Good news

J's biopsy results were clean, it's not malignant. WHEW. Because it's slightly odd that a male of his age has this growth (evidently if he were a girl, growths near/on the thyroid like this would be typical, which is weird to me) they're going to check him every six months to make sure it's not doing anything funky.

So now that little core of stress that I'd buried deep enough to not realize it was still there is dissolving.

Were I not a mother of two with responsibilities, I think I'd probably go out drinking with my husband tonight. Maybe this Saturday when the kids are at brammah's...

Another article by RFK Jr.

So, Princeton has created a hack & shown how easy it is.... there has been analysis from Johns Hopkins and Rice universities which came to this conclusion: "This voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts," the scientists concluded. It was, in fact, "unsuitable for use in a general election.".... a report by Science Applications International Corporation that said (even tho SAIC was part of an industry group that promotes electronic voting machines) that Diebold's machines were "at high risk of compromise"... RABA Technologies (commissioned by Maryland Legislature) "discovered a major flaw: Diebold had built what are known as "back doors" into the software that could enable a hacker to hide an unauthorized and malicious code in the system"..... "William Arbaugh, of the University of Maryland, gave the Diebold system an "F" with "the possibility of raising it to a 'C' with extra credit - that is, if they follow the recommendations we gave them.""..... a division of Homeland Security, the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team released a tiny security bulletin that stated "A vulnerability exists due to an undocumented backdoor account," the alert warned, adding, this could allow "a malicious user [to] modify votes.".... a report by the Brennan Center for Justice (peer reviewed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology) concluded "Electronic voting machines widely adopted since 2000, "pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state and local elections."... heck, a report by the Government Accountability Office talked about how crappy the voting machines are! (reports GAO-04-766T, GAO-04-975T, GAO-05-956)

Okay, so given all that, I'm still getting emails like this:

"If all you have been reading and listening to has been media-generated...my advice, in this election year, is to be ruthlessly skeptical. I too have been reading and listening - more than a little comes from folks actually "there" in the markets, in the areas of foreign conflict and international events, in the political analysis/impacts business, I read newspapers and websites not just published in and by USA publishers but also in and by Germans and Brits and Danes, and a LOT of just raw numbers like earnings reports and where the money is and where the money is going (US and European and Taiwanese banks and markets) and which COngressional bills get passed and which ones don't...things like that, IN ADDITION TO , The Democrat, the WSJ, magazines, MSNBC, Fox, CNBC, network news, and a variety of websites and blogs.

Yes I do still support this administration. I spent last Saturday in fact personally helping "get out the vote" as part of a call-bank effort. This administration is not perfect by a long shot, but I find it's still worthy of respect and support, especially as opposed to the other choices currently vying for replacing them. The Leftists and Bush-hating Rantiacs offer plenty of scorn, but they're a bit short on solutions, plans, and foolishly naive about world history and world events - and astonishingly fast and loose with their assertions of "facts". Senator Lieberman is the only Democrat I can think of at the moment that I can genuinely admire. The only one - and that in itself is deeply scary. Of course, the Republican camp doesn;t have a long list of admirable people either - but there are a few - including the President and Vice-President.

The whole situation has me deeply concerned. "We" are (remember it's an election cycle), I think, so gripped up in screaming and pissing over who's going to be "in charge" that we are not paying adequate attention to "in charge of what?" and I am completely convinced that the Democrat Party will say and do anything to regain power - lie, cheat, steal, kill, enslave, sell their damn souls - the bare-knuckle contest is both disgusting and terrifying. This has a direct impact on me personally as a taxpayer, an investor trying to save something for retirement, and a citizen who does not feel as "safe" as I did even a couple of years ago. Idealism aside, and admitting politics is and always has been a Blood Sport, even so - I understand and appreciate some of what else is going on in the country and the world, and the radical deconstructionism and pretentious foolishness of the Left scares the heebie-jeebies out of me.

I have recently read a couple of recently published books on Islamic history, and 20th century world history, because I felt I needed a "refresher" from when I worked in the offshore subject and the geography 25 years ago. The historians I chose don't seem to be writing with a grind or an agenda - if you'd like to borrow/read let me know - it might make for some good analytical chats with you about what the history of events means for us now. There are certainly some clearly repeating patterns in human events and human conduct...that human horror is so repititous still bewilders me, but the pattern and the reasons are there for anyone to see that takes the time to look. I just don't want to be on the next train to Dachau..."

And it's the DEMOCRATS who will do anything to maintain power? I hadn't noticed that they had a whole lot of power lately. I mean, yes, to a large extent all the politicians in Washington would rather have the status-quo than have us grass roots people throw them all out and institute some real changes, but give me a break!

This guy has bought into the clash of civilizations bullshit - and given his history, I can understand his biases. He fails, however, to even contemplate human psychology as it ties into international politics - I don't understand how to explain to an otherwise intelligent human being that yes, the United States' policies overseas have in many cases been AWFUL for other people, (and sometimes not all that great for us, even) and there is a lot of JUSTIFIED anger at us. If we really wanted to do something about terrorism, we'd be working on eliminating the anger that drives so many of them.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there wouldn't always be nutjobs out there that want to blow shit up - heck, look at Oklahoma City - they were home-grown, not islamic fundamentalists. There are still christian fundamentalists who want to blow things up. Some of them do. (Abortion clinics, anyone?) But what this gung-ho jock (and many like him in the government) don't seem to understand is that by going over there and shooting people, you are just digging a bigger hole. In a war there is always collateral damage, right? Well, in a war like this, you have a large percentage of friends and family of that 'collateral damage' deciding that maybe their fundamentalist friends have it right - that the U.S. really is invading to stay, that it's a religious war, and they have nothing left to lose - so what the hell, let's strap bombs to ourselves and walk up to an american GI. Or, even easier, not report the many people who are bombing - it requires nothing but apathy, which is easy to come by when your country has been destroyed, your job evaporated, your loved ones killed...

ARGH!

I'm going to miss cable

I think it's going to get cut off tomorrow, and I'm going to miss a few things. Olbermann, Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert...

wow, that makes me a raging lefty, doesn't it. ;)

As I watch Olbermann interview former President Clinton, it reminds me of a bumpersticker I saw a while back that I think I'd like to get: "I miss Bill"

just wanted to share this

The Sad State of Atheism Today

RJ Eskow

Roll over Carl Sagan, and tell Voltaire the news: Some of today's atheist spokesmen have hijacked its noble intellectual tradition in favor of flawed logic, appeals to bigotry, and a deliberate refusal to study the facts before forming an opinion. You don't have to look any further than the Huffington Post for evidence of atheism's moral and intellectual decline.

I spent some time this afternoon debating Gary Bauer and Sean Hannity on the Hannity show, on the topic of prejudice against Muslims among Christians in the West. Now I'm spending the evening writing about prejudice against Muslims by self-described "progressive" atheists.

Finally, there's common ground between these two groups: they both kick Muslims around, and they both disagree with me! (And they say miracles don't happen ...)

Marty Kaplan does a fine job deconstructing Sam Harris' latest screed. Harris is now ready to pimp GOP talking points in order to make his case. My God (oops - sorry!), is there nothing this man won't say to advance himself and his fundamentalist strain of atheism?

I met Sam when we both participated in a group seminar on faith and progressive politics. He seemed pleasant enough, but when I cited the exhaustive works of research that have been conducted on fundamentalism in Islam and other religions he pointedly refused either to discuss them - or even to express willingness to look at them.

How can anyone argue for the virtue of knowledge and reason over faith and emotion, yet refuse to either examine the data or subject one's own arguments to logical challenge?

Specifically, Harris would not acknowledge the research of Martin E. Marty and the Fundamentalism Project, whose complex multidisciplinary study found several intriguing patterns in the distribution of fundamentalism throughout all faiths.

Among the Project's findings was the discovery that fundamentalists, who average roughly 20% of any major faith today, all seek to acquire power using similar techniques and belief systems. Their beliefs share much more in common with fundamentalists of other faiths than they do with their co-religionists, a finding that challenges the notion that Islam is an especially evil religion.

This finding challenges an assumption that is deeply cherished by Harris and his ilk, and equally beloved by Bauer and the Christian Right: that Muslims are more extremist than other people. That makes great fodder for recruiting wavering Christians to atheism, or convincing Americans who question the Iraq invasion that we're at war with a world of "Islamofascists."

Besides being willing to do Karl Rove's dirty work, the Harris crowd revels in using anti-Muslim bigotry to promote their conception of atheism. Bertrand Russell would no doubt be appalled at their faulty reasoning, their disinterest in acquiring new knowledge, and their unwillingness to engage in reasonable debate.

Nothing would disappoint Russell more, however, than their calculated appeals to bigotry. Russell, the foremost atheist of his time, was a tireless campaigner for peace and for the dignity of all peoples and faiths. Comparing Russell and Harris is like comparing Martin Luther King and Jerry Falwell.

I'm a person of faith who has no problem reconciling reason and knowledge with my form of belief - but then, I don't believe the way fundamentalists do. I don't believe in the kind of God who is a superpowerful person, or a "being " in the literal sense. Yet I've met Jews, Christians, and Muslims who believe as I do, and I've learned from all of them.

My "Higher Power's" relationship to this universe is not that of a dictator and his subject. It's more like the relationship between a beautiful piece of music and the notes of the song. But even those who believe in a more literal God vary in their forms of belief, as this study explains.

How can atheists work with people of faith to create a better society if they won't even read and learn about their fellow human beings? Yet some still refuse, because knowledge might interfere with their own cherished beliefs - not to mention their sales pitch.

If previous posts on this topic are any indication, I'm about to be flooded with a wave of bitter, harsh, and personal comments - about my beliefs, the absurdity of Christianity, and the vile nature of Muslims. This, from the "pro-rationality" crowd.

And speaking of illogic and bias ...

Here's Martin Lewis on Islam: "When was the last time agnostics or atheists got offended and went on the rampage when someone trashed - or even questioned - their beliefs?"

You could've said the same thing about blacks after the Los Angeles riots, couldn't you? "When was the last time white people got offended and went on the rampage when someone got let off for a crime against them?"

I'm not defending rioters. I'm simply pointing out some inherent biases in the comment. Ultra-Orthodox Jews have rioted in Israel, and one of them killed the peacemaking Prime Minister. Christians have rioted, too. People tend to riot because they feel powerless, not because they're inherently evil. (Killing's another matter - it's always indefensible.)

And less than one Muslim in 43,000 has ever participated in a riot. Far more Americans have been child molesters, percentage-wise, yet it would be bigotry to say we live in a nation of pederasts.

I don't know if Martin's an atheist or not, but this is a favorite trick of Harris's - to make insinuations that only Muslims have engaged in this sort of behavior. It smacks of piling on to a hate-fest against a persecuted minority in the west. A study released today showed a 30% increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes in the U.S. between 2004 and 2005. Is this really the kind of misinformation we want to keep spreading?

This piece is particularly disappointing to me, given Martin's moving reflection on 9/11 and Cat Stevens. I'm a longtime admirer of Martin's work, and therefore that much sorrier to see him engage in this kind of rhetoric.

Martin, check out this video of hardliner Communists rioting in Russia in 1993. (Note: the video's accompanied by loud Russian punk music.) They're angry because the new government is dismantling their treasured system. Every single one of these rioters is an avowed atheist.

"But," some will say, "they're not rioting because they're atheists. They're rioting because they have other grievances, or because that's what people do over there when they're unhappy -- or maybe just because they're difficult people."

Right. Same with Muslims. Despite what the haters say, belief in forced conversions and the like is not intrinsic to Islam. Neither is terrorism or rioting. Those behaviors are based on other beliefs, issues, and motivations. Just as with Christians, or Jews, or other groups.

Harris' variation on this theme is to describe somebody about to blow up a roomful of innocent people, then asking you to guess their probable religion. "Muslim" is the expected answer - one that's accurate today. Thirty years ago, however, the answer would have been "atheist," because most terrorists were Communist members of the Red Army Faction and the Baader Meinhof gang.

Sixty-plus years ago the answer might have been "Jewish," during the days of the Stern Gang in Palestine. Even today, the answer could also be "Christian," since Christians have blown up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City and abortion clinics. (Some say the anthrax terror hunt came too close to the extreme right and that's why the Administration dropped it - although, to be fair to them, they couldn't catch Bin Laden either.)

I haven't changed my opinion since I wrote "The Evangelical Atheists." I respect atheists and will passionately defend their rights, even though some of them belittle and distort my own beliefs in return. The Harris-variety atheist can't - or won't - distinguish between believers in a "Daddy God," those for whom God represents the underlying beauty and music of the universe, or anyone in between. If they did, they might have to acknowledge that theirs isn't the only position for intelligent people to take.

The enemy isn't Islam or Christianity or Judaism or atheism -- it's fundamentalism, those rigid believers who over-identify with a "religion" and authoritarianism, not with the Transcendent or a belief system. That identification makes them want to impose their beliefs on others by force or bullying. I put the Evangelical Atheists into that category.

There are still brilliant and compelling atheist thinkers, like Daniel Dennett and Michael Schermer. I don't agree with them, but I feel we could have a civil and stimulating discussion.

(I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins' harsh brand of evangelism, however - and the "Selfish Gene" idea strikes me as rank anthropomorphism, like the filmstrips called "Your Friend The Atom" we watched as schoolkids in the 50's and 60's.)

"Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities," said Voltaire. That's as concise and brilliant a condemnation of extremism as has ever been written. Think, challenge, discover, say the Buddhists, the Sufis, the Vedantist Hindus, the enlightened Christians and Jews.

"There shall be no compulsion in religion," says the Quran. Some Muslims have forgotten that injunction, just as some atheists have forgotten what Bertrand Russell said: "I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine. "

Sam Harris apparently aspires to be the Rick Warren of atheism. If he's the best representative atheists can find, God help them.

had the weirdest dream last night...

Dreamt I was a flower girl in a wedding on Halloween for some woman who was a friend of Jon Stewart's. In the dream I was 10, 12.

Here's a good read: What to talk about when you talk about Iraq. It answers some of the questions I'd been wondering how to answer, and very succinctly, too. Think any of the Dems will start using it?

Yes, I'm reading when I should be working

Good news from Chile:

Any teenage girl over the age of 14 will now be able to directly ask her doctor for a prescription for birth control, without authorisation from her parents, and the contraceptives must be provided free of charge by the public health system.

The new decree complies with the sexual and reproductive rights approved at the 1994 United Nations International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo.

The most controversial aspect of the Health Ministry decree is that it not only covers traditional birth control methods, but also emergency contraception, which up to now was only available free of charge in cases of rape, although it was available by prescription in the country’s pharmacies.

Although it is popularly known as "the morning after pill", emergency contraception can be taken up to five days (120 hours) after unprotected intercourse. The pill works by providing high levels of synthetic hormones, which interfere with ovulation and change the lining of the uterus, significantly reducing the likelihood of pregnancy.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) clarifies that emergency contraception is "not effective once the process of implantation has begun, and will not cause abortion."

But archbishop of Santiago Francisco Javier Errázuriz said the decision by the centre-left government was a blow to marriage, the birth rate, and the Chilean family.

A response from a blogger I occasionally read:

I never cease to be startled by men who openly state that if women have a choice to delay childbirth or limit their family size, that’s it for marriage and babies. In other words, they’re openly stating that they fear that if women aren’t forced into this life, they will never choose men and babies for themselves.

She then mentions how schitzo our attitude towards sexuality is in this country, and points out this article in Salon, which is no surprise to me but still makes me a little ill, here's a quote:

But have you seen these Bratz dolls and their provocative underwear sets? These little pink and purple numbers include padded "bralettes" to better enhance your 6-year-old's cleavage. According to a piece in Saturday's Australian Herald Sun, these sets are for girls who are 6 and 7 years old. That's kindergarten, first grade, second grade, folks. And don't let the diminutive "bralette" fool you. These are brassieres. For Broadsheet readers who may not have experience with this: Girls that age do not typically wear bras. At all. Because they do not have breasts. Because they are children.

A spokeswoman from Bratz distributor Funtastic told the Herald Sun that the notion that the bras might sexualize children was silly. "The idea of the padding is for girls to be discreet as they develop ... It is more about hiding what you have got than showing it off." A Target spokesperson likewise argued that the padded bras "give girls modesty and style as they go through development changes." The message is that everyone should calm down: No one's trying to make your little girls voluptuous by selling them padded bras. They're just trying to make them feel shame about their bodies six years before puberty!

On a totally unrelated note, wasn't it Marx that said something about religion being the opiate of the masses? Maybe we could update it and say today's religion is the whiskey of the populace... check this out:

Gruber and Hungerman found that when states eliminated blue laws, church attendance declined while drinking and drug use increased significantly among young adults. Even more striking, the biggest change in bad behavior mostly occurred among those who frequently attended religious services, they report in a working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, "The Church vs. the Mall: What Happens When Religion Faces Increased Secular Competition?"

..... Before the shopping ban was lifted, about 37 percent of people in a state on average attended religious services at least weekly, Hungerman said. "After the laws are repealed it falls to 32 percent" -- a drop "not driven by declines in religiosity prior to the law change."

Instead of going to church, many of the faithful apparently were going astray. Marijuana use increased by 11 percentage points among church attendees, compared with those who never went to services, after the shopping ban was lifted. Cocaine use increased by nearly 4 percentage points, and heavy drinking increased by about 5 1/2 percentage points among churchgoers compared with those who never went to services, with frequent attendees even more likely to go on benders.

Well, I guess this is what happens when you use external things to replace your will, or self esteem, or rational view of the world, or whatever. Take away the external thing, and poof! I guess that's why right wingers are always trying to legislate morality - because they know that if their followers don't have somebody on the outside telling them what to do, that they'll go nuts.


I've watched the Princeton movie based on their study showing how they hacked a Diebold voting machine. I don't understand why we don't use what we've used here in Leon County - bubble scans. It's good enough for your SAT, isn't it? Heh. Anyway, they're very simple, and by their very nature there is a paper trail. And if you have halfway intelligent poll workers who can catch problems (like the dumbass voter filled in two bubbles rather than just one, or whatever) then there's no issue. Why is this even discussed? ARGH!!


And again, I say, we'll be in Iran by the end of 2007. Podhoretz thinks so, as does Krauthammer. I'm trying to figure out who was beating the drums before Iraq to see if they're saying the same things now about Iran. *sigh*

Woooohoooo!

I hope this is the beginning of them taking the gloves off, so to speak:


Landrieu:

"In light of the rantings that went on for 30 minutes by two colleagues from the other side, I'd like to state for the record that America is not tired of fighting terrorism; America is tired of the wrongheaded and boneheaded leadership of the Republican party that has sent six and a half billion a month to Iraq while the front line was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. That led this country to attack Saddam Hussein, when we were attacked by Osama bin Laden. Who captured a man who did not attack the country and let loose a man that did. Americans are tired of boneheaded Republican leadership that alienates our allies when we need them the most. Americans are most certainly tired of leadership that despite documenting mistake after mistake after mistake, even of their own party admitting mistakes, never admit they do anything wrong. That's the kind of leadership Americans are tired of."

She concluded,

"I'm not going to sit here as a Democrat and let the Republican leadership come to the floor and talk about Democrats not making us safe. They're the ones in charge and Osama bin Laden is still at loose."

So many things to read...

There are over four hundred items in my newsfire thing, with more being added every few minutes. There are some amazingly intelligent people out there blogging about politics. (There are some mind blowingly stupid ones too, of course. Bell curve, and all that.) During the 9/11 media blitz bullshit, one of the things I heard was on the Diane Rehm show, asking people how their lives had changed since the attack. I was thinking about it - I've become more political, more politically active. Hardly a week goes by that I'm not emailing somebody about something. (I have my congressman's number in my phone memory, how's that.) I've always been a registered independent, but I'm actually thinking of changing that now. While I still think the two party system is flawed and crappy, it's what we've got right now, and if I stand on the outside saying "hey, it would be better to do it THIS WAY" but don't actually get in and work with the current system to make a difference... that's less than helpful. (And besides, I'm tired of not being able to vote in the primaries, dammit. Unless I move to Wisconsin or something, I'm pretty much out of luck there.)

I have to say, tho, Bush's administration has made it easier to become more politically active. I've never become so incensed so frequently. If I didn't spew about it here, my head would have exploded by now. So the links I put here the other day are just a tiny example of the stuff I skim on a pretty much daily basis. If anybody's interested in the list of what I read, don't hesitate to ask. There's some great stuff out there. At some point I'll finally have my website back up with all the

OH MY GOD IS THAT ACTUALLY THE HUNGARIAN AMBASSADOR?

Linkfest continued

I wonder if I can get this in a poster?

I bet this has a whole lot less inaacuracies than the ABC crapu-drama that just aired. Wonder if anybody in town wants to set up a viewing.

I need to keep this link available the next time I bother trying to talk to MB about the idiocy of this war. (I've been tempted to email him and ask if he's heard more from his "friends on the inside; those guys who are still in the business"... but I can't keep myself from making snarky comments, and besides, if in the last conversation all he could respond with is that I didn't know enough to converse with him about the topic, then fuck him. That still makes me angry.)

Hey, those of you who own a TiVO or DVR or whatnot? Please consider this as a great way to give feedback to ABC if you're as cranky as I am. This list is a little more complicated, but still has some things that the uber-busy mensch can fit into their day of trying not to fall under the wheels.

Saw this quote today from an older article:

... the national-security choice for ordinary Americans in the post-September 11th era is... "Who's going to keep me from getting blown up by terrorists?" And that's the question Dubya makes sure to answer clearly (... "defeat the terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them here at home").

Yes, it's bullshit, but at least he's answering the core question in a way that phrases like "liberal internationalism" never will.

So, my advice to my fellow Democrats is this: Stop trying to articulate a progressive foreign policy vision. Instead, tell Americans why Dubya's foreign policy is going to get them blown up, and what we need to do to prevent that.

That still does seem to be the issue. Trying to explain nuances of international policy and the psychology of human beings to some people seems to be a lot like teaching a pig to sing.

Linkfest

I wish I'd learned better how to knit before Megan moved north. I'm going to have to save these instructions for later.

Wasn't there a website like this that let you do church signs? If not, we should make one.

This makes my month. It's things like this that change the world a few people at a time. The guys are now reading rather than comparing dick lengths - progress!

This is disturbing in an amusing way. Think we're heading here?

I'm not sure why, but this made me think of my bro-in-law Monster...

I'd love to see a brain scan of President Bush to see if it's similar to what's talked about in this article.

I treasure articles like these that still make me laugh - even if it's a sick, tired kind of laugh - about the insanity going on in our government.

This just amazed me.

More to come, I have about a hundred tabs open in firefox. (That might be why my poor iBook is running slowly...)

Note to self: Books to read when I'm not drowning in life and have brain cells to spare:

Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency by Ahmed Hashim
Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean
The One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind
The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind
Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib by Seymour M. Hersh
The Politics of Truth: A Diplomat's Memoir by Joseph Wilson
Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer
Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam & The Future of America by Michael Scheuer
What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News by Eric Alterman
The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America by David Horowitz
Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago by Michael Ledeen
Freedom Betrayed: How America Led a Global Democratic Revolution, Won the Cold War and Walked Away by Michael Ledeen
The Bush-Haters Handbook: A Guide to the Most Appalling Presidency of the Past 100 Years by Jack Huberman
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush by The Center for Constitutional Rights
Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Dangerous Presidency by Senator Robert Byrd
Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals are Plundering the Country and Hijacking our Democracy by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore
Take Back the Right: How the Neocons and the Religious Right Have Hijacked the Conservative Movement by Philip Gold
After the Neocons by Francis Fukuyama
America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy by Francis Fukuyama
Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet by Jim & James Mann

And for my kids: Is There Really a Human Race? by Jamie Lee Curtis


there are many more. Maybe I'll add them as I think of them. (that "people who bought this book also looked at this one" link at amazon is dangerous)

Things I wanted to share that I've found lately...

From Crooks & Liars:

Let’s play a game of "Name That Representative"

In August of 1966, a young Republican Congressman from Illinois gave a lengthy speech about the need for Congressional oversight over Vietnam war related contracts.

This congressman insisted that only "an investigating committee to be controlled by the minority, can assure vigorous investigation . . ."

By the way, the company that had obtained the contracts that this congressman railed against was Brown and Root - which later became Kellogg, Brown and Root, the subsidiary of Halliburton that is now the largest contractor in Iraq.

Facing South :

As a Republican congressman from Illinois in 1966, [he] raised questions about the 30-year association between Halliburton’s chairman and then-president Lyndon Johnson. "Why this huge contract has not been and is not now being adequately audited is beyond me," [he] said. "The potential for waste and profiteering under such a contract is substantial."

The name of that Congressman questioning long term relationships with war profiteers and demanding minority party oversight?

DONALD RUMSFELD

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

From A Tiny Revolution:

Two Disney Movies, Two Titles Containing "9/11," Two Strangely Different Outcomes

Why is the U.S. media such an eternal catastrophe? My standard explanation is that 99% of the disaster can be explained by the fact the media is (mostly) giant corporations, required by law to make as much money as possible. No conspiracy is required.

But...maybe I need to revise the 99% estimate downward:

ABC, after exploring all advertising avenues, has decided to show its upcoming two-part U.S. film, "The Path to 9/11," commercial-free when it airs next week...

In yet another surprise move, ABC has revealed it will also offer both parts of the film as a free online download at Apple's iTunes Music Store and stream the miniseries on its own Web site, ABC.com.

So..."The Path to 9/11" cost $30 million and was written and directed by conservative ideologues. Factually speaking, it's predictably craptastic. And yet Disney is glad to lose at least $30 million on it.

By contrast, this was Disney's treatment of another political movie—one that eventually grossed over $200 million:

The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday...

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many.

''It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle,'' this executive said.

So, right wing movie: Disney happily loses $30 million by running directly into a "highly charged partisan political battle."

Left-wing movie: Disney refuses to make gigantic amounts of money because they're so very scared they'll "alienate many."

Hmm. This would almost make me believe the media is conservative rather than liberal. Thank god we got the dispensation on this one that allows us to ignore all evidence forever.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

From The Agonist:
The Reconstruction of New Orleans vs. the Reconstruction of Lebanon

Immediately after the war in Lebanon ended, I predicted that Hezbollah would do a better job rebuilding southern Lebanon than the US government (federal, state and municipal) had done with New Orleans. Joyce Chediak has done a comparison:

In New Orleans, the people who could not self-evacuate the city, including the sick and people too poor to afford cars, were left to their own devices when the waters rose. Many of the most vulnerable drowned in their homes.

The tens of thousands of old, sick and infirm people who the city encouraged to gather in the Superdome until the storm passed were left there for five days. They had no medical attention, no sanitation, little water and food. Many died. Thousands of other flood survivors stranded at the Convention Center suffered the same fate.

All day the television networks showed footage of people stranded on roofs waving hand-made “help me” signs and others in the Superdome begging for water and medicine for dying seniors. Yet FEMA head Michael Brown said he didn’t realize the extent of the crisis until four days after the levees collapsed. Then he took another four days to rescue the survivors.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah, the force fighting and defending the villages, at the same time started helping the population as soon as the Israeli bombing began. The Lebanese resistance provided the ambulances and scores of searchers who pulled people from the rubble. They helped organize getting tens of thousands of refugees to schools, public parks and private homes (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 16).

In Beirut alone, Hezbollah organized 10 mobile medical teams that cared for 14 schools each, in two-day rotations, helping 48,000 people. Another 70,000 were treated in houses by other professionals.

In a Hezbollah kitchen near downtown Beirut, volunteers prepared 8,000 hot meals a day — part of a daily total of 50,000 they distributed across Beirut, reported the Monitor.

So. They handled things better during the disaster. How about after?

On Aug. 14, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said he would give money for “decent and suitable furniture” and a year’s rent to any Lebanese who lost their home in the war. Beginning in the very poorest community of Dehiya south of Beirut, the resistance is distributing $12,000 per family, a huge sum in Lebanon where monthly rents average $300 (New York Times, Aug 16).

A year later after the New Orleans flood, “Thousands of people are living amid ruins that stretch for miles on end. ... All you see is debris, debris, debris. ... The reminders of death are everywhere” (New York Times, June 21).

Little to nothing has been done to rebuild the 9th Ward. This majority African-American community is filled with rubble, coated with mud and mold. Advocates point out that much damage, such as advancing mold, could have been stopped if the area had been cleaned early on. Many residents would have gladly organized their own cleaning brigade, but they were banned entry for the first four months after the flood.

In Lebanon, on Aug. 14, the very day of the cease-fire, while Israel was withdrawing its troops from Southern Lebanon, there were reports that hundreds of Hezbollah members spread over dozens of villages across southern Lebanon began cleaning, organizing and surveying the damage. Men on bulldozers were busy cutting lanes through giant piles of rubble. Roads blocked with the remnants of buildings were, just a day after a cease-fire began, fully passable....

...In September, the home insurance giant Allstate refused to reimburse New Orleans homeowners who had flood insurance policies. The company claimed the homes were destroyed by the wind, not by flood (MarketWatch, Sept. 20, 2005).

In October, the Bush administration reneged on its promised to provide thousands of mobile homes as temporary housing for returning refugees (New York Times, Oct. 31, 2005).

After promising New Orleans federal housing loans to repair and rebuild, it became apparent that no special loan provisions had been made for victims of the flood and that the White House was pushing for hurricane disaster-recovery loans at a higher rate than any other administration in the last 15 years (USA Today, March 15)....

...Meanwhile in Lebanon, a Hezbollah spokesperson announced, “We have full information on all the buildings that have been destroyed or damaged. … “We will either pay for new flats or rebuild the buildings that were destroyed”
(Aljazeera.net, Aug. 19)....

...“There are people from Hezbollah coming regularly to check on us and give us bread and other basic items,” said Mohammad Bazih, 30, from the village of Baakline. Residents of Zabqine, where tobacco is cultivated, told the press that Hezbollah was providing them with basic services (Beirut Daily Star, Aug. 22).

Bottom line. Hezbollah is more competent than the US government, the State of Louisiana and the municipality of New Orleans. It is also better at fighting wars than the US (who is 0/2 where Hezbollah is 2/0) and, based on actions, not words, it cares more about the people it rules.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

From AMERICAblog:

GOP Congress blocked Clinton push for anti-terror legislation
by John in DC - 9/04/2006 11:10:00 AM

CNN, July 30, 1996

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the [Clinton] White House wants. Some they're not going to get." ....[Hatch] also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

So Bill Clinton, rather than just breaking the law as Bush did (then again, perhaps this is why Bush broke the law - he knew from history that the Republicans controlling the congress would oppose his efforts to expand wiretapping), decided to go to the Republican congress in 1996 and ask them for increased authority to do more eavesdropping in order to stop the terrorists - stop September 11. Senior Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the GOP's top picks for the Supreme Court and a GOP committee chair, objected.

The Republicans stopped President Clinton from getting all the tools he needed to stop the next September 11 - well, no, actually they opposed giving President Clinton all the tools he needed to stop the actual September 11. Could September 11 have been stopped if the GOP had given President Clinton the tools he requested to stop Osama and Mohammad Atta from killing 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington?

Maybe we need to ask the Republicans up for re-election why they wanted to appease the terrorists?

President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

There's even an audio clip of President Clinton practically begging the Republicans to give him the tools he needed to stop Osama and the terrorists. Trent Lott said no. Orrin Hatch said no. Do these men really deserve to run the Congress during a time of war?

Who the fuck put up Bob Casey against Santorum?

For the love of god, I'm watching Meet the Press and based on this interview, I wouldn't vote for either of these schmucks! Why, when they asked Santorum about Iraq and terrorism, and he responded with IranIranIran didn't Casey come back with "What you've just heard is Senator Santorum following the talking point memo he got that says IranIranIran 24/7 - and doesn't address any of the issues of the current war in Iraq that we got into (that has nothing to do with the war on terrorism), nor does it address the war on terrorism! Iran is another upcoming problem that this administration is rapidly exacerbating on the horizon, and based on how they've handled Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war for the hearts and minds of people across the globe, including right here in the US, I wouldn't trust them with grooming my DOG, let alone trying to finesse a delicate situation in Iran!"

Have I mentioned this yet?

I'm sort of half-assedly looking for a job. I've been out of the rat race for four years now, and it's a little disconcerting. I've not yet been able to find the old resumé that has dates of employment and whatnot, so I have only vague recollections about when I worked where. ("Lessee... I was working there right after high school but before I got married, so that must have been in 1994...")

I've been having pretty severe memory problems - my psych nurse points out that during times of high stress and not enough sleep that you're not likely to have a decently functioning memory. Looking back on the last 15 years, I realize that I've been under a lot of stress (99% of which was self inflicted, but the source doesn't matter) and rarely get enough sleep, so it's no wonder that large portions of my past are blanks. Disconcerting, yes. Surprising? No. My memory works by association, so if it's jogged, sometimes I can dredge something out of the darkness - but some periods of time are just gone.

How did I get off on that tangent? Anyway, I'm finding myself dealing with my old habits of self-destructiveness in the workplace. I'm talking myself out of applying for jobs. Amazingly enough, I've only been fired twice. One of those was a "we're not working out" at the 6 month period at a state job, so it was only a semi-firing. (At least that's what I tell myself, ha ha.) The other one was being let go from a consulting firm after sending the president of the company an email that informed him that the raging bitch that I think was my boss at the time was a detriment to his company, as she caused personnel problems (horrible turnover, lack of motivation, etc.) She was a backstabbing, incompetent woman who was sleeping with one of the employees that she supervised, and it was not pretty. Interestingly enough, the CIO caught my email before it was delivered and called me into his office and asked me if I REALLY wanted that email sent. I think I decided not to bother sending it, and I was let go not too long afterwards. I'm not sure if that email played a role; the project I was working on was done, so it might have been pure coincidence.

Here we come to my basic trouble - I have a Quixote complex. I think it was awful that in the consulting firm I worked for we were doing a project for the counties that basically plugged data into last year's form and didn't really do any analysis for them. I think it's awful that corporate thieves get away with stealing millions, and people that steal hundreds go to jail. I think it'sasininee that CEOs are making 500% more than their employees. I think politicians who capitalize on the deaths of 3000 people to control the electorate should go to hell and be tormented by the 25000 people a day who die of starvation elsewhere, just to give them some perspective. I have a desire to go to theology classes just so I can walk up to those morons on the street corner holding signs that say "The wages of sin is death" and expose to them (in Jed Bartlet style) their own stupidity and hypocrisy. I wish I could beat through Creationists' skulls that science doesn't address spirituality and that there is no conflict (unless they're those literal 6 day people, oy vey).

But it's now 1am a day or two after I started this post, and I'm going to finish it and work on other things, dangit. Or maybe sleep.

Finally!

J's been bugging me for forever now to watch Sideways with him. He finally got the movie from a friend, and we watched it tonight, whilst drinking wine and eating cheese crackers.

It was wonderful.

As a depressive, it was amazing to watch Giamatti's character. He nails it in so many infinitesimal ways.

Khang came over this afternoon and I baked him a peach cobbler for a get together tomorrow - it was fun, talking to an intelligent adult! :) Small world - guy he met online thru his car club thing turned out to be from the same town in Vietnam that Khang's parents are from. So they're all coming over to visit. They live in Houston, and have never had peach cobbler. (That's a sin, y'all.) So I told him to bring a recipe and the ingredients, and I'd be glad to play baker. (Hey, I get to bake it, but not eat it - better for my waistline, dontcha think?) I actually tried a recipe that basically called for pie crust. We'll see how it turns out - I've not made pie crust since I was nine. With the leftover peaches, I'm going to make us a small one that uses the biscuit-on-top method. (Much less effort that way.)

Speaking of baking without eating, if you've not watched Ace of Cakes on the Food Network, I highly recommend it. It never fails that I'm watching it and shouting to J "OMG, you have to see this!! This is EXACTLY how I would do it! And they made everything edible! And the bastards have all the tools, too, dammit..." I'm seriously thinking of writing him a letter offering to work for him for free for a week or two. *swoon*

Quote of the night from J: "When the Vatican looks Left of our Right, things are bad." (They just announced xtian zionism promotes something something and perpetual war. Heh.)

And now I'm going to go peruse the news whilst tipsy. Half a bottle of shiraz will do that to you. (When you're a lightweight like me)

AGAIN, I STATE MY BET: We will be in Iran by the end of 2007. I saw on one of the news shows as I flipped past it a nice little graphic that said "The Case For War" - and rumours from Washington include people saying "We've already lost the American people, so we might as well do the right thing."

Anybody want in on the betting pool?