Hail to the Chief ...
Saturday, December 18, 2004
Before I go on hiatus for the remainder of the year, it's time right about now for my summary of 2004 (unless, of course, something noteworthy happens in the next two weeks), and all of the crazy shit that went down this year. And crazy it was. Alright then:
Well, to begin there was the Superbowl and the whole ridiculous controversy over Janet Jackson (wasn't that stupid? I mean, in hindsight do you still give a shit?!), as well as the ensuing FCC crackdown.
The election year began in March, with Bush's campaign launching one of the most negative campaigns in American history against Senator Kerry, who never really got a platform going (that, I believe, was why he wasn't elected; the disaffected voters who cast their ballot for the President in 2000 simply did not see an alternative in Kerry, as he really didn't provide one).
The war in Iraq took a decided turn for the worse in April, when a mob burned and mutilated four contractors in Falluja, leading some to wonder whether it would mirror Somalia (it didn't; we're still in Iraq, over 8 months later). And in May prisoner torture at Abu Ghraib was disclosed; as I recall, initially we were all told that Pvt. England and the rest were just a 'few bad apples', of course, and were not links in a chain of command, as investigative reporter Seymour Hersh would later elaborate upon meticulously in his expose.
Muckraker and self-righteous filmmaker Michael Moore released his film, Fahrenheit 9/11, through an independent distributor on June 25 after Disney CEO Michael 'Craven Coward' Eisner balked on the plan. The film, intended to oust the president and his administration in the coming election, was a huge success; and, it grossed highest in cinema history for a documentary film, although its status as such was heatedly argued in light of its prevalent bias against, well, Mr. Bush, and its extensive distortions and misrepresentations. (I had written a review of the film, and I liked it a lot; however, as time went by my appreciation of it had diminished. I still will not compare him to Leni Riefenstahl, as many actually did.)
During the summer months, we had the ludicrous Swift Boat shit; what a fucking waste of time: "Was John Kerry really in Cambodia in Christmas 1969? ... Did he throw away the medals, or the ribbons in protest while he preached anti-American hate speech with Hanoi Jane?? We'll be right back, after ..." Jesus. How did we let this happen? It was a damn shame.
And then, the Republican National Convention ... in New York City, apparently a major Republican stronghold in which there was no opportunism at all and the tragedies of 9/11 were not used as the theme out of respect for the victims; oh, how I wish: of course, the exact opposite is what happened. In essence, the RNC was occupying enemy territory; many said it shamelessly exploited the September 11 attacks in order to lend some sort of credence to its agenda. I am, well, inclined to agree.
Election 2004: Wow. I was shocked, but mostly because I had assumed it would be closer than it turned out to be; in fact, I predicted it would be closer than 2000. Then again, I also predicted a few times that Bush would still win anyway, although it felt wary of admitting it. Fuck! Bush had won four more years, didn't he? How the hell did that happen? Wait ... was it stolen? Thus went the conspiracy theories. But there is some reason to 'em, I think. Watch this ... the CEO of Diebold (based in Ohio, state upon which election hinged), contributor and campaigner for Bush, owner of the machines used in the state; to this, we add the track record of gaping security holes with the machines (easy hackability and crash-prone ... hell, they're run on Windows, for God's sakes), as well as the holy grail of no recorded votes, hence no paper trail. And there's the purging of 'spoiled' and 'provisional' ballots, disproportionately affecting the poor, black population that most likely would not have given Bush another four years in office. Well, at least the only place where Bush was simply crushed was his own backyard, right? And as I said right after it was all over, 'Shame on all of us.' Yeah. But that's over and done with: 'We got an inauguration to set up here! so move out the way before I shock you with this tazer ...'
What a year, indeed. Last time I had concluded 2003 to be 'a strange year,' but this one's been at least as equally fucked-up, that's for sure.
See you folks in 2005. Shit, 2005 ...
Well, to begin there was the Superbowl and the whole ridiculous controversy over Janet Jackson (wasn't that stupid? I mean, in hindsight do you still give a shit?!), as well as the ensuing FCC crackdown.
The election year began in March, with Bush's campaign launching one of the most negative campaigns in American history against Senator Kerry, who never really got a platform going (that, I believe, was why he wasn't elected; the disaffected voters who cast their ballot for the President in 2000 simply did not see an alternative in Kerry, as he really didn't provide one).
The war in Iraq took a decided turn for the worse in April, when a mob burned and mutilated four contractors in Falluja, leading some to wonder whether it would mirror Somalia (it didn't; we're still in Iraq, over 8 months later). And in May prisoner torture at Abu Ghraib was disclosed; as I recall, initially we were all told that Pvt. England and the rest were just a 'few bad apples', of course, and were not links in a chain of command, as investigative reporter Seymour Hersh would later elaborate upon meticulously in his expose.
Muckraker and self-righteous filmmaker Michael Moore released his film, Fahrenheit 9/11, through an independent distributor on June 25 after Disney CEO Michael 'Craven Coward' Eisner balked on the plan. The film, intended to oust the president and his administration in the coming election, was a huge success; and, it grossed highest in cinema history for a documentary film, although its status as such was heatedly argued in light of its prevalent bias against, well, Mr. Bush, and its extensive distortions and misrepresentations. (I had written a review of the film, and I liked it a lot; however, as time went by my appreciation of it had diminished. I still will not compare him to Leni Riefenstahl, as many actually did.)
During the summer months, we had the ludicrous Swift Boat shit; what a fucking waste of time: "Was John Kerry really in Cambodia in Christmas 1969? ... Did he throw away the medals, or the ribbons in protest while he preached anti-American hate speech with Hanoi Jane?? We'll be right back, after ..." Jesus. How did we let this happen? It was a damn shame.
And then, the Republican National Convention ... in New York City, apparently a major Republican stronghold in which there was no opportunism at all and the tragedies of 9/11 were not used as the theme out of respect for the victims; oh, how I wish: of course, the exact opposite is what happened. In essence, the RNC was occupying enemy territory; many said it shamelessly exploited the September 11 attacks in order to lend some sort of credence to its agenda. I am, well, inclined to agree.
Election 2004: Wow. I was shocked, but mostly because I had assumed it would be closer than it turned out to be; in fact, I predicted it would be closer than 2000. Then again, I also predicted a few times that Bush would still win anyway, although it felt wary of admitting it. Fuck! Bush had won four more years, didn't he? How the hell did that happen? Wait ... was it stolen? Thus went the conspiracy theories. But there is some reason to 'em, I think. Watch this ... the CEO of Diebold (based in Ohio, state upon which election hinged), contributor and campaigner for Bush, owner of the machines used in the state; to this, we add the track record of gaping security holes with the machines (easy hackability and crash-prone ... hell, they're run on Windows, for God's sakes), as well as the holy grail of no recorded votes, hence no paper trail. And there's the purging of 'spoiled' and 'provisional' ballots, disproportionately affecting the poor, black population that most likely would not have given Bush another four years in office. Well, at least the only place where Bush was simply crushed was his own backyard, right? And as I said right after it was all over, 'Shame on all of us.' Yeah. But that's over and done with: 'We got an inauguration to set up here! so move out the way before I shock you with this tazer ...'
What a year, indeed. Last time I had concluded 2003 to be 'a strange year,' but this one's been at least as equally fucked-up, that's for sure.
See you folks in 2005. Shit, 2005 ...
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Reports are now surfacing that Ukrainian opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko was poisoned by dioxin. Tests were conducted under the direction of Dr. Michael Zimpfer, who said that his team had found "concentrations of dioxin 1,000 times above normal levels," according to a bulletin from MSNBC. I think it merits note that dioxin is the chief ingredient of Agent Orange. Beforehand I had asked myself, 'What's wrong with that guy's face?' And now I know. So, I hope he gets better, but it's kind of hard to recover from Agent Orange ...
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Finally, some goddamn unity here: after a nearly month-long stalemate in trying to pass the largest overhaul of national intelligence in a half-century, the Senate this afternoon voted overwhelmingly (89-2, with 9 abstaining) to endorse the bipartisan 9/11 Commission's recommendations toward establishing the post of a national intelligence director to oversee all of the nation's intelligence-gathering agencies. Yesterday, the House passed the bill by a margin of 336-75, and it is now on its way to Mr. Bush, who is expected to sign it. (Has he ever vetoed any substantial piece of legislation as our President? I can't recall.)
The objections made the leading members of the "near-rebellion" (as The New York Times worded it) in the House toward the bill were that the bill would impede communication between the Pentagon and the soldiers on the field, or something to that effect.
The Pentagon? Isn't this really about the CIA? You know, intelligence-gathering organizations? [Oh, well, there's the lesser known Defense Intelligence Agency.] But nonetheless, if some of the money that went toward the bombs that are helping bin Laden went instead toward overhauling the FBI's antiquated computers (I still cannot believe this) so that we could better do some real damage to bin Laden and his followers, it would be a great prospect.
Alas, as Richard Clarke (who referred to the 9/11 Commission recommendations in their final report as "toothless") has recognized, Bush has practically given almost every prospective terrorist in the world a sign-up for jihad. Where the legislation is for putting a quick and decisive end to this asinine and self-destructive (if not wholly counterintuitive) policy of lending a helping hand to our enemies, is something I would really like to know ...
The objections made the leading members of the "near-rebellion" (as The New York Times worded it) in the House toward the bill were that the bill would impede communication between the Pentagon and the soldiers on the field, or something to that effect.
The Pentagon? Isn't this really about the CIA? You know, intelligence-gathering organizations? [Oh, well, there's the lesser known Defense Intelligence Agency.] But nonetheless, if some of the money that went toward the bombs that are helping bin Laden went instead toward overhauling the FBI's antiquated computers (I still cannot believe this) so that we could better do some real damage to bin Laden and his followers, it would be a great prospect.
Alas, as Richard Clarke (who referred to the 9/11 Commission recommendations in their final report as "toothless") has recognized, Bush has practically given almost every prospective terrorist in the world a sign-up for jihad. Where the legislation is for putting a quick and decisive end to this asinine and self-destructive (if not wholly counterintuitive) policy of lending a helping hand to our enemies, is something I would really like to know ...
Friday, December 03, 2004
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
I'm really sorry, but news from Iraq: the American troop level has been raised to 150,000, largely through extending deployments for 10,000 soldiers already serving who had been told that they were going to go back home in the next few months. Of course, this roughly 9% increase in the occupation level of our forces is for securing the war-torn nation for the January election, but I see it as the subtle escalation of the war, billed under the usual pretexts of security. But what the hell do I know ...
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
In his first state visit to Canada in his tenure as President, Bush was greeted with enormous opposition from Canadians, who oppose him and his policies. "No, this is not Ukraine. This is Canada," declared Wolf Blitzer. This is hardly surprising, given that Ottawa did not contribute to the war effort in Iraq nor did the former Prime Minister support it. "I'd like to thank the Canadians who came out to wave ... with five fingers," said Bush. From the live televised footage from the rally, at times it turned relatively violent, with some intermittent pushing and shoving between the 'riot control' officials and the demonstrators. With signs reading 'Fuck Bush', 'Bush is the #1 Terrorist', 'Peace', etc., it is nothing but manifest that these are anti-American, terrorist sympathizers commited to bin Laden's jihad. No doubt about that. It lends absolute creedence to the popular T-shirt that reads INVADE CANADA. I hate those Canadians.*
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has declared "in confidential reports to the United States government" that the methods employed by it in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are "'tantamount to torture,'" although this is categorically denied by the US military (for obvious reasons), according to a front-page story in today's New York Times.**
The prisoner torture in Abu Ghraib and in Guantanamo is truly un-American. This is not the image that ought to be shown to the world. When they read about all of these things and hear about them and see the pictures, they are not seeing America. They are seeing the net result of a chain of command that leads right up to the faction that has taken over our country. I am talking about you, Mr. Rumsfeld. And you, Mr. Wolfowitz. And you, Mr. Gonzales. You, Mr. Cheney. They are all (with the exception of Gonzales, the nominee for Attorney General, who was formerly the chief legal adviser) members of a faction, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), founded in 1997. PNAC has become the chief de facto policymaker for our government. Why 'our'? For the reason that we are complicit: although a majority of the American people did not elect these people into office in 2000, a narrow majority in 2004 (50.87%) did. Therefore we hold responsibility for their actions, for they have assumed the role of representing us. I do not like to go onto this tangent, but I feel that it is necessary. But in the long run, this hypocritical 'exceptionalism' is going to come to really haunt us someday.
And, Tom Ridge has resigned as Homeland Security Secretary; six other cabinet posts (most notably John Ashcroft and Colin Powell) have already stepped down in this so-called exodus from the administration. [What I would like to know is whether any of the resignations were taken out of protest.]
* The prior four sentences were heavily sarcastic, if that is not already clear to everyone.
** Neil A. Lewis, "Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse In Guantanamo," sec. A, p. 1.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has declared "in confidential reports to the United States government" that the methods employed by it in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are "'tantamount to torture,'" although this is categorically denied by the US military (for obvious reasons), according to a front-page story in today's New York Times.**
The prisoner torture in Abu Ghraib and in Guantanamo is truly un-American. This is not the image that ought to be shown to the world. When they read about all of these things and hear about them and see the pictures, they are not seeing America. They are seeing the net result of a chain of command that leads right up to the faction that has taken over our country. I am talking about you, Mr. Rumsfeld. And you, Mr. Wolfowitz. And you, Mr. Gonzales. You, Mr. Cheney. They are all (with the exception of Gonzales, the nominee for Attorney General, who was formerly the chief legal adviser) members of a faction, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), founded in 1997. PNAC has become the chief de facto policymaker for our government. Why 'our'? For the reason that we are complicit: although a majority of the American people did not elect these people into office in 2000, a narrow majority in 2004 (50.87%) did. Therefore we hold responsibility for their actions, for they have assumed the role of representing us. I do not like to go onto this tangent, but I feel that it is necessary. But in the long run, this hypocritical 'exceptionalism' is going to come to really haunt us someday.
And, Tom Ridge has resigned as Homeland Security Secretary; six other cabinet posts (most notably John Ashcroft and Colin Powell) have already stepped down in this so-called exodus from the administration. [What I would like to know is whether any of the resignations were taken out of protest.]
* The prior four sentences were heavily sarcastic, if that is not already clear to everyone.
** Neil A. Lewis, "Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse In Guantanamo," sec. A, p. 1.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
I freely admit that I do not know much about the situation in Ukraine. It looks pretty bad. The State Department has declared the results, which have indicated the 'pro-Russia' candidate the winner of the highly contested race, illegitimate due to widespread allegations of fraud cited by international observers. The opposition candidate has called on hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians for a 'nationwide strike'. Other than this I know nothing.
And another thing: I am off on Thanksgiving break starting tomorrow morning. So until next time ...
Monday, November 22, 2004
If we are to have a Justice Department, Alberto Gonzales should not be confirmed as Attorney General. His record, according to the lead editorial of today's Washington Post ("Mr. Gonzales's Record," 22 November 2004), appears to speak for itself. From what it entails, Gonzales, in so many words, is a thug: a criminal parading as the nation's chief law enforcer, who is more than willing to circumvent the norms of international law, torture suspects, and appall any ethicist who makes nothing but a cursory glance at, say, his February 7, 2002, memorandum to President Bush in which he "determined that the [Geneva] conventions should be set aside for people deemed 'unlawful combatants.'"
In a word, because we have defined it as a 'war' although al Qaeda is not a nation it is justifiable to label suspected Qaeda members as combatants, thus with no legal rights whatsoever. With the current Senate ratio at 55 - 44 - 1, assuming that the vote is perfectly divisive among party lines (not very likely), Gonzales is guaranteed confirmation. The best hope, therefore, is to try to get as many Senate Republicans to vote against confirming him as possible.
I didn't think it was possible for Bush to pick an AG even farther to the right than Ashcroft; and, I have to admit, the name Gonzales fooled me: I thought, Oh, he picked a moderate. I was wrong, and we all will be sorry if he is confirmed. On a lighter note, maybe he will not be confirmed. We will all have to wait and see, I suppose.
In a word, because we have defined it as a 'war' although al Qaeda is not a nation it is justifiable to label suspected Qaeda members as combatants, thus with no legal rights whatsoever. With the current Senate ratio at 55 - 44 - 1, assuming that the vote is perfectly divisive among party lines (not very likely), Gonzales is guaranteed confirmation. The best hope, therefore, is to try to get as many Senate Republicans to vote against confirming him as possible.
I didn't think it was possible for Bush to pick an AG even farther to the right than Ashcroft; and, I have to admit, the name Gonzales fooled me: I thought, Oh, he picked a moderate. I was wrong, and we all will be sorry if he is confirmed. On a lighter note, maybe he will not be confirmed. We will all have to wait and see, I suppose.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Friday, November 19, 2004
Sick of Iraq? I am. Yeah, I am in fact sick of it. The war, of course. It cannot be ignored, but I am getting the sense that I appear to be fixated on it. And so, for the sake of ... well, traffic ratings, let's say ... something else should be up for discussion, right? Good. The war isn't going to end anytime soon, so I figure why not talk about something else? Sounds good. The question, then, is what: I don't know the answer. Well, there's plenty. I am going to Spain the following March, and will provide the details of the trip when the time comes. It will actually be the first time that I have ever been anywhere outside the United States. Specifically, anywhere outside the contiguous, lower 48 states. That's right. So I am going to Spain: Madrid, Toledo, Seville, a few other places. It's going to be great. They love us Americans in Spain, right? I hear the Socialists are running the country, under that guy ... you know, what was the name ... Zapatero, that's right. Will use a currency besides our dollar for the first time, ask for stuff in Spanish among actual Spanish people for the first time. Yup. Good stuff. I'm probably going to look up stuff on Spain, just to know more about the place before the trip. Might be a good idea. For your sake (and mine), the recount of what will surely be harrowing adventure will not be written in Spanish, for I am neither fluent whatsoever in the language and I'm sure none of you all out there have the time ... or the patience.
In the November 18, 2004, issue of The New York Times, when the count of American GI deaths in Iraq should have read 1,209, it was printed as 2,009. The paper was off by 800, and so being over 66% off should not be discounted as a small issue. Things like this really hurt the paper's credibility, already taken down by a few pegs after its weak journalistic reporting on Iraqi WMD, to which it has apologized with a tone of shame. Shame, indeed. Today's issue has the correction for the gross error, in which we read that their count "gave an incorrect number in some copies for service members identified as having died in Iraq." Well, it's good to know that only "some copies" carried this ridiculous error. C'mon, people, get your shit together: you're running what is perhaps the greatest paper in world, or at least used to be ...
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Monday, November 15, 2004
Perhaps to the dismay of the good people at Blogger, I will be migrating all of my stuff here to my recently secured domain, the Center for Random Rantage. That is, once I figure out how exactly I am supposed to do that. Until then, I will remain here. But soon. I also should back this up, you know, just in case the catastrophic should occur ...