More on THE Roge Nation
Some old stuff and some new, all of it shameful.

Two of the biggest problems threatening the world right now are pollution and overpopulation. Going against most nations of the world, George Bush has pulled the US out of movements to prevent/control both these problems, setting the US against the rest of the world once again.

The "President"'s withdrawal from the Kyoto Conference on global warming and polution (and indeed, his insistence that there is NO SUCH THING as global warming) has been well documented. Not only that, but he's actually been pressuring US Governors NOT to comply with the conference (as Jen reported at The Little Red Cookbook a week or so back...her archives aren't up yet, so I can't give you the link).

Now, here's some information on how Bush is battling against the world, in FAVOR of population explosion. More importantly, though, this article is about a group of concerned--and rightly ashamed--Americans who are fighting back and making a difference.

"In July 2002, President George Bush decided to withhold $34 million appropriated by the U.S. Congress for the UN Population Fund's (UNFPA) work in the developing world.

Although UNFPA provides life-saving family planning and reproductive health services to women in 142 countries, the United States is denying crucial funds to UNFPA based on claims that the organization supports the Chinese Government in coercing women to undergo abortions and sterilizations. However, a U.S. State Department investigative team has concluded that UNFPA does not condone or support coercive activities in that country, and has even recommended that funds be released.

Jane Roberts of California and Lois Abraham of New Mexico independently conceived a grass-roots movement to help bridge the funding gap created by the United States withdrawal of $34 million to UNFPA in July 2002. The goal of the 34 Million Friends of the UNFPA campaign is to enlist 34 million Americans to send one dollar to the UNFPA to show support for the organization's invaluable work."

Here's another link about the UNFPA and the 34 Million Friends movement.


And finally, no discussion of the US's Rogue Nation status would be complete without mentioning the numerous times the US has ignored or denying the athority of International Law. Here's a few links I found with a three-minute search, along with a few quotes.

From Mother Jones:

"This is not a new contradiction. In the late 1970s the U.S. government quite rightly took Iran to the World Court for the crime of diplomatic hostage taking, and secured a judgment in its own favor. A few years later, Nicaragua took the United States to the World Court for the crime of mining its civilian harbors, and secured a judgment in its own favor. On this occasion, Washington refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the court. So it goes."

And from this site:

"...the US has consistently avoided joining the international community in a number of treaties that have--ironically--seen it side with "rogue" states such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq (in other words, seen from outside, we look a lot like part of the "axis of evil"). Examples include: back-pedaling on the Kyoto accord on the environment; refusing to join the anti-land mine treaty; refusing to join and actively sabotaging the international tribunal."

This explains why, when Bush blithered in 2001 "You're either with us or against us in this war on terror," the rest of the world collectively scratched its head and said, "um...we've been working on this for two decades, and YOU'VE been against us from the start."
It also shows that the building of the ultimate rogue nation has not been exclusively a Republican project. Though the worst offenses certainly occurred (and are still occurring) during the Reagan and Bushes administrations, sabatoge of the UN continued during Clinton's watch, also.

Another Republican Rocking the Party Boat
In researching Arnold Schwarzenegger's un-Republican views and actions (see posts below), I found this interesting story about Bob Riley, the Republican Governor of Alabama.

Riley, a conservative and self-described devout Christian, was once voted "Alabama's most conservative congressman". Now, however, he's infuriating his former fans by following the teachings of Jesus rather than those of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

As CBS writes, "once in office, Riley quickly realized what a mess the state was in. Its budget deficit is roughly 700 million dollars. Its prisons are double capacity. Its schools rank among America's worst."

Riley's response to the state's financial woes was to raise taxes, a Republican no-no. But, his breaking of party rules went even further:
"His plan is heresy to many conservatives. He wants the poor to pay less, and the rich to pay more, as a matter of Christian conscience.

'According to our Christian ethic, we're supposed to love God, love each other, and help take care of our poor,' said Riley. 'And this is a step in the right direction.'"


It's truly radical thinking for a twenty-first century Republican (just as it was radical thinking in the first century AD), and Riley will likely pay the price and be abandoned by his party. But, as someone who complains about the hypocricy of self-avowed "christians" following the gospel of Ralph Reed rather than the Gospel of Jesus, I thought I'd stop and give Bob Riley my congratulations for doing the opposite.

(NOTE: I should point out, I'm not condoning the use of Religion as a way to rule; I still feel this is unAmerican. Politicians should make decisions based on reason, compassion, evidence, and logic, not mythology. My congratulation of Riley is not meant to condone theocracy. But, if someone's going to call themselves a "christian" as so many politicians do, it's nice to see one who actually follows the humanistic and compassionate teachings of Jesus, rather than the dogmatist and persecutory teachings of so many others.)

More on Arnold's views, but first a little comedy at W's expense...
Thanks to Ruminate This for pointing me toward this great clip at New Horizons in Violence. It's a two-minute film that's pretty amusing (and terrifying). The Propaganda section has some good stuff, too.

And here's a little more info from the Washington Post on Arnold Schwarzenegger's political views, which I commented on yesterday (see below). Despite the title of the article, which claims "Behind fame, actor's policies are a mystery", it goes on to outline many of Arnie's views and how they've changed as he's matured and--specifically--gotten heavily involved in helping the poor (a BIG no-no for Republicans).

Among other things already mentioned in my previous post, this article also points out that Arnold is a major contributor to
"the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a prominent Jewish institution in Los Angeles. Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the center, which promotes human rights, said that his relationship with the film star began with an unusual phone call more than a decade ago.
'It came from out of the blue,' Hier said. 'He wanted to know if we could research his father's background. We did, and we showed him that his father had been a member of the Nazi party. Since then, Arnold has taken great interest in what we do. And it has definitely had an impact on him.'"

In short, Arnold seems to typify the European mindset I appreciate so much, pragmatism and compassion linked hand-in-hand. It often pits him in direct opposition with his chosen political party, which is dominated by the "religious right" who of course operate under a mindset of dogmatism and persecution linked hand-in-hand.

Oh yeah, the article also mentions Arnold's opinions on the impeachment of Clinton, reporting how he told "George magazine in 1999 that he would `never forgive' his party for that. `We spent one year wasting time because there was a human failure,' he told the magazine. `I was ashamed to call myself a Republican during that period.'"

Important to note that both his comments about the impeachment, and especially the research into---and apparent atonement for---his father's past, both came before he was preparing to campaign at all. That indicates to me a sincere belief in his statements and actions, which could be more suspicious if he'd undertaken them, say, last week.

Look at me...apologizing for a Republican? Well...we can only DREAM that all Republicans were like Arnie.

Reporters themselves decrying media's bias.
Thanks to Matt at The Outrage for pointing out this article, where some interesting quotes are hidden way down on page two. They're conscerning the US media's reporting during the Iraq war.

--John Donvan, correspondent, ABC News' Nightline: Our car was literally looted in Safran the first day. The very first day, I reported that it was unstable in the place where just yesterday people were cheering. And our editors in New York were saying, "Well, John, could you get us some of those pictures of people cheering?"

--Jonathan Foreman, embedded reporter, the New York Post: On more than one occasion, I'd be writing stories about how exhausted and pissed off the troops were--I'd find they were topped by a headline like TROOPS CAN'T WAIT TO GET THEIR HANDS ON THE REPUBLICAN GUARD.

There's also a brief, but interesting passage about the dangerous insanity behind the popularity of the Fox Propoganda Network (commonly referred to as "FoxNews").

I was going to expand on this a bit, but now I'm wondering if there's even a point...is there anyone out there who still thinks US media "coverage" of the war in Iraq was even remotely objective?

Arnie Running for Governor
You know, if you've got to have a Republican Governor of California (or any state), I can't really think of a better guy than "The Terminator" himself. Seriously.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was considered a "moderate" conservative, even back in the eightees, when he was supporting another actor-turned-politician, Ronald Reagan. Now, after the harrowing swerve to the right that the nation has taken--with leading "Democrats" like Joe Lieberman sounding more like George W. Bush these days than...well...George W. himself--Arnie is downright liberal!

He has sensible stances on key issues: abortion, gun-control, and civil rights for homosexuals. In fact, this race is really the only way he could ever run for a major office as a Republican, because he'd be crucified by conservatives in any primary campaign and never make it on a normal ballot. A Democrat, on the other hand, will be hard-pressed to beat him, since s/he won't be able to take advantage of the normal hot-button issues for California voters (who are overwhelmingly pro-choice).

Also, Arnie uses his money to help poor children, daring to call them "underpriveledged" and use other pc lingo that sends conservatives into blithering tizzies. His Nation Inner-City Games Foundation is a great example of the kind of altruism nominally invoked by George Bush I's call for "A thousand points of light". While most republicans answered that call by using their wealth and influence to get other wealthy people RICHER (take Dick Chenney fattening the wallets of his Haliburton buddies as example 1 of 1,000,000), Arnie took the call to heart and started helping people who NEED it.


On a less serious note...this race has the potential to be damn entertaining. Not only is The Terminator running, but so are Gary Colman ("what you talkin' bout, Willis?") and Gallagher (you know, that guy who's always destroying watermellons on stage), and several other dozen not-so-entertaining people. Forget that other state, this is the race for Jerry Springer!

I've got one hand on my bible...
...and the other one's gripping a Colt 45.

This story about the Baylor Basketball player who turned up dead garnered a lot of media attention over the past month in the US.

Not surprisingly, few of the reports have given us any meaningful commentary on the situation, so here's the important point they're NOT talking about. This is a perfect example of the kind of world the Right Wing wants to create...everyone with a gun in one hand and a bible in the other.

We've always had Israel as a perfect example of what living in a gun-and-bible-toting theocracy is like, but here's a close-up peek from Georgie W.'s home state: one little disagreement, and someone ends up a corpse in a muddy field somewhere. Amen!

Thank God They Don't Have the NRA Over There.
Ok, back to hardcore stuff.

American soldiers are still being killed in Iraq, however, it could be much worse.

Much as it has with it's own citizens at home, the US government has been denying rights guranteed by it's own constitution to Iraqis ever since "liberating" them more than a month ago. However, the renunciation of the Bill of Rights is even more complete in Iraq, where the Iraqis aren't even allowed to bear arms (which is the most important right there is, according to most conservatives). As this CNN article attests, US soldiers have been enacting the paranoid nightmares of "survivalists" all across the US in the deserts of Iraq, sweeping into towns and stealing all the people's weapons.

Which brings me to my point. It's a good thing the Iraqis don't have the NRA...otherwise the body count would be much higher...possibly even as high as it is right here in the US!

The Unverified Source Game
I thought of a fun little game we can play. I got the idea from the "Saving Private Lynch" fiasco that occurred in the US press a few months back. In short, for anyone who missed it, no one knew anything for sure about how Private Lynch was captured, so a few media outlets simply made up "facts", and then other outlets quoted those first pieces as "sources" and so on. In less than a week, the story was out that Lynch had killed several Iraqis, firing away with her weapon until she ran out of ammo and was subdued by force, either being shot or stabbed. Of course, all this proved to be false (and, shockingly, there was no outrage from the public over this blatant generation of ficticious news).

So...here's my idea. It'll be sort of like that "telephone" game you probably played as a kid, but we'll use the blog world. I'll just completely make up a piece of "news", and then you guys spread the word. Quote me, and then quote yourselves, and then quote other people quoting yourselves citing me, etc.

Ready? Here goes:

This just in...a former whitehouse aide, who wishes to remain anonymous, has told this reporter that George W. Bush had sex with a goat in the Oval Office, while Don Rumsfeld and Dick Chenney cheered him on and sang "Hail to the Chief". Apparently, the alledged activity took place in February, as the trio were trying to garner world support for a war against Iraq.

The aide said that "a planning meeting ran a little long, and the guys emptied a few bottles of bourbon, and next thing I know, I see Mr. Rumsfeld leading a goat into the Oval Office. As he closed the door, he put one hand up over his lips and winked at me, saying 'This is something we used to do back in my frat days.'"

I stress that this report is unverified at this point, so don't (wink wink) quote me on it.

Another Reason to like Canadians
A light topic for a change.

Clicked on one of those MSN gossip links while checking my email and found the following.

--Why were cruel concert-goers hurling water bottles at Justin Timberlake when he recently played with some other acts in Toronto? "The crowd probably reacted this way because the majority of the artists in the lineup were older and more classic rock & roll, with most people in the crowd coming to see the Stones, AC/DC, Rush and the Guess Who," one concert-goer tells The Scoop. "This was not a boy-band friendly crowd, to say the least. Besides, for most Canadian men, listening to a man with a voice like a 14-year-old girl isn't cool on most days, and it certainly wasn't popular on this one. . . . I'm glad he didn't get hit, `cause that would be very un-Canadian, but I sure did enjoy the look of surprise on his face."

Also on that page was a "hot scoop" detailing that J. Lo might be upset with Ben Afleck for partying with some trippers. Come one guys! You've gotta work things out at least until the wedding...otherwise, how will Ben be ex-hubby number 3.

Or are they already married? If I'm that out of it that I missed their wedding...well...I'm proud.

Do as the US says, not as it does.
Thanks to Lying Media Bastards for pointing this one out ("Immunity Addiction", posted August 4).

Quoting from the original article on Yahoo News (LMB has a link to it, I can't get it to run here):

"Despite overwhelming support by the 15-nation council for the mission, the United States faced stiff opposition to a provision in the resolution that would grant blanket immunity from prosecution by foreign courts to international peacekeepers serving in the mission. Germany, France and Mexico abstained from the vote to protest the inclusion of the provision."

It's another example of the United States making official requests that US soldiers NOT be held accountable for their actions, this time in Liberia (if Bush ever decides to send troops there, despite the lack of oil). It's just another example in the US's long history of either introducing UN resolutions to make them immune to international law or vetoing Resolutions that would hold them accountable.

The actual resolution is here.

Notice, also, that the Germans and French had the decency to merely abstain in protest, rather than outright vetoing the measure, as the US has done on many occasions (including numerous anti-terrorism resolutions that the UN attempted to pass in the 1980s: Noam Chomsky is the best source for those...if you want a link, here's one off the top of my head. You have to read down quite a ways to the paragraph where he discusses Nicaragua in the 1980s to see how the US abused it's veto power. Interestingly, it also details how the US was publicly scolded by the World Court and UN for terrorism. Somehow that fact didn't make the US papers either then or after Sept. 11th.)