WMD still MIA
Still no WMD found in Iraq an early draft of a new report reveals. The White House immediately released a statement, assuring us that the report is only an interim report. In other words, them weapons will show up sooner or later. Come out, come out wherever you are!
But they are finding traces of weapons-grade uranium in Iran. Guess we're headed there next.
the thoughts of one Robert Stribley, who plans to contribute his dispatches with characteristic infrequency
Thursday, September 25, 2003
Fox "News": Lapdogs for Hollywood Conservatives
Sean Hannity's on a pre-recorded Fox News segment right now, tossing Anold Schwarzenegger softballs, while the crowd (members of Hannity's radio audience) cheer along. "Liberal" counterpoint Alan Colmes is nowhere to be seen. Now, that's fair and balanced reporting! Go Fox.
Schwarzenegger declared himself socially "moderate" and disdained "liberal" as a 60's-kinda word.
Poor, poor California.
. . . Then back to the live Hannity & Colmes show and political and intellectual heavyweight Chuck Norris shows up to throw his support begind the Terminator. And they say Hollywood is full of liberals! You'd never guess it from watching Fox's balanced coverage.
Even as I type, Norris is now agreeing with Hannity that liberals are very vocal and conservative are not. What friggin' planet are these guys living on?
And who's on next? Ted Nugent?
Sean Hannity's on a pre-recorded Fox News segment right now, tossing Anold Schwarzenegger softballs, while the crowd (members of Hannity's radio audience) cheer along. "Liberal" counterpoint Alan Colmes is nowhere to be seen. Now, that's fair and balanced reporting! Go Fox.
Schwarzenegger declared himself socially "moderate" and disdained "liberal" as a 60's-kinda word.
Poor, poor California.
. . . Then back to the live Hannity & Colmes show and political and intellectual heavyweight Chuck Norris shows up to throw his support begind the Terminator. And they say Hollywood is full of liberals! You'd never guess it from watching Fox's balanced coverage.
Even as I type, Norris is now agreeing with Hannity that liberals are very vocal and conservative are not. What friggin' planet are these guys living on?
And who's on next? Ted Nugent?
Israeli Heroes
A heartening development in Israel: 27 reserve fighter pilots signed a petition, saying they would not participate in air strikes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The pilots believe the right-wing Israeli government has been using the military to advance its political agenda at the expense of innocent Palestinian lives. As reported by NPR, for example, jets dropped a one-ton bomb on a house last year in an effort to take out a single Palestinian terrorist; it did kill him, along with 14 civilians, most of them children. Furthermore, according to Palestinian medical officals, in the past three years, Israel has assassinated about 140 Palestinian militants and killed about 100 by-standers as well.
The pilots, nine of whom were still on active duty, declared the attacks "illegal" and "immoral." The Israeli government has grounded them, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the nation that, ""Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, but it is unacceptable that a group of military men interfere in such a issue, an issue decided on by the political echelon after great deliberation." So, it's OK for Sharon to use the miltary to political ends but not the reverse.
These guys are heroes. They should be celebrated for taking a stand. And hopefully their heroic move will inspire others to do the same.
Apparently, hundreds of reserve soldiers had already signed a similar petition, saying they won't serve in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.
A heartening development in Israel: 27 reserve fighter pilots signed a petition, saying they would not participate in air strikes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The pilots believe the right-wing Israeli government has been using the military to advance its political agenda at the expense of innocent Palestinian lives. As reported by NPR, for example, jets dropped a one-ton bomb on a house last year in an effort to take out a single Palestinian terrorist; it did kill him, along with 14 civilians, most of them children. Furthermore, according to Palestinian medical officals, in the past three years, Israel has assassinated about 140 Palestinian militants and killed about 100 by-standers as well.
The pilots, nine of whom were still on active duty, declared the attacks "illegal" and "immoral." The Israeli government has grounded them, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the nation that, ""Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, but it is unacceptable that a group of military men interfere in such a issue, an issue decided on by the political echelon after great deliberation." So, it's OK for Sharon to use the miltary to political ends but not the reverse.
These guys are heroes. They should be celebrated for taking a stand. And hopefully their heroic move will inspire others to do the same.
Apparently, hundreds of reserve soldiers had already signed a similar petition, saying they won't serve in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Friendly Fox News mouthpiece Bill O'Reilly wrote this column entitled "The Clooney Factor" to condemn remarks George Clooney apparently made about Charlton Heston.
I emailed him the following to correct his English:
"From your column on George Clooney - 'Clooney's remarks about Charlton Heston were cruel, and, I predict, may well cause a vocational perfect storm, pun intended.' - that's not a pun; it's an allusion."
Just doing my part to keep the ol' boy in line, though I may have been generous in referring to his reference to the Clooney movie as an allusion,
In case you don't feel like reading O'Reilly's stimulating column to find out what Clooney said, I'll reprint Clooney's remark here:
"Charlton Heston announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's."
Now, that's not funny at all, is it?
I emailed him the following to correct his English:
"From your column on George Clooney - 'Clooney's remarks about Charlton Heston were cruel, and, I predict, may well cause a vocational perfect storm, pun intended.' - that's not a pun; it's an allusion."
Just doing my part to keep the ol' boy in line, though I may have been generous in referring to his reference to the Clooney movie as an allusion,
In case you don't feel like reading O'Reilly's stimulating column to find out what Clooney said, I'll reprint Clooney's remark here:
"Charlton Heston announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's."
Now, that's not funny at all, is it?
Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek." The compassionately conservative Bush administration believes in "smack 'em before they smack you."
CCN reports that UN Secretary Kofi Annan will criticize the policy of pre-emptive strikes today, saying the following:
"My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification.
"Until now it has been understood that when states go beyond that and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.
"Now some say this understanding is no longer tenable since an 'armed attack' with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time.
"This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles, on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years."
CNN excerpted these quotations from Annan's prepared address to the United Nations. Bush will also speak there today in an effort to earn support for for the United States occupation of Iraq.
CCN reports that UN Secretary Kofi Annan will criticize the policy of pre-emptive strikes today, saying the following:
"My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification.
"Until now it has been understood that when states go beyond that and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.
"Now some say this understanding is no longer tenable since an 'armed attack' with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time.
"This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles, on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years."
CNN excerpted these quotations from Annan's prepared address to the United Nations. Bush will also speak there today in an effort to earn support for for the United States occupation of Iraq.
Monday, September 22, 2003
"Thank goodness Nazi filmmaker Leni Reifenstahl lived long enough to see Karl Rove's lush footage of W on the aircraft carrier." Barry Crimmins, political satirist
A couple more from this guy. Apparently, an angry audience member asked him, "If you don't love this country, why don't you get out?" He replied, "Because I don't want to be victimized by its foreign policy."
And: "The Pentagon's so greedy it has an extra side on its building."
A couple more from this guy. Apparently, an angry audience member asked him, "If you don't love this country, why don't you get out?" He replied, "Because I don't want to be victimized by its foreign policy."
And: "The Pentagon's so greedy it has an extra side on its building."
Good Bye Johnny
I shoulda bid Johnny Cash a fond goodbye last week. In his departure, we've lost a worthy icon.
Here's one tribute left on the New York Times site by one fan.
"I always enjoyed Johnny Cash's music; but I didn't fully appreciate the man until sometime in the early 70's when he was invited to perform at the White House by Nixon, who also requested that Cash sing 'Welfare Cadillac.' Cash respectfully declined because he thought it was uncharitable towards the poor. I believed then, and now, that it took an extraordinarily principled and courageous man, in the face of an invitation any artist would die for, to just say NO. Thank you Johnny." - Abruzzi
I think that sums up a lot of what was great about Johnny. A bold idiosyncratic artist and a deeply religious man, but also a thoughtful, considerate human.
I shoulda bid Johnny Cash a fond goodbye last week. In his departure, we've lost a worthy icon.
Here's one tribute left on the New York Times site by one fan.
"I always enjoyed Johnny Cash's music; but I didn't fully appreciate the man until sometime in the early 70's when he was invited to perform at the White House by Nixon, who also requested that Cash sing 'Welfare Cadillac.' Cash respectfully declined because he thought it was uncharitable towards the poor. I believed then, and now, that it took an extraordinarily principled and courageous man, in the face of an invitation any artist would die for, to just say NO. Thank you Johnny." - Abruzzi
I think that sums up a lot of what was great about Johnny. A bold idiosyncratic artist and a deeply religious man, but also a thoughtful, considerate human.
This Season: God Is *So* In!
First, there's the Bible (or the New Testament anyway) disguised as a girls' magazine, called Revolve. Why Revolve, I wonder? So young teen girls can read it in public and folks won't realize they're reading *the Bible*!?
The New York Times interviewed Laurie Whaley from Thomas Nelson, the publishers of the mag. Ms. Whaley explains that the mag uses the New Century Version of the Bible rather than the more traditional King James Version since "It is Shakespearic! That's the problem. All those thous. I can honestly say my heart breaks because the church has made it so difficult for people to grasp the concepts of the Bible. "
Also a bumper crop of TV shows featuring God as a character are coming to network telly. In this article, the NYT points out that "the last time God spoke regularly to a girl on television was on the 1967 sitcom 'The Flying Nun.'" Now on three new shows, Our Heavenly Father will be revealing himself (if you'll pardon the expression) to three young girls on a regular basis.
First, there's the Bible (or the New Testament anyway) disguised as a girls' magazine, called Revolve. Why Revolve, I wonder? So young teen girls can read it in public and folks won't realize they're reading *the Bible*!?
The New York Times interviewed Laurie Whaley from Thomas Nelson, the publishers of the mag. Ms. Whaley explains that the mag uses the New Century Version of the Bible rather than the more traditional King James Version since "It is Shakespearic! That's the problem. All those thous. I can honestly say my heart breaks because the church has made it so difficult for people to grasp the concepts of the Bible. "
Also a bumper crop of TV shows featuring God as a character are coming to network telly. In this article, the NYT points out that "the last time God spoke regularly to a girl on television was on the 1967 sitcom 'The Flying Nun.'" Now on three new shows, Our Heavenly Father will be revealing himself (if you'll pardon the expression) to three young girls on a regular basis.
Friday, September 19, 2003
This prophetic essay on the future of the United States appeared on September 12th, 2001 on - of all places - ESPN.com and was written by - of all people - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson.
An excerpt:
"This is going to be a very expensive war, and Victory is not guaranteed -- for anyone, and certainly not for anyone as baffled as George W. Bush. All he knows is that his father started the war a long time ago, and that he, the goofy child-President, has been chosen by Fate and the global Oil industry to finish it Now."
Doc Thompson wrote that the day after 9/11.
An excerpt:
"This is going to be a very expensive war, and Victory is not guaranteed -- for anyone, and certainly not for anyone as baffled as George W. Bush. All he knows is that his father started the war a long time ago, and that he, the goofy child-President, has been chosen by Fate and the global Oil industry to finish it Now."
Doc Thompson wrote that the day after 9/11.
Monday, September 15, 2003
Yeah, let's face it: despite all the spluttering and the outraged stammering by your Sean Hannities and Bill O'Reillys about the liberal media, Bush really is getting a free ride. I wouldn't call them the fawning press, per se, as they we accused of being under Clinton. No, now they're more like the *obedient* press. Hence, the following resonates:
Snagged from Bartcop.com, a good source for a fiery, satirical take on the Bush administration.
Snagged from Bartcop.com, a good source for a fiery, satirical take on the Bush administration.
Writing in The Nation, Katha Pollitt pretty much demolishes the idea that it makes any sense at all to display the 10 Commandments at a United States (or specifically, Alabama) court house.
Thursday, May 29, 2003
The following from Robert Jensen appeared on Newday.com
"Republicans dominate Texas politics, but the national Democrats could learn a simple lesson from the state: Before you can become the party in power, you have to be a real opposition party.
When 51 Democratic members of the Texas House of Representatives left for Oklahoma earlier this month to derail a Republican redistricting plan, they did something that - for Democrats these days - seems radical: They stood up for themselves and for the democratic process."
Amen, brother Jensen, but it's abot time the friggin' dems stood up for something. Where were all those guys when we were headed off to war in Iraq?
"Republicans dominate Texas politics, but the national Democrats could learn a simple lesson from the state: Before you can become the party in power, you have to be a real opposition party.
When 51 Democratic members of the Texas House of Representatives left for Oklahoma earlier this month to derail a Republican redistricting plan, they did something that - for Democrats these days - seems radical: They stood up for themselves and for the democratic process."
Amen, brother Jensen, but it's abot time the friggin' dems stood up for something. Where were all those guys when we were headed off to war in Iraq?
Monday, May 26, 2003
What follows is one of the most bizarre things I've *ever* come across on the web: a complete listing of finals meals requested by Texas death row inmates. Look how many there are. Why is this list even out there? Freedom of information, I guess. Fine. Still. It's revolting.
Oh, and then there's the annotation: "*The final meal requested may not reflect the actual final meal served." Jeez, the least you could do is give the bastards the final meal they requested. You know, keep up your end of the deal.
Oh, and then there's the annotation: "*The final meal requested may not reflect the actual final meal served." Jeez, the least you could do is give the bastards the final meal they requested. You know, keep up your end of the deal.
Thursday, April 24, 2003
Excerpt from yesterday's press conference with Ari Fleischer. One journalist finally takes the drone artist to task:
Q. But, I mean, in general with relations with France, over any number of issues? I mean, obviously, this has been a difficult moment in U.S.-French relations. How should we anticipate this will be reflected in U.S.-French relations?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it?s been the history of U.S. relations with France, on some issues we agree, on other issues we disagree. Typically, there are, indeed, more that we agree on than we disagree. The disagreements can sometimes become pointed.
I noted with interest France?s statement about sanctions and whether the sanctions should be lifted in the United Nations. It?s important to note that France has recognized the Iraqi situation has changed as a result of Saddam Hussein?s regime now being gone. With it being gone, the President believes that economic sanctions on Iraq are no longer needed. They shouldn?t be merely suspended, they should be out-and-out lifted. And that?s a difference of opinion between the United States and France on how to get the job done. We?re pleased that France has made some moves in this direction; they?ve got a little more to go.
Q. You?re saying they?ve turned the corner, they just haven?t gone quite far enough?
MR. FLEISCHER: I?ll leave it as I put it.
Q. Why won?t you answer the question about --
MR. FLEISCHER: Greg.
Q Hold on. We?re entitled to follow up, Ari -- this isn?t homeroom.
MR. FLEISCHER: Greg.
Q Why won?t you answer the question about whether or not -- he said there are going to be consequences --
MR. FLEISCHER: David, there are other qualified reporters in here, too, who can follow-up.
Q. I didn?t say they were not qualified, Ari. I?m saying you?re running it like it?s homeroom, like we can?t follow-up when you?re refusing to answer a question that?s been posed twice to you, directly. The Secretary of State said that there would be consequences. Why won?t you say what they might be?
MR. FLEISCHER: Greg.
Q. Do you want to elaborate on what those consequences would be?
MR. FLEISCHER: I addressed it earlier. You heard what I said about consequences.
Q. You didn?t address it, which is the point. But you can?t tolerate that kind of dissent.
Eric Alterman noted this on his excellent Blog.
Q. But, I mean, in general with relations with France, over any number of issues? I mean, obviously, this has been a difficult moment in U.S.-French relations. How should we anticipate this will be reflected in U.S.-French relations?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it?s been the history of U.S. relations with France, on some issues we agree, on other issues we disagree. Typically, there are, indeed, more that we agree on than we disagree. The disagreements can sometimes become pointed.
I noted with interest France?s statement about sanctions and whether the sanctions should be lifted in the United Nations. It?s important to note that France has recognized the Iraqi situation has changed as a result of Saddam Hussein?s regime now being gone. With it being gone, the President believes that economic sanctions on Iraq are no longer needed. They shouldn?t be merely suspended, they should be out-and-out lifted. And that?s a difference of opinion between the United States and France on how to get the job done. We?re pleased that France has made some moves in this direction; they?ve got a little more to go.
Q. You?re saying they?ve turned the corner, they just haven?t gone quite far enough?
MR. FLEISCHER: I?ll leave it as I put it.
Q. Why won?t you answer the question about --
MR. FLEISCHER: Greg.
Q Hold on. We?re entitled to follow up, Ari -- this isn?t homeroom.
MR. FLEISCHER: Greg.
Q Why won?t you answer the question about whether or not -- he said there are going to be consequences --
MR. FLEISCHER: David, there are other qualified reporters in here, too, who can follow-up.
Q. I didn?t say they were not qualified, Ari. I?m saying you?re running it like it?s homeroom, like we can?t follow-up when you?re refusing to answer a question that?s been posed twice to you, directly. The Secretary of State said that there would be consequences. Why won?t you say what they might be?
MR. FLEISCHER: Greg.
Q. Do you want to elaborate on what those consequences would be?
MR. FLEISCHER: I addressed it earlier. You heard what I said about consequences.
Q. You didn?t address it, which is the point. But you can?t tolerate that kind of dissent.
Eric Alterman noted this on his excellent Blog.
Tuesday, April 22, 2003
Republican Senator Rick Santorum explains his frothing homophobia this way: "I have no problem with homosexuality -- I have a problem with homosexual acts," which is kind of like saying "I have no problem with soccer -- I have a problem with kicking the ball around."
Come on, Rick, just come on out and say it: you really just despise gays.
That pillar of anti-intellectualism Gary Bauer rushed to Santorum's defense, declaring, "I think that while some elites may be upset by those comments, they're pretty much in the mainstream of where most of the country is."
Well, it wasn't long ago the mainstream believed in spontaneous generation and that the earth was flat, Gazza, and a lot of folks do still believe in ghosts and goblins and the Holy Spirit, too. But I ain't convinced that the mainstream is so anti-gay anymore. So would you care to proffer some evidence to bolster your claim, Mr. Bauer?
I thought not.
In a bid to wrestle down Gary Bauer for least intellectual observation of the day, Santorum has also recently said, "The basic liberal philosophy is materialistic, is relativistic, to the point of, you've got candidates for president saying we should condone different types of marriage. That is, to me, the death knell of the American family.''
I say any type of marriage allows for the raising of a healthy child who's the recipient of living care and attention has got to be a good one, whether it involves a man and a woman, two men, three women or the Manchester United football team. There are plenty of heterosexual couples doing lasting damage to psyches of our society's little ones. I doubt most gay couples could do any worse. In fact, they might do better than many, considering all they could teach so many of us about acceptance of others' differences.
Come on, Rick, just come on out and say it: you really just despise gays.
That pillar of anti-intellectualism Gary Bauer rushed to Santorum's defense, declaring, "I think that while some elites may be upset by those comments, they're pretty much in the mainstream of where most of the country is."
Well, it wasn't long ago the mainstream believed in spontaneous generation and that the earth was flat, Gazza, and a lot of folks do still believe in ghosts and goblins and the Holy Spirit, too. But I ain't convinced that the mainstream is so anti-gay anymore. So would you care to proffer some evidence to bolster your claim, Mr. Bauer?
I thought not.
In a bid to wrestle down Gary Bauer for least intellectual observation of the day, Santorum has also recently said, "The basic liberal philosophy is materialistic, is relativistic, to the point of, you've got candidates for president saying we should condone different types of marriage. That is, to me, the death knell of the American family.''
I say any type of marriage allows for the raising of a healthy child who's the recipient of living care and attention has got to be a good one, whether it involves a man and a woman, two men, three women or the Manchester United football team. There are plenty of heterosexual couples doing lasting damage to psyches of our society's little ones. I doubt most gay couples could do any worse. In fact, they might do better than many, considering all they could teach so many of us about acceptance of others' differences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)