Talk of strange folk abroad

More raiding

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:10:07 GMT

In response to Jerid.

Jerid wrote: "It's called freedom of choice."

It's called "gaming the system." And it's clearly not what is intended in a representative democracy.

One thing I used to appreciate about conservatives, even if I disagree with the policy choices, was that they were woman and man enough to have some integrity. You sir, it appears, have lost no small degree of that. As an Independent, I fear for the nation and the possibility of salvaging our failed experiment in Democracy when people like you advocate petty, nonsensical electoral games. You are making a mockery of what little integrity is left in the system. You and your party would have been much better served by voting for the candidate of your true choice, making a positive affirmation of your political beliefs and demonstrating the strength of your party even as it is being decimated by a weak-minded little man named George. You have lost a great opportunity here and we're all the worse off for it.

Raiding

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:58:51 GMT

Follow more nonsense from McIlheran here.

The reply:

You shouldn't.

This is called "raiding" and there are laws in many states which prevent this obviously dubious practice by requiring people to register with a party to vote in the primary election. The following states, falling variously on the political spectrum, have closed primaries which prevent raiding:
* Arizona
* California
* Connecticut
* Delaware
* District of Columbia
* Florida [1]
* Kentucky
* Maryland
* Massachusetts
* Nebraska
* New Mexico
* New York
* North Carolina
* Oklahoma
* Oregon
* Pennsylvania
* Puerto Rico
* Rhode Island
* South Dakota
* Utah
* West Virginia

In a world where people had integrity and didn't vote for candidates whose positions they don't support closed primaries would be unnecessary. Unfortunately we have folks who treat electoral politics like a game.

Rather than thinking about "messing" with the Democrats you should be discouraging this unsavory practice among your party members. In fact you better hope "raiding" has been prevalent on "Super Tuesday" with roughly 15 million Democrats voting in closed primaries versus about 9 million for Republicans. If "raiding" doesn't explain the Obama/Clinton tidal wave in the open primary states, the Republicans are in for a serious shellacking.

More McIlheran

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:31:20 GMT

Since you have censored my last attempt to post on the "People's Cube" reference, I am appealing to your sense of integrity to not censor this modified post.

The site you refer your readers to makes an inappropriate and deviant sexual comment. I refer to the reply to the quote: "The war in Iraq makes millions of dollars for big corporations, either weapons manufacturers or those working in the reconstruction, such as Halliburton and its sister companies."

It is: "Osama bin Laden - Correct. He discovered the clitoris of the progressive movement and has been massaging it with both hands."

I don't understand why you can refer your readers to a sexually inappropriate page but not allow a reader to call you on it.

Patrick McIlheran

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:24:24 GMT

I'm working this fellow's weblog.

He mentioned Chomsky. Doubtful that it'll pass his censorship, I reply:

Okay -- let me explain something to you. This is a contention: "They were ... transparently paranoic rants about the thoroughgoing evil of America." It requires evidence. You gave us none. Merely stating your (bizarre) opinions do not make them true. My wife's high school English students have trouble with this concept too.

Here's another one: "His view seems premised on the belief that capitalism is a kind of theft." The charge of the writer is to back-up things that they say. My suspicion is that you don't back up what you say because you can't.

In fact, Chomsky is not as you appear to believe "anti-American." He is one of the most patriotic and honest assets our troubled nation possesses. You fail to recognize the fundamental premise upon which our great country was founded that, in order to be a healthy, well functioning open society we must have a vigorous, unrestrained debate. Criticism of the actions of one's government, when those actions are immoral and stupid is not "foolish" but the citizens ultimate responsibility. Similar to the love exhibited in the excoriation of a misbehaving child, we must stand over our government, watchful and vigilant to their errors and crimes. Which unfortunately, with the criminal Bush administration in office, are at an all time high.

And Chomsky never said "that we deserved 9/11" -- I defy you to provide a checkable quote for this one.

MarkWayne

Autumn surprise 2008

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:25:49 GMT

I can't shake it. The image of Cheney declaring martial law. A dead president. A terrorist act. Suspended elections.

I know. I'm ready for the aluminum foil pyramid hat. Institutional am I.

Why? Why expend great effort and spill tankers of blood, real and political, expanding the power and reach of the executive to a degree in rate and extent heretofore unmatched in American history? Why set about developing the "unitary executive" in practice, minimizing by ignoring the power of congress to legislate through executive signing statements? Why?! If you're just going to let all this power pass to the Democrats on 20 January 2009?

I can't figure it.

I don't think a serious argument can be forged against the notion that the Bush administration has greatly expanded the power of the executive. Signing statements alone gets you there. But then there's (in no particular order) recess appointments, extraordinary rendition, violation of criminal statutes against the ordering and use of torture, warrantless surveillance, and most significant for our AS08 (Autumn Surprise 2008) scenario -- "The National Security and Homeland Security Directive" issued by Bush 09 May 2007.

The ostensible (and incredibly naive given all the Bush administration's givens) reason for this statement's issuance is, according to Mike German, ACLU policy counsel, harmless: “All it does is establish that they should have a policy and coordinate that policy with legislative and judiciary. It doesn’t change the order of succession, or anything like that.” -- as Matt Rothschild quotes in The Progressive. Despite German's nonchalance, Rothschild's uncomfortable. It might have something to do with this wording from the statement:

"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches [...]

Basically saying that Bush controls "a cooperative effort" among the three branches. Why? Out of politeness or "comity." He's under no obligation to be bound by the constitutionally mandated powers of the judicial or the executive. But he'll be polite.

This is disturbing. But I think something can be done to stop this. It starts with pushing Rep. Paul's [R-TX] HR 3835 bill through the House Judiciary subcommittee on consitutional affairs where it now languishes. This bill merely reaffirms existing constitutional law. You can sign the American Freedom Campaign's Freedom Pledge. It's worth something, however precious little.

Maybe most effectively, we call for the Congress to pass legislation forbidding the prevention of elections under almost any event -- short of attack by the duly constituted military of another nation. Like Canada. I've got my eye on you Canadians.

It's probably not going to happen -- but why take the chance?

MarkWayne

Take a stand against torture

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:00:30 GMT

Do it now.

Dear Senator,

I'm still trying to assimilate the idea that the Senate needs to pass a bill forbidding torture.

Besides being a useless means of gathering intelligence -- those being subjected to physical and psychological pain often lie in order to end the interrogation; in often misrepresented case of averting imminent danger (the '24' scenario) even if you know you have the right person (often it's impossible to know this) and you know that they have desirable information (also very difficult to know) the suspected individual only has to resist the interrogation as long as the "fuse" burns to accomplish the objective. (Not to mention the fact that the subject in these situations is likely to be willing to die to protect the terror mission.)

Please, WAKE UP! You're doing no good to our failing American experiment in democracy by supporting an irrational, illogical, and useless practice that has been frowned on since antiquity.

And it's just plain wrong.

Sincerely,
MarkWayne

Dear Mr Lieberman:

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:42:20 GMT

Dear Senator,

I am taking the time to write you -- I hope you will grant me the courtesy of a reply.

I read about your comments to Brad Davis listeners yesterday. You said, "I'm proud to say that the tide has turned in Iraq and we're winning that war."

I am writing to inform you, since you appear to be the least informed member of congress -- well, okay, maybe Old Ted from Alaska has you beat -- that 2007 is shaping up to be the bloodiest year in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.

You sound like a fool, sir. Please step down. You are a nice guy. But grossly incompetent.

Sincerely,
MarkWayne

Marketplace - on our knees for corporate schlock

Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:16:30 GMT

After hearing this on Marketplace. I wrote this:

Thanks for including Steve Aftergood in your brief report on the "black budget" of the US intelligence industry. Mr. Aftergood has worked for many years to increase accountability of the national security apparatus.

Your report was overall incorrect, however, and confusing. You should correct the following.

First, an incidental correction: the budget was, in fact, "made public" since 1998, in 2005 [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/08/politics/08budget.html?pagewanted=print]
by then deputy director of national intelligence for collection Mary Margaret Graham. Although inadvertent, this incident clearly contradicts your report's language. This is just sloppy reportage.

But worse: the contention that "the idea of publicly releasing how much money America spends on spying was initially suggested by the 9-11 Commission" is ludicrous. That the "initial" suggestion can be traced is itself laughable and without content. This statement's vapidity clearly exhibited by the fact that it contradicts Mr. Henn's previous declamation that, "The last time the U.S. intelligence budget was made public, back in 1998, America was spending a bit more than $26 billion a year on spying." These statements are at best confusing and obviously inconsistent.

Overall the quality of this report is consistent, in my view, with that of Marketplace in general.

Sincerely,
MarkWayne

Dear Rep. Pelosi

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 03:22:26 GMT

Dear Rep. Pelosi,

You lied. You claimed you would end the war in Iraq. You have perpetuated and made it worse. I must remind you of a fact: your party won in the midterm elections on the basis of a single issue. Iraq.

You made promises on election night. And like a used car salesman you reversed them all the following day. I know you care about your grandchildren -- your care for mine isn't as clear -- but you have done them and us all a great disservice with your position of power in the US congress. You have squandered it and made all our futures that much more precarious.

Do you realize what is happening there? Our men and woman in uniform kick in normal, peaceful working folk's doors and execute them in their living rooms. They resemble German soldiers in Polish ghettos in the late 30s. Stormtroopers.

You are perpetuating one of the most heinous international crimes of modern times. Soon we will hear calls for impeachment of Cheney and Bush along with your name. Pull your head out of the sand and live up to your promises. You grandchildren will thank you later.

Most sincerely,
MarkWayne

Third parties, third parties, third parties.

Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:52:42 GMT

Response to:

http://blog.zmag.org/comment/reply/2960/

I won't attempt to answer your sundry and provocative questions -- I'm late in the game here, replying way after the fact.

But I just wanted to comment on the general nature of the responses that your post initiated. Many of them attempt to speak to the psychological aspects of the political economy of the American empire given, I think, the way you presented your disgust with the state of American policy, foreign and, apparently, domestic. While I think this is an compelling dimension to explore for sociological interests, I don't think one gets very far in terms of how to change the situation going along these lines. (It's fair, now, if you're thinking, "This guy's a Marxist," though hopefully that doesn't preclude my thoughts from your consideration.)

In fact, I think Prof. Chomsky tends to avoid this line of inquiry into the particularities of sociological and psychological underpinnings of political economy. Mainly because it misses the primary point:

These United States are, in fact, divided -- divided along the lines of public policy and public opinion. (Of course, complete theft here of Prof. Chomsky's analysis.)

If the will of the majority-American were exercised by government we would have universal (single payer) health care, unencroachable reproductive rights, living wage, etc. -- and we certainly would not be in Iraq nor have fought all of the wars-of-profit of the 20th century.

Consider that the way out of this dilemma -- I think there is really only one -- is the long-term, slow, plodding development of third party alternatives to what our dear friend, Ralph Nader describes as "two wings of the corporate party."

In solidarity,

markwayne

Where is the loyal opposition?!

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:26:37 GMT

In response to this at the indispensable Common Dreams. Toss them a few dollars.

My comment:

Well, YES! In fact, HELL YES! Where indeed are the voices in Congress which represent the majority of the public’s antiwar position? Where has it *ever* been in this failing democratic experiment? (See Chalmers Johnson on Democracy Now yesterday Feb.27 for some comment on this in his book “Nemesis” and the future of American imperialism vs. American democracy.)

I argue (along with Chomsky and others) that this *is* a divided country — but not along a Democrat/Republican line. Along the line dividing public policy from public opinion. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to argue (as Nader does) that both “wings of the Corporate Party” have made the cynical (and correct, given the terrain of the current system of “elections”) calculation that normal folks’ opinions couldn’t mean less. They correctly realize that a system of legalized bribery must be adhered to with a most strict discpline. We don’t need to look far down the memory hole to see a good example of this — Pelosi and her band of merry pranksters, as their very first public act, took appropriations control “off the table.” Of course, no surprise there. It was decided long before hand that there was just too much profit going to the ‘right’ members of the ‘Ultra-wealthy’ class through the domestic and international crime wave that is the military occupation of Iraq.

We need a viable third party.

It is that simple.

Mark W.
Norfolk, VA

US-Islamic world forum

Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:05:18 GMT

Telling points in the comments of Qatar's deputy premier Al Thani demonstrate the continuing effects and deep impact of the Crazies' (aka, neo-cons -- "The Crazies" is George HW Bush senior's term: McGovern -- Asia Times) hatchet job on the middle east -- hastening Armageddon indeed. The deputy premier's assessment that the three most important issues to "bridge the growing agp between the US and the Islamic world":

- "settlment of the Palestinian issue"
- "the eradication of poverty"
- addressing the "causes of terrorism"

These succinctly and accurately, I might add, address the "problems" the US has had in the region as the single most significant impediment to peace in the region.

The article:

12-point plan to improve dialogue with US outlined
http://archive.gulfnews.com/region/Qatar/10105305.html

02/18/2007 11:27 PM | By Barbara Bibbo', Correspondent

Doha: A three-day forum which ends today aims to find ways to bridge the growing gap between the US and the Islamic world.

Addressing the event on Saturday evening, Shaikh Hamad Bin Jasem Bin Jabor Al Thani, Qatar's first deputy premier and foreign minister outlined a 12-point proposal to improve dialogue between the Islamic world and the United States.

It included the settlement of the Palestinian issue, the eradication of poverty and the struggle against terrorism by policies that address its causes.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Qatar has organised the US-Islamic World Forum in cooperation with the Washington-based Brookings Institution think tank. It is being attended by over 200 delegates from both religious and secular backgrounds in 34 countries.

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Mousa said the Islamic world does not hate America, but disagreed with its "biased and double standard policies towards Palestine, Iran's nuclear issue and Iraq."

Biggest external threat

Prominent Muslim scholar Shaikh Yousuf Al Qaradawi, president of the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS), said the US administration had singled out the Islamic world as the new foe after the disintegration of the former Soviet Union.

"We are not against the American public in general. We are just opposed to the policies of the current US administration." Eighty per cent of Arabs consider the United States the biggest external threat to their security after Israel, a survey conducted by a US polling institute in six Arab countries revealed.

Professor Shibley Telhami, a US-based researcher told the forum on Saturday that a recent poll among Arab citizens showed anti-Americanism was on the rise in the region.

The survey of a total of 3,850 respondents in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Morocco, also found that US President George Bush is the second most unpopular politician after former Israeli premier Ariel Sharon. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair comes third.

"The United States is perceived as the second biggest threat to Arab people, after Israel. The United Kingdom comes third," he said addressing the opening session of the forum in Doha.

It found that close to 80 per cent of Arabs consider Israel and the United States the two biggest external threats to their security. The survey also found that nearly four out of 10 Arabs named President George W. Bush as the most unpopular foreign leader, ahead of Israeli leader Ariel Sharon (11 per cent).

Re: FactCheck on MoveOn.org

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:58:27 GMT

Comments to FactCheck.org about MoveOn (article below):

Two comments:

1) Apparently you folks at "Fact"Check are unfamiliar with the frequent occurrence that politicians often act in a manner incommensurate with their speech.

I suggest a name change if you're going to slough off your last vestige of impartiality and stake-out political ground opposite the marginal MoveOn PAC. Your already low standards of adherence to "fact" and disregard of subjectivity have reached a new low here, folks. I might suggest "BlankCheck" as your new name, in that high, fine American political tradition where "fact" can be gleaned only from those with the thickest account book.

Sincerely,
MarkWayne

MoveOn.org PAC: They've Got the Wrong Guys

The liberal group attacks GOP Senators Warner, Smith, and Brownback for supporting an "escalation" they oppose.

February 9, 2007

Modified:February 9, 2007
Summary

MoveOn.org Political Action began airing ads attacking four Republican senators in their home states, accusing them of favoring escalation of the war in Iraq and saying all are "willing to send tens of thousands more troops to face danger in Iraq." The ads clearly misrepresent the stands of three of the targeted senators, who in fact had publicly expressed strong disapproval of sending additional US troops.

MoveOn insists that voting to block debate on a non-binding resolution disapproving of a troop increase is tantamount to favoring "escalation" of the war. The ads fail to mention that two of those depicted as saying "escalate" are authors of the language contained in that very resolution. John Warner of Virginia and Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon sponsored the Republican measure whose exact language is now endorsed by leading Democrats. A third target, presidential hopeful Sam Brownback of Nebraska, has said "I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer."

The fourth Republican target, John Sununu of New Hampshire, has been quoted as saying he won't support additional troops without further efforts from the Iraqis.
Analysis

MoveOn.org sent out the "emergency" ads to members on Tuesday, Feb. 6th, a day after Republicans blocked immediate consideration of a non-binding, bipartisan Senate resolution to disapprove of a troop increase. MoveOn then announced within 24 hours that they had raised over $150,000 to pay for airtime. The ads are to run on CNN nationally and will specifically target four Republican senators in their home states: Warner in Virginia, Smith in Oregon, Brownback in Kansas and Sununu in New Hampshire. Others who appear in the ads but whose states are not directly targeted include Senators George Voinovich of Ohio, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and the Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

MoveOn Ad: Escalate

Announcer: Remember their faces. Remember their names. The Republicans in the United States Senate. A majority of Americans are opposed to escalation in Iraq. Yet, instead of allowing a vote on escalation, the republicans blocked the debate. They're willing to send tens of thousands more troops to face danger in Iraq, but they don't have the courage to face a vote.

Call Sen. Warner. Tell him to stop the escalation. MoveOn.org Political Action is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Wrong about Warner

In the ads, MoveOn refers to a Senate vote on Feb. 5 in which Warner and all but two other Republican senators voted to block debate on a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional combat troops to Iraq.

It was Warner's own language that was being held up, which might seem puzzling. But Warner stated two days later that his vote was a reflection of the stringent rules of debate set by Senate Democrats, which would have denied consideration of a GOP resolution (also non-binding) disapproving any cut-off of funds for American troops. Warner stressed that he had not changed his position on his own measure or his disapproval of any troop increase.

Warner appeared on the Senate floor to read a letter he wrote, along with his six Republican co-sponsors, voicing their intention to get the legislation passed:

Warner: Monday’s procedural vote should not be interpreted as any lessening of our resolve to go forward advocating the concepts of S. Con. Res. 7. We will explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate on the Senate floor. The current stalemate is unacceptable to us and to the people of this country.

Despite Warner's statement, MoveOn said the next day, Feb. 8, that it would go forward with its ads. "We wrote the script after he voted to block debate on his own resolution," Tom Matzzie, Washington Director of MoveOn.org told FactCheck. "John Warner gave a thumbs up to George Bush while saying something different to voters back in Virginia. . . . He's flip-flopping."

But the ads show Warner's photo with a word bubble containing the word "escalate," which is the opposite of the position Warner has stated and re-stated. The Feb. 5 vote did delay action on Warner's language, but that's not the same thing as advocating escalation.

MoveOn has better justification for picturing Senators McConnell, Dole, and Gregg, who all have stated opposition to the bi-partisan resolution. But Warner wrote the language. The bill he originally sponsored on Jan. 22 says in part:

Warner Bill : The Senate disagrees with the 'plan' to augment our forces by 21,500, and urges the President instead to consider all options and alternatives for achieving the strategic goals set forth below

Those words were later adopted verbatim in a measure sponsored by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the measure to which the MoveOn ad refers.

Smith & Brownback

Another MoveOn target, Sen. Smith, is a co-sponsor of the Warner-Levin resolution and a co-signer of the letter promising to explore "all options" to bring it to the floor. Additionally, after President Bush's Iraq speech announcing the increase in troops, Smith described the troop increase as a "Hail Mary pass," saying that, "we are extending an ineffective tactic to further the status quo." Yet MoveOn's ads show him saying "escalate."

Sen. Brownback isn't co-sponsoring the Warner/Levin measure, but he has expressed pointed skepticism about the President's plan to send additional troops. On Jan. 17, he released a statement saying , "it is difficult to understand why more U.S. troops would make a difference," and calling for a "broadly supported, bipartisan strategy." On January 10, the Wichita Eagle reported Brownback reiterating,"I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer."

These quotes don't sound much like support for an escalation to us, or to the Wichita Eagle. That home-state newspaper said Feb. 8 that the ad targeting Brownback "skews" his real position, which it described this way: "In fact, he was among the first Republican senators to publicly oppose it (Bush's proposed troop increase)."

Sununu, Too

Sen. Sununu has said he has not made "any commitment to vote for or against any of the resolutions." Indeed, he has a much more nuanced stance on an increase in troops. On the eve of the President's Iraq speech, he indicated a tepid approval of the President's plan for an increase as long as it was "accompanied by a significant deployment of Iraqi security forces" amongst other conditions. Then on Jan. 17, CNN reported paraphrasing Sununu as saying "that he can't support sending additional troops before the Iraqis step up to the plate themselves."

by Justin Bank

Molly Ivins has died

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:42:11 GMT

I am sobbing in great shudders of mind-blanking grief as I grapple with Molly's passing. I never met her, never even saw a good picture of her until today. And yet I feel like we've lost one of my closest family members. We're not supposed to feel this way about some distant, faceless journalist. But her wit, compassion, and love for her readers just brings it out of you.

As a -- mainly -- secular individual, I'll confess that Molly's weekly column in our local free paper here in Norfolk, Virginia had become something of a religious ritual whose purpose was completely selfish -- time I guarded greedily. The ritual's effect was the restoration of my often waning ability to cope with and assimilate the grand farce and the abysmal tragedy that is American political life. The grief surges in me with the thought that this ritual now will be forever broken.

We will all, admirers, detractors, and turkeys miss her and be greatly impoverished in her untimely absence.

Sincerely,
Mark Wayne

Letter to Mrs. Clinton

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:18:33 GMT

Dear Mrs. Clinton,

I campaigned for your husband in 1992, proud to be part of a campaign of young, intelligent people. I was happy that you had stood so firmly for the rights of children and that if made president, your husband was going to put you in charge of the drive for national, single payer health care.

Then "managed" care came along. And later NA"F"TA. And American bombings -- which are aggression, no matter what their stated purpose -- in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I was horrified.

I know you're not your husband. But please explain to me why I should trust you now. Your complicity with the policies of the Clinton presidency and your actions as senator of the state of New York leave me very skeptical that you can do anything -- ANYTHING -- positive in office. Your vote to authorize the worst president in history carte blanche in his illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq was truly abysmal. You stated this week that you "were fooled" by bad intelligence and Bush's lies. I wasn't fooled, Mrs. Clinton. Why? Because I read what the CIA, NSA, UN, etc. wrote. That Iraq "posed no threat" to its neighbors or the US. Unless, that is, he was attacked. Please tell me why, Mrs. Clinton, I should vote for you now when I, as an informed public citizen who works full time, had more information on the subject than you, in whose job it is crucial to realize at least one thing: people lie, sometimes even politicians, and you shouldn't just believe what they tell you.

No, Mrs. Clinton, I don't expect to hear a response from you or to see my post on your blog. But please realize that you haven't fooled many people. And I don't think you can win.

Sincerely,
Mark W.
Norfolk, VA

Barbara Boxer's "global warming" agenda

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 05:10:18 GMT

Dear Barbara,

Your continued opposition to the most atavistic of Bush Administration policies is a welcomed -- though sadly rare -- turn from the corporatized politics of power and war. Thank you.

However, the list of "global warming solutions" on your website falls
far short of what scientists generally feel is needed to lessen the
catastrophic consequences of anthropomorphic climate change that is
certain to occur, possibly within our lifetimes.

Space here doesn't permit a complete explication. Briefly my point --
which I believe can be effectively articulated within current political
milieu -- is this:

The Kyoto protocol, generally regarded by scientists as the absolute
minimum necessary to AVERT CERTAIN CATASTROPHE, sets emission standards at 7% of
1990 US levels by 2008-2012.

We're not going to make it by changing the light bulbs and turning the
heat down in government buildings.

Three big changes are, unfortunately, unavoidable:

1) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: a multi-level (local, regional, national)
efficient transportation system for goods and people

2) CLEAN COAL BURNING PLANTS

3) GOVERNMENT SPONSORED CONVERSION TO RENEWABLE RESOURCES: home and
industrial conversion to solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro power sources is
necessary.

The alternative is a massive reduction in the habitable surface area of
the earth, large-scale human population die-off, with complete
extinction an outcome that one cannot rule out.

Please consider this as you form your agenda.

PS -- "Climate change" is preferred to "global warming" since "warming"
is only one scenario which can lead to the death of large numbers of
human beings.

Sincerely,
Mark W.

____________
Addendum:

On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 08:59 -0600, Misguided Sod wrote:
> Kyoto was a joke....bounced by the Senate 95-0. Check your facts, stoops.

I know that you like to go out of your way to XXXX the XXXX of Power --
your sycophantic adulation of the self-serving and demented Bush
administration more than proof sufficient -- but some of us folks are
under the delusion that, well sometimes, politicians don't make the best
decisions, your "95 senators" opposing Kyoto notwithstanding.

And you should be ashamed of your own two-faced misrepresentations as
"caring" about "the environment" and not supporting Kyoto -- at the very
least. I'm sure your opposition stems from some misguided sentimentality
for what you perceive to be "capitalism" -- incidentally NOT our mode of
production here in the good old USA. Save it. I've ignored your last
point-by-point to Obama's stances (who can suffer another Dexter
Diatribe on the "sanctity of life" from someone who actively supports
and encourages the wanton destruction of human life in Iraq and God
knows where next, perhaps Iran?).

Kyoto is the bare minimum acceptable adjustment the human race can make
according to most climatologists. Prove me wrong. You can't -- just like
you were wrong about WMD, June 30, 2005, "democracy promotion" and all
your other positions gleaned from the Office of the Vice-President's
"talking points."

And you still haven't addressed the question posed in the Chicago
meeting 2005: if abortion is made illegal, and a woman declares she
intends to have one, what are you going to do? Put her in a
straight-jacket and force her to term? (I suspect you've never read
Atwood's "Handmaiden's Tale.")

You have no answer for this. Like so many of your other positions,
conceived as they are in the dark, stinking loam of your own mind,
ideological to the core, disconnected from reality and unconcerned with
how they affect real, normal people -- not the Ultra-wealthy ilk that
you choose to align yourself with ideologically. Those two-faced,
pusillanimous prevaricators who preach "life" from one corner to their
admirers while paying for abortions of their interns and other acolytes
and bribing their way to political "success."

Don't you ever get tired of being so wrong, so often?

Markwayne

The impact on human beings of Bush's "new" plan

Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:40:21 GMT

I don't see any "plan" at all. -MW

N.J. soldiers' tour extended
Vineland family feels impact of Bush's plan for war in Iraq
By PETE McALEER Statehouse Bureau, (609) 292-4935 and TOM NAMAKO
(Published: January 12, 2007)

TRENTON — For months now, members of the Barreca family have looked to the end of March or early April as the time when their soldier would come home from Iraq.

On Thursday, word came that the homecoming — and a June wedding date — would have to wait.

N.J. Army National Guardsman Michael Barreca, 21, of Vineland, is a member of the 117th Reconnaissance Surveillance and Target Acquisition unit. The Vineland unit is one of two in the state — the other is in Bordentown — that will see its tour in Iraq extended as many as an additional 125 days after President Bush announced Wednesday night that he was increasing U.S. troops there by 21,500.

Most of the soldiers in the Vineland unit, stationed at Camp Anaconda 50 miles north of Baghdad, are from the Cumberland County area. The unit is responsible for convoy and base security, according to officials from the state Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs.

“It's upsetting because we miss him so much,” said Barreca's mother, Kim. “We just got through Christmas, and for him not to be here, there's just a missing person. And now that's going to be extended. It doesn't make me any less proud of him. But it's hard. And now, we worry longer.”

Barreca said she learned of the extension through a phone message from a National Guard family support group. She said she listened to the message four times to make sure she heard it right. Her son called 30 minutes later and asked why she was crying. He had not yet heard the news of his extended tour, she said, and ended up passing word to several other soldiers in the background.

Between the Vineland and Bordentown units, 158 soldiers will see their tours extended.

“These were soldiers who had an internal clock clicking,” Maj. Gen. Glen K. Rieth, head of the state Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs, said in a teleconference. “They thought they were coming back in March to see their families. This is disappointing. I think the soldiers are going to have a tough period of time here.”

The soldiers now are expected to return around July or August, he said.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine met with members of the Vineland unit when he visited Iraq in December and later had some of the family members at the governor's mansion at Drumthwacket. He called the extension “inappropriate.”

“People were ready to come home,” Corzine said. “They are stressed out.”

Vineland's Faith Bible Church Pastor Paul Barreca read a message Thursday from his son Michael in Iraq: “I support President Bush 100 percent, but my only regret is that this should have been done two years ago. I want to make a difference here. I'd rather stay here longer and get this settled than have someone else come back. I want to be sure that when we leave, what we did here made a difference. Everything was OK, don't worry. Don't tell people to feel sorry for me.”

Barreca's father said he did not watch the president's speech Wednesday, but he had a good idea his son's tour might be extended.

“I think it's the right path,” he said. “We're fighting a war against terrorism, and the terrorists have made a point that America has to lose in Iraq. After we defeated Saddam, it's like we entered a second war now. We have to win that war.”

Barreca's fiancee, Daphne Chaniz-Rico of Vineland, said Michael proposed to her during a two-week break from his tour.

“It's heart-wrenching,” she said, “especially with the wedding having to be rescheduled. But we're so proud of him and we believe in all he's doing.”

Barreca lived at home and was attending Cumberland County College in 2005 when he received his orders. His father said the family gets by through prayer.

“We know what he's doing there,” Pastor Barreca said. “He has to knock down doors, looking for bad guys. It's troubling. But our faith also gives us strength. ... I've been a pastor for 23 years, and I have never prayed for one individual as much as I‘ve prayed for my son. It's not every day, it's every hour.”

New Jersey military officials will hold meetings Saturday with family members of the affected soldiers to try to explain the extension and provide assistance.

Rieth said even if the war in Iraq continues, the members of the National Guard units in Vineland and Bordentown would stay home for five years before they would be redeployed. New Jersey has 5,900 army guardsmen and 2,300 members of the Air National Guard.

“Hopefully, the one-year, five-year ratio will provide more stability for the citizen soldiers,” Rieth said. “They have had their boots on the ground in Iraq since last March.”

To e-mail Pete McAleer at The Press:

PMcAleer@pressofac.com

To e-mail Tom Namako at The Press:

TNamako@pressofac.com

SEX AND MONEY and Christian Values

Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:08:05 GMT

I finally get why all those Republicans are such devoted Christians. Look what you get to do!

MarkWayne

SEX AND MONEY BOUGHT CONTRACTS IN IRAQ

Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, Reuters

A CONTRACTOR in Iraq has pleaded guilty to providing money, sex and designer watches to US officials in exchange for more than $US8 million ($10.8 million) in reconstruction contracts.

Philip Bloom faces up to 40 years in prison after admitting paying more than $US2 million in bribes to US officials with the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ruled Iraq after the US-led invasion in 2003.

Bloom's guilty plea on bribery and money-laundering charges is the latest development in a widening corruption scandal centered on a network of US civilians and military officials who worked out of a coalition outpost in the south-central Iraqi town of Hillah.

Under the plea agreement, Bloom must pay $US3.6 million in restitution and forfeit $US3.6 million in assets. His guilty plea "sends a message to Iraqis that US oversight will track down, arrest and prosecute American citizens who committed crimes in Iraq involving Iraqi money", said Stuart Bowen, who heads the office of the Special Inspector-General for Iraq Reconstruction.

The scheme began in January 2004, when Bloom began paying bribes to Robert Stein, a civilian contractor who controlled $US82 million in reconstruction funds as the comptroller for the coalition's headquarters in Hillah.

Stein, who had a previous conviction for fraud when he was hired, pleaded guilty to accepting bribes in February. He funnelled money and favours from Bloom to other officials in Hillah, all of whom helped direct contracts to a group of companies controlled by Bloom, court documents say.

Two officers in the US Army Reserve, Lieutenant-Colonel Michael Wheeler and Lieutenant-Colonel Debra Harrison, have already been arrested in connection with the case and more arrests are expected, investigators said.

From January to June 2004, when the coalition government was replaced, Bloom provided Stein and officers with first-class air tickets, real estate lots, weapons, new four-wheel-drive vehicles, cigars, designer watches, alcohol, prostitutes at Bloom's Baghdad villa and cash bribes.

In return, Bloom's company, Global Business Group, received $US8.6 million in contracts to refurbish a police academy in Hillah, a library in Karbala and other reconstruction projects. In some cases the work was never done, and in others it was shoddy, audits by the inspector-general reveal.

The contracts were paid with Iraqi funds held in the Development Fund for Iraq, which has been at the centre of many of the corruption scandals in Iraq.

■ Handwriting experts authenticated Saddam Hussein's signatures on more documents, including one apparently approving death sentences for 148 Shiites in June 1984, Raouf Abdel-Rahman, the chief judge in his trial, said yesterday.

Also in Baghdad yesterday, separate groups of gunmen entered two primary schools and beheaded two teachers in front of their students, the Ministry of State for National Security said.

Article/commentary

Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:16:55 GMT

An excellent example of truly poor journalism. Brief comments to the author follow.
MarkWayne
________________
The Peak Oil Crisis
Rationing by Price

By Tom Whipple

We are just about through winter, and as yet, nothing really bad seems to have happened to the world's energy supplies. Unless, of course, you were among the unlucky folk who keep warm with Russian natural gas and, depending on where you live, were subjected to state blackmail, or diverted gas, or blown-up pipelines, or perhaps reduced flows during one of the coldest winters in recorded history.

On the American side of the globe, however, all was well. An unusually warm winter led to bulging oil and gas stockpiles and somewhat lower prices. In the Mid-East, the Saudis stopped Al Qaeda from blowing up an important oil facility and, despite significant increases in the violence in Iraq and the rhetoric in Iran , for now, oil continues to flow from both countries.

Demand is growing nicely. In the United States , we managed to consume 2.5 percent more gasoline in February that we did last year. That’s an additional 9.1 million gallons per day. The Chinese just announced they had imported 3.2 million barrels a day during January— a 69% increase over last year. Some economic forecasters have noted how little $60 oil seems to be affecting economic growth, and are predicting banner years ahead with world economic growth doing better than 4%.

On the supply side, however, things did not fare quite as well during the winter. A combination of conflict in Iraq , hurricane damage in the Gulf of Mexico , and the insurgency in the Niger delta resulted in about a million barrels a day of "normal" production being stopped. In fact, world oil production, after surging higher and higher early in the decade, has been basically flat at around 84.5 million barrels a day since 2004.

We are all getting used to the pattern of oil cycling around $60-65 per barrel as it has since just after the hurricanes last fall. Many analysts are attributing what we think of as high prices mostly to geopolitical instability. They may have a point. There are least five political situations in the world —Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Al Qaeda— that frequently flare up in a way that threatens to close down some important share of the world's oil production. We could add Atlantic hurricanes to the threat list as the season starts in another three months and forecasters are already talking of another bad year.

If demand for oil products in the US, China, and presumably other parts of the industrialized world continues to grow, and production remains stagnant, then obviously prices have to go up, perhaps way up.

So far, we have learned gasoline costing $2.50 or so a gallon does not reduce consumption in the US any more that $6 per gallon does in Europe . It is going to take much higher prices than the industrial world has experienced so far to force changes in the habits of people who can afford cars.

There are some 220 oil-consuming countries in the world (a few are rather small islands). If, however, you rank these by their annual oil consumption per capita, interesting insights emerge. A few, like the US and Canada are really into using oil, going through a 1000+ gallons per capita each year. Others, like many European nations, seem to get along rather well on 400-800 gallons per person each year.

As you move down the list, you find average world consumption currently is about 200 gallons per capita per year. The bottom half of the list contains nearly 100 countries that consume 100 gallons per person per year or less, one-tenth of what we each consume in the US . About 4 billion people or two-thirds of the world's population live in countries that consume less than 100 gallons per capita per year. Finally, at the absolute bottom are about 20 countries using 10 gallons per capita per year, or 1/100th of what we burn in America .

In many countries, government traditionally has subsidized oil products so that citizens can afford their benefits. This, of course, contrasts markedly with North America and Europe where oil has been taxed or heavily taxed. The sad fact, however, is that in the last year or so a number of countries, particularly in Asia , have come to the point where they could no longer afford to subsidize oil products to the traditional extent. Remember the eight-cent per gallon gasoline in Baghdad .

We don't read much about the removal of these subsidies, except when they lead to riots. In America , mostly grumbling results when gasoline goes from $1.50 to $2.50 per gallon. If you live in the underdeveloped world however, and find the fuel for your truck or taxi, or perhaps your cooking kerosene suddenly going from 20 or 50 cents per gallon to much higher, you have an unaffordable problem to which the only answer is to stop consuming.

In the last few months, riots, some resulting in many deaths, have taken place across the underdeveloped world as governments have been forced to raise fuel prices. The returns aren't in as yet but the conclusion seems obvious. To Americans and others in the industrialized world $2.50 or even $6 gasoline is, or will be, an inconvenience requiring some adjustments in lifestyle; to most of the world however, $60 per barrel oil is beyond what most can afford to enjoy even the barest minimum trappings of industrial civilization.

The irony of all this is that the demand destruction currently taking place in the third world simply frees up sufficient fuel to allow the industrialized and industrializing nations to carry on with business as usual for a few more months or, perhaps, a few more years. But peak oil will come. With the same inevitability as the rising and setting sun or the changing of the seasons, it will come.
____________________________
Reading your article, with interest, `Rationing by Price.' You say:

In the United States, we managed to consume 2.5 percent more gasoline in February that [sic] we did last year. That’s an additional 9.1 million gallons per day.

I don't understand your figures here. Most estimates put US daily at around 20 million barrels per day (20m bbd), 2.5% of which is about 500,000 bbd.

Did I miss something?

Additionally, you aver:

In many countries, government traditionally has subsidized oil products so that citizens can afford their benefits. This, of course, contrasts markedly with North America and Europe where oil has been taxed or heavily taxed.

This seems to me to be a major distortion. The energy industry -- mainly comprised of oil import/production outfits, is heavily subsidized by the government. Last year, the 5 largest oil companies in the US received "tax adjustments" -- in another word: subsidies -- to the tune of US $40 billion. Failure to acknowledge this fact severely distorts any attempt at a serious analysis of the contours of the energy landscape in the US.

Sincerely,
MarkWayne

More phantasmogorical fraud!

Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:54:06 GMT

Congress: Halliburton's war contracts could have helped Katrina victims

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 (HalliburtonWatch.org) -- A new congressional report on the failed emergency response to Hurricane Katrina concludes that the victims could have benefited from Halliburton's most-scandalous contract in Iraq.

The report quotes Bill Carwile of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), who concludes that future disaster response programs should involve "much more robust private sector partnerships," including Halliburton's LOGCAP contract with the Army Corps of Engineers.

LOGCAP is Halliburton's most lucrative Iraq contract and continues to be the primary focus of the military's criticisms related to cost-overcharges. In the first 18 months of the war, the Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency found $1.4 billion in cost overcharges on Halliburton's work in Iraq, most of it performed under LOGCAP.

LOGCAP is a "cost-plus" contract, meaning Halliburton, like most contractors, obtains a higher fee from the military if it spends more of the taxpayers' money. Critics say this arrangement provides an incentive within the company's beauracracy to intentionally or unintentionally inflate costs charged to the military.

A total of $8.8 billion in Iraq money given to private contractors by the Bush administration is currently missing. Over a billion had been given to Halliburton. The scandal nearly matches the $10 billion fraud that occurred under the United Nations oil-for-food program during the 1990s.

Under LOGCAP, Halliburton has been criticized for charging the military $45 per twelve-pack of soda, $100 per 15-pound bag of laundry cleaning, multiple hours for labor even though workers sat around and did nothing, thousands of dollars for office cleaning that occurred more than once per day in the same office, and $85,000 for brand new trucks that were intentionally destroyed because of minor equipment problems. According to whistleblowers in the federal government, Halliburton is charging U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars for trucks in Iraq that are rarely or never used.

Despite the rampant overcharges by Halliburton and other private contractors, the bipartisan congressional report on Katrina concluded that future disaster relief contracts should be modeled after Halliburton's LOGCAP contract.

The congressional report, titled "A Failure of Initiative," calls for greater involvement by private corporations in disaster relief despite widespread allegations of waste, fraud and abuse, including cronyism, that tainted the failed response to Katrina.

The report was issued by the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina.

More Information: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/fema_report.html

Subscribe to the HalliburtonWatch email list by visiting the following link: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/ealert.html

Petition the unpetitionable

Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:30:09 GMT

Petition the unpetitionable

Emergency petition to George Bush: You must pledge not to pardon Scooter Libby or anyone else convicted as part of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation.

Dear President Bush,

Scooter Libby should not be allowed to rely on his close relationship with you to obtain the kind of extraordinarily special treatment unavailable to ordinary Americans. To put it simply, a pardon in these circumstances would signal that this White House considers itself above the law. Only swift public action will make clear that you take seriously perjury and obstruction of justice at the highest levels of our government and that you meant what you said about bringing honor and dignity to the White House.

You must pledge not to pardon Scooter Libby or anyone else convicted as part of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation.

My comments:
Harry Reid voted for the illegal and unfounded invasion of Iraq. This is deplorable and he still needs to answer for this travesty of representation and justice.

But that doesn't negate his principled stand now. I urge you, President Bush, to break with your history unprincipled and weak leadership and follow Mr. Reid's example. Don't condone lying by pardoning Libby. Show, for once, that you are a man and not a puppet of those more powerful shadows, ever present and looming over your shoulders.

Rain of Fire in Fallujah

Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:37:37 GMT

The war crimes in the "liberation" of Fallujah are finally being brought out into the light.

"We're all buffalo now." -- Black Elk

US Criticised for Use of Phosphorous in Fallujah Raids

Going down in Plame

Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:56:03 GMT

Here's a beaut: Washington on Tenterhooks Over Leak Case

My fave:

The administration's right-wing defenders are preparing for the worst, arguing that, as asserted by another prominent neo-conservative, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, the prosecutor is part of a "comprehensive strategy of criminalisation ...implemented to inflict defeat on conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives".

It's unseemly when grown men whine. Kristol sounds worse than all those `whiney leftists' he's excoriated over the years for being "leftists." There's little worse than supporting a liar when they're lying and then whining over it when they get busted. Hey, Kristol, show some sack.

Republican Talking Points:

To terrorism -- "They hate us because we're Americans."
To corruption -- "They hate us because we're conservatives."

Whining.

Low Rent Wines #1

Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:34:13 GMT

Spadina
Nero d'Avola
Sicilia
Idicazione Geografica Tipica

"A spadina was a weapon of honor in ancient Italy. But when the opponent was a lady, duelists found the rose a more appropriate weapon to reach the heart. We craft Spadina with the same weapon. Sicilian Nero d'Avola grapes give this wine its smooth full body, rich berry flavor, and velvety finish."

All right. Here's the first in -- hopefully -- a long series of installments: Low Rent Wines.

Now who could ever forget the spicy, heady von of molasses? Impossible, yes? Well, if you have this little Italian red table wine is going to bring it back. At a furious pace, too. And relentless.

When you first open the bottle the bouquet is aggressive, not entirely offensive, but not all that pleasing either. If I really had to say, I'd say "no." But then again, who am I to tell you anything?

I purchased this 13% alc/vol little beauty at the local Farm Fresh in Ocean View. Over-priced at just under $10 and one of about 6 Italian varietals in the store. If I wanted Italian, it was either something conventional like Tiziano chianti classico, or a sangiovese whose vineyard escapes me at the moment -- probably nothing exciting at $12.

Dang, did I mention the molasses? Heck, yeah. And then some.

This little darlin does a little dance on your tongue. I wouldn't call it a lap dance, exactly. More like the girl you knew next door when you were little who's all grown up now but still has that little girl in her and right now, as you're putting her back, she's drunk. But she works in a bank.

I'll leave it here. Try it, but don't spend more than $7.

Foreign Relations Authorization Act

Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:14:28 GMT

After reading a little about the masterful Foreign Relations Authorization Act and hearing about Rep. Connie Mack's (R-FL) ridiculous amendment to allocate money to the Broadcasting Board of Governors to commence US state department propaganda against the popularly, legitimately elected Hugo Chavez, I had to write to the Illustrious Mr. Mack:

Dear Sir,

I am writing to express my sincere displeasure with your amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. It is absurd and useless. The Venezuelan people have legitimately elected their President Hugo Chavez, and after an American government backed coup attempt failed, overwhelmingly supported his return. You know this to be true. You obviously don't like it. Your actions are pathetic. They reek of sour grapes.

Congressman, given the chronic problems with elections in your state and the consistent difficultly you have down there counting votes and upholding your citizens' democratic rights, don't you think it would be a better use of the Florida taxpayers money who pay your salary, to address democracy right here at home, in
your own state?

Please think it over. And do the right thing.

Sincerely,
Mark W.

G'head. You do it too. Exercising your democratic rights feels so freaking great.