MAUDLIN, TREACLEY PSEUDO-NEW-AGE PIECES OF CRAP

This came over email. At first, I thought it was yet another of those maudlin, treacly pseudo-new-age pieces of crap. Well, some of it is. But even though I'm a card carrying Jewish atheist, I found some of this to rise above the crap level, and actually contain some wisdom. What caused me to bother to post it was the part I italicized, near the end. I'll bear that in mind when I write my next rant about pinhead neocons or rightwing religious blowhards, which ought to be any minute.

Can you find at least two oxymorons in the above paragraph? Can you find at least two morons in the Bush adminstration? Of course you can. Reminds me a joke my late uncle Saul used to tell us repeatedly when we were kids. As we passed a cemetary, he would ask us, "How many people are buried in that cemetary?" "All of them," he would answer gleefully, after we all guessed numbers.

How many morons* in the Bush administration?

*susbtitute any of the following, same answer: hypocrites, liars, corrupt bureaucrats, rightwing idealogues, liars, facscists, oligarchists, plutocrats, simpering wimps--oh wait, that last one was for Colin Powell. Or the democrats.

Here's the post:

To: YOU
Date: TODAY
From: GOD - The Boss!
Subject: YOURSELF
Reference: LIFE

This is God. Today I will be handling All of your problems for you. I do Not need your help. So, have a nice day. I love you.

GOD


P.S.

And, remember....

If life happens to deliver a situation to you that you can not handle, do Not attempt to resolve it yourself !! Kindly put it in the SFGTD
(something for God to do) box. I will get to it in MY TIME. All situations will be resolved, but in My time, not yours.


P.S.S. Once the matter is placed into the box, do not hold onto it by worrying about it. Instead, focus on all the wonderful things that are present in your life now.

If you find yourself stuck in traffic; Don't despair. There are people in this world for whom driving is an unheard of privilege.

Should you have a bad day at work; Think of the man who has been out of work for years.

Should you despair over a relationship gone bad; Think of the person who has never known what it's like to love and be loved in return.

Should you grieve the passing of another weekend; Think of the woman in dire straits, working twelve hours a day, seven days a week to feed her children.

Should your car break down, leaving you miles away from assistance; Think of the paraplegic who would love the opportunity to take that walk.

Should you notice a new gray hair in the mirror; Think of the cancer patient in chemo who wishes she had hair to examine.

Should you find yourself at a loss and pondering what is life all about, asking what is my purpose? Be thankful. There are those who didn't live long enough to get the opportunity.

Should you find yourself the victim of other people's bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities; Remember, things could be worse. You could be one of them!

Should you decide to send this to a friend; Thank you, you may have touched their life in ways you will never know!

Now, you have a nice day,

God

ABOUT THE US IN IRAQ

''Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and
political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have
been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no
viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles.
Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for
handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq,
thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have
destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we
hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could
conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.''

In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written more than five years ago,
George Bush, Sr. wrote the lines reprinted above to explain why he didn't go
after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War.

(Thanks to wb for sending this in to the Gristmill.)

BUSH COURT NOMINEES WOULD OVERTURN LAWRENCE v. TEXAS

"The president elected in 2004 is very likely to appoint as many as three or four Supreme Court Justices, and if that president is George W. Bush, the recent decision overturning sodomy laws, as well as Roe v. Wade, will likely be reversed."

--Chairman Terry McAuliffe-- Democratic National Committee Statement, October 24

Bush's nominees to federal courts--the most unqualified, extremist, and dangerous bunch I've ever seen--makes it clear that his attempt to hijack America the way the Islamic fundamentalists have hijacked both Islam and Islamic countries is not to be dismissed.

Reproductive rights, privacy, affirmative action, parts of the Bill of Rights like separation of church and state--all would be eliminated or marginalized as well, and abominations like the Patriot Acts (I and proposed 2) would be declared constitutional. Basically everything that has made America what it is and what it can be is threatened even more by this turn of events than it already has been or will be by any other channel.

If Bush gets the opportunity to turn the Supreme Court into a tool of his neocon agenda, the future of this country, unequivocally, is lost. Generations will suffer under the tyranny, hypocrisy and moralism of that kind of court.

During the 2000 election campaigns Nader made naive sweeping pronouncements like there is no difference between the two parties. That's ignorant and dangerous, as Nader himself sadly turned out to be. Neither party will address the problem of corporate control of the country, as Nader correctly indicated, but even a centrist Democrat will not pack the federal and Supreme courts with stooges that can be depended upon to vote solely on the basis of right wing ideology.

If there was a doubt before that election of the importance of who sits on the Supreme Court, I would hope that doubt is dispelled forever.

If Bush is reelected, resistance is futile. We will be assimilated.

WISH I'D SAID THAT: PAUL KRUGMAN'S LATEST COLUMN

Actually, I did say some of this in a recent post, but not nearly as well as Krugman did.

A Willful Ignorance
By PAUL KRUGMAN

According to The New York Times, President Bush was genuinely surprised to learn from moderate Islamic leaders that they had become deeply distrustful of American intentions. The report on the "perception gap" suggests that the leader of the war on terror has no idea how badly that war — which must, ultimately, be a war for hearts and minds — is going.

Mr. Bush's ignorance may reflect his lack of curiosity: "The best way to get the news," he says, "is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff." Two words: emperor, clothes.

But there's something broader going on: a sort of willful ignorance, supposedly driven by moral concerns but actually reflecting domestic politics. Surely it's important to understand how others see us, but a new, post 9/11 version of political correctness has made it difficult even to discuss their points of view. Any American who tries to go beyond "America good, terrorists evil," who tries to understand — not condone — the growing world backlash against the United States, faces furious attacks delivered in a tone of high moral indignation. The attackers claim to be standing up for moral clarity, and some of them may even believe it. But they are really being used in a domestic political struggle.

Last week I found myself caught up in that struggle. I wrote about why Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia's prime minister — a clever if loathsome man who adjusts the volume of his anti-Semitism depending on circumstances — chose to include an anti-Jewish diatribe in his speech to an Islamic conference. Sure enough, I was accused in various places not just of "tolerance for anti-Semitism" (yes, I'm Jewish) but of being in Mr. Mahathir's pay. Smear tactics aside, the thrust of the attacks was that because anti-Semitism is evil, anyone who tries to understand why politicians foment anti-Semitism — and looks for ways other than military force to combat the disease — is an apologist for anti-Semitism and is complicit in evil.

Yet that moral punctiliousness is curiously selective. Last year the Bush administration, in return for a military base in Uzbekistan, gave $500 million to a government that, according to the State Department, uses torture "as a routine investigation technique," and whose president has killed opponents with boiling water. The moral clarity police were notably quiet.

Why is aiding a brutal dictator O.K., while trying to understand why others don't trust us — and doing something to create that trust — isn't? Why won't the administration mollify Muslims by firing Lt. Gen. William Boykin, whose anti-Islamic remarks have created vast ill will, from his counterterrorism position? Why won't it give moderate Muslims a better argument against the radicals by opposing Ariel Sharon's settlement policy, when a majority of Israelis think that some settlements should be abandoned, and even Israeli military officers have become bitterly critical of Mr. Sharon?

The answer is that in these cases politics takes priority over the war on terror. Moderate Muslims would have more faith in America's good intentions if there were at least the appearance of a distinction between the U.S. and the Sharon government — but the administration seeks votes from those who think that supporting Israel means supporting whatever Mr. Sharon does. It's sheer folly to keep General Boykin in his present position, but as Howard Fineman writes in a Newsweek Web-exclusive column, the administration doesn't want "to make a martyr of a man who depicts himself as a Christian Soldier, marching off to war."

Muslims are completely wrong to think that the U.S. is engaged in a war against Islam. But that misperception flourishes in part because the domestic political strategy of the Bush administration — no longer able to claim the Iraq war was a triumph, and with little but red ink to show for its economic plans — looks more and more like a crusade. "Election Boils Down to a Culture War" was the title of Mr. Fineman's column. But the analysis was all about abortion and euthanasia, and now we hear that opposition to gay marriage will be a major campaign theme. This isn't a culture war — it's a religious war.

Which brings me back to my starting point: we'll lose the fight against terror if we don't make an effort to understand how others think. Yet because of a domestic political struggle that seems ever more centered on religion, such attempts at understanding are shouted down.

IS BUSH MEAN AND STUPID?

Interesting interview with Molly Ivins today on NPR. She's one of Bush's fiercest critics, author of recent bestseller Bushwacked, and wonderful columnnist. She's a Texan, and said today that she's known Bush much of her life and he isn't mean or stupid, as is often cited, but that his policies are devastating the country.

If he isn't mean or stupid, but his policies are mean and stupid, and result in mean-spirited behavior and action, the result, seems to me, is the same. Mean and Stupid.

EVIL GOP BASTARDS

I may have to retire. A friend alerted me to a sight that says it all. Here's a sample:

"Since the New Deal, Republicans have been on the wrong side of every issue of concern to ordinary Americans; Social Security, the war in Vietnam, equal rights, civil liberties, church- state separation, consumer issues, public education, reproductive freedom, national health care, labor issues, gun policy, campaign-finance reform, the environment and tax fairness. No political party could remain so consistently wrong by accident. The only rational conclusion is that, despite their cynical "family values" propaganda, the Republican Party is a criminal conspiracy to betray the interests of the American people in favor of plutocratic and corporate interests, and absolutist religious groups. Why? Because they're evil GOP bastards!"

This is site rich with articles, letters, rants, and links about, well, those evil bastards.

That's where I found this great quote:

"Rush Limbaugh is full of shit."
--Wesley Clark

http://evilgopbastards.com/

THE WORLD IS "MORE PEACEFUL AND FREE UNDER MY LEADERSHIP" SAYS BUSH

Dubya says he's going to run for reelection on peace and security, and declared that the world is "more peaceful and more free under my leadership.

I've seen more leadership coming from Al Sharpton, or the slugs in my garden (apologies to Sharpton).

This guy really does think we are simpletons. OK, grand sweeping statements aren't limited to cerebrally-challenged presidents. But Bush has less claim to these kinds of statement than anyone since Nixon.

I think he is misunderestimating we the people.

We know, for instance, that Pakistan not only still harbors terrorists, but it's own leadership is on shaky grounds as its population becomes increasingly fundamentalist.

We know, for instance, that the Taliban are regrouping in Afghanistan, that the warlords have as much power as ever, that the opium trade is fueling both activities, and that Karzai will be lucky to survive.

We know, for instance, that North Korea is holding the region and the West hostage to its own nuclear megalomania, and this administration seems impotent.

And we know that anti-semitism is seeing the biggest revival since the pre-WW2 era, and that inevitably will lead to less peace, not more.

We know that this administration's efforts to defuse the Israeli-Palestinian mess are....well, what efforts? The Roadmap to Peace? And that took three years to introduce, and lasted how many weeks?

Iraq? Today the administration links the bombings to "an emerging alliance between remnants of the former regime and foreign fighters who came to wage a so-called holy war against US forces." This is stated as exculpatory. Oh give us a break. Is there anyone to the left of Attila the Hun who didn't foresee this, and know it was happening months ago?

Which reminds me--Osama? One gets the feeling that Bush's plan now is simply to not acknowledge his existence. When was the last time you heard Bush refer to bin Laden? Audio tapes still come regularly, and it's clear that bin Laden is still orchestrating terror and inciting hatred as strongly as ever. I've heard nothing, absolutely nothing, from this administration regarding attempts to find or disenfranchise Osama. How many of the 150 or so billions allocated to Iraq would it have taken to mount a campaign against the real threat to our security?

And we know that Bush's defacto support of General Boykin is enraging even moderate Muslims around the world. As one pundit pointed out, if Boynton had publicly criticized the administration's policies, he'd be gone in a minute. But apparently it's OK for him to make the most inflammatory and ignorant comments heard from these shores since 9/11, and the administration is effectively silent.

Thus has Bush addressed the hatred Islamic fundamentalists (among many others) feel for America. Has he even come close to acknowledging that he understands where that comes from and what needs to be done? "They hate freedom," is his mantra. That'll work.

So do you feel more secure than you did three years ago?

Canadian citizenship is becomingly increasingly attractive.

FLORIDA GOVERNOR JEB BUSH ORDERS FEEDING TUBE RE-INSERTED IN BRAIN-DAMAGED BROTHER

By Bolivar Shagnasty

TALAHASSEE, October 21 –Four days ago, President George W. Bush’s feeding tube was removed by a team of physicians headed by Senate majority leader Dr. Bill Frist, who felt it was in the best interests of the Republican Party. But today, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, citing “inviolable right-wing religious principles,” ordered that doctors reinsert a feeding tube into his brain-damaged brother.

Since January 14, 2001, when a pretzel cut off the oxygen supply to his brain, George Bush has struggled valiantly to lead the United States. But his presidency has been marred by his near- vegetative state, and has resulted in destructive, irrational and simply stupid actions. This has led many observers to conclude that a merciful death would be better both for Bush and the world.

But Governor Bush invoked his brother’s right to life and intervened. “Moreover,” said Jeb Bush, “my brother was installed as president by Florida, not the United States as a whole, and therefore it is we who get to make the decisions.”

Asked what substances would be traveling through the feeding tube, Governor Bush was at first evasive, but finally admitted that “George really likes mulched-up Little Debbie cakes. And of course, pretzels are a no-no.”

When pressed whether W., as the family calls him, was in any shape for the world’s most powerful office, Governor Bush retorted, “That’s for the Bush family and their close friend God to decide.”

--Shamelessly Lifted from DCPox, my favorite satire site: www.dcpox.com

LIBERAL TALK RADIO AND TV?

Al Franken talked about progressive talk radio at his book tour forum a few weeks ago. It's been bandied about that he would be hosting such a show soon, and he pretty much confirmed that.

Here's excerpts from an article on the subject, with a link to the whole article:

Are the U.S. Airwaves About to Lean to the Left?
By Simon Houpt, The Globe and Mail, Saturday 25 October 2003
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/102703J.shtml


Al Gore is reported to be exploring a purchase of Newsworld International, a U.S. cable channel formerly owned by CBC that currently airs news from Germany, the U.K., and Japan, along with CBC programs such as Hot Type and The National. During the Iraq war, many Americans turned to NWI, as it is known, for an alternative to the resolutely pro-American narrative followed by even the most skeptical U.S. broadcast networks.

Gore may be planning to offer an even stronger alternative. With Democratic fundraisers, he is exploring the possibility of purchasing NWI from Vivendi Universal SA, which just completed an agreement to merge with NBC and is looking to unload the channel. Although his partner in the venture, Joel Hyatt, refused comment on the matter, they are reported to be considering transforming the channel into either a left-wing alternative to FNC or a youth-oriented MTV-style news outlet that can tap into the inchoate liberal leanings of a large bloc of potential voters who don't usually go to the polls.

The television channel is only one element that could help shift the U.S. media landscape again.


Sheldon Drobny, a Chicago venture capitalist who calls the Clintons and Gores personal friends, says he will launch a liberal talk-radio network in January, in time to gain enough traction to affect next year's presidential election.

Stand-alone progressive talk-radio shows were attempted in the past but failed to catch fire like those hosted by right-wing firebrands Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North, partly because they were out of place on stations dedicated to the conservative point of view.

Some industry analysts believe talk radio's belligerent spirit, like cable television news, simply isn't suited for a left-wing slant. Liberals are perceived to be too diverse of mind and not as passionately dogged as the more unified conservative audience. (Rush Limbaugh's listeners are known as "dittoheads" for their propensity to reflexively agree with the host.) But Drobny is convinced those assumptions are wrong. He's bet $10-million on proving that progressive talk radio can flourish.

Drobny isn't the only one who believes there's money to be made on the left. The media conglomerate Clear Channel Communications, which supported the Iraq war and is close with the Bush administration, is considering a launch of its own liberal talk network on some of its 1,200 radio stations across the U.S. Even Fox is now syndicating Alan Colmes, the mildly liberal co-host of the shoutfest Hannity & Colmes, to talk-radio stations.

He says his network will program 14 to 16 hours of talk a day, including three hours hosted by comedian-cum-political gadfly Al Franken, who incurred the wrath of FNC executives last summer when he attacked some of the channel's high-profile talent in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.

THE REAL REASON WHY THE SUN SET ON THE BRITISH EMPIRE

Sulfur Emissions tests found that 52% of Britons have breath worse than a typical dog's.

Consider the parts of the animal that Brits regulary eat. No wonder their breath smells offal.

IF TEXAS WANTS TO SECEDE, CAN WE HELP?

A Dallas couple who took snapshots of their baby breast-feeding were arrested after the photo lab called police. The parents were charged with "lewd exhibition of portion of the female breast" and inducing a child "to engage in sexual conduct." The charges were dropped, but the couple's two children were taken by child welfare officials and have not been returned home.

Ya want to have rooted for Santa Anna.

2,102,400 CHILDREN DEAD EACH YEAR

Parade magazine--yes, I know--reports that a child dies every 15 seconds from drinking contaminated water. My abacus tells me that's 2,102,400 per year. That's a staggering figure. It's clear that most of these deaths occur in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, the areas, as the article reports, with the most contaminated water.

Developing countries. And what is the source of most of the ills of developing countries?

Oh, take your pick: historical and current western political and economic imperialism; usurping of power in many of these countries by tyrants whose lust for power trumps any concern for the well being of the citizenry and the economies that sustain standards of living; support of these tyrants as proxies by developed countries; drought; racism; the continual emasculating by conservative power of international bodies that could help, like the UN; and bad luck. None but the last can be considered alone, as most are interconnected.

Take food. Please. It's pretty well known that there is plenty of food around to feed all the hungry of the world. The problem is getting the food to them. Food, and the means of distribution, are often used as pawns by warlords and tyrants. Economic policies of developed countries also contribute to poverty and starvation. Many peoples export their crops for meager returns, thanks to free trade. Similarly many turn to export crops like cotton, tobacco, or coca, rather than food for their own country or region's use.

This is all remedial, but there appears to be no international will to end these practices and policies. The World Bank and the IMF (maybe not quite as evil as the Papacy, but close enough) until very recently were hugely responsible for much of this misery in the developing world. It's only the obvious extent of their calumny and the consistent pressure from anti-globalization forces around the world that have prompted even a modicum of reform in these agencies.

It's rare that one sees good news for these parts of the world, and even then they are underreported in favor of bombast and death. But it does happen: The success of mini-loans (even a few dollars in some cases) that offers people opportunities for sustainable enterpreneurial efforts--an incredibly successful program that is finally being supported by western capitalism; the development of simple and incredibly cheap solar cookers that were in fact widely reported a few years ago (but about which little has been seen lately).

Now, that Parade article reports the discovery by a Swiss researcher that leaving a clear plastic bottle of water in bright sun for six hours killed the pathogens that cause diarrhea. The combination of UVA light and heat does those little buggers in.

What a discovery! Millions of lives can be saved at almost no cost, gobs of misery eliminated.

How many clear plastic one or two-gallon water jugs are discarded or recycled every day in America alone?

So wouldn't a simple and terrific answer be for some international agency to create a program whereby these bottles are gathered up, cleaned, and given to people in sunny climes all over the world who suffer from contaminated water?

Sure. And the Red Sox will win the World Series.

And now the irony. Of course many of these same areas that suffer from diarrheal death also suffer from lack of food, and starvation kills many kids as well. I have to wonder how many of the lives saved with pure water would in turn die from starvation.

And for the rest of us, life goes on.

IS IT REALLY NECESSARY TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT ANN COULTER?

No. Let's boycott any website that even mentions her name.

WHAT MAKES A POLITICAL CONSERVATIVE

I'm feeling ambivalent about this article.



Researchers help define what makes a political conservative
By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 22 July 2003 (revised 7/25/03)

BERKELEY - Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism.

The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.

Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.

The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.

The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.

Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).

Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.

This research marks the first synthesis of a vast amount of information about conservatism, and the result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of motivated social cognition, said Sulloway. That entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs.

The researchers' analytical methods allowed them to determine the effects for each class of factors and revealed "more pluralistic and nuanced understanding of the source of conservatism," Sulloway said.

While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do.

As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality, he said, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position.

The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."

They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental.

"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote.

This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised.

The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and or need for closure, said Glaser.

"For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.

Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.

The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.

Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.

Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.

He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."

FOR RICHARD LEDERER

The Boston Pops Orchestra was in the middle of Beethoven's ninth symphony, but conductor John Williams was worried. He'd earlier found his bass section passing a bottle around, getting boozed up right before a performance! So far they were doing fine, but this particular symphony required extra effort from the basses at the end. The situation made Williams so nervous that just as he was about to cue the basses, he knocked over his music stand. The sheet music was scattered. And his worst fear was realized: It was the bottom of the 9th, no score, and the basses were loaded.

RAGEBOY

A friend just informed me of this blog:http://www.rageboy.com/blogger.html

This is the terrific blog of Christopher Locke, author of The Cluetrain Manifesto. In my early years as fish-out-of-water at Harvard Business Review, this book was the buzz. In fact, Locke was the keynote speaker at a major industry trade show in 2001. I liked his style, but I knew little about him, and really had no idea he was so, well, cool, until I saw his blog. He seems to fit in both worlds a lot better than I ever did. Of course, I'm not ultimately sure that's a plus, but the site is lots of fun regardless.

BUSH'S ANTI-CHOICE NOMINEES TO THE FEDERAL BENCH

This is not news, and that's the tragedy. The democrats have chosen to fiercely oppose a few of these nominees, but many others have been approved already.

More are being nominated right now, and they are even worse than those that are now being fought.

Even if some of the damage to the body politic that Bush has inflicted can be reversed, and that's a great "if", these appointments are lifetime. When Nader tried to tell us there was no difference between the two parties, he conveniently overlooked the appointments to the federal, and maybe the Supreme, courts--appointments that will negatively impact us all for generations.

It's one of the greatest insults to the American public to promote these incredibly unqualified people to positions of lasting influence. It's also one of the most cynical moves of this administration. Bush needs his radical right voter base, and it appears he will do anything to favor them. Of course, he himself may approve of the nominees' positions, and their injecting of radical opinion into judicial decisions. All the more obnoxious. I used to ask, which is worse, that Reagan believes what he says, or that he doesn't?

NARAL, among many other moderate and progressive organizations, is fighting these nominations. Their site is at http://www.prochoiceamerica.org. As is the case with many sites, they make it easy to send your protests to congress, or give you info to do it yourself.

Here's what they say in their newsletter about two recent nominees; first, about Janice Brown:

"Now Bush is at it again. This time, he is looking to promote Janice Rogers Brown, a radically conservative justice on the California Supreme Court. Her record makes her the perfect Bush pick: she's anti-choice and anti-privacy, and she routinely injects her extreme right-wing views into her judicial opinions.

Radically anti-choice Claude Allen will come before the Senate Judiciary Committee this Tuesday. Nominated to a lifetime seat on the powerful Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Allen has one of the worst anti-choice records of any Bush nominee - and that's saying a lot!"


And then about Claude Allen:

"Thank you for being at the forefront of so many of our hard fought battles. I write to urge your opposition to President Bush's nomination of Claude Allen to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. I hope you will attend this hearing on October 28, ask about Allen's record on the right to choose, and voice your opposition.

Claude Allen has worked throughout his career to impose his own personal and political views on others, making it highly unlikely that he would be capable of fairly hearing cases involving reproductive rights. Allen's anti-choice views are not confined to the law or policy - he is also an anti-choice political activist.

Also, the White House has bypassed two Democratic Senators by nominating Allen for a seat that by tradition and population should go to a Maryland attorney. This political move demonstrates how right-wing ideology trumps all other consideration for judicial nominations by this administration

Federal judges must fairly apply the law and follow court precedents. Brown has a record of judicial activism. If confirmed to the federal courts, she's likely to disregard established precedent and rule against constitutional rights.

Brown received an "unqualified" rating for the state supreme court by the State Bar of California, particularly because of her disregard for established precedents and her record of injecting her personal views into judicial rulings."


After the passage of the recent anti-abortion bill, egregiously and knowingly erroneously framed by the control-freaks as the 'partial-birth abortion" bill*, these nominees pose another threat to constitutional rights, and will impose their own morality, like their leader, on those of us to whom that so-called morality is repugnant.

*See William Saletan's Oct 22 column "The "Partial-Birth" Myth--No, it's not a birth" at Slate: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090201/?0sl=-10

THE NEW "L" WORD

Paul Krugman, NY Times columnist and professor of Economics at Princeton, and now progressive hero, told us recently at his book tour appearance in Cambridge about the atmosphere at the times back in 2000. Krugman had been undergoing a slow radicalization, as he called it. He said he couldn't believe that the American public would accept the tax cut that Bush was proposing. As an economist, he knew the truth about that cut, and that what Bush was saying about the tax cut were very big lies. But then there was not the groundswell of protest that he expected, and the cut passed easily. It appeared to be a wake up call for Krugman, who until then, he says, had been moderate.

So he knew Bush was telling lies. But the atmosphere at the Times was such that he could not use that L word.

How Times have changed. Now the words "lies" and "liar" are not only the currency of the left, but are creeping into the center and finally into conservative circles. One would think that the neocon's betrayal of traditional conservative values and positions, and dissembling about that fact, would have aroused their ire long ago. Why didn't that happen? Britney Spears explained it all recently.

Anyway, now that the evidence of the lies is irrefutable, and everybody with any integrity is regularly using the L words, Krugman indicated that the Times has ceased its prohibition. All the news that fits, they print.

William Pitt's latest column addresses the issue of lying in the context of what he calls ABBA--this time not the much-loved Swedish meatballs, but the Anyone But Bush Association. I'm a proud member, and we also sing Dancing Queen when our branch gets together at the Paradise, because, of course, when it comes to ABBA, we can go either way.

Pitt also touches on one of the greatest obscenities of this administration and its apologists and hangers--that they are guilty of the very things they accuse everyone else of, while selfrighteously denying any such thing. Bill O'Reilly and Limbaugh are typical of the media whores who do this for a living, and the religious right, whose are as blind to their own fear-motivated hate and arrogance as could be, pick up the slack. Pitt refers to the right's criticism of opponents of Bush. The opponents "just hate Bush for the sake of simple hatred," say the Bush defenders. One word: Clinton. The fanatical, illogical, and irrational hatred of Clinton by these same people is conveniently ignored or dismissed whenever it comes up. Do we have a stronger word than hypocrite? The Great Satan? OK, that's three words. It'll do.

Here's the column:

Anyone But Bush
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Wednesday 22 October 2003

Looking at both sides of the debate over the looming 2004 Presidential campaign, one finds weirdness on both sides of the political aisle. From the mouths of those who advocate for the current administration, we find this feigned outrage directed at those who criticize George W. Bush. The critics, we are told, have no substance to them. They just hate Bush for the sake of simple hatred. Many who argue from the liberal/progressive realm, conversely, cast their eyes across the nine Democratic candidates for the office and find each and every one of them sorely wanting in one way or another.

In other words, liberals just hate Bush because they just hate Bush, and simultaneously dislike all the Democratic candidates because they do not pass the purity test. Those within the liberal realm who argue the 'ABBA' perspective ('ABBA' being the 'Anyone But Bush Association') are denounced by a segment of their fellow liberals for having no standards, no morals, no integrity.

ABBA people tend to be upfront about the fact that they would vote for a baloney sandwich before voting Bush in 2004. This does not pass the smell test for many of their fellow progressives. Has the baloney sandwich ever held office before? Does the baloney sandwich have a record it can run on? Did the baloney sandwich vote for the Iraq war? Did the baloney sandwich vote for the Patriot Act? Where does the baloney sandwich stand on the Israel/Palestine issue?

Et cetera.

There is no doubt that these are important issues, and there is no doubt that ABBA advocates will have to swallow a degree of their liberal integrity when they stand to support whomever wins the Democratic nomination in Boston this coming summer. Yet the conservative defenses of Bush and his 'haters,' along with liberal denunciations of the ABBA perspective as being without integrity, do not pass my own personal smell test.

The thing is, the conservative White House defenders are spot-on correct about one thing. I despise George W. Bush. I despise his Vice President, his Senior Political Advisor, his Chief of Staff, his Defense Secretary, his Assistant Defense Secretary, his Attorney General, his National Security Advisor, and his chosen Ambassador to the United Nations. Those names, in case you are confused, are Cheney, Rove, Card, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Rice and Negroponte.

I despise his Congressional allies, who have shredded their constitutional duties by refusing to investigate a variety of incredible crimes. For the record, these crimes include the fabrication of Iraq war evidence, the outing of a WMD-hunting CIA agent in an act of political revenge, and the serious questions about how four commercial aircraft fooled the entire domestic defense shield and the entire intelligence community long enough to kill three thousand people.

I despise any and all of his people who fanned out two years ago to pound into the American consciousness the idea that criticizing Bush is treason. If you think that is over, take a gander at the first paragraph of an editorial entitled 'Kennedy, Other Critics, Are Traitors' that appeared today in a local Philadelphia paper called the Daily Local. The author, one Harlan "Buck" Ross, does an admirable job of describing the attitude the Bush administration has about its critics:

"According to my dictionary a 'traitor' is a person who behaves disloyally; one who betrays his country. What I hear from U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., is nothing short of traitorous. The nine (10?) would-be candidates for the presidency in 2004 are but a short distance behind him with their ranting and raving and irresponsible blaspheming of the president of the United States."

Call me old-fashioned, but I could have sworn that one can only blaspheme against God. When criticism of this President, or any President, is rhetorically raised to the level of blasphemy, we the people have an enormous problem on our hands.

Yeah, I hate them all. Do I hate for the simple sake of hatred? Do I hate Bush because he is a Republican, a Texan, a white male, a meat-eater? Certainly not. I hate George W. Bush and all of his people because they have done an incredible amount of damage to this nation I hold so dear. I hate them because they are professional liars, thieves, brigands without conscience. I hate them, fully and completely, on the record.

They lied about the need for this war. If you won't take it from me, take it from an avowed conservative and Bush voter named Paul Sperry, who wrote an editorial entitled 'Yes, Bush Lied' on October 6. This was published, if you can believe it, on the ultra-right-wing website WorldNetDaily.com, the same page that carries such luminaries as Ann Coulter. Feast:

"According to the consensus of Bush's intelligence services, there was 'low confidence' before the war in the views that 'Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland' or 'share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qaida.' Their message to the president was clear: Saddam wouldn't help al-Qaida unless we put his back against the wall, and even then it was a big maybe. If anything, the report was a flashing yellow light against attacking Iraq. Bush saw the warning, yet completely ignored it and barreled ahead with the war plans he'd approved a month earlier (Aug. 29), telling a completely different version of the intelligence consensus to the American people. Less than a week after the NIE was published, he warned that 'on any given day' - provoked by attack or not, sufficiently desperate or not - Saddam could team up with Osama and conduct a joint terrorist operation against America using weapons of mass destruction."

In essence, Bush used the attacks of September 11 against the American people to gin up fear and dread, which he then used to push a war which did not need to be fought. Sperry, some devastating paragraphs later, concludes:

"Forget that Bush lied about the reasons for putting our sons and daughters in harm's way in Iraq; and forget that he sent 140,000 troops there with bull's-eyes on their backs, then dared their attackers to bring it on. It was the height of irresponsibility to have done so in the middle of a war on al-Qaida, the real and proven threat to America. Bush diverted those troops and other resources - including intelligence assets, Arabic translators and hundreds of billions of tax dollars - from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders along the Afghan-Pakistani border. And now they've regrouped and are as threatening as ever. That's inexcusable, and Bush supporters with any intellectual honesty and concern for their own families' safety should be mad as hell about it - and that's coming from someone who voted for Bush."

Mr. Sperry, in all likelihood, will remember these gems:

"This is a man that we know has had connections with al-Qaida. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al-Qaida as a forward army." - Bush, October 14, 2002

"Yes, there is a linkage between al-Qaida and Iraq." - Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, September 26, 2002

"There have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al-Qaida going back for actually quite a long time." - National Security Advisor Rice, September 25, 2002

The list of lies this administration told is long and distinguished. The number of lies told specifically about Iraq - his claim in May that "We found the weapons of mass destruction," his claim that Iraq refused to let the inspectors in when they demonstrably had, his claims about Iraq procuring uranium from Niger, his claims that Iraq was a threatening nation capable of attacking within 45 minutes, the mobile weapons labs, the aluminum tubes story, the mushroom clouds - boggle the mind. A few more to consider:

* He lied about wanting Osama bin Laden "Dead or alive" in September of 2001 because he turned around that March and claimed bin Laden was of no importance.

* His National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, said, "We had no way of predicting that terrorists would hijack planes and crash them into buildings." This was a lie. I have spoken to several engineers in the building-building business. Large buildings, and especially large government buildings, are constructed with a number of potential catastrophes in mind. A purposefully crashed airplane has been on that hazard list for a very long time. This, in combination with the warnings given to this administration by foreign intelligence services that were specifically about hijacked aircraft being used as aerial bombs, makes the whole sordid excuse reek.

* He lied about making America a "humble nation," and lied about "changing the tone." America has virtually no friends left within the international community because we have been violently belligerent instead of humble. The cries of "Traitor!" against administration critics have certainly changed the tone, but for the worse.

* He said, "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." This was a fantastic lie. The tax cuts benefited the vast majority of very rich people across the entire spectrum of very rich people. Those truly at the bottom of the spectrum received a pittance, and have watched the social programs they depend on die from lack of funding, because said funding was squandered by the tax cuts. By the end of the decade, Bush's tax cuts will substantially increase the tax burden on middle-class families.

* He lied when he said he did not know Mr. Enron, Ken Lay, before 1996. Lay was one of Bush's most generous benefactors well before 1996. The number of lies told about the specifics of Bush's relationship to Lay and Enron, and the many ways Bush tried to rescue that criminal company, would require a list that stretches around the moon. When Bush said, "Ken who?" after being questioned by the press about his Enron connections, this stretched the definition of bold lying into impressive new shapes.

* He lied about the reasons for the attacks of September 11. It was "enemies who hate our freedom," and not a constellation of foreign policy decisions made by this administration as well as its predecessors reaching back before 1978, that caused the attack. This lie, in particular, is diabolical. An American populace who are not given the understanding that actions have consequences is an American populace that can be easily led into an unnecessary war in the Mideast.

* He lied when he took credit for a Patients Bill of Rights as Governor of Texas. In fact, he vetoed the bill. Likewise, he took credit for reforms to the Texas educational system that had been put in place by Ann Richards and Mark White, among others.

* He lied broadly and often about his military service, despite the fact that no one in his Texas Air National Guard unit can remember laying eyes on him for almost two years of his tour. "I've been to war. I've raised twins. Given a choice, I'd rather go to war," said Bush to the Houston Chronicle on January 27, 2002. Cute, George. Problem: You've never been to war. Liar. The swagger across the aircraft carrier, by default, is a nauseating lie as well.

* He lied to the entire city of New York, and to the cops, firefighters and EMTs in particular. He said the air in New York was fine after 9/11 when he knew from his EPA chief that it was poison. He promised vast new funding to the police, fire and EMT departments in New York. Not a dime has been provided. It all went to the tax cuts and the Iraq war...which means it went to Bush's wealthy allies and friends in the defense industry. Fancy that.

We would be here all day if this list were constructed to be comprehensive. The above is representative: George W. Bush has lied about September 11, the Iraq war, the economy, his record as governor of Texas, his relationship with corporate criminals, and his own military record. In short, he has lied day after day after day about all of the issues he and his administration claim to hold dear.

I do not hate George W. Bush merely for the sake of hatred, or because he is a Republican. I hate him because he is a cancer that is rotting out the guts of this country. I hate him because he would not know the truth if it crawled up his leg and grabbed him by the nose. Truth does not advance the profit motive.

For liberals who denounce the ABBA perspective as being without integrity, my response is simple. Voting for anyone who can remove Mr. Bush, his administration, and all of these deadly lies from the highest office in the land is an act of singular integrity and patriotism. All hail the baloney sandwich, and never mind the blasphemy.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of truthout.org. He is a New York Times and international best-selling author of three books - "War On Iraq," available from Context Books, "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available from Pluto Press, and "Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism," available in August from Context Books.

ANOTHER BENEFIT FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

"Most Americans still rank trust high on their list of virtues,
invariable citing it as the most important quality they seek in a
relationship. Indeed, to be able to trust fully is the single most
important criterion for a lasting, deeply satisfying relationship."

"Trust is the cornerstone of every relationship we have - an unspoken
assumption about how we will behave toward, as well as be treated by
others. And because it is unspoken, we assume everyone else operates
from the same reference point that we do. We expect those we trust
to be faithful, loyal and honest. With trust comes respect, personal
safety and intimacy. When someone deceives us, when they hide parts
of themselves or their actions from us, when they tell us only what
they think we want to hear, or when they put their needs above ours,
they demolish our dignity and shatter our self-esteem. The fallout
from broken trust remains astonishingly the same: the victims are left
with a gut-wrenching emptiness and hurt. They don't feel safe any
longer - emotionally, physically, spiritually, sometimes even
financially. Many victims discover that, while they can no longer
count on those who betrayed them, neither can they trust themselves.
Their judgement is now faulty, their lives paralyzed. Whey they fail
to acknowledge is that their own goodness and intelligence cannot help
them anticipate, or protect them from, the malice and dishonesty of
others."

From “How Could You Do This To Me?" Dr. Jane Greer.

NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES?

A post to one progressive list contained these words:
"Vote Greens, Vote Commies, Vote Socialists, Vote Peace and Freedom; Vote anything but Democrat or Republican or Libertarian if you really want to start the country down a new road. America is sick to the core. We need new directions. Not another Republican/Democrat. They are one and the same."

I responded:


"...for me the biggest and only priority is defeating Bush.
I don't see how advocacy of supporting third parties now
will help do that.

The practical reality is that a third party presidential candidate
will only siphon votes away from the
democrats, as Nader did in 2000, and as a result we got Bush
and his evil cabal. While a viable progressive third party is
critical to the future of democracy as you and I define it, another
Bush term will do more to destroy that democracy than the lack
of that viable third party. Look at the damage so far; and with no
election to worry about, and empowered by another victory,
these evildoers will make our lives hell. You think the country is
sick now? Give them another four years. Their goal is to bring
back the "constitution in exile"--the way this country was
before the New Deal, maybe even before Teddy Roosevelt.
They want to bankrupt the govt so it cannot fund any social
programs--that's what the tax cut is all about.

The dems aren't heroes, and they won't take
us in new directions, but they'll not put another
Scalia or Thomas on the Supreme Court, or fill the federal
courts with right wing extremist scum.

They won't kill social programs,
and they won't kill the separation of church and state.
They won't pass Patriot Act 2--they wouldn't have passed #1
or Total Information Awareness,
or glibly ignore the 4th amendment and other civil protections.
They won't call you and I traitors and try to silence us because
we visibly protest their plans and policies. They won't try to
emasculate the Bill of Rights (except for 'ol #2). They won't
pass or propose a constitutional amendment banning
same-sex marriage. The won't overturn Roe vs.. Wade.
They won't allocate 50% of their promised AIDS $ for
Africa to abstinence-only programs, or withhold money from
int'l health orgs if they even mention abortion. They won't
effectively kill school health programs that advocate condom
use for all, especially LGBT teens, or organize local school
boards and bigots to squelch straight-gay alliances in high schools
They won't remove mention of condoms as a means of safe sex from the CDC
web site. They won't preemptively attack other nations, alienate most of
the world, cut the balls off the UN (another long term republican goal).
They won't kill 15,000 people for regional hegemony and control over
oil and lie in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (well,
not as blatantly, anyway, and maybe not at all).
They certainly won't spit on international anti-nuke and environmental treaties, or propose
mini-nukes for the US as a necessary weapon. They won't kill higher CAFE standards
for automobiles, or gut the EPA and most environmental regulations like the
Clean Air act. They won't dismantle Head Start or unfund Americorp, and lots
of other proven effective programs. They won't try to gut consumer protection
laws.

They won't ignore and belittle those who disagree with them,
whether that's us or the rest of the world. Not always, anyway.

They won't behave with the most outrageous hubris I have ever seen in
a government.

The list, as you know, is very long, and grows almost weekly.
Everything--I mean everything--you and I take for granted
is at risk.

Of course, the dems won't fix a corrupt military/corporate-controlled government either,
That, they have in common with the republicans. But neither will a third party nominee
or even victor.

So to say there is no difference between the parties, especially
when it comes to things that affect our lives daily and directly
and for a long long time, is simply wrong, and these days,
dangerous.

I resented it when Nader tried that tactic in 2000. He was only talking about corporate
control, not most of the other issues I mentioned. His ego and arrogance
helped put Bush in power. Until that election, I had a lot of respect
for Nader. But his behavior during that campaign was execrable.
He campaigned in swing states, knowing full well that the votes
he siphoned from the dems would give the state to Bush. That
was more important to him than really helping establish that
viable third party.

Nader's personal antipathy towards the dems, who had slighted him more than once
years ago by not giving him positions of power (not a proud moment
for the dems), resulted in a grudge match. In post election interviews
he still insisted on his obfuscatory sloganeering, showed no remorse
or even self reflection on how he contributed to Bush's victory, and
still insisted there was no diff between the parties. In fact,he seemed
almost glad that the dems lost. That'll show them! His tunnelvision
and his megalomania disqualify him for any serious consideration.
If the Greens nominate him again, it is to their shame. If he finds
a way to run again, he will have to answer for his behavior to
the thousands, maybe millions who are and will suffer for his folly.

(Oh sure, Gore played the wrong cards almost all the way, even in
the Florida recount strategy, and lost what should have been an
easy victory. Without Nader, even his idiot tactics may not have
cost him the election, and I wouldn't have to write emails like this.)

It's just plain vital that Bush is defeated--more vital than anything
I can think of on the planet today. This is the most critical
election in the history of this country--that's no hyperbole.
It's too dangerous to support a third party presidential candidate
now.

Instead, support local third party candidates. A friend wrote this to me,
and I can't say it any better:

'It seems to me that the building of a viable third-party alternative in
this country must begin at the local level, beginning with local
representatives, working slowly up to state legislative representatives,
and then to governors and Congressional leaders. What the Green Party
achieves in this manner will be slow and incremental, but infinitely more
meaningful than another empty campaign for the highest office in the land.
I think progressives need to work on both long- and short-term timescales,
but the greatest possible mistake is confusing the two.'

Right now the priority is to stop Bush. Then we can work on
the failures--and they are many, too many--of the democrats.
For now, we need them, and desperately. We all have to hold
our noses and once again vote for what could be the lesser of
two evils. We simply have no other choice if we want to save
this unfulfilled democracy, with all its flaws, and not allow to be overturned
60 years of the greatest social progress any modern nation has
ever achieved."