Is this some kind of misprint? What the hell? Allow me to quote here: "When [President] Bush gave his May 1 [2003] speech fewer than 150 Americans had died in the war. Since then more than 900 have died." (In case you can't make it out, the date for this article is, well, yesterday.) Although technically accurate -- 1,037 is more than 900 -- why the gross misstatement? They're over a hundred off, for God's sakes ... are they downplaying this tragedy?

On the Day of Atonement we admit our transgressions against God, among them our FAILURES OF JUSTICE. We ask for His forgiveness "for keeping the poor in the chains of poverty, and turning a deaf ear to the cry of the oppressed. For using violence to maintain our power, and for using violence to bring about change. For waging aggressive war, and for the sin of appeasing aggressors. For obeying criminal orders, and for the sin of silence and indifference. For poisoning the air, and polluting land and sea, and for all the evil means we employ to accomplish good ends." [Gates of Repentance: The New Union Prayerbook for the Days of Awe (New York, Central Conference of American Rabbis: 1984/5738), pp. 328-9] Quite timeless, indeed.

According to a September 19, 2004, New York Times 'Week in Review' article (Hannah Fairfield, "Is There a Family Resemblance?" sec. 4, p. 2), President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry are distantly related, which is "typical for any two people with significant New England colonial ancestry," according to Gary Boyd Roberts, who is described as "the genealogical historian who compiled the links" between Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, who are said to be ninth cousins twice removed. Their common ancestor is reportedly Edmund Reade, who lived from 1563 to 1623 in Wickford, Essex. Mr. Reade allegedly had two daughters, Elizabeth and Margaret Reade, from whom the respective Presidential incumbent and hopeful Bush and Kerry are descended. The Economist told no lie when it stated that Kerry "is cut from the same cloth" as the President, and he literally is. In fact, there are even more reported links between Connecticut-born, blue-blood Bush and Colorado-born (and Massachusetts-raised) blue-blood Kerry. They are tenth cousins once removed via their common ancestors Henry Herrick and Thomas Richards, and are tenth cousins twice removed via their common ancestor John Dwight, who were all natives of Massachusetts. And, via their respective English common ancestry, Bush and Kerry are eleventh cousins once removed, half-twelfth cousins once removed, twelfth cousins twice removed, and fourteenth cousins.*

No wonder their policies and opinions are infuriatingly similar . . . they're family!

*Respectively, these English common ancestors are reportedly Reverend Edward Bukleley, Richard Clapp, Henry Sherman, and John Manning.

Chinese dictator Hu Jintao has gained control of the country's military, following the resignation of Jiang Zemin, thus making him what appears to be absolute ruler. According to a New York Times story, Jintao became "the country's military chief and de facto top leader on Sunday, state media announced, completing the first orderly transfer of power in the history of China's Communist Party. ... [Jintao] now commands the state, the military and the ruling party. He will set both foreign and domestic policy in the world's most populous country, which now has the world's seventh-largest economy and is rapidly emerging as a great power." We also read that Jintao "has solidifed control", like Vladmir Putin, who is also taking steps to dismantle his country's fledgling democracy, "of China's most powerful posts at a younger age ... than any Chinese leader since Mao Zedong," the article reads. It is added that Jintao "is now likely to be able to govern relatively unimpeded by powerful elders." It appears that both Russia and China are becoming less and less democratic ...

Today is the second anniversary of the publication of the National Security Strategy of 2002, released by the White House, in which the doctrine of 'preemptive' warfare was thus enshrined, in chapter V of the document ("Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, Our Friends[*] with Weapons of Mass Destruction"). Here's an excerpt (links for the chapter in question, the entire document):

"We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. ... For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat ... We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. ... Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction ... The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction—and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively. The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. ... The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just."

Thanks to this radical doctrine an Axis of Evil enemy such as Iran has announced that it is threatening to use the White House policy of 'preemptive' warfare against us, as cited in the New York Times.

*Thanks to this doctrine, ironically, the United States no longer has many friends in the world ...

Happy New Year.

The BBC reports that Turkey has warned the US that "it will end cooperation with the US in Iraq if the Americans continue with their offensive in the northern Iraqi town of Talafar." Furthermore, the capital, Ankara, "is concerned about the plight of the large Turkmen population there, some of whom have been killed. US and Iraqi troops last week began a major operation against Talafar - a suspected haven for foreign fighters entering Iraq from Syria. On Friday Turkey's foreign ministry urged the US to halt the offensive. 'What is being done there is harming the civilian population, that it is wrong,' Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said" three days later. I didn't even hear about this; thanks, BBC.

RENEW THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN*

*Now, is this a liberal position? No: it is a common sense position, free of ideology. Does it make sense to have AK-47s freely available on the street? No; guns like these only belong in the military, in the hands of soldiers, and no one else. This describes my gun policy, pure and simple: assault weapons only for the military, handguns only for the police, and rifles (as in the National RIFLE Association) for hunters (a.k.a. 'sportsmen'). That's it. It's common sense, and the President has an obligation as supposed protector of our security to make sure that no one but someone serving in the military ever gets his hands on an assault weapon. There is no reason for it: you don't hunt with a fucking Uzi. Simple. 'Nuff said.

This day marks the third anniversary of the most despicable terrorist crimes ever perpretrated against the United States, where four cross-country jets laden each with several thousand gallons of fuel were hijacked by 19 men, 15 of whom were Saudi Arabian, members all of al Qaeda, whose leader was and remains Osama bin Laden, still at large; two were flown into the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center, leading to the collapse of the twin towers, and the other dived into the Pentagon, partially destroying the first three rings of the building, and the fourth crashed in Pennsylvania, perhaps headed toward the Capitol or the White House, all within the space of an hour and fifteen minutes.

2,973 of our fellow Americans were murdered, and the atrocities, unprecedented in its scope and magnitude, that were committed on that day were ruthlessly and shamelessly exploited by this administration to pursue a radicalist agenda, designed to establish the doctrine of 'preemptive' war, as enshrined in the National Security Strategy of the United States, published just under a week following the first anniversary of the attacks. The attacks were implicitly used to justify attacking Iraq, in which al Qaeda and the Hussein regime were invoked side-by-side although never actually directly connected in rhetoric; this did not stop 40% of Americans from believing that Saddam was behind the attacks that occured three years ago this day.

Bin Laden, the architect of the terrorist attacks, who once had $25 million on his head, who was once declared found "dead or alive" by the President himself as the War on Terrorism (now renamed the War on Terror, which is quite different) began on October 7, when our warplanes began attacking Afghanistan after talks with the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, whom they had been harboring, failed, is now conveniently forgotten.

The President does not seem to really care that the man who directed the atrocities against our people is still out there, and that the war against Iraq has strengthened, not weakened, al Qaeda's image in the Arab World.

Attacking Iraq was an unconscionably costly and dangerous diversion from fighting al Qaeda and rebuilding Afghanistan, both of which have proved at best counterproductive toward finally 'defeating' the terrorists, whoever and whereever they may be: the Taliban has been all but decentralized and, in tandem, so has al Qaeda.

Over 1,000 American soldiers (just over a third of the number of people killed on September 11, 2001) have been killed in Iraq, and about $200 billion, all of it borrowed, has been spent to finance what was from the start an unnecessary, unmanageably expensive, and immoral war. Over 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war began in March 2003 as a result of it, over three times the number dead on September 11. We are answering tragedy with tragedy, violence with violence, blood with blood.

In turn, the Bush administration is spitting on the graves of the murdered through its manipulation and exploitation of the dead to further its agenda, in essence, of global dominance: we are now entitled to attack any nation that we perceive to pose a threat, current or future, against us. We think we can fight an amorphous, 'asymmetric' enemy with 'conventional' methods of warfare best used against, say, Nazi Germany; not, however, against al Qaeda, which is not a nation (I really do not think that this administration understands this): instead of building up intelligence gathering and analysis and working to simplify the military in order to fight a wholly new enemy, what is being done is the procurement of the same kind of heavy military hardware, which is not needed, and would in fact appear to violate the fiscal 'responsibility' of the self-professed 'conservatives' running the government.

2,973 Americans did not die martyrs for the sick ambitions of the current incumbents.

For three years they have danced on their graves, and today we must mourn in memoriam the national tragedy that had for a little while united us as one people; and also we must mourn the tragedy of how we faithfully let our government use the atrocities to tear up our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and implicitly justify the war against Iraq, in the name of fighting 'terrorism' and making us 'safer'.

One day those responsible for the crimes perpretrated against us on this day three years past will see their punishment met.

The federal budget deficit has been underestimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) by over 12%, from a projected $2.01 trillion to $2.29 trillion from 2004 to 2014, as cited in the New York Times (E.L. Andrews, "Bush Unlikely to Fulfill Vow on Deficit, Budget Office Projects," 7 September 2004): "Stripping out all war costs for [Afghanistan and Iraq] after [2005]," the article reads, "the [CBO] analysts said the federal government would save $536 billion over the next five years. But making Mr. Bush's tax cuts permanent, one of the president's top priorities, would cost $549 billion through 2009 and $2.2 trillion through 2014." (The CBO report, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update," is accessible here.)

The Republican National Convention is over and the Bush-Cheney campaign has officially begun, with about two months remaining until the Presidential elections on November 2.

In form it was exactly like the Democratic National Convention, carefully scripted and contained, in which a group of delegates whose views are outside of the views according to American popular opinion are represented by a group of populists protraying themselves as moderates. The only difference that I could observe between the two conventions was the setting: to put it simply, New York City is not a base for the Republican Party and never has been (the Republican Party has never held its convention in the city before); many detractors found it obvious as to why the RNC would hold it there: the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, which were constantly evoked and exploited (shamelessly, I believe) in order to pursue the GOP's agenda. (In a similar way the Vietnam War was exploited by Kerry, and many have held that this was somewhat shameless, too; I believe, though, not quite to the degree at which it was exploited by the Republicans: whereas Kerry's service in Vietnam was a big element of his convention, 9/11 appeared to be the theme.)

I had respected Senator McCain, decorated war hero and honorable statesman, but it was sad to see him become a marionette for Messrs. Bush and Cheney; they had cut down a great man, turning him into nothing more than a puppet. Same goes, I believe, with former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, whom I had also respected. Democratic Senator Zell Miller (Ga.) was just out of his head; from the official transcript of his remarks, Mr. Miller was a raving, ranting lunatic. (Clips from the video of his speech also attest.) Here's a sampling:

"Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security," Miller declared, "today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator." Which "Democratic leaders"? Is he referring to Iraq, in which, yes, we are occupying the country and have been doing so for nearly 17 months? Didn't President Bush, in his latest televised press conference on April 13 of this year, say that the Iraqi people "do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America"? And, in response to a question from "Terry" regarding pre-war assertions made by the administration that we "would be greeted" by the Iraqis as "liberators with sweets and flowers," the costs of reconstruction would pay for itself from Iraqi oil money, and Iraqi WMD not only existed but "we know where they are" (Rumsfeld), Bush replied - answering the first part of his question - that the Iraqis are "not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."

Miller held that, in the "warped way of thinking" of the leaders of the Democratic Party, "America is the problem, not the solution." Again, which Democrats are being referred to by Miller here? The Democrats, he continued, "don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy." Based upon what? Nothing. And there's more: In addition to Senator Kennedy, Kerry has "opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror. Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts," and so he lists the "weapons systems" (the B-1 bomber, the B-2 bomber, the F-14 fighter jet, the Apache helicopter, the F-15, the Patriot missile system, the Trident missile, Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative) that, as the Cold War ended, became irrelevant. Vice President Cheney, at the time as Defense Secretary under Bush, Sr., voted right along with Mr. Kerry, a fact conveniently ignored, to oppose these outdated 'weapons systems'. This leads Miller to his conclusion: "This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?" Fucking lunatic; to paraphrase Jon Stewart, it looks like grandpa forgot to take his medicine.

In sum, a good, rabble-rousing show. Just two months now.

To answer those who may claim my ideology, I say that I do not think in terms of ideology. I am an independent thinker, free of the spectrum of 'liberal' or 'conservative' or whatever may fall in-between. Liberalism and conservatism are equally good doctrines (at least according to their dictionary definitions), but I reject both, because ideology is a filter of truth, and if there is an ideology with which I think it is this: common sense. I attempt wherever I can to use reason, and logic, both of which are products of the Enlightenment, as is Liberalism; and so, if this is 'liberal', so be it. And as for the extremes, I am absolutely opposed to them: extremism is extremism, and so 'ultra' liberalism is just as corrosive as 'ultra' conservatism, or 'ultra' anything. I do not think in terms of extremes, at least rationally; it follows that I also do not try to think in terms where anything is unconditional, for that is just as malignant as an extreme. And then there is absolutism, which I also vehemently reject: so, in conclusion, I try not to adhere to any ideology and only think in terms of what makes sense to me, and that is all.

A New York Times editorial ("Abolish the Electoral College," 29 August 2004) writes that the electoral college is "a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis. There should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president." I do agree that the electoral system established by the Founding Fathers is indeed flawed, but to abolish the Electoral College altogether would be to visit the nightmare that they rightly feared: the Tyranny of the Majority. Its "main problem", the Times editorial writes, "is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War [in 1876, 1888, and 2000], that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote." Because the number of electors per state is determined by the number of representatives in Congress plus its two Senators, the electoral college inherently skews the vote. For instance, in Wyoming, whose population is around 500,000 and whose number of electors is 3, the peoples' vote is about four times more powerful than that of California, whose population is about 36 million and has 55 electors. "The arcane rules governing the Electoral College," the Times editorial continues, "have the potential to create havoc if things go wrong. Electors are not required to vote for the candidates they are pledged to, and if the vote is close in the Electoral College, a losing candidate might well be able to persuade a small number of electors to switch sides. Because there are an even number of electors - one for every senator and House member of the states, and three for the District of Columbia - the Electoral College vote can end in a tie. There are several plausible situations in which a 269-269 tie could occur this year. In the case of a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote - one for Wyoming's 500,000 residents and one for California's 35.5 million." Again, because of the skewed nature of the College and the Republican domination of the House of Representatives, a tie would signify a victory for Bush. The stakes, the editorial concludes, are simply too high to not "mak[e] every vote count."

The White House has released its definitive report on President Bush's record during his term in office ("President George W. Bush: A Remarkable Record of Achievement," Aug. 2004*), in which it lays out all of the reasons why Bush deserves another four years in office. I must admit that it is convincing, and by "is" I mean "appears". In the conclusion, we are told that ...

The economy "has grown at the fastest rate of any major industrialized nation," although this has no bearing on the amount of growth; if reports by the Bureau of Labor Statistics or the US Census Bureau are any indicators, the economy - with stalled job growth (only 32,000 new jobs in July), stagnant household income, an increase in poverty (up to 12.5% nationally), and a very substantial trade deficit ($55.8 billion) - is in trouble. But, nevermind; in addition to our economy having "grown at the fastest rate of any major industrialized nation" (that is, presumably, of any other member of the G-8: the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Germany, France, Canada, and Mexico), its growth is "as fast as any in nearly 20 years"! Where were we 20 years ago, anyway? Oh, right: 1984, just out of a recession under Reagan. Great frame of reference there.

We are told that "nearly 1.5 million jobs have been created since August 2003 and 1.3 million new jobs have been created this year alone," although, conveniently, it is not specified whether this means net job creation. My guess is no. Why talk about all the jobs we've lost? No point there. Also, the unemployment rate "today is below the average unemployment rate of the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s," though it is omitted that once one's unemployment runs out, one is no longer counted as 'unemployed', and so the figure is probably bound to be a lot higher, when it is also factored in that job creation has stalled and a couple million jobs were lost since the beginning of the recession that began in March 2001.

More spinned figures are trotted out piecemeal by the Executive, concerning productivity, stock market gains (hardly of any effect to your average American worker), "manufacturing activity" (it appears irrelevant to point out the loss in manufacturing jobs since the beginning of Bush's tenure, which may have been accelerated after the repeal of the steel tariff, much to the detriment of the industry), "real after-tax incomes" up 11% over the past four years (nationwide, median income remains stagnant at $43,318, according to the Census report; DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Mills, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-226. 'Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003.' U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Aug. 2004, p. 3), interest rates being at "their lowest levels in decades" under Bush, "homeownership" at "its highest level ever" and mortgage rates at "their lowest level in decades" with - "for the first time" - "the majority of minority Americans" owning "their own homes," etc. (So fuck record oil and gasoline prices {national average of around $2/gallon and nearing $50/barrel, respectively}! Who cares?)

Partially taking credit for achievements under the Clinton administration, we also read that, "between 1999-2000 and 2001-2002", the rate of violent crimes "decreased 21 percent" and "is now down to its lowest point in the last three decades," or since 1974, when crime rates where quite high; in addition, again partially thanks to the work done under the Clinton administration, the rate of property crime "dropped 13 percent between 1999-2000 and 2001-2002." (*, 'The Condition of America,' p. 44)

And there are other figures, many of which Bush cannot possibly take credit for, such as the figure where it is read that "recent use of ecstasy, which sharply increased between 1998 and 2001, fell by half among high school students – and past use of LSD fell by almost two-thirds." (ibid, p. 45) And, in a real nod to the Clinton administration, we read that "the largest welfare caseload decline in history occurred between 1996 and 2003, with the caseload falling 60 percent." [Isn't it amazing how the achievements of one President somehow wind up as the achievements of another?] Also, "a March 2004 study by the Council of Great City Schools, the achievement gap in both math and reading between African Americans and whites, and Hispanics and whites, is narrowing," but apparently not by any figure that the White House thought interesting enough to show. More blacks "today are finishing high school, going to college, and earning higher salaries than ever," (id.) although more are still in jail than in college. Finally, there is some "other" miscellanea that Bush has presided over but for which is somehow responsible.

A good record, yes. But what is omitted could fill a whole book, not to mention an entire record of the achievements of the Bush administration that are either not so positive but are outright bad (concerning Bush's real record on the environment and the economy, for instance). And don't forget the war in Iraq. But who wants that? Now go and re-elect this bastard on November 2. Can't change a horse mid-stream, right?

Was at Sea Isle City, NJ, for the second year in a row. Fun stuff. Anyway, there's a new book out, The Great Divide: Retro vs. Metro America, that reinforces the ridiculous myth that we are, as a nation, divided up into 'red' and 'blue' states; in the Great Divide, the argument is augmented, with its premise, in addition to the 'red' and 'blue' paradigm, that our society is split into 'Metro' and 'Retro'. From the website's description of the book, the Great Divide argues that America "is two nations: Retro America - conservative and rooted in the past; and Metro America - progressive and focused on the future."

Such bullshit: the idea that a whole state is emblematic of one 'half' of society or behind a party - as is suggested by Massachusetts being classically labeled a 'blue state' or Texas being classically labeled a 'red state' - does not stand to reality. Case-in-point: the 2000 Presidential election.

Take Massachusetts, for instance; in 2000, the majority of the people of the state voted for Gore. However, the votes for Bush in the state of Massachusetts amounted to a pretty sizeable margin of the vote (32.5%, or 878,502 votes). This is not much smaller than the number of votes cast for Gore (1,616,487; the number of votes cast for Bush in Massachusetts comprised over 54% of the votes cast for Gore). Blue state? No; in addition, Massachusetts has a Republican governor, as do all of the supposed 'blue states' of New England. (So does California, another so-called 'blue state'.)

Take Texas; in 2000, the people of the state voted for Bush. But, like Massachusetts, it was hardly a landslide: whereas Bush won a little over 59% of the vote, Gore won nearly 38% (2,433,746 votes; the number of votes cast for Gore in Texas comprised about 64% of the votes for Bush). Red state? No. In conclusion, I do not see any evidence that there is any backing to the idea of red states and blue states. It's just not true.

P.S.: Although the book is exclusively for sale on Amazon, you can read the entire thing for free. (Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, Chapter 7, Chapter 8, Chapter 9) So you can decide yourself whether you believe this nonsense.

(Source: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, Election Results; 2000 Presidential Election Figures: Massachusetts, Texas)

The Bush administration policy of preventive war seems to have backfired: the Iranian Defense Minister, Ali Shamkhani, "has warned that Iran may resort to pre-emptive strikes to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities," presumably by the United States, according to "an interview on Al Jazeera television" Wednesday "in response to a question about the possibility of an American or Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear projects," as cited in the New York Times (Nazila Fathi, "Iran Says It May Pre-empt Attack Against Its Nuclear Facilities," 20 August 2004, A4). According to the article, Vice Admiral Shamkhani declared in the interview that Iran "'will not sit to wait for what others will do to us'"; he added, "'Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly. Any nation, if it feels threatened, can resort to that.'" Thanks to the National Security Strategy of the United States (2002), wherein chapter five of the historic document the concept of preventive ('pre-emptive') war was officially codified, rogue states such as Iran now feel entitled to exercise that doctrine. To Mr. Bush, Mr. Rumsfeld, and Dr. Wolfowitz, I ask: What have you unleashed upon the world?

In case you all missed it the first time, here are the Articles of Impeachment against the current high-ranking members of the Administration (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft), if it were at all possible to draft them, courtesy of William Ramsey Clark, Attorney General under the Johnson Administration and controversial figure who defended Slobodan Milosevic in the International Criminal Court (ICC) and others (and thus is not really in a position to accuse anyone of 'war crimes', I suppose). Nevertheless, here are the 17 Articles of Impeachment, which are also accessible here. I should add that I am attributing these Articles to Clark, and do not personally endorse them. It's called journalism. Look for the quotation marks.

"Articles of Impeachment

"of

"President George W. Bush

"and

"Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General John David Ashcroft

"'The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

"President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out withimpunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rightsof the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperialexecutive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and thosereserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

"1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

"2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

"3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities andlocations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

"4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

"4) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secretand other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion ofprisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments andindividuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

"5) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

"6) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the 'Supreme Law of the land' under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

"7) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an 'enemy combatant.'

"8) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

"9) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

"10) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

"11) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

"12) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

"13) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

"14) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed 'terrorist.'

"15) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

"16) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

"17) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court."

Of course, with a Republican-dominated House of Representatives and Senate, it is simply not possible, as I have said above, to impeach the current incumbents. And Mr. Clark's own record does not seem to fare well. Nevertheless, the arguments put forth in the Articles appear quite damning.

Hurricane Charley's trail of devastation is unsettling, indeed. My hope, and that of everyone else, is that those affected directly by its path of destruction find home again, and their lives, too. I'm sorry that I didn't talk about this sooner. I just really couldn't find the right words, and for my thoughtlessness I apologize. Thankfully it did not reach where I live, and for that I am most grateful; many others were not that fortunate, not the 16 Floridians who were killed, nor the poor people whose lives are ruined and whose houses are obliterated.

According to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics - as cited in a New York Times graphic (15 August, 2004, 'The Jobs Picture', A12) - from March 2001 (when the recession officially began, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research) to June 2004, 17 states (34% of the total) have seen an increase in employment* ranging from .4% (South Carolina) to 7% (Nevada), and 31 states (62% of the total) have seen a decrease in employment ranging from .1% (Wisconsin) to 5.7% (Massachusetts). The number of jobs** created in the intervening 38 months range from 260,000 (Florida) to 3,000 (South Dakota), and the number of jobs lost range from 1,000 (Vermont) to 222,000 (Illinois).

When you figure that a significant majority of states*** have seen net job losses, the dictum that our economy "has turned the corner" does not stand to scrutiny.

*Presumably net employment (for all figures), although it is not specified in the graphic.

**The numbers regarding new job creation or loss are also presumed to be net.

***Again, 34% of the States have had net job growth and 62% of the States have had net job decay; the remaining 4% (Maine and Missouri) have had no net change since the beginning of the recession (March 2001).

The lowest 20% of American taxpayers* are paying 1.5% less in federal taxes and the highest 1% are paying 6.8% less, between 2000 and current (2004) law, according to figures from a new report by the Congressional Budget Office ('Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014', CBO, August 2004, Appendix A/Table A-1, p. 17).

Disgusting, isn't it? And the CBO is not a partisan group with an axe to grind, either. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: Happy Friday the 13th.

*This refers to the 'lowest quintile' income bracket, whose 'base-year income level' is $14,900; the highest 1% refers to those whose minimum annual income is $1,050,100; to emphasize the income gap in this country, the difference of magnitude between the highest income bracket ($1,050,100 or more) and the lowest ($14,900) is almost 70.5.

For those who are not familiar with the comparative size of the nation in which we find ourselves embroiled, here it is. I have to admit that it surprised me, too. (Via www.GlobalSecurity.org)

The post facto rationale for preventive war against Iraq, once no WMDs were discovered, was the 'liberation' of the Iraqi people. In Sudan there is a current humanitarian crisis; there are no calls from the White House for the liberation of the Sudanese from their regime that is sanctioning the murder, pillage, and expulsion of African villagers in Western Darfur by Arab rebels. Either this administration is composed of shameless, opportunistic hypocrites, or Sudan has no real strategic importance, I don't know. I suppose both. But, in our silence we are complicit: Elie Wiesel once said that evil is allowed to persist when good men do nothing. President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are not good men, but we must do something. We have to, although many others and I have no power to make a difference, and therefore we must delegate the authority to our self-declared leaders.

An international body will be observing the Presidential general election this November, according to a report from CNN. The US State Department reportedly "invited" the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) "to monitor the election". The call for international monitoring of a US Presidential general election (unprecedented in American history), came after 13 "Democratic members of the House of Representatives, raising the specter of possible civil rights violations that they said took place in Florida and elsewhere in the 2000 election, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July, asking him to send observers." Annan rejected the call on the grounds that the Bush administration can only sanction it, and so "the Democrats" (unnamed in full; only two of the alleged thirteen) asked State Secretary Colin Powell for international monitoring, which led toward heated discussion in the House, "and Republicans got an amendment," according to the Associated Press, "to a foreign aid bill that barred federal funds from being used for the United Nations to monitor U.S. elections". The OSCE "will send a preliminary mission to Washington in September to assess the size, scope, logistics and cost of the mission," according to OSCE spokeswoman Urdur Gunnarsdottir, adding that it "will then determine how many observers are required and where in the United States they will be sent." Although, according to an anonymous "State Department spokesman", "'the OSCE routinely monitors elections within its 55-state membership, including Europe, Eurasia, Canada and the United States,'" he stated, according to CNN, that "the United States does not have any details on the size and composition of the observers or what countries will provide them." In a final note, nonewithstanding that it is unprecedented that the United States will have the monitoring from an international body of its general Presidential election, the OSCE did monitor the November 2002 mid-term election as well as the 2003 California recall.

The New York Times (www.nytimes.com*) posted this article ('Diplomacy Fails to Slow Advance of Nuclear Arms', */2004/08/08/politics/08nuke.html) in what appears to be a cut off. There's no 'next' button. Anywhere. At least at the moment.

The Baghdad office of al Jazeera, the world's largest Arab-language news network, has been shut down by the interim Iraqi government, according to a report by CNN. A "statement" from the Iraqi Interior Ministry read, in a ridiculous statement, that al Jazeera "has accepted to be the mouthpiece of terrorist and criminal groups thus contributing to attempts to impair security and achieve aims of terrorism in spreading terror in the minds of peaceful Iraqi citizens with activities that have nothing to do with acts of violence." This is outrageous; I have regularly read news from the English mirror of Jazeera, and it is nothing of the sort. Does covering terrorism equate to supporting it? Isn't al Jazeera the very kind of democratic mechanism we ought to hope for in Iraq or, for that matter, in the entire Middle East? Freedom of the press and criticism is the antidote to repressive state media, such as the propaganda organs of the regimes of Syria, Saudi Arabia, et. al., which view al Jazeera with hatred as it is a threat to their 'interests'. Do we want Iraq to become a repressive, police state, with an autocracy at its helm that rules by decree as to what its citizenry is allowed to be exposed to? If so, we cannot call it democracy.

I do not think I believe in global warming anymore:

The National Weather Service reports, tonight, "near record low temperatures expected" due to a "A STRONG COLD FRONT [that] PUSHED TROUGH THE REGION EARLY THURSDAY[,] ALLOWING NORTHERLY WINDS TO USHER IN A COLD CANADIAN AIRMASS. ... TEMPERATURES WILL QUICKLY FALL DURING THE LATE EVENING. BY DAWN[,] TEMPERATURES ARE EXPECTED TO RANGE FROM THE MID TO UPPER 50S IN DOWNTOWN WASHINGTON DC AND BALTIMORE[,] TO AROUND 50 IN THE OUTLYING SUBURBS[,] AND THE MIDDLE 40S IN THE HIGHER TERRAIN WEST OF THE BLUE RIDGE." According to general NWS statement, "Atypically cool, Canadian air by early August standards is in control of the Northeast and mid-Atlantic."

I know, I know, global warming deals with the increase of planet-wide, average temperature, but still, this weather is very unusual for this time of year.

Although quite long (145 min.) and not-so-well edited, nonetheless The Corporation is a fantastic documentary on the excesses of corporate wealth and power, and how, if not kept to account by the people who are directly affected by its influence, the corporation (which, legally, is a 'person' because of its nature as a singular entity that under the law is allowed to act as one) can become something of a monster to society, indeed. The film does not argue that the corporation is inherently evil; but, like most powerful, moneyed institutions, does have the capacity to do wrong to people. In short, to paraphrase, the film puts forth the premise, as the Bible also states, that the love of money is the root of all evil; in putting the profit margin and the 'bottom line' ahead of all other concerns, the corporation leaves much room for malfeasance, to say the least. Exploring many case-studies, such as Monsanto and its carcinogenic rBST milk-producing hormone, to IBM and its relationship with Nazi Germany as well as its complicity in the Holocaust, The Corporation is a film not free of bias, in that it classifies 'the corporation' as a 'psychopath' following a checklist of psychological conditions (being that a corporation is defined as a 'person', after all). Nonetheless, in light of its overt agenda it is a powerful film that is, above all, a warning: IF YOU PUT UNCONDITIONAL FAITH IN AN INSTITUTION WHOSE POWER NOW DOMINATES OUR SOCIETY, YOU GIVE THEM FREE REIGN TO DO WHATEVER WILL MAXIMIZE THEIR WEALTH AND POWER, OFTEN AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LESS PRIVILEGED AND POOR.

This is a Public Service Announcement:

Attention, 40% of registered voters who plan to actually cast their ballots this November: PLEASE DO NOT vote NADER-CAMEJO if you live in the following states,* listed in alphabetical order:

Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.

*The states in bold are those in which you not voting Nader-Camejo is especially important.

The intelligence upon which the latest terrorism alerts from the Homeland Security Department was based, according to an article from the Washington Post, came from reported al Qaeda 'surveillance' of US financial institutions 3+ years ago and, most significantly, predating September 11, 2001. So, is this new 'threat', unprecedented in its specific nature, really anything substantial? or, worse, is it just a diversion? If it is the latter, that would prove that this administration really has no shame. Homeland Security Secretary Ridge today defended the new terrorism threat in lieu of criticism of its validity, stating that "the government needed to take 'preemptive action' to warn the public that al Qaeda had been casing five U.S. financial institutions [the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank (Washington); the Citigroup Center, the New York Stock Exchange (New York), and Prudent Financial (Newark)], even if the alleged surveillance was conducted before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."* Seriously, what is with this administration and preemption? Either preemptive war (actually preventive) or, such a case as this, preemptive fear.

*Emphases added.

Although I am no longer linked to Karmaloop for some reason, I'm linked at it's new Korean mirror, aptly titled Karmaloop Korea (I hope that's South Korea, Greg). So if there are any South Koreans out there who would care to read whatever I think worthy enough to post (such as this), then go right ahead. No, seriously; please.

This Thursday I am seeing The Corporation, a documentary about the psychology of corporations as, in legal terms, the 'persons' that they are.* It appears very objective, has interviews with some of the best commentators in the field, including Noam Chomsky, and, from the preview, looks fantastic.

Also, the brilliant creators of South Park, one of my favorite TV shows, are releasing a new movie this October, Team America: World Police. Watch the trailer; it's funny as shit, and I can't wait to see another production from Matt and Trey (it reminds me of the South Park movie a little): it's a film that we need right now.

Tonight at 10 PM the Discovery Channel is scheduled to broadcast a program about the real identity of Christopher Columbus, "Columbus: Secrets From the Grave." Dramatically declaring, NO MAN HAS EVER GONE FURTHER TO HIDE HIS TRUE IDENTITY, the program will concern recent DNA testing ('genotyping') and "3D laser scanning" conducted by "forensic anthropologists" of the bones attributed to Columbus, who contributed toward the extermination of the native Arawak population of Hispaniola (as noted by historian Howard Zinn), from "the chest that holds his bones", owned by "his direct descendant Anunciada Colon". In addition to being a murderer from Genoa, like most conquerers, the program will ask whether Columbus could "have been a pirate, a Jew fleeing the [Spanish] Inquisition or the illegitimate son of a Spanish aristocrat", and will attempt to answer why Columbus went "to such great lengths to keep his origins a mystery". So, tune in. And, uh, drop out.

It's brilliant, indeed ... 

That's right. There's no need to adjust your computer. You are looking a picture on this website. For the first time during the 17 months that this site has been on the Internet I got a picture up here: for free, no less.

Watch out for the Russkies. 

Demme's re-make of The Manchurian Candidate looks great, but I think I should probably see the original first.

As another example of shit going very wrong in post-occupation Iraq, CNN reports that "Iraqi forces, insurgents, civilians and three U.S. service members lost their lives in violence Wednesday, among them at least 68 in a Baquba suicide bombing and 42 in fighting in south-central Iraq." You know, I really hope that we can get the fuck out of that mess as soon as possible with the least damage done. God damn.

And now, a passage from the journal of "prison pyschologist and U.S. Army Captain"* Gustave M. Gilbert, Nuremberg Diary, concerning an interview with Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering in his prison cell, during the Easter recess from the Nazi war crimes trials at Nuremberg (April 18, 1946), with emphases added.

GOERING: "Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship."

GILBERT: "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

GOERING: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

After reading the first two chapters of the exhaustively researched 9-11 Commission final report (see below for the link to it in its entirety), I commend the bipartisan committee for its excellent, objective work at piecing together, almost on a minute-by-minute basis, the circumstances and actions surrounding what happened on that terrible day.

The second chapter deals with the broader, historical context regarding the rise of Islamist radicalism and, particularly, Osama bin Laden's brand of it, al Qaeda, whose history is meticulously dissected and recorded. Although I am only up to page 71 of the report, I do not see any political bias at all, regardless of what, say, Fox News Channel may say about the Commission or its Report.

Also, concerning one of the more controversial findings of the Commission -- the one that flatly rejected the notion that al Qaeda and Iraq had solid ties -- is not entirely represented by the mainstream.

Here's the full story on the relationship between the state of Iraq and al Qaeda, according to the findings of the Commission (emphases added): "There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin" (p. 66).

However, "In March 1998, ... two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. ... According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States." In light of all this, the Report concludes that "to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship." Furthermore, no evidence was found by the Commission "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" (id.)

The very well-documented Report, complete with 1,742 endnotes (pp. 451-567), is not to pass unnoticed. At least I can reserve my final judgment until I finish reading it. But, at 585 pages, it is quite lengthy, although the actual text of the Report does not begin until page 17, which puts the length of the actual Report at an easier-to-digest 568 pages (3% less).

The 9-11 Commission (the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States) released its final, 585-page report ("The 9/11 Commission Report") Thursday, available as a PDF file in full here.

In a controversial move, the United Nations voted 150-6 to endorse "a resolution demanding that Israel comply" with the ruling of the International Court of Justice at The Hague "to dismantle its West Bank barrier," according to a report from BBC News.

 

According to al Jazeera, the largest Arab-language news network, many Palestinians see the barricade/wall/fence as, bluntly put, an 'apartheid wall', which personally seems extreme (my view is that it is simply a wall). Whether this degrades the social standing of Palestinians even further from their current second-class citizen status to the point at which it can be compared to South African apartheid is, well, arguable at best.

 

There were 10 abstentions to the vote, and among the nations opposed were the United States and, of course, Israel. The 'security fence' (a.k.a. 'apartheid wall' or barricade) currently being constructed will cut relatively deep into Palestinian territory, which is the cause of the controversy over the issue as many Palestinians (the US Census Bureau estimates that the population of Palestinians living in the West Bank is roughly two million) see as a 'land grab'.

 

Israeli Defense Force (IDF) plans entail the construction of enclaves inside the West Bank that appear to divide off sections of the West Bank into segregated cantons, known quite simply as the 'Encirclement Fence' (David Makovsky, "How to Build a Fence," Foreign Affairs, March/April 2004, vol. 83/no. 2, p. 60).

 

Under the IDF plan, the so-called fence will excise 47% of Palestinian territory and there will be 118 Israeli settlements (as opposed to 52 settlements under the Israeli Ministry of Defense plan, 45 according to the 'Clinton Parameters', and 18 under the Geneva Accords) on the 'Israeli side' of the fence (ibid., p. 61), which under the 'encirclement' plan will cut far into West Bank territory, even more so than what is currently being constructed. (Imagine the global outcry from humanitarian groups and the like if the 'encirclement' plan, much less the current one in effect by the Ministry of Defense, were to be implemented.)

 

Under the current scenario, which has elicited global condemnation -- from the ICJ for instance and, now, the UN, in addition to 'Arab world' opinion -- 14.5% of Palestinian land is being annexed and 10,940 Palestinians (id.) are being displaced, roughly .5% of the population of the West Bank.

 

The idea of segregating a whole population of a particular group of people (the Palestinians) is disturbingly reminiscent of the ghettoes in which the Jews were forced to live cordoned off from the rest of society by the Germans, although it must be made clear that I, a Jew myself, am NOT comparing the state of Israel to Nazi Germany, but rather that the policies of the Sharon administration and the IDF toward the Palestinian people are about as disturbing as the PLO's policy toward the Jewish people, which is to drive them to the sea; Sharon's policy is to keep the Palestinians as second-class citizens, and segregated from society in name of 'security'. Of course, this is a completely outrageous, unacceptable observation and for that I most sincerely apologize.

 

Again, as a Jew, however, I very much support Israel's right to exist as much as any nation's. However, I am deeply troubled that its Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, may be sending his nation down the path of a very dark road, and I hope that the two peoples in that troubled land may someday find a way to co-exist and seek a peace between themselves. A wall, be it in the form of any name, is not the answer. It will only make the problem worse, and continue to ensure that the devastating cycle of resentment and violence may only continue.

Although I do not believe there is any 'liberal bias' in US mainstream media (e.g. the Associated Press, CNN, Washington Post, etc.), here's a site that does posit that view, complete with a very convenient, collated list of instances where "liberal bias, agendas, distortions and erroneous reporting" appears by paper, big and small.

The 9-11 Commission (also known as the National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States) is scheduled to release its final report on Thursday, 22 July. Here's their press statement. Hopefully the report won't be too laden with rhetoric and will just get right to the facts that the Commission has found. In which case, it's probably going to be a very long report.

There's a new, cheaper iPod now that has longer battery life. Oh, yeah, and if you happen to have a brand-new BMW, you can get an adapter so that your brand-new iPod can seamlessly be integrated into the pre-existing sound system. Elitist bastards; why doesn't Starbucks have a franchise where you can have your own espresso machine in your Mercedes. I don't have a fuckin' BMW, but I do have an iPod: 5 GB, first-generation. Yeah, with the scroll wheel. Sure, it's not one of the new ones with no moving parts or the cool, touch-sensitive buttons. It's one of the first, and sort of clunky and heavy by comparison. But I don't care. It's still fuckin' awesome to me.

The Los Alamos National Laboratory has been shut down due to a number of disks containing classified nuclear information that are missing and unaccounted for. According to an article from Wired News, the director of the lab, George P. "Pete" Nanos, Jr., "'has suspended all operations at the laboratory,'" according to "an internal e-mail obtained by Wired News". On July 15, Nanos "suspended all classified work at Los Alamos, after officials there lost track of a pair of Zip disks and two external hard drives containing classified information." Los Alamos "is under fire for losing track of its classified material three times in the last eight months." According to Danielle Brian, the "executive director of the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight", Nanos said that "'these guys aren't taking security or safety seriously. I'm shutting this place down until they do.'" I hope that the site of the research and development of the first atomic bomb and the foremost nuclear lab in the US can get its shit together. (This story was heavily buried in the Washington Post, as one of the Nation In Brief articles on page A17.)

Just in case you are in doubt of the facts presented in Fahrenheit 9/11, you can consult the 'Notes + Sources' for the movie, collated and published on Michael Moore's website. (Here's the link to the documentation.) Check it out.

You know, there's a reason why Fahrenheit 9/11 is not doing relatively as well as, say, Spider-Man 2. Although it has thus grossed about $60 million (with an opening weekened of $22 million, a record for a documentary), there are some who are saying that it is only doing mediocre, and they have their theories to account for this. I have mine, and it is a very simple, logical one, free of any ideological constraints or partisan bantering: the rating and the size and scope of the release. The MPAA, up until a few days before the US release, was being appealed for a PG-13 rating; didn't happen. So, less people are allowed to see the film. Also, the limited release, ensured by the 'controversial' content of the film, the criticism from the mainstream media, and the few pressure groups that intimidated theatres from showing the film (à la The Passion of the Christ, a film that Fahrenheit 9/11 is being compared to, although the Passion was not, to my knowledge, very political) set the barrier up to which the film could grow into the hearts of Americans. Usually I'm not this eloquent, and for that I apologize.

A report released today by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence through the New York Times, "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq," includes 117 'conclusions' that damn the CIA for distorting intelligence on Iraqi capability regarding its alleged biological, chemical, and nuclear arsenals (WMD). In trademark bureaucratic newspeak, the paper reads, "Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting." Some of the findings in the report are redacted, but it is pretty damning nonetheless.

Disney, in a limited national release, distributed a film to, they believe, counteract Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, titled America's Heart and Soul.

I'm not even done reviewing Ann Coulter latest book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, and I've learned that she is coming out with a new one to hit bookstores this fall, titled, How To Talk To a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter. I'll probably read it, you know, by checking it out from a library as I did with Treason. I'd never give that bitch money. But as the Bible says, Know Thy Enemy. And so I set out to do so. But, you see, I already know her world outlook, and it is insane, so in all honesty I don't think I'll need to read her newest book, which you can pre-order on Amazon. It should be a funny read, nevertheless; but, not until I'm done reviewing Treason. (I don't know how I'm going to post that review here; it's sort of long.)

Now that Iraq is officially a 'free' nation, you know, because we transferred 'total sovereignty' to the interim Iraqi 'government', are our troops getting out of there anytime soon? Well, according to an article in the Christian Science Monitor: "US troops ... are suffering from low morale that has in some cases hit 'rock bottom.' ... 'Make no mistake, the level of morale for most soldiers that I've seen has hit rock bottom,' said ... an officer from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq. ... 'Faced with continued resistance [from insurgents], [the] Department of Defense now plans to keep a larger force in Iraq than anticipated for a period of time,' Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, explained in a statement to families a month ago. ... The open-ended deployments in Iraq are lowering morale among some ground troops, who say constantly shifting time tables are reducing confidence in their leadership. 'The way we have been treated and the continuous lies told to our families back home has devastated us all,' a soldier in Iraq wrote in a letter to Congress."

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight. It is an excellent, brilliant work of cinema. I estimate that it's impact will be pretty huge. The New York Times has, in fact, a whole section devoted to the 'controversial' film ("Spotlight on 'Fahrenheit 9/11'"), including a review by A.O. Scott ("Unruly Scorn Leaves Room for Restraint, but Not a Lot") and an op-ed column by David Brooks ("All Hail Moore"). Rolling Stone gave the documentary a decidedly positive review, scoring it at ***1/2.

The US military handed over partial sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government two days before officially planned, due to the fact that Iraq is in a state of a sort of civil war. Iraqis will not have a fully sovereign, free nation, however, until the January 2005 election. Until then, over 100,000 US troops will still be in Iraq to maintain order, which seems to be rapidly slipping away. I hope for the best in Iraq; the Iraqi people have had a long, tragic history, and I hope that what we have done will, for the long run, be a good thing for the benefit of all.

Got the new CD by the Beastie Boys yesterday, To The 5 Boroughs. It's really great: evocative of the great, old-school rap and laden with adept delivery and masterful lyricism, embedded with a strong sense of social and political consciousness. Rolling Stone gave the album five stars; here's their review.

Seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 on Monday. Can't wait. I can see that it is quickly becoming perhaps one of the most divisive films in history. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Moore, for his courage, his views. My political perspective can be essentially boiled down to this: I believe in common sense, and I think that if doesn't make sense, then it's not worth my time and thought. That's all.

For the most part, I have decided to steer clear of any official reviews of Fahrenheit 9/11. As with most movies I go to see, I want to have a clear head on the matter and let me form opinions myself. That's fair, right? I think so.

So fuckin' psyched to see Fahrenheit 9/11. Too bad I'll be at American University for two weeks (which will be fun; journalism stuff), but maybe I can still see it. Maybe I should get one of them advance screening tickets. I heard that Moore appealed the MPAA for a PG-13 rating, so that kids who might get drafted in a few years will at least be able to see what's going on in a country that they somewhere down the road might be sent to. Currently the film is "not yet rated," according to the latest TV spot, though it was rated R only a week ago.

There it is. I like it. And don't let the number fool you, 'cuz this site's been around for a while; and according to what I can remember, the counter was at around 1250 or around that when it fucked up and, uh, apparently self-destructed.

A 27-member coalition -- Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change* -- is opposing the Bush administration, and does not want his reelection in November, on the grounds that it has not lived up to its responsibilities and "does not understand the world and remains unable to handle 'in either style or substance' the responsibilities of global leadership," according to a buried article** in the Washington Post.

Among the 27 members of the *DMCC are Admiral William J. Crowe, Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the Reagan administration, and Marine General Joseph P. Hoar, "commander in chief" of US CENTCOM during the Bush I administration. Only one of the twenty-seven in the group described himself as affiliated with the Kerry campaign: Ret. Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, who was a "former U.S. Air Force chief of staff and "the Oregon chairman of Republican Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign in 1996" and "joined Veterans for Bush in 2000." In a interview with al Jazeera on the DMCC's criticism of the Bush administration, State Secretary Colin Powell explained things clearly.

"I disagree that the United States is so isolated, as they say," [Powell] told the Qatar-based satellite television network. "I mean, the president has gone to the United Nations repeatedly in order to gain the support of the international community. We are in Iraq with many other nations that are contributing troops. Are we isolated from the Brits, from the Poles, from the Romanians, from the Bulgarians, from the Danes, from the Norwegians?"

It is very telling when a group composed of former envoys, ambassadors, generals, etc. (two of which are named above) goes against an administration that one would think they would endorse, at least implicitly; it is especially illustrative when former members of the Reagan and Bush I administrations are now opposed to that of Bush II. This looks like the beginning of the end for Bush, Rummy & Co. The DMCC's official statement can be found here.

**It's on page A22.

Tomorrow morning, early, at around 5 in the morning, I'm going to leave for Los Angeles for a few days, so that's where I'll be. Peace.

Today I went to the protest in DC that I mentioned before. It is incredible. I would say there were people, of a large cross-section of races, ethnicities, and nationalities, in the thousands. The march, from Layfette Square to War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's official residence (which I am sure is unprecedented in its audacity), went on for at least an hour, about two miles. It was one of the greatest things I've ever been involved with. You really feel like you're a part of something much, much bigger than yourself, a part of history. Although there were a few there that gave us a bad name (such as one who equated Israelis and the Palestinians with the Nazis and the Jews, or the ones with the sign that read: "Support the Resistance: Free Saddam," which was really ridiculous), for the most part the messages that most people there had were ones that any sane American can agree with. As we marched through the ghettoes, in particular, it was really something to see people on the stoop of their homes, shouting with us and cheering us on. I sensed some trouble (fortunately none came to pass) when the police barricaded most of us from getting any closer to Rummy's multi-million dollar mansion and one of the people was like, "Seig hail!" I sighed, knowing that that was a particularly stupid (and, yeah, retarded) thing to do. Fortunately, after we began chanting and all, the Feds caved in and let us through. Shouting "The People United Will Never Be Defeated!" we marched on through to meet up with the small group of protestors at the front who had inexplicably gotten through. A list of people made speeches there, including Michael Berg, the father of Nick Berg (who was beheaded by Iraqi militants). Ironically, one of the pitifully small group of counter-protestors who were closer to Rummy's house (of course) held a poster that included a photo of Nick Berg before his decapitation, and at the same time that man's father was denouncing the administration for letting it happen. You could really smell it in the air: the thunder of democratic change. Sorry. Excuse the lameness of that, but that's how it was. I tell ya: come November 2nd, we are going to see the closest election this nation has ever had, and the result will seal our fate (for better or worse). An Associated Press wire from the Washington Post has the story, although the article cites the number of protestors as "several hundred." The number of protestors went on as long as the eye can see; it had to have been in the thousands. But what do I know? After all, I was only right there in the middle of it, so what do I know? And the breaking news at this moment is the death of Fmr. Pres. Ronald Reagan, which is currently dominating headlines and will (no doubt) be the leading headline in the 'liberal media' tomorrow. But not to worry, those not in the DC area will hear about the massive protest if they flip through tomorrow's Post for a few minutes. They'll find it ... somewhere. But anyhow, the Great June 5 DC Protest is an event I'll never forget. All I can do now is quote the great Bob Dylan, who once said that "the times they are a-changin'"; they are, indeed.

Michael Moore's latest documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, opens in theatres nationally on June 25th! The two distributors, IFC Films and Lions Gate Productions are both distributing the film. Shit, this is so dope: the film will be in "a record number of screens for a documentary," according to Moore on his website. I can't fuckin' wait.

UPDATE: I have just seen the trailer for the film, and I am really psyched about it. It's really gonna be great. You can check it out here, though the official site claims (due to high volume of traffic) that it is unavailable at the present time. (QuickTime req'd to view trailer.)

Upon his visit to the Vatican, Bush was greeted by half-a-million Romans protesting the war in Iraq. Oh, and the Vatican itself is strong opposed to the war. Thank God we have allies, right? Secondly, the June 5 protest in DC is, well, tomorrow. So, uh, I'm going. Tryin' to think of a good sign, though. Hmm ...

The Bush/Cheney propaganda machine is getting desperate, resorting to attacks 'unprecedented' in their negative, misleading tone toward Kerry. According to an article in the Washington Post, the amount of negative ads directed toward Kerry by the Bush campaign has been described by "scholars and political strategists" as "extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts." Furthermore, "Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising." In fact, "Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate." For instance, the Bush campaign has accused Kerry of criticizing the validity of the War on Terrorism, wanting to do away with wiretaps on suspected terrorists, wanting to raise the gasoline tax, and 'flip-flopping' on changes in the education system, although he "did not question the war on terrorism, has proposed repealing tax cuts only for those earning more than $200,000, supports wiretaps, has not endorsed a 50-cent gasoline tax increase in 10 years, and continues to support the education changes, albeit with modifications." To see the Bush attack machine as it begins to run on empty, consider the following:

"In early March, Bush charged that Kerry had proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget that would 'gut the intelligence services.' Kerry did propose such a cut in 1995, but it amounted to about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget and was smaller than the $3.8 billion cut the Republican-led Congress approved for the same program Kerry was targeting. ... On March 11, the Bush team released a spot saying that in his first 100 days in office Kerry would 'raise taxes by at least $900 billion.' Kerry has said no such thing; the number was developed by the Bush campaign's calculations of Kerry's proposals. On March 30, the Bush team released an ad noting that Kerry 'supported a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax' and saying, 'If Kerry's tax increase were law, the average family would pay $657 more a year.' But Kerry opposes an increase in the gasoline tax. The ad is based on a 10-year-old newspaper quotation of Kerry but implies that the proposal is current."

According to Darrell West, professor at Brown University, "Bush's level of negative advertising is already higher than the levels reached in the 2000, 1996 and 1992 campaigns." In addition, due to the unparalleled earliness (?) of the attack ads in a presidential election year, West -- "author of a book on political advertising" -- believes that 2004 will be "'the most negative campaign ever,' eclipsing 1988," in which Bush the Elder attacked Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis for his patriotism (not surprisingly, Bush Jr. and Karl Rove are using practically the same attack formula on Kerry).

Whatever your political beliefs may be, it looks pretty clear that 2004 will be an election year that might be one of the most important in our nation's history.

According to an article by the Washington Post, the New York Times has admitted in a note "from the editors" of the paper that its coverage of Iraqi WMD was lacking, at best. The Times now acknowledges that the paper's "coverage of whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction 'was not as rigorous as it shold have been' and that 'we wish we had been more aggressive in reexamining the claims as new evidence emerged--or failed to emerge.'" The Post cited five instances in which the Times had fallen prey to the Bush administration propaganda machine that pushed a false rationale for war with Iraq on the basis of the (nonexistent) WMD in question. It is very disturbing when the largest paper in the United States, the "Newspaper of Record," oft-described as part of the American "liberal media" establishment, doesn't do its job and instead parrots government rhetoric without second thought. As Thomas Jefferson once said that the path toward a tyrannical government is one that is not questioned; our free press must exercise the right of dissent, which Jefferson referred to as "the highest form" of patriotism. If the largest mainstream newspaper in our free society won't do it, who will?