Hung out to dry

That phrase describes our troops AND the people they've "liberated".

Counterspin brought this article to my attention, detailing how the Bush administration is now trying to withhold a pay-raise that was approved by Congress a while back, for those soldiers serving in hostile areas and separated from their families.

Now, after having been lied to, used as pawns in a global game of "New Colonialism", chastised and disciplined for speaking out to the press, and having their wives be called traitors for voicing dissatisfaction also, the soldiers--some of whom have been stationed in Afghanistan for more than a year, while others have been in Baghdad for several months where an average of one soldier dies each day--are being denied their combat pay.

Each time I think I can't be shocked again by Bush's audacity...and the Hawks were always telling the anti-war people WE were going against the troops!

As for Afghanistan...well, that place is in worse shape than it was under the Taliban (with the exception of Kabul, which is marginally better). If Iraqis think they're suffering now, they should look at Afghanistan and see what a country looks like more than a year after having "freedom installed" there by the US army.
Not only is the country in shambles, with international aid organizations pulling out due to the danger from resurging Taliban attacks as well as general bandits and lawlessness, but the US has basically abandoned ship, leaving UN peacekeepers to clean up the mess.
(there was a great story on CNN World Edition today, but I can't find anything on their website...here's a couple of related stories. A quick search will turn up others showing how German and Dutch troops have been left to clean up the US mess.)

Iraq is following the same path, with violence escalating in the country and the US now asking NATO to help out. A clear pattern is visible to Bush's invasion policy: The US will bomb the crap out of whoever it likes, US companies will get sole access to any resources and "spoils" of war after the enemy regime falls, then other nations can clean up the mess.

It's a "We're keeping all the oil, but you can have some of the casualties" kind of deal. It would be nice to see European countries stand up to the US and say "you filled your bed with landmines, YOU sleep in it", or tell them where to shove it. (Un)fortunately, though, European nations have a social conscience.

Fox Sues Al Franken
Giving us all yet another reason to shake our heads in dismay and wonder how anyone can take them seriously, FoxNews--the conservative propoganda network that masquarades as a news source--is suing comedian and writer Al Franken. Franken's new book is titled Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.

It seems Fox objects to the phrase "fair and balanced" being used in the title, a phrase which the network apparently was able to register as a trademark.

So, any of you out there who regularly use these words, be careful! Make sure, from now on, you say "balanced and fair"; if you say them in the opposite order, you could be sued by the Fox propoganda network.


More on the No-NRA-in-IRAQ thread.

As I wrote ten days or so ago, there's no NRA in IRAQ, so no ones decrying the fact that Iraqis are being denied the right typically trumpeted by conservatives as "the most important one to protect freedom".
Well, it goes further. Not only are Iraqis not allowed to own any weapons (even as Bush declares "Freedom is taking hold in Iraq"), now they can be shot on sight if seen with a weapon or talking to someone with a weapon.

I saw this reported on numerous news outlets; here's the story as the Washington Post ran it.

--Lt. Col. Steve Russell, the regiment's commander, said that anyone carrying weapons is automatically considered to be a combatant under U.S. forces' rules of engagement. When the suspected arms dealers pulled weapons from the trunk of their car, Russell said, "at that moment they became enemy."--

Floods and Heat-waves...Oh yeah...and that war dealy

So, last year at this time my adopted home city (Prague) was under several meters of water after the worst flood in more than 100 years. This year, it's having the hottest summer on record...since the capitol started recorded temperatures in 1775!

On one hand, I wonder if next August will bring a plague of locusts. On the other hand, I think a more likely cause than mythological devine punishment is a general warming trend in the climate, and--more importantly--I wonder if it's caused by human corruption of the environment. A majority of scientists around the globe think it is the latter; George Bush, of course, does not.

When we're able to spend Christmas Day on the beach in our bikini's in a couple decades, I guess we can all thank George and remember how heroically stood alone against the tyrannical, oppressive environmentalists (and more than a hundred other governments) and opposed the Kyoto Conference.

Not much new going on news-wise that I want to comment on. So I thought I'd rewind to a few months back. This speech by Howard Dean is a fine summation of the overwhelming world opposition to the US-UK war against Iraq. Several months after the "war ended," most of the questions he raised still stand.

--"I believe that the President too often employs a reckless, go-it-alone approach that drives us away from some of our longest-standing and most important allies, when what we need is to pull the world community together in common action against the imminent threat of terrorism."

"Yes, Saddam Hussein is evil. But Osama bin Laden is also evil, and he has attacked the United States, and he is preparing now to attack us again.

What happened to the war against al Qaeda?

Why has this Administration taken us so far off track?"

I especially like this part, taking other Democrats to task for caving like sychophants...

"That the President was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who were worried about political positioning for the presidential election." (emphasis added)

Religious Republicans decree: Pregnant Women Must Die

So, those of you who read my rants will have already seen this, but I thought I'd post it here for the two people who read my blog. Nothing new to post because I'm dealing with the damn computer virus. This was written a while back, and I'm not sure where the proposed bill stands now (maybe it's already law), but the point still stands.

For those of you who live in the US, here's a terrifying scenario to consider. It's written from the male point of view, but the women should get the affect just as easily.

It's every soon-to-be-parent's worst nightmare. After nine months of anticipation and planning, the big day comes, but instead of being a joyful experience, one short, horrifying sentence from the doctor turns it all into a nightmare.
"There's been a complication, Mr. So-and-so." And suddenly, your whole life is different. Like several hundred unfortunate women each year, your wife has suffered a life-threatening complication during childbirth. As you struggle to get understandable information from the medical staff, it only gets worse. Within an hour, you've been solemnly told that the complication will be fatal.
Now you have an agonizing decision to make. You and your wife and your doctor (and your gods) have to decide whether to save her life or the babies. Maybe you discussed it with your wife beforehand, just in case, but that's highly doubtful. So, who dies...your wife, your partner for life (and possibly the mother of other children), leaving her new baby (and any other children) to grow up without a mother, leaving you to raise them alone...or your new baby, the pride and joy that's grown inside her for nine months? Who dies?
Can you imagine a harder decision...a worse situation?

Well, guess what...you don't have to worry now, because Congress has made the decision for you. You don't have to make the choice anymore...in fact, neither you, your wife, the doctor (or your gods) get any say whatsoever. Led by John Ashcroft and other reactionary Republicans--who, in a sick twist of irony, call themselves "pro-life" and "pro-family"--the US Congress has passed a law to decide just such a situation. There is no choice. Your wife must die. Nevermind that it's not certain the newborn baby will survive the birth, while an emergency dialation extraction procedure would certainly save your wife, you needn't worry yourself with the decision. Congress has decided. The potential life of a newborn is worth more than the life of a fully-grown, productive woman with family members who love her.

If you're not outraged, you should be. This is one decision the politicians DON'T have the right to make. The "Partial Birth Abortion Bill" has been politicized to such a degree that few people are aware of the reality anymore. The right-wing fanatics have most people convinced that women carry babies for nine months and then suddenly decide "hmmm...I don't want this after all," and have an abortion. It's untrue. These procedures are done to save the mother's life. Yet the hardcore right-wingers like Ashcroft have refused to allow provisions protecting the life of the mother, and that's why the bill hasn't passed (until now).
These are not "birth-control" abortions, they are "theraputic" abortions, ie: to save the woman's life. Such abortions were allowed even BEFORE Roe v. Wade. Yet, if John Ashcroft has his way, doctors who find their patients in such situations will no longer be able to use the method officially endorsed by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Instead, they will be forced to try to deliver the motherless baby, while the father helplessly watches his new child extracted from his partner's corpse.
Yeah...sure sounds "pro-family" to me.

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!