as sort of a fact-check operation. I mean, if Wesley Clark comes out and says he opposed the war from the beginning and there is testimony of him moving in that direction, we think it's worth pointing out. We think it's worth pointing out when candidates take positions that are in direct contrary to fact.

With thanks to SFC Scott Fanetti for locating them, the myths of Clark's inconsistency has been fully debunked here and here and here.

Clark's testimony can be read here.

We were thinking of replacing Blitzer's card with that of another media bully. But performances like this will keep him in the deck!

Ever since Fox won its battle to claim the constitutional right to lie on the public airwaves, there is no barrier to media dishonesty any more.

More Craven Service to the Corporate Elite

2004-01-18T17:52:00.000-08:00

Dennis Hastert is upset about how Canada treats Americans seeking to buy perscription medications there. He wants "U.S. action to bring about changes in Canada's prescription drug price control policies." which he claims are unfair to U.S. residents. His solicitude is touching.

All Canada does is allow American citizens to buy drugs there more cheaply than they are allowed to here in the U.S., at least so long as they do not thereby use up Canada's supply of medicine. Hastert finds this unfair to us.

But what is not unfair are attempts by American drug companies to exert control far beyond simply selling their products to willing buyers, which I always thought the market was about. Tamsin Carlisle of the Wall Street Journal reported that "Drug maker Pfizer Inc., New York, earlier this month demanded in a letter to Canadian drug wholesalers that the wholesalers limit their dealings to retail pharmacies preapproved by Pfizer."

This exercise in something rather less tha free trade was not all Pfizer wanted. "As a condition of doing business, the company also directed Canadian wholesalers to implement 'customer flagging, order screening and related procedures' and to report back to Pfizer on customer orders. Several other big pharmaceutical companies, including GlaxoSmithKline PLC and Eli Lilly & Co., have said they will limit sales of patent-protected medicines to Canada over concerns that the drugs are being re-exported to the U.S."

Whether it be this kind of behavior, airlines forbidding the resale of tickets, or other abuses by the corporate elites that dominate this country, I await libertarians finally catching on that the power of big businesses is not the same thing as relations betwqeen ourselves and the corner market.

Hastert is not a representative of the people of his Illinois district, he is a representative of the corporate elite, wherever they are.

Patriotism, Bush Style

2004-01-14T13:01:00.000-08:00

When Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative was leaked as retaliation for her husband's telling the truth about the Bushies' fictitious claim that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa, it took George W. Bush over a month to tell us he was personally concerned that this damaging leak took place.

When Paul O'Neill reported embarrassing information about Bush on television, less than a day later the Treasury department asked for an investigation into the absurd possibility he had leaked classified material.

What merits classification, Bush style, is what protects his image, not what protects our country's well being.

One wonders how long it will take conservatives who love their country rather than slogans to finally reject this dangerous hypocrite. One wonders whether there is any Republican politician whose professions of patriotism amount to more than pious posturing.

2004-01-14T12:47:00.000-08:00

The Radical Right and their allies have been the most vociferous opponents of any constitutional protection of a right to privacy. Everyone's perdsonal records are the proper business of government, at least when it is serving their agenda. But their views sure change when they are asked to walk their talk.

Consider Rush Limbaugh as a prime example of this hypocrisy. Kieth Olberman writes on MSNBC:

"Yesterday, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the court brief supporting Mr. Limbaugh’s argument that the seizure of his private medical records was illegal, and Limbaugh gratefully accepted the ACLU’s help.
"His attorney Roy Black said he and Limbaugh quote 'are pleased that the ACLU has filed a motion' and added the seizure was, 'also a threat to everyone’s fundamental right to privacy.'"

A few months earlier Rush's views on this right were rather different. On August 22nd, 2003, Olberman reports Limbaugh said:

“I warned you about this ever-broadening interpretation of the so-called right to privacy. It’s not a ‘right’ specifically enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.”

But on December 23rd, 2003, when the government was investigating him, rather than someone else, this spokesperson for the mentally lazy, intellectually challenged or ethically unhinged said:

“Now they need my medical records, my private medical records to find out if I’ve committed a crime called doctor shopping? They now have to invade my privacy to learn whether I have broken the law?"

Rumsfeld and WMDs

2004-01-11T18:19:00.000-08:00

Robert Scheer has written an excellent piece pointing out Donald Rumsfeld's complicity in Iraq's use of weapopns of mass destruction against Iran. Scheer observes "Ironically, the U.S supported Iraq when it possessed and used weapons of mass destruction and invaded it when it didn't."

As more documents and testimony comes to light, the Bush administrations opposition to international courts of justice seems to have less and less to do with the rule of law and more and more to do with covering their own asses.

Anti-imperialist election dilemmas, 1900 and 2004

2003-12-29T11:15:00.000-08:00

Sam Koritz points out that nineteenth century free market classical liberals, like modern antiwar leftists, libertarians and conservatives, had intense debates about the comparative advantages of third party and major party strategies. In 1896, many, because of their support for the gold standard and hatred of Bryan's inflationist views, many of them had defected from the Democratic Party to form the National Democratic Party third ticket. The NDP later disbanded. In 1900, classical liberal anti-imperalists faced a very different dilemma. They were faced with a choice between President William McKinley (the expont of America's new colonial empire) and their old nemesis William Jennings Bryan.

Bryan had endorsed anti-imperialism but refused to tone his inflationist support for free silver, thus directly attacking the gold standard that classical liberals had long championed. What would they do?

They split into four camps. As Koritz notes, many held their noses and voted for Bryan. Others stayed home. A few backed McKinley because of his continuing defense of the gold standard. Some stalwart classical liberals as Oswald Garrison Villard, Senator Carl Schurz, and Moorfield Storey, made plans for a third ticket.

Villard even made a personal visit to former president Grover Cleveland (a classical liberal anti-imperalist) to urge him to run as a third party candidate in 1900, possibly under a revived National Democratic banner. Cleveland, believing that the voters had no interest in what he had to say anymore, politely turned down the offer. But Villard, Storey, and their allies were not quite ready to give up yet. At virtually the last minute, they hastily organized the National Party to run Senator Donelson Caffery, a pro-gold/anti-imperialist Democrat from Louisiana. The campaign collapsed, however, when Caffery (without explanation) pulled out of the race. McKinley went on to defeat Bryan yet again and a new classical liberal/anti-imperialist party was stillborn.

Koritz properly cites the parallels to 2004 but the differences are also significant. Many classical liberals had one good reason to vote for McKinley. For all his faults, he had upheld the gold standard. In 2004, by contrast, Bush does not offer any similar temptation. Because of his unrelenting big-government approach, most recently with the Medicare bill, he has not only abandoned free market conservatives and libertarians in domestic policy but thumbed his nose at them. Does this mean that libertarians and anti-war conservatives should consider voting for Dean much like their ideological ancestors who backed Bryan? I do not think so... but will save that for a later blog.

Neoconservatives, Libya, Israel and WMD

2003-12-27T12:16:00.000-08:00

Justin Raimondo hits one out of the park today in an article about Libya's abandonment of WMD. Does the Libya agreement provide proof that Dubya's saber rattling is the best guarantee of world peace? Not at all. Libya has been intensely interested in turning over a new leaf since the 1990s though Clinton and Bush (until now) showed little interest in these feelers. Raimondo speculates that Gaddafi wants to restore his country's pre-modern role as a Mediterranean power.

Raimondo predicts that the neoconservatives and other enthusiastic pro-warriors will condemn the agreement as a ruse. Why? Because it might put the squeeze on Israel to abandon its own WMD and ease up on other hard-line policies. As if almost on cue, Raimondo's prediction has been confirmed today in two articles. First, Joseph Farah frets that Libya's action will increase "international pressure" on Israel to abandon WMD.

Farah is a pussycat compared to Ariel Natan Pasko who defends the inalienable right of Israel (and no other country in the Middle East) to own WMDs. In what has to be the most priceless neoconservative quote of the week, he uses the pages of the normally secular Frontpage to proclaim: "Sure Israel should 'Ban the Bomb'; When the Messiah comes!"

1984 Bush Style

2003-12-21T15:27:00.000-08:00

In Orwell's novel of life under technological despotism, Winston Smith's job was helping to eliminate old news records that no longer fit current political priorities. Stories and photograps no longer useful were destroyed. 1984 came and went, and George Orwell's dark dystopia seemed less and less likely as a future for the human race. Here in the US we proudly pointed to Stalin's efforts at this kind of thing as one of the key differences between a free and totalitarian society. It can't happen here, we congratulated ourselves.

But today we see Orwell's prediction that government would come to control history showing signs of vigorous life in the Bush administration, which is now actively eliminating and altering web pages it published which no longer agree with the current line.

To give but one of many examples, according to the Daily Misleader,
"on April 23, 2003, the president sent his top international aid official on national television to reassure the public that the cost of war and reconstruction in Iraq would be modest. USAID Director Andrew Natsios, echoing other Administration officials, told Nightline that, 'In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.'
The president has requested more than $166 billion in funding for the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. But instead of admitting that he misled the nation about the cost of war, the president has allowed the State Department 'to purge the comments by Natsios from the State Department's Web site. The transcript, and links to it, have vanished.' (The link where the transcript existed until it caused embarrassment was http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/nightline_042403_t.html).
"When confronted with the dishonest whitewash, the administration decided to lie. A Bush spokesman said the administration was forced to remove the statements because, 'there was going to be a cost' charged by ABC for keeping the transcript on the government's site. But as the Post notes, 'other government Web sites, including the State and Defense departments, routinely post interview transcripts, even from "Nightline,"' and according to ABC News, 'there is no cost.'"

More can be learned in a December 18 story in the Washington Post.

Despite his incessant sanctimonious cant about morality, George Bush, and those who work for him, have compiled a record of lying that dwarfs any previous adminustration, largely because their actions are so out of line with the American people's values, if they but knew what they were up to. For a historical overview go here.

Does Wolfowitz Hate America?

2003-12-18T21:04:00.000-08:00

Tim Dunlop's Road to Surfdom quotes Paul Wolfowitz from last May:
"....there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people....The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it."

As Woilfowitz and the rest of anyone paying attention now knows, neither the first nor the second reason for invading Iraq was valid. Only the third exists.

Paul Wolfowitz has yet to say the war is a mistake. Hundreds of Americans have died, and are continuing to die for a war that Wolfowitz says cannot be justified for the reasons that currently apply. But he has not admitted he made a mistake, despite these deaths. Why does he hate America? Or is patriotism secondary to his ego?

Threat to Free Elections Looms Ever Bigger

2003-12-18T20:49:00.000-08:00
While the so-called free press in this country titillates us about Michael Jackson's alleged sleeping habits, there is the real possibility that our democracy is being stolen right in front of our eyes. Perhaps the reason is that the corporate conglomerates that control the news no longer find democracy profitable. Too many talking heads and uncertainties. Crony capitalism is far more profitable.

Article after article has been printed about the unreliability of Diebold voting machines, Diebold's acknowledgement of defective codes, Diebold's efforts to suppress reports about those defects, Diebold's opposition to installing paper trails, ad nauseum. Democrats want paper trails required, Republicans do not. WHY? What does this say about many Republican politicians' commitment to democracy and the Constitution? But the trained gibbons masquerading as journalists in our country mostly ignore the story.

Wired has a list of stories about this grave threat to the values this country claims to be all about. Go there, look around, and alert others. Who knows, you might even know a journalist who takes his or her profession seriously. Pester them until they pay attention.

What a tangled web we weave

2003-12-18T01:07:00.000-08:00
The Washington Post reports on the "scrubbing" going on at the White House lately. More proof that the foundation on which this presidency rests is pillared by untruths.

"It's not quite Soviet-style airbrushing, but the Bush administration has been using cyberspace to make some of its own cosmetic touch-ups to history."

Earlier this year, the director of USAID, Andrew Natsios, infuriated the White House by suggesting that the reconstruction effort in Iraq would only cost taxpayers $1.7 billion. But you wouldn't know that by checking information on any government website, because "the government has purged the offending comments by Natsios from the agency's Web site. The transcript, and links to it, have vanished."

"The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and USAID have removed or revised fact sheets on condoms, excising information about their effectiveness in disease prevention, and promoting abstinence instead. The National Cancer Institute, meanwhile, scrapped claims on its Web site that there was no association between abortion and breast cancer. And the Justice Department recently redacted criticism of the department in a consultant's report that had been posted on its Web site."

My favorite example: "After the insurrection in Iraq proved more stubborn than expected, the White House edited the original headline on its Web site of President Bush's May 1 speech, 'President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended,' to insert the word 'Major' before combat."

More proof that this administration not only lies to the American people, but they lie again and again when earlier ones are disproved--and around and around we go. For more on the Bush administration and the presidency of lies, see Gus diZerega's essay, "American Shadow"

Guantanamo and the rule of law

2003-12-17T00:04:00.000-08:00
Brigid O'Neal, a research associate at the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute has just published an article on "Uncle Sam's Guantanamo Prison: Outside the Rule of Law."

What about the pro-war Commies?

2003-12-12T23:13:00.000-08:00
I have already mentioned that pro-war bloggers often stress the involvement of extreme Marxist groups, like International ANSWER, in the anti-war movement. As far as it goes, it is entirely just and proper for them to point this out. International ANSWER is indeed a slimy group.

However, according to Justin Raimondo's column today, the pro-war effort to root out and expose commies is conveniently selective. Many of the same bloggers who effusively praised the demonstrations earlier this week in Iraq, for example, were completely silent about the significant role played by the Communist Party in bringing them about. The Communists were highly visible at the rallies. Scores of them proudly marched with flags depicting the hammer and sickle. In the past, conservative websites have often highlighted photos of similar demonstrators carrying pro-commie signs and banners at antiwar rallies, but strangely not in this case.

Apparently, for some on the pro-war side, red-baiting is only a one way
street.

That Explains It!

2003-12-12T16:41:00.000-08:00
Atrios alerts us to the following statement by Condi Rice:

"There's nothing I am worse at than long-term planning. I have never run my life that way. I believe that serendipity or fate or divine intervention has led me to a series of wholly implausible steps in my life. And I've been open to those twists and turns because I didn't have a long-term plan."
As of Dec. 11, 2003, there have been 455 American deaths, 53 Britons, one Dane, 17 Italians, one Pole, one Spaniard and one Ukrainian. There have also been thousands upon thousands injured and maimed, not including the Iraqis killed in the occupation thus far. Apparently Condi's God didn't look out for them very well. And they certainly won't be making any long term plans now, either.

The same attitude seems to apply to George W. Bush as well, given his long history of mismanagement in the business world before becoming governor of Texas.

Feel secure?

Imperial ____Troopers for the American Century

2003-12-10T16:26:00.000-08:00
Here is a visual image of the future the Bush regime seems to be planning for the world.

Some people have written that the link does not work for them. If you have that problem, go to Atrios where I first saw this unbelieveable image, and scroll down to the photo in today's post. If you come upon this post later, you will recognize it in his archives by asking yourself what the standard uniform of servants of the Sith Lords looks like.

New Bloggers

2003-12-10T15:50:00.000-08:00
With his first post today, we introduce a new member of our blogging team, David Beito.

David Beito teaches history at the University of Alabama and writes for the Liberty and Power Group Blog, ( http://hnn.us/articles/1292.html ) a libertarian Blog associated with the History News Network. Many excellent criticisms of the Bush regime and the radical right from a market liberal perspective can be found there. David and other members of the L&P Blog will contribute on these issues. I anticipate a lot of good stuff from David and his partners.

In addition, I am looking forward to blogs from Bill Berkowitz. Bill writes a regular column for Working for Change. A full list of Bill's columns can be found here. I have known Bill, for years, and think he offers an extremely valuable and knowledgeable perspective on the political crisis that threatens us all, especially as it involves the religious right. I am looking forward to all he finds time to send us.

David Horowitz's double standard

2003-12-10T08:21:00.000-08:00
David Horowitz is complaining again about the role of wacko and extreme groups like International ANSWER in the antiwar movement. International ANSWER is indeed a scary, pro-Communist sect which deserves to be slammed by all people of good will. In fact, many antiwar activists, writing in journals such as Salon, have done precisely that. I find it a bit disingenuous, however, that Horowitz is so ready to criticize extremists in the antiwar movement but is silent about the loonies on the pro-war side.

A case in point is Hal Lindsay, the author of the Late, Great Planet Earth, and a zealous supporter of the war. Lindsay believes that the entire Jewish population will be wiped out in the end times, except for 144,000 Jewish "Billy Grahams."

When Horowitz leads by example and starts exposing and criticizing Hal Lindsays among his pro-war allies, he might be able to make a more credible case.

The '60s generation: Right Again

2003-12-05T12:43:00.000-08:00
The faddishly reviled '60s generation was proved right again when Kinight Ridder reported today that a recently translated transcript of Henry Kissinger's October 1976 meeting with Argentine Admiral Cesar Augusto Guzzetti showed him clearly endorsing the regime's riegnof terror, where some 30,000 Argentines disappeared after being taken away by the military. The atrocities had gotten so bad that Congress was discussing applying sanctions to the junta. Kissinger told the admiral otherwise: "Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed" he said. He added sympathetcally, "We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed the better."

A 1983 report by an Argentine truth commission showed the killings accelerated in late 1976, and contoinued for two more years, according to this article. It may be found in the Portland Oregonian, December 5, 2003, p. A18.

The popular right-wing attack on the '60s generation has blinded Americans froim a lesson rooted in the words of our Founders and the blood soaked events of many subsequent years: that those with power are not to be trusted. This historical forgetfulness is leading us into another such era.

George W. Bush = Miserable Failure

2003-12-04T09:21:00.000-08:00
The folks at Blah3 have come up with a brilliant idea to make more people aware of the miserable failure that is the George W. Bush administration. On Google, whenever someone types in the search term 'miserable failure', Bush's White House biography tops the list of search results.

Being that we at deal-with-it.org like to support any effort such as this, we have decided to participate. We urge all people who consider Bush a miserable failure to do so as well.

Spades = politicians

2003-12-02T16:44:00.000-08:00
Some people have wondered whether we intended any kind of racial joke, however bad in taste, by labeling Condi Rice the "Queen of Spades." We did not.

Spades, as we explain in our web site, are the politicians, hearts the 'moral" leaders, clubs the media bullies, and diamonds the crony capitalists. Rice is the most prominent woman in the Bush administration, by far. No one else is close. We had originally slated that spot for Gale Norton because initially Rice appeared to act with some integrity, and we pick only people acting without integrity for the Spades suit. But as the lies-about-Iraq issue heated up, Rice became increasingly prominent as a major defender as well as spreader of them.

We were in a touchy position because the term Spades as used in our deck - and historically hundreds and hundreds of years before it became a name for African Americans - was connected to their being most powerful suit in the deck. Hence its association with politicians, people in government. Our initial decision to exclude Rice due to her apparent integrity ceased to apply - as we excluded Colin Powell, who would also be a Spade - because we deemed him a relatively moderating influence in the administration. Subsequernt events put a pall over Powell as well, but nothing like the pall over Rice.

We could just as easily be accused of racism of we did NOT put Rice as Queen since she most definitely is the most prominent woman. refusing to acknowledge her centrality could be interpreted as demeaning her because she is Black.

Please note that Clarence Thomas is the 9 of Hearts. Not the 9 of Spades. The categorization is entirely race-free.

Crime on the Floor of the House of reps.

2003-12-02T16:28:00.000-08:00
Slate reports the following from Robert Novak:
On the House floor, Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress.
This is a crime. Smith so far refuses to say who bribed him - but it was clearly a Republican member of the House.

More law and honor, Radical Right style. Will Smith aid and abet the commission of a felony - or will he report who committed the crime? Let's see.

The Moral Bankruptcy of the Pentagon

2003-11-30T17:58:00.000-08:00
Atrios and Talk Left report the new Time Online's story about the poor wretches at Gitmo. Turns out at least 20% - and who knows hoiw many more - were sent there because Afghan warlords turned them in to collect reward money for Taliban and Al Qaeda figures. Only they weren't. Some have been held two years - those that haven't committed suicide.

Anyone who trusts the judgment. or even basic decency of Bush or Rumsfeld should read this story. And weep.

Crony Capitalism and Bush Family Values

2003-11-30T12:37:00.000-08:00
This one is for all the conservatiuves and libertarians who have convinced themselves that the interests of big business and a free markeyt are in harmony. Truthout reports a fascinating revelation during Neil Bush's divorce trial from his wife as to how big business finds people with the last name of Bush to be helpful in the business world - and how they are paid.

Any libertarians out there to comment?

Confused Thinking

2003-11-25T16:50:00.000-08:00
Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online is complaining that they really haven't won the culture war, and offering to trade places with the institutions of their careful choosing: trading the WSJ for the NYT, Fox News of the other netwporks, etc. Even with control over the Presidency, House, Senate, and much of the courts, and access to corporate wealth beyond measure, they are powerless and besieged.

We weep with sympathy.

Left unmentioned is that NRO and their hard right allies have forged an effective alliance with crony capitalists and the religous right to gain political power - and if the price of their alliance is big government, corporate fraud, deficits, further erosion of federalism, and dishonesty and hypocrisy in high places - well, given their actions and words, it must not seem all that high to them.

Their powerlessness is the powerlessness of any member of any coalition - they have to share their goodies to get any at all. But theirs is a winning coalition of Bibles, bucks, and bombs, and they have lots to share.

big government and big business

2003-11-25T16:39:00.000-08:00
Matt Yglesias calls it about right in a perceptive post, arguing

"Ultimately, it seems to me that the Democratic Party is just helpless when faced with the prospect of a GOP that isn't even going to try to stand for conservative principles. A party organized as an alliance between Big Government and Big Business just has too many big guns on its side. The only real question is whether or not conservatives will try and take their party back from the Rove-DeLay-Frist domestic policy agenda and return the GOP to advocating something that resembles a small government philosophy."

Cheney and the public good.

2003-11-25T11:39:00.000-08:00
The Hamster reports that Dick Cheney's annual salary from government = $192,600
2001 Halliburton payments to Cheney = $205,298
Value of no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton in Iraq =$948 million

Surreal

2003-11-22T13:48:00.000-08:00
Today's New York Times has an article critical of Howard dean's draft record. I guess this will become a campaign issue for the Republicans. I hope so, because then Dean can raise the issue of Bush's many months AWOL, months without punishment because of his daddy.

Why Chickenhawks Matter

2003-11-19T14:37:00.001-08:00
Eric Alterman has written an excellent piece, Why Chickenhawks Matter, which explains why the Bush administration has proven so militarily incompetent. Given that so many Americans and Iraqis are dying due to their decisions, and their egos, more of us need to know what Alterman has to report.

For more on who's served and who hasn't, check out our page on military service by prominent Democrats and Republicans.

The Left Not Wimping Out

2003-11-12T16:55:00.000-08:00
Winston Smith does a great job of debunking the view that Liberals are "wimps" -- a view propagated by some in the Radical Right, most notably Mona Charen, who said that "Liberals, and this includes virtually all Europeans, believe that masculinity is unseemly as well as passÃ©."

Smith rips apart a thesis currently circulating around the Radical Right on the web, which puts forth the view, like Charen's, that a 'wimpification' of the 'western male' is happening in this country. Smith goes to great lengths to point out that the thesis of the paper "gets lost in a torrent of bigotry, falsehoods, and right-wing fantasies." Sound familiar?

Here are some examples that are just mind-boggling:

"In the first instance, what we have to understand is that America is first and foremost, a culture dominated by one figure: Mother. It wasn't always so: there was a time when it was Father who ruled the home, worked at his job, and voted. But in the twentieth century, women became more and more involved in the body politic, and in industry, and in the media -- and mostly, this has not been a good thing. When women got the vote, it was inevitable that government was going to become more powerful, more intrusive, and more "protective" (ie. more coddling), because women are hard-wired to treasure security more than uncertainty and danger. It was therefore inevitable that their feminine influence on politics was going to emphasize (lowercase "s") social security."

"The scene opens at the morning breakfast table, where the two kids are sitting with Dad at the table, while Mom prepares stuff on the kitchen counter. The dialogue goes something like this:

Little girl (note, not little boy): Daddy, why do we eat Cheerios?
Dad: Because they contain fiber, and all sorts of stuff that's good for the heart. I eat it now, because of that.
LG: Did you always eat stuff that was bad for your heart, Daddy?
Dad (humorously): I did, until I met your mother.
Mother (not humorously): Daddy did a lot of stupid things before he met your mother.

Now, every time I see that TV ad, I have to be restrained from shooting the TV with a .45 Colt. If you want a microcosm of how men have become less than men, this is the perfect example.

What Dad should have replied to Mommy's little dig: Yes, Sally, that's true: I did do a lot of stupid things before I met your mother. I even slept with your Aunt Ruth a few times, before I met your mother.

That's what I would have said, anyway, if my wife had ever attempted to castrate me in front of the kids like that. But that's not what men do, of course. What this guy is going to do is smile ruefully, finish his cereal, and then go and fuck his secretary, who doesn't try to cut his balls off on a daily basis. Then, when the affair is discovered, people are going to rally around the castrating bitch called his wife, and call him all sorts of names. He'll lose custody of his kids, and they will be brought up by our ultimate modern-day figure of sympathy: The Single Mom."

"Finally, we come to the TV show which to my mind epitomizes everything bad about what we have become: Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. Playing on the homo Bravo Channel, this piece of excrement has taken over the popular culture by storm…

I'm sorry, but the premise of the show nauseates me. A bunch of homosexuals trying to "improve" ordinary men into something "better" (ie. more acceptable to women): changing the guy's clothes, his home decor, his music -- for fuck's sake, what kind of girly-man would allow these simpering butt-bandits to change his life around?"

Well, the last one was my personal favorite as showcasing this guy as a royal ass-hole. I highly recommend reading the entire article, and for those interested, here is the link to du Toit's essay, "The Pussification of the Western Male."

Check it out.

P.S. I really dislike the words "pussy" and "wimp," but until du Toit finds a new hat, he ought to be careful about using either of those terms. You'll know what I mean when you see the site. Oh and Kim, the "Fab Five" would probably defer from giving you a make-over -- I think you're a lost cause.

Radical Right "Rogue of the Week"

2003-11-10T12:05:00.000-08:00
Donald Rumsfeld

On the presence of WMDs in Iraq:
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
-Donald Rumsfeld, 03-30-03

On whether US troops would be welcomed in Iraq:
"There's no question but that they would be welcomed. Go back to Afghanistan -- the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, doing all the things that the Taliban and the al-Qaida would not let them do. Saddam Hussein has one of the most vicious regimes on the face of the earth. And the people know that."
-Donald Rumsfeld, 02-20-03

Let's play a game here -- no not Rumsfeld Rummy -- I am talking a more hypothetical one here. Let's say you've staked your whole administration around a war premised on deceptive and misleading information, and suddenly (surprise!) people begin to realize that they have been, well, deceived. What do you do?

Normally in politics, when someone (or in this case an entire administration) gets caught with their pants down, they move into uber-spin mode. The Bush administration and Karl Rove have been particularly and infamously adept at wagging the dog -- remember the not-so-"Made in USA" box incident, or Bush's National Dress Up Day?

Well, Donald Rumsfeld apparently didn't get the memo. Instead of spin, here is how the Secretary answered a reporter's question about the exact statements above:

"Never said that. Never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. You can't find, anywhere, me saying anything like either of those two things you just said I said." See the story here.

Come again? Well, we at deal-with-it.org already knew he was a crook, but this one blew us out of our seats. For this reason, Donald Rumsfeld earns the highly-coveted "Radical Right Crook of the Week" award for his unequivocal lie.

Wow, I just wish it were this easy all the time. In fact, I even hope the resolution urging Bush to fire Rumsfeld fails in the House.

Welcome to deal-with-it.org

2003-11-09T09:27:00.000-08:00
Well, this is the first time I have used a blog, so we'll see how it goes. But please do check our website, for more information on the radical right. Our hope is that each week we feature someone from our cards with updated information and analysis to keep you up to date on the dirtballs who are running this country into the ground. We will likely publish to the blog as often as possible, but our "Radical Right Rogue of the Week" will come out on Mondays. Stay tuned for tomorrow's!