Bush Has Been Trying to Privatize/Abolish Social Security Since 1978

George Bush claimed Social Security would be bankrupt in 1988 when he ran for Congress in 1978!

And we all know that happened -- NOT! It was all part of his plan to abolish Social Security by privatizing it. Different century, same old song.

Here's the Texas Observer article of June 25, 1999 (via bluebus.org):

According to Gary Ott, who was then a reporter for the Plainview Daily Herald, Bush stopped by the paper’s little office “maybe five or six times. He’d sit down at my desk; he was a fun guy. He was very outgoing, very friendly, and we would argue politics since I was a liberal. We’d argue over Carter policies.” Bush criticized energy policy, federal land use policy, subsidized housing, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“a misuse of power,” he said), and he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves. None of this really distinguished him from Hance, though, so in the end Bush simply argued that a Republican could better represent the district: “If you want a chance in the way Congress has been run, send someone who will be independent from those who will run the Congress.”

We Love Lists

Especially lists of losers. Even when we're on them! (See number 3.)

The Beast 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2004

I would have left off Ben Affleck -- his movies suck, but he's harmless -- and substituted Torture Guy, aka Alberto Gonzales.

But the guy he's going to replace made the list:

8. John Ashcroft
Crimes: Promoting sexual shame, writing and singing alarmingly jingoistic and terrible songs, flattening constitutional protections, detaining brown people at will without charges or counsel, pretending to be a patriot, and intentionally ignoring terrorism in his pre-9/11 tenure.

Smoking Gun: Put a fucking curtain up to cover a naked breast on a statue. A statue.

Punishment: Only heterosexual judge on the supreme court in 2035.

What's on my turntable today

I think the word "turntable" gives me away. Even though they're CDs, not albums, I am a musical dinosaur.

Today's 5:

1. The Best of Warren Zevon (Rhino, 2002). A Christmas gift from my brother. Warren Zevon ruminating on the good, bad & ugly of life. From lawyers to rehab, this has it all. We all know the classics: Excitable Boy; Lawyers, Guns & Money; Werewolves of London; but there was so much more. Man, could this guy write lyrics.

2. Ray Charles, Genius Loves Company (Hear Music, 2004). Another Christmas gift, from my brother & sister-in-law (I assume my sister-in-law picked it). I forgot what a great voice Ray had and what a great phraser he was. He's the guy who sang the only version of "Georgia" that counts, right?

Except for a few clunkers (who decided to have Ray & James Taylor sing "Sweet Potato Pie", anyway?), a great disc. I love "Here We Go Again" with Norah Jones, "You Don't Know Me" with Diana Krall, and "It Was a Very Good Year" with Willie Nelson.

3. Loretta Lynn, Van Lear Rose (Interscope, 2004). Sometimes you have to buy your own Christmas gifts. Along with Kanye West, this disc was on many "Best of 2004" CD lists. Produced by Jack White of the White Stripes. Loretta Lynn stripped down to her bare country roots. Awesome. "Family Tree" reminded me of all the Loretta Lynn classics: "You Ain't Woman Enough To Take My Man", etc., and without the 60s/70s horn or string overlay. Just her great heartbroken voice.

4. Joss Stone, Mind Body & Soul (Curve Records/EMI, 2004). Another Christmas gift from bro & sisinlaw. Great voice, but very young & it shows in the lyrics. This is one of those rare discs that I've liked less the more I've listened to it. It gets another week, then if it doesn't hit me it goes out of rotation.

5. Los Lonely Boys (Oz Music, 2003). I gave this to my brother for Christmas & he liked it so much when I saw it on sale I bought it for myself. Reminds me of Los Lobos, high energy Tex-Mex rock. I hope they have Los Lobos' staying power. I remember being in LA for the Olympics in 1984, and my friend Jimbo read in the paper that "The Wolves - Do You Speak Spanish?" were playing in a club in East LA. Seeing them play live was one of the great musical experiences of my life.

Torture Guy's a Liar, Too

Torture Guy is a liar, too. Everyone else in the case reported by Newsweek, below, says he is lying about what he did to keep Bush's DUI from becoming public. A lying Attorney General. Well, the President's a liar too so he'll fit right in. Do you love that Bush "left blank" the question on the juror questionnaire asking whether he had ever been the accused in a criminal case. That's lying, too, by omission. Will the Senate show a backbone? Will these three officers of the court testify about Gonzales' lies? I doubt it, but an attorney can hope.

Gonzales: Did He Help Bush Keep His DUI Quiet?

Jan. 31 issue - Senate Democrats put off a vote on White House counsel Alberto Gonzales's nomination to be attorney general, complaining he had provided evasive answers to questions about torture and the mistreatment of prisoners. But Gonzales's most surprising answer may have come on a different subject: his role in helping President Bush escape jury duty in a drunken-driving case involving a dancer at an Austin strip club in 1996. The judge and other lawyers in the case last week disputed a written account of the matter provided by Gonzales to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It's a complete misrepresentation," said David Wahlberg, lawyer for the dancer, about Gonzales's account.

Bush's summons to serve as a juror in the drunken-driving case was, in retrospect, a fateful moment in his political career: by getting excused from jury duty he was able to avoid questions that would have required him to disclose his own 1976 arrest and conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in Kennebunkport, Maine—an incident that didn't become public until the closing days of the 2000 campaign. (Bush, who had publicly declared his willingness to serve, had left blank on his jury questionnaire whether he had ever been "accused" in a criminal case.) Asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy to describe "in detail" the only court appearance he ever made on behalf of Bush, Gonzales—who was then chief counsel to the Texas governor—wrote that he had accompanied Bush the day he went to court "prepared to serve on a jury." While there, Gonzales wrote, he "observed" the defense lawyer make a motion to strike Bush from the jury panel "to which the prosecutor did not object." Asked by the judge whether he had "any views on this," Gonzales recalled, he said he did not.

While Gonzales's account tracks with the official court transcript, it leaves out a key part of what happened that day, according to Travis County Judge David Crain. In separate interviews, Crain—along with Wahlberg and prosecutor John Lastovica—told NEWSWEEK that, before the case began, Gonzales asked to have an off-the-record conference in the judge's chambers. Gonzales then asked Crain to "consider" striking Bush from the jury, making the novel "conflict of interest" argument that the Texas governor might one day be asked to pardon the defendant (who worked at an Austin nightclub called Sugar's), the judge said. "He [Gonzales] raised the issue," Crain said. Crain said he found Gonzales's argument surprising, since it was "extremely unlikely" that a drunken-driving conviction would ever lead to a pardon petition to Bush. But "out of deference" to the governor, Crain said, the other lawyers went along. Wahlberg said he agreed to make the motion striking Bush because he didn't want the hard-line governor on his jury anyway. But there was little doubt among the participants as to what was going on. "In public, they were making a big show of how he was prepared to serve," said Crain. "In the back room, they were trying to get him off."

Gonzales last week refused to waver. "Judge Gonzales has no recollection of requesting a meeting in chambers," a senior White House official said, adding that while Gonzales did recall that Bush's potential conflict was "discussed," he never "requested" that Bush be excused. "His answer to the Senate's question is accurate," the official said.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

Freedom is on the march

Today is the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.

Abu Ghraib is our most recent example of this axiom.

As a result, Donald Rumsfield & his top deputy Stephen Cambone cannot travel to Germany where they will be arrested for war crimes.

What goes around, comes around.

Not Everyone Agrees with Lizard Brain (Lawrence Summers)

The Boston Globe weighs in on Lawrence Summer's 20th century faux pas remarks:


Harvard women's group rips Summers

In his talk Friday at a conference on women and minorities in science and engineering, held at the National Bureau of Economic Research, Summers listed three possible explanations for the small number of women who excel at elite levels of science and engineering. He said he was deliberately being provocative, as he was asked to do by the organizers, and relying on the scholarship that was assembled for the conference rather than offering his own conclusions.

His first point was that women with children are often unwilling or unable to work 80-hour weeks. His second point was that in math and science tests, more males earn the very top scores, as well as the very bottom scores. He said that while no one knew why, "research in behavioral genetics is showing that things people attributed to socialization" might actually have a biological basis -- and that the issue needed to be studied further.

Several participants said that in making his second point, Summers suggested that women might not have the same "innate ability" or "natural ability" as men.

Summers' third point was about discrimination, and he said it was not clear that discrimination played a significant role in the shortage of women teaching science and engineering at top universities. However, he concluded by emphasizing that Harvard was taking many steps to boost diversity.

Summers' remarks were taped, but he has denied requests for a copy, saying it was a private, off-the-record meeting.

Perhaps it's gender block by Eileen McNamara

Personally, I blame PMS. Between the bloating and the foul mood, it was just easier to curl up with a heating pad and read romance novels than to measure the hypotenuse of a triangle.

I offer this possible explanation for the "F" I got in geometry in 10th grade, not in my official capacity as a columnist at The Boston Globe, but as a freelance provocateur. If unsubstantiated speculation about behavioral genetics is good enough for the president of Harvard, it's good enough for me.

I make no claim to the intellectual rigor that President Lawrence H. Summers brought to his unscripted remarks at a luncheon of the National Bureau of Economic Research the other day. I pulled my theory of female ineptitude out of thin air. Summers, on the other hand, characterizes as a "purely academic exploration of hypotheses" his idea that female scientists might be underrepresented in the academy and the professions because of innate differences between men and women.

To the untrained ear, that might sound like making it up out of whole cloth, but Larry Summers is the president of Harvard University, so let's just say his theory needs further study. Not that "anatomy is destiny" is exactly an original idea. Women have been hearing for eons that their lack of achievement, in the arts as well as the sciences, is the result of, variously, their weaker constitutions, their smaller brains, their delicate uteruses, and/or their unruly hormones.

GLOBE EDITORIAL
Summers's sense

ARE WOMEN and science like oil and water? Harvard's president, Lawrence Summers, says no, and in a statement Monday he described his deep commitment to the advancement of women in science.

But outrage flared last week when Summers spoke at a conference on women and minorities in the sciences and engineering. He raised questions about whether innate gender differences account for the low numbers of women in the sciences, the impact of long work weeks, socialization versus genes, and a possible dampening of discrimination.

**********

Are men and women innately different? It's a moot point, since women have already shown they can be first-class scientists.

DERRICK Z. JACKSON
Summers's tortured logic

HARVARD President Lawrence Summers had impeccable timing for his slip of the tongue. It was the beginning of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend. Summers spoke at a conference titled, "Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce: Women, Underrepresented Minorities and their S. and E. careers." The conference came 44 years after King said: "If we are to implement the American dream we must get rid of the notion once and for all that there are superior and inferior races."

Four and a half decades later, Summers took to the podium to wonder why women struggle in those highly technical fields. He said perhaps one reason was because women with children were not willing or were unable to work 80-hour weeks. Then he noted, according to newspaper reports, how more boys than girls in late high school had superior test scores in science and math.

He wondered if "innate differences," "innate ability," or "natural ability" could be involved.

**********

Summers's mind was fixed on a target as stale as a decade ago when Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein tried to revive notions of racial inferiority in their best-selling book "The Bell Curve." The authors cited IQ scores as fixed facts that should make us abandon the American dream.

**********

Summers of course would say he meant nothing so crude. But every time a privileged white guy blurts out something verging on the Cro-Magnon (instead of, for instance, decrying 80-hour work weeks and demanding that fathers better share the parenting), it puts the discussion of what really holds back women and people of color into a holding pattern. That means further discouragement for the young and silent destruction of careers for the groups that do not share such privilege.

No Comment

Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president

The president of Harvard University has provoked a furore by arguing that men outperform women in maths and sciences because of biological difference, and discrimination is no longer a career barrier for female academics.

Lawrence Summers, a career economist who served as treasury secretary under President Clinton, has a reputation for outspokenness. His tenure at Harvard has been marked by clashes with African-American staff and leftwing intellectuals, and complaints about a fall in the hiring of women.

He made his remarks at a private conference on the position of women and minorities in science and engineering, hosted by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

In a lengthy address delivered without notes, Dr Summers offered three explanations for the shortage of women in senior posts in science and engineering, starting with their reluctance to work long hours because of childcare responsibilities.

He went on to argue that boys outperform girls on high school science and maths scores because of genetic difference. "Research in behavioural genetics is showing that things people previously attributed to socialisation weren't due to socialisation after all," he told the Boston Globe yesterday.

As an example, Dr Summers told the conference about giving his daughter two trucks. She treated them like dolls, and named them mummy and daddy trucks, he said.

Oh, so THAT'S the scientific basis for this bullshit theory. Ok, just so my tiny female brain can understand the rigorously developed scientific basis for this crap.

Dr Summers also played down the impact of sex bias in appointments to academic institutions.

He said: "The real issue is the overall size of the pool, and it's less clear how much the size of the pool was held down by discrimination."

At least half of his audience comprised women, several said they found the remarks offensive and one walked out.

"It was really shocking to hear the president of Harvard make statements like that," said Denice Denton, who is about to become president of the University of California at Santa Cruz.

Others said Dr Summers's comments were depressingly familiar. "I have heard men make comments like this my entire life and quite honestly if I had listened to them I would never have done anything," said Donna Nelson, a chemistry professor at the University of Oklahoma.

A Harvard spokeswoman declined to comment yesterday, or to release the transcript of Dr Summers's remarks. Richard Freeman, who invited the Harvard president to speak at the conference, said Dr Summers's comments were intended to provoke debate, and some women over-reacted.

"Some people took offence because they were very sensitive," said Dr Freeman, an economist at Harvard and the London School of Economics. "It does not seem to me insane to think that men and women have biological differences."

During Dr Summers's presidency, the number of tenured jobs offered to women has fallen from 36% to 13%. Last year, only four of 32 tenured job openings were offered to women.

I guess the "pool" of qualified women dropped by two-thirds in the three years this lizard brain has been at Harvard? Or is my tiny biologically-impaired brain not understanding this really hard math thing?

Prick.

I've dealt with pigs like this guy all my life & I'm sick to death of it. He's the Al Campanis of our decade. Remember poor old Al Campanis saying on national TV that blacks didn't "have the necessaries" to be major league baseball managers? He was out on his keaster the next day. Lawrence Summers should be removed from his job immediately. Does Harvard have any integrity? Probably not. All alumni should withhold all contributions until this asshole has a new job. I'm sure the Bush Administration could find a place for this neanderthal.

I'm with Nancy Hopkins on this one:


Harvard Chief Defends His Talk on Women
By SAM DILLON

Nancy Hopkins, a professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who once led an investigation of sex discrimination there that led to changes in hiring and promotion, walked out midway through Dr. Summers's remarks.

"When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill," Dr. Hopkins said. "Let's not forget that people used to say that women couldn't drive an automobile."

United We Stand

Joan Vennochi is an excellent columnist in the Boston Globe. Her comments on the Democrats fudging their message are right on:

Blurred messages from Democrats

HERE'S THE new Democratic Party slogan: We stand for nothing but victory.

Or, as Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the new chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told The New York Times: "Some people argue about old Democrats and new Democrats. I'm a Vince Lombardi Democrat. Winning is everything."

Inspirational, isn't it? That should lure those Red State voters to the Democrats' side.


**********

Pelosi is also encouraging former Representatative Tim Roemer of Indiana to seek to replace Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe. Roemer, who is Catholic and antiabortion, has a 94 percent rating from the national Right to Life Committee. Pelosi has a 100 percent prochoice voting record, as rated by NARAL, a national organization devoted to a woman's right to choose abortion.

Donna Brazile, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute, describes Pelosi's support for Roemer as a way to illustrate the party's new "big tent" commitment. Said Brazile, via e-mail: "As a party, we have a large tent, but our basic values will remain. The Democratic Party's problem is not what we stand for, as much as how we communicate our values. Roemer's personal views will not alter the Democratic platform on choice."

Put aside the practical matter of how the party plans to communicate values through a prochoice platform and a prolife party chairman. This is a way to win?

Roemer as head of the DNC sounds like a desperate effort to figure out which way the wind is blowing, long after the 2004 wind blew the Democrats away. Where does it leave Democrats when President Bush and his allies work to secure the appointment of Supreme Court justices who are anxious to repeal Roe v. Wade?

It also sounds like a way to institutionalize John Kerry's losing campaign strategy: When it comes to controversial issues, duck. Stand for everything and nothing. Whenever possible, avoid direct answers on issues like war and abortion.

**********

Senator Edward M. Kennedy had it right yesterday. In remarks prepared for delivery to the National Press Club, Kennedy said, "We cannot move our party or our nation forward under pale colors and timid voices. We cannot become Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again and deserve to lose."

Currently, Democrats like Pelosi and Emanuel sound confused, not reasonable. Indeed, adrift is a word that comes to mind.

Confusion and drift are ways to kill, not grow, a political party. But it appears to be the path of spooked Democrats after the Nov. 2 election loss.

The Crisis for Social Security is Bush

C+ Augustus* and his lies are skewered in the Washington Post today.

President of Fabricated Crises

So Iraq became a clear and present danger to American hearths and homes, bristling with weapons of mass destruction, a nuclear attack just waiting to happen. And now, this week, the president is embarking on his second great scare campaign, this one to convince the American people that Social Security will collapse and that the only remedy is to cut benefits and redirect resources into private accounts.

In fact, Social Security is on a sounder footing now than it has been for most of its 70-year history. Without altering any of its particulars, its trustees say, it can pay full benefits straight through 2042. Over the next 75 years its shortfall will amount to just 0.7 percent of national income, according to the trustees, or 0.4 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That still amounts to a real chunk of change, but it pales alongside the 75-year cost of Bush's Medicare drug benefit, which is more than twice its size, or Bush's tax cuts if permanently extended, which would be nearly four times its size.

In short, Social Security is not facing a financial crisis at all. It is facing a need for some distinctly sub-cataclysmic adjustments over the next few decades that would increase its revenue and diminish its benefits.

Politically, however, Social Security is facing the gravest crisis it has ever known. For the first time in its history, it is confronted by a president, and just possibly by a working congressional majority, who are opposed to the program on ideological grounds, who view the New Deal as a repealable aberration in U.S. history, who would have voted against establishing the program had they been in Congress in 1935. But Bush doesn't need Karl Rove's counsel to know that repealing Social Security for reasons of ideology is a non-starter.

So it's time once more to fabricate a crisis. In Bushland, it's always time to fabricate a crisis. We have a crisis in medical malpractice costs, though the CBO says that malpractice costs amount to less than 2 percent of total health care costs. (In fact, what we have is a president who wants to diminish the financial, and thus political, clout of trial lawyers.) We have a crisis in judicial vacancies, though in fact Senate Democrats used the filibuster to block just 10 of Bush's 229 first-term judicial appointments.

*I must credit Charles Pierce, local scribe, for "C+ Augustus", the latest & greatest name for the lesser Bush.

God Save Social Security from Bush

I haven't posted on this topic before, but C+ Augustus is trying to destroy the greatest & most successful social program in the history of the world: Social Security. A faux crisis has been announced (see WMD, 2002), and Social Security is under siege.

It's a disaster waiting to happen. As a matter of fact, a similar privatization plan was enacted by Great Britain in 1984. Read all about it:

A Bloody Mess

if you're to busy to read the article, here's the money quote:

....the plan set in train during Thatcher’s first term in 1979 and [] has since led Britain to the brink of a crisis. Since then, the nation’s basic pension, which is paid for out of tax receipts, has shrunk dramatically. The United Kingdom has the stingiest state pension program of any G8 nation, and there is growing consensus -- even among British conservatives -- that reform is needed. And ironically enough, considering that America is on the verge of copying Britain’s mistake, most experts seek reform in the direction of a more generous, and simpler, basic state pension -- one similar in design, in other words, to America’s Social Security program.

Richard Clarke's Doomsday Scenario

Clarke on Al Qaeda: They're Going to Disneyland!

Richard Clarke predicts the future & it ain't pretty.

Another Wingnut for Homeland Security

Bush just nominated Michael Chertoff to be head of the Homeland Security Department.

And who, might you ask, is Michael Chertoff?

In the second term, the answer is never good.

Alliance for Justice Report on the Nomination of Michael Chertoff to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Since September 11th Chertoff has played a key role in the war against terrorism, pursuing an aggressive agenda against suspected terrorists and Arab Americans from countries that the U.S. government claims have strong terrorism networks. Chertoff supervised the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui and has been described as “the driving force behind the Justice Department's most controversial initiatives in the war on terrorism.”3 Civil liberties advocates blame him for what they see as dangerous curtailments to free speech and the rights of criminal defendants. According to press reports, Chertoff has played a key role in several matters: first, the increase in FBI agents’ authority to conduct domestic surveillance; second, the use of “material witness” warrants to lock up people of Middle Eastern dissent; third, the interviewing of thousands of Middle Eastern men who entered the United States before and after the 9/11 attacks; fourth, the aggressive prosecution of Moussaoui, despite concern that the FBI had not found sufficient evidence to link him to the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. Chertoff’s has not only played an active role in these cases, he has also been the first to defend controversial Justice Department policies. He spoke up for the government’s right to hold suspects indefinitely without counsel as “enemy combatants,” as well as the government’s decision to interview 5,000 Arab Americans after the 9/11 attacks.

**********

Whitewater

As counsel to Senator Alphonse D’Amato (R-NY) in the Whitewater investigation, Chertoff proved his loyalty to the Republican Party and his willingness to turn a legal investigation into a political one. He ruthlessly pursued the Clintons, on behalf of the Republican controlled Senate. Shortly after the congressional Whitewater investigation had been finished, Chertoff utilized his role in the probe to promote Robert Dole’s presidential campaign. Chertoff stumped for Dole as a warm-up speaker at a fundraiser in Lyndhurst, New Jersey. Referring to his work in Whitewater, Chertoff asked the crowd, “[Clinton] promised us the most ethical administration in American history. Well, howmany of that administration are in jail now? Why does the White House spend more time hiding its files from subpoenas than it does pursuing drug dealers?'' How many members of this administration have to resign in disgrace?”13 Chertoff also wrote an article for Newsweek in 1996 entitled Why Whitewater Mattersdescribing the Clintons wrongdoing and why it was important. It is clear that Chertoff had no problem taking his knowledge of the investigation and using it to turn Americans against the President during an election campaign. Senators might ask if this is an appropriate role for an investigator in what was supposed to be an apolitical investigation.14

Michael Chertoff: Ashcroft's Top Gremlin
Spreading Mischief from DoJ to the Federal Bench

But now I have a new gremlin to watch, someone who is as intent on undermining the law and Constitution as Ashcroft. I am referring to the man behind the criminal prosecution of terrorists, Michael Chertoff. Chertoff, former chief of the Justice Department's criminal division, and a scary looking guy if ever there was one, has been elevated to the level of Court of Appeals judge--the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. What's so scary about Michael? Well, besides having no judicial experience and being a right-ring radical who does not believe in the Constitution and wants to rewrite federal law and rules of procedure on an ad hoc, case by case basis, as it suits him, nothing I guess.

A good place to look for Chertoff's legal philosophy is in the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui , now taking place in the Eastern District of Virginia. Chertoff is not the prosecutor of course, Paul McNulty of the Eastern District is. But Chertoff is McNulty's boss and he is calling the shots. So Chertoff argued the government's case in the super secret hearing before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals last week. The government is trying to block trial judge Leonie Brinkema's ruling that Moussaoui and his lawyers have access to the government's star witnesses against him. The government has refused and appealed. Judge Brinkema, who still believes in the Constitution, rightly ruled that to deny Moussaoui that access is a blatant violation of the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.

**********

Chertoff argued to the 4th Circuit that the Court could not order the government to produce its start witness against Moussaoui because (are you ready?) he, the witness, is out of the country at an undisclosed location. True, but the witness is in the custody of the federal government! The out-of-the country argument is a sham. This is similar to a ruling recently by the federal court that ruled that Guantanmo Bay prisoners had no access to federal courts for claims that they be charged or release because-they are out of the country!! Of course, in federal custody, but that does not matter.

The absurd arguments contrary to the letter and spirit of all that not only the Constitution, but current federal law provides, is appalling and shameful.....

**********

Keep your eye on Michael Chertoff. As bad for the law and Constitution as many of Bush's judicial appointees are, Chertoff has been the architect of prosecutions in the "war on terror." And he may have big changes in mind for you, me, the courts, and the Constitution.

A friendlier bio piece:

CRACKDOWN
by JEFFREY TOOBIN
Should we be worried about the new antiterrorism legislation?

George W. Bush: The Ugliest American

The Ugliest American by Alan Bisbort, Hartford Advocate

Worthy of re-posting in its entirety:

His 'actions speak louder than words'

By Alan Bisbort, Hartford Advocate

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, nearly every nation in the world -- rich and poor, big and small, former ally and former foe -- came rushing to America's side. At few times in modern history have so many disparate peoples rallied behind one nation, this spirit of unity captured by the headline that appeared in Le Monde , France's largest daily newspaper, on Sept. 12: "We Are All Americans Now."

And yet that global goodwill vanished almost as swiftly as those four jets pierced America's bubble of invincibility. Now, three years later, the situation is completely reversed: Nearly every nation in the world has replaced goodwill with ill will, deep distrust if not outright fear and loathing.

The reason for this reversal of fortune is obvious: The Ugliest American resides in the people's house on Pennsylvania Avenue. Whether we like it or not, whether it's fair, whether it squares with any of our own feelings, George W. Bush is America's face around the world. He's our Nike swoosh, our golden arches, our Ugly American brand. Never was this more apparent than in the wake (literally) of the tsunami that has, at last count, killed nearly 150,000 people in south Asia.

What an opportunity for a real American leader! What a chance, when so many innocent people had suffered -- so many Muslims, too -- to deflate the ticking time bomb of terrorist recruitment efforts. Imagine the reaction throughout the billion-plus populace of the Muslim world had Bush flown to the area, heading a flotilla of cargo planes with food, medicine and hope. Four measly planes, let's say, and what a public relations coup that would have been! Al Jazeera would have been back-pedaling furiously on its newscasts, moderate Muslim leaders would have rushed to the front to grab this olive branch ... wait a minute ... I was dreaming of a time when we had real leaders. What was I thinking? We're stuck aboard this aircraft carrier for four more years with the Ugliest American.

So, where was George when the tsunamis hit? Oh, he spent the day pedaling his bicycle around his fake ranch like Pee Wee Herman. He could not be bothered to attend to an international crisis, not unless it involved oil. Finally, he took a break long enough to pledge, via his White House posse, a measly $15 million to the rescue effort -- one quarter of the cost of his coronation, er, inauguration on Jan. 20. Bush claimed he could adequately "monitor" the situation from his ranch (read: "I'll set out on the back porch and watch Fox News while I'm drinkin' my iced tea. I ain't givin' up my vacation for a buncha Third Worlders, especially if they ain't got any oil.").

Sadly, as I followed the news of the breaking events on the the Internet, a poll posted by America Online found that 72 percent of the respondents agreed that Bush's $15 million was an "adequate response." Putting aside politics and religion and corporate spin, isn't it about time the American people looked in the mirror and asked: How did we become so mean and ugly so soon? Are we really built in Bush's image?

Because this $15 million was America's first response, and it came belatedly and begrudgingly, any followup efforts and funds, no matter how great (at last count, Bush has been guilt-tripped into upping the ante to $350 million), can't erase that clank that Bush's initial actions sounded around the world. And yet it was in keeping with his character. The only other major crisis during his presidency came on Sept. 11, and what did he do then? He sat, glued to his chair, reading My Pet Goat , then flew quickly as far away as he could get from Washington, D.C. The leadership vacuum he left was filled by Mayor Giuliani, who helped the nation get through the agony of the next week.

Because, after the tsunami hit, action was so slow in coming -- and, yes, because he basks in world adulation -- former Pres. Bill Clinton tried to pull a Giuliani by calling for an international effort spearheaded by America. Because he -- despite all his other psychological baggage -- possesses the instincts of a real leader, Clinton correctly sensed the opportunity that this crisis provided. But Bush, sensing he was being upstaged, turned this disaster into a pissing contest. He did it in his typically craven way, too. He had his spokesman release the statement: "The president wanted to be fully briefed on our efforts. He didn't want to make a symbolic statement about 'We feel your pain.' He believes actions speak louder than words."

Alas, the truth.

Copyright © 2005 New Mass Media.

Reprinted from The Hartford Advocate:
http://hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:95377

Our President: Hear No Evil

BUSH REJECTS BAD NEWS

The Nelson Report is a daily political tip sheet and analysis written for the past 20 years for the (US and Asian) corporate and government clients of Chris Nelson, a former Capitol Hill staffer and UPI reporter. (He was actually the first to break the looted explosives story before the election; Josh Marshall then posted it to his blog.) This Monday, he wrote:

There is rising concern amongst senior officials that President Bush does not grasp the increasingly grim reality of the security situation in Iraq because he refuses to listen to that type of information. Our sources say that attempts to brief Bush on various grim realities have been personally rebuffed by the President, who actually says that he does not want to hear “bad news.”

Rather, Bush makes clear that all he wants are progress reports, where they exist, and those facts which seem to support his declared mission in Iraq...building democracy. “That’s all he wants to hear about,” we have been told. So “in” are the latest totals on school openings, and “out” are reports from senior US military commanders (and those intelligence experts still on the job) that they see an insurgency becoming increasingly effective, and their projection that “it will just get worse.”

Our sources are firm in that they conclude this “good news only” directive comes from Bush himself; that is, it is not a trap or cocoon thrown around the President by National Security Advisor Rice, Vice President Cheney, and DOD Secretary Rumsfeld. In any event, whether self-imposed, or due to manipulation by irresponsible subordinates, the information/intelligence vacuum at the highest levels of the White House increasingly frightens those officials interested in objective assessment, and not just selling a political message.

Genuinely scary.

Ben Wikler

We Got Al Qaeda Right Where We Want 'Em

From the Boston Globe:

Bomber of US mess hall said to be Saudi student

CAIRO -- The suicide bomber who killed 22 people when he blew himself up in a US mess hall in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul was a Saudi medical student, an Arab newspaper reported yesterday.

Saudi-owned Asharq Al-Awsat identified him as 20-year-old Ahmed Said Ahmed al-Ghamdi, citing unnamed friends of the man's father. The friends said members of an Iraqi resistance group contacted Ghamdi's father to tell him his son was the suicide bomber who carried out the Dec. 21 attack, the deadliest on a US installation in Iraq.

The father told the newspaper his son had gone to Iraq to fight the Americans and had died there. The family held a mourning ceremony, the paper said. US officials have said their preliminary investigation indicates the bomber was dressed in an Iraqi military uniform -- but was not an Iraqi soldier -- when he slipped into a mess tent packed with soldiers.

**********

The Ghamdis are a large Saudi clan, three members of whom were among the Sept. 11 hijackers.

Yes, three of his family members were among the September 11th hijackers.

Hey, if Bernard Kerik "I'd sell government influence for a lousy $7,000 New Jersey wedding reception" could be nominated as Homeland Security chief, anybody with a backpack & an Iraqi uniform could get into a military base in Iraq. FUBAR, under Prances in Flightsuit it's all FUBAR. Chilling.

Bush is a simpleton

A 'good' adjective

Funny piece from The Carpetbagger Report about Bush & his limited vocabulary:

Ron Suskind raised a point the other day in a New York Times op-ed that I wanted to follow up on.

The president chose Bernard Kerik to lead the Department of Homeland Security because he was "a good man," an intangible, gut-check standard that the president also applies to judicial nominees and world leaders.

I think that's absolutely true. One recent report explained in great detail that the president met Kerik, decided on the spot that he liked him, and that this initial meeting effectively ended the vetting process. Bush, as we know, relies on his "gut" far more than facts, so the man with poor instincts was satisfied with the conclusion that this incompetent criminal should head the Department of Homeland Security. As far as the president was concerned, he's "a good man." No other information was needed; no other standard need be met.

The fun part, however, is seeing how often he relies on this silly little phrase as a standard for qualification. Suskind noted that Bush uses the "good man" standard to size-up would-be judges and foreign heads of state, but the amusing thing is realizing that the president uses the same phrase to describe just about every man for which he has any fondness at all.

This link shows that Bush refers to almost everyone as "a good man." The president relies on the line so often, he's used it, on average, about seven times a month throughout his first term.

******************

It actually suits Bush perfectly. He's a simple person with a simple worldview: people are either good or bad. Complexities are for the "reality-based community." For the president, labeling someone a "good man" isn't just deep insight into a person's character, it's the only insight necessary.

We Lost One of the Great Ones - RIP Shirley Chisholm

Chisholm, 80, Is Dead; 'Unbossed' Pioneer in Congress

I loved Shirley Chisholm. She was one of my first feminist heroes. I remember being thrilled when she addressed the Democratic Convention in 1972. She ran for the Democratic nomination that year, and even though she didn't win, it was a big blow for women's rights. I think I believed that by now a woman would have run for if not been elected President. I've always been an optimist.

Shirley Chisholm never took s**t from anyone. A role model for all us Democrats. Speak truth to power.

Here's the DailyKos thread on Chisholm, with many good photos & quotes.

Disinformation

The 2004 Falsies Awards: Remembering the people and players responsible for polluting our information environment.

Interesting list of media foibles in 2004. But where is the New York Times Ahmed Chalabi-loving Judith Miller? Bob (Traitor) Novak? The media's fawning coverage of the Swift Boat Liars? Bill O'Reilly buying back the tapes of his you-say-loofah I-say-falafel conversations? Actually, Faux News Channel alone could fill an entire Top Ten list.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Bush is Stingy but We're Not

The Command Post blog has the most complete list of organizations accepting donations for tsunami disaster relief.

A few months ago a friend & I discussed which natural phenomenon is worse -- wind or water. He went with wind. With flooding in mind, I voted for water. I think this tsunami proved my point. You can hide from wind, in a basement or a storm cellar. Where do you go to escape water? I heard an "expert" on cable TV tonight say that if you were in a 6 story building, you would be safe from a tsunami. I've worked in tall buildings, but the tallest I've ever lived in was 3 stories.

It's been horrible watching our pathetic US media cover this story. The first day or so they just about giggled while reporting. I watched a so-called "expert" on CNN demonstrate the movement of ocean waves caused by an earthquake using a Slinky.

Now we get stories about all the white westerners involved. Apparently a model hanging in a tree for 8 hours is more noteworthy than over 100,000 dead brown people.

And Prances in Flightsuit has commited less money from the US than he plans to spend on his coronation.

So give generously, to repair our sinking reputations.

No Comment

Remember the old Ms. Magazine "No Comment" section? Stuff that was so insulting just seeing it would make you furious? This decision would make the cut:

Court backs firing of waitress without makeup

Here are the purported "facts" of the case:

Darlene Jespersen, who had worked for nearly 20 years at a Harrah's Entertainment Inc casino bar in Reno, Nevada, objected to the company's revised policy that required female bartenders, but not men, to wear makeup.

A previously much-praised employee, Jespersen was fired in 2000 after the firm instituted a "Beverage Department Image Transformation" program and she sued, alleging sex discrimination.

In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling in favor of Harrah's.

But here's all you need to know about this decision:

All three judges are males

I'd appeal this sucker to the Supremes. Will Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the woman who invented contemporary sex discrimination law (by such brilliant gambits as bringing & winning a sex discrimination suit in for a man who got less of a pension as a widower than a woman got as a widow) let such nonsense stand? I think not.

Or maybe I'd better go check my foundation. Bat my eyelashes. Check my teeth for lipstick.

Aargh.