Apologies to The Doobie Brothers…

Blackwater Security may have a little trouble.
Iraq For Sale…just like the New New Orleans?
Blackwater and other Mercenaries are Big Business

political, political cartoons, cartoons, Bush, Terrorism, Homeland Security, War on Terror, Blackwater, Doobie Brothers

Zencomix

Wanted: a few good men “public relations products.” The Pentagon seeks go getter news with attitude for success. Or something.

The proposal, which calls in part for extensive monitoring and analysis of Iraqi, Middle Eastern and American media, is designed to help the coalition forces understand “the communications environment.” Its goal is to “develop communication strategies and tactics, identify opportunities, and execute events . . . to effectively communicate Iraqi government and coalition’s goals, and build support among our strategic audiences in achieving these goals,”

If we have the will, we can win the war of words in Iraq. If we walk away from that battle, our words will follow us back here. The words are either with us or against us. The words are on the march.

Plus what’s in a word? A word like Islamofascist? RJ Eskow: “The Richard Cohens and Donald Rumsfelds of this world use the “Islamic fascism” label whenever it suits them politically. No more, no less. Tragically, it blinds the public to the complexities of the Muslim world. It limits our ability to see the ways in which some parts of this world can help us, while others can be eliminated as a threat without the sacrifice of their citizens’ lives or ours. it evens limits our ability to wage war.”

Da plain, da plain truth? On Fantasy Island Fascists: “The term Islamo-fascism isn’t new, Pollitt writes, nor is it accurate. But it sure is useful.”

Did somebody say fascism? “Fascism, in fact, seems to be the new buzz word for Republicans in an election season dominated by an unpopular war in Iraq.“

On Economic Inequality.

On the New Orleans Roadshow.

Progressive bloggers are just a bunch of snotty-nosed adolescent know-nothings.

(*Hat tip to Sister Nancy Bet Eczema for the term)

All the proof that’s needed is provided by the bloody Presidentophile.

Sister Nancy Beth loves all God’s servants in their proper places.

Now with her own hellish blog where she nominates Paul Begala for this quote of the week:

“There are probably four or five venereal diseases that are more popular right now than Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush!”

Some things require the miracle of modem medicine to cure…

Bob Beauprez uses blacks and women for an object lesson to all white males thinking of getting an abortion? Yes, but he’s sorry he used the wrong percentage.

The media, of course, failed to define the actual percentage, so the average Coloradan can assume 69% is correct.

$450 million buys a lot of last minute ads to win a lot of close races. Whatever they say is the truth that day, as it takes time and money to respond. It also helps buy rigged vote counts and maybe a Secretary of State or two, now that they’ve used up Harris and Blackwell and made them laughingstocks.

Lambert lays it out in detail.

It was not long ago that I would have dismissed this as a conspiracy theory by a tin pie plate wearer. But it’s well past time that we realize that if you’re not paranoid about the chemical interactions that occur when Bushpeople and large sums of money are both put in the same vessel - a vessel like, say, the planet Earth - then your brain matter has been melted from watching too many ‘reality’ shows. Because you know the only real reality show is called the Weather Channel.

What would you do with $450 million if you could use it to demonstrate your compassionate liberalism? With no one watching what string you tuck your cash under? Would you buy friends whose votes could give you access to trillions in cash more?

Never has so much been given to so few of the most corrupt and inept a bunch of coconuts. That’s not Tinfoil Theory. That’s $4.50 per voter in the last presidential election. Bush only spent $3.45 per voter on that one.

Much has been written in response to the scary things said by the SecDef Snake on the Nevada plain. But don’t we already know that the only thing to fear is fearful cowards who consider ‘Be Afraid’ to be a strategy instead of a useless state of emotionalism?

What’s been overlooked is that the event was a two-fer. Both of the ex-Nixon reptiles slithered to the convention known for its ongoing romanticism of war.

Among the rat appetizers Cheney was dishing out:

I am happy to report that under the administration of George Bush, we have increased funding for all VA-administered programs by 75 percent. (Applause.) In fact, President Bush presided over a greater increase for the VA in the first four years of his administration than was seen in the entire eight years of the prior administration. In addition, the President’s budget for the next fiscal year calls for $34.3 billion for veterans health care — an amount almost 70 percent greater than the budget when we took office. (Applause.)

And:

As a nation born in revolution — and defended for two centuries by the courage of unselfish men and women — America looks with reverence to our fallen and missing heroes, and to the flag under which they served. Millions of Americans recall the face and the name of someone who never lived to be called a veteran. Departed service members have a special place in our national memory and are taken to their rest with national honors. Recent appearances of protestors at military funerals, mocking the dead and insulting their families in their hour of grief, are an outrage. (Applause.) In response, and with your active support, Congress passed the Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act, and President Bush was pleased to sign it into law.

And then, there’s this:

In just two weeks the calendar will read again September 11th, and our minds will go back to that day five years ago, when enemies struck our country with acts of stealth and murder. The men and women on duty in the War on Terror are serving the highest ideals of the nation — our belief in freedom and justice, equality, and the dignity of the individual. And they are serving the vital security interests of America and the civilized world. There is no denying that the work is difficult and that there is a great deal to be done. Yet we can harbor no illusions about the nature of the enemy we’re fighting, or the ambitions they seek to achieve.

This enemy wears no uniform, has no regard for the rules of warfare, and is unconstrained by any standard of decency or morality. They plot and plan in secret, target the defenseless, and rejoice at the death of innocent, unsuspecting human beings.

This enemy has a set of beliefs — and we saw the expression of those beliefs in the rule of the Taliban. They seek to impose a dictatorship of fear, under which every man, woman, and child lives in total obedience to a narrow and hateful ideology. This ideology rejects tolerance, denies freedom of conscience, and demands that women be pushed to the margins of our society. Such beliefs can be imposed only through force and intimidation, so those who refuse to bow to the tyrants will be brutalized or killed — and no person or group is exempt.

This enemy also has a set of clear objectives. The terrorists want to end all American and Western influence in the Middle East. Their goal in that region is to seize control of a country so they have a base from which to launch attacks and to wage war against governments that do not meet their demands. The terrorists believe that by controlling one country, they will be able to target and overthrow other governments in the region, and ultimately to establish a totalitarian empire that encompasses a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the Middle East and South Asia, all the way around to Indonesia.

They have made clear, as well, their ultimate ambitions: to arm themselves with chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons, to destroy Israel, to intimidate all western countries, and to cause mass death in the United States. Some might look at these ambitions and wave them off as extreme and mad. Well, these ambitions are extreme and they are mad. They are also real, and we must not wave them off. We must take them seriously. We must oppose them. And we must defeat them. (Applause.)

Over the last several decades, Americans have seen how the terrorists pursue their objectives. Something of a pattern developed, and it was plain to see. To put it in blunt terms, the terrorists would hit us, but we did not hit back hard enough. For many years prior to 9/11, we treated terror attacks against Americans as isolated incidents, and answered — if at all — on an ad hoc basis, and never in a systematic way. Even after a strike inside our own country — the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center — there was a tendency to treat terrorist attacks as individual criminal acts, to be handled primarily through law enforcement.

The man who perpetrated that first attack in New York was tracked down, arrested, convicted, and sent off to prison. Yet behind that one man was a growing network with operatives inside and outside the United States, waging war against our country.

For us, that war started on 9/11. For them, it started years before. They killed 241 servicemen in Beirut in 1983. Then there was the first World Trade Center attack in 1993; and after that, the murders at the Saudi Arabian National Guard Training Center in Riyadh in 1995; the simultaneous bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; and the attack on the USS Cole 2000. With each attack, the terrorists grew more confident in believing they could strike America without paying a price. So they continued to wage those attacks — making the world less safe and eventually striking here in the homeland on September 11th.

Against this kind of determined, organized, ruthless enemy, America required a new strategy — not merely to prosecute a series of crimes, but to fight and win a global campaign against the terror network. If I may quote Franklin Roosevelt, the President under who many of you served and fought, in words he used to describe fighting the Nazis: “Modern warfare against treacherous enemies,” he said, “is a dirty business. We don’t like it — we didn’t want to get in it — but we are in it and we’re going to fight it with everything we’ve got.” (Applause.)

First, we’re absolutely determined to prevent attacks before they occur, so we’re on the offensive against the terrorists. At home and with coalition partners abroad, we’ve broken up terror cells, tracked down terrorist operatives, and put heavy pressure on their ability to organize and plan attacks. The work is hard, perilous, and ongoing. But we have made tremendous progress against an enemy that dwells in the shadows.

Second, we are determined to deny safe haven to the terrorists. Since the day our country was attacked, we’ve applied the Bush Doctrine: Any person or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and will be held to account.

Third, we are working to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and to keep those weapons out of the hands of killers. In the post-9/11 world, we have to confront such dangers before they fully materialize. President Bush has put it very well: Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations — and responding to such enemies only after an attack is not self-defense, it is suicide.

Fourth, we are determined to deny the terrorists control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and staging ground for terrorist attacks on others. That’s why we continue to fight Taliban remnants and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. That’s why we’re working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the terrorist element in Pakistan. And that’s why we are fighting with the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime and terrorists in Iraq.

I know some have suggested that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, we simply stirred up a hornet’s nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001, and the terrorists hit us anyway. As President Bush has said, the hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse.

The terrorists regard the entire world as their battlefield. That is why al Qaeda has operatives in Iraq today. And they believe they can frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.

I realize, as well, that some in our own country claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone. But the exact opposite is true. Time and again over the last generation, the terrorists have targeted nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. In fact such a retreat would convince the terrorists, once again, that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends, and abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with violence and blackmail. They would simply draw up another set of demands, and instruct Americans to act as they direct or to face other murders. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an invitation to further violence against free nations, and a ruinous blow to the future security of the United States.

He goes on and on with similar blather. (Read it yourself). Highlights include:

Iraq has the most progressive constitution and the strongest democratic mandate in the entire Arab world. Iraq’s political leaders are steady and courageous, and the citizens, police, and soldiers have stepped forward as active participants and guardians of the new democracy — running for office, speaking out, voting by the millions, and sacrificing for the future of their country.

On wiretaps:

To this end, in the days following 9/11, the President authorized the National Security Agency to intercept a certain category of terrorist-linked international communications. On occasion you will hear this called a domestic surveillance program. That’s more than a misnomer; it is a flat-out falsehood. We are talking about international communications, one end of which we believe — or have reason to believe is related to al Qaeda or to terrorist networks. It’s hard to think of any category of information that would be more important to the safety of the United States.

The authorization the President made after September 11th helped address that problem in a manner that is fully consistent under the Constitution and consistent legal authority of the President and with the civil liberties of the American people. The activities conducted under this authorization have helped to detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks against the American people. The recent ruling by a federal judge ordering an end to this program is just dead wrong. We are confident it will be reversed on appeal.

There’s just so much BS in his little speech that I’m too tired to reiterate the details of a rebuttal that utilizes what Cheney despises most - logic. But the ting that struck me most about it is he concluded with a prescription that’s a complete change in course from the failed Bush doctrine!

Liberty and equality; justice and humanity; self-government, tolerance, respect, and the rule of law — these are the principles by which we fight, the principles by which we live, and the principles by which we will prevail.

Stop the presses! This is news!

But I suspect he was just so liquored up that he merely got carried away reminiscing about the way our country used to be.

we stil can’t really understand what usatoady (proud member of the mmm: the multi-millionaire media) is trying to do with this piece:

on aug. 8, connecticut businessman ned lamont defeated u.s. sen. joe lieberman in the democratic primary, a triumph widely credited to the rah-rah racket produced by pro-lamont armies stationed along the internet.

indeed, the bloggers had scored big. they had helped vault a local politician to national prominence and cemented the iraq war as issue no. 1 in the congressional elections. not a bad day.

but their victory was short-lived. even before the primary, lieberman announced that, should he lose, he’d still run in november as an independent. this electoral chutzpah effectively rope-a-doped the bloggers and recharged the senator’s fabled joe-mentum. lieberman’s still the man to beat in the general election.

if this wasn’t enough to drain the effervescence from the blogger bubbly, america’s noisy web wags were dealt an even more sobering blow 10 days later when snakes on a plane opened nationwide to a decidedly flat $15.3 million box office.

that’s right. apparently because ’snakes on a plane’ under-performed (in the eyes of the people who, for no logical reason, assumed it would be a smash box office blockbuster; none of those people were bloggers), that alone proves ned lamont is running a fool’s errand.

Read the rest of this entry »

Michael’s graphic is a classic.

Yes, Matt Yglesias has done a thorough job of debunking the case for making Iran the new bogeyman of American foreign policy. I think it useful to flesh it out more, to add further perspective.

First, I’ve long believed the immediate pursuit of nuclear weaponry by Iran is defensive. But the next argument encountered is that once Iran gets The Bomb, a Pandora Box opens. Though having a nuke or two is not much compared to the devastation Iran would experience in a nuclear exchange with the US, Pakistan or Israel, we’d next have to postulate where Iran would aim its mini-response.

Would they try to devastate a section of Israel, with the radioactive cloud drifting across neighboring Arab states, for the luxury of saying “We devastated the Jews!” just before Iran’s population is reduced to shadows on the sidewalk? That’s pretty doubtful, to the point of excluding the possibility as an offensive tactic. Now if they faced a broad array of incoming nukes, they might consider such a thing as their last reply before they’re completely annihilated. But then the best solution to prevent that would be to not attack Iran with nukes, and to persuade Pakistan and Israel to avoid nuking Iran, as well.

But then, what if Iran took its small arsenal and gave it away to terrorists, so the terror group could do a sneak attack on one or two cities in any country, which might be our country? Once again, if any nuclear power underwent such a nuclear attack, it would be a foregone conclusion that they (us?) would still try to identify the nukers and the nuke suppliers, for an in-kind retaliation. And, if we weren’t certain who the culprit was, you can bet we’d retaliate with nukes against every chief suspect. Which, in a worst case scenario, means we’d nuke Iran, North Korea and a certain mountainous region of Pakistan.

Only Pakistan, as an entity, would survive such a response. But it would lack the carry capacity to hit us in return. Most likely, the world, as a whole, would condemn us, lots of sabres would rattle, but none would take the next step of attacking us, or the entire globe would be subject to a nuclear winter.

So once again, the concept of Iran using their new but limited power as an offensive tactic remains unlikely. As well, delivering their limited nuclear strength to a terror group would also open the door to the possibility of immediate blowback: the terrorists could bite the hand that feeds them. Even a complete madman in charge of Iran could easily see that.

Which only leaves one way to buy the Pandora’s Box argument. If Iran ramps up its capacity to produce more nukes and better missile delivery systems, it could join the other nuclear giants as a major player in the nuclear chess game.

But if that were so easy to accomplish, instead of something that takes several decades to achieve, then others - like the longtime nuclear China - would have done so long ago. Only the handful of major early nuclear powers has both the arsenal and the missile throw capacity to accomplish that. So, at the very least, we’re looking at decades before Iran could ever pose any similar threat.

In reality, China is the only long-timer with a sufficiently sized arsenal that poses the first and greatest threat of achieving a worrisome level of offensive capacity to threaten us directly. And the best way to keep Iran from ever achieving similar strength is to corral the available fissile raw material available globally. Which means, destroying the largest cache of that - the old Soviet supply - to eliminate the amount that could find its way to the black market.

We’re currently pursuing that eradication at a rate that would eliminate those supplies in 6 to 8 years. And if that’s considered not fast enough, we could certainly afford the relatively inexpensive cost of accomplishing that faster. Which I’ve long argued is the most sensible course to take.

Now, assuming that gets accomplished in less than a decade, what does that leave us for a projection of what Iran could accomplish if it seeks to amass a nuclear offensive capacity? Not much. Their limited capacity could only offer some deterrent potential to prevent other nuclear powers from attacking Iran, but any power so deterred could choose to bear the limited retaliatory strike while eliminating Iran completely.

Unless such a stronger power is such a small country that they’d still be decimated by any nuclear strike.

In simpler terms, the only such nuclear player that needs to fear that is Israel. Which means the real danger of Iran gone nuclear is to Israel and our current challenge to Iran is being made for the defense of Israel…. perhaps. But even then, as I pointed out already, Iran would gain its own nuclear annihilation, so why would Iran ever consider its limited arsenal to have any practical offensive value?

They wouldn’t. So the remaining ‘what if ‘ asks if there could be another ulterior motive on our part. What if the current sabre-rattling is just using the nuke argument to create an excuse to attack Iran and topple its government? What then would we gain?

A funder and supporter of terrorist groups like Hizbullah and Hamas would be eliminated. But other funders and supporters would continue and new ones could arise. And likely would arise in response to our attacking Iran.

Furthermore, if we went after Iran with anything less than a nuclear assault, the real Pandora’s Box of possible negative outcomes would be opened. Just as occurred in Iraq, a much, much smaller nation.

We might gain some control over Iran’s oilfields, but again, as we’ve seen with Iraq, a resistance movement could create enough sabotage to seriously limit that control. And that’s assuming we’d have the manpower to police the oilfields of Iran and Iraq simultaneously. Which we don’t.

Thus, under any scenario that can be envisioned, the only motives we could have to take our current threatening tone towards Iran are pretty slim. The profit motive of oil supply control has too many expenses and negatives to be viable. The only profit potential argument that leaves is the profits available from weapons manufacture so long as we can manufacture wars to boost that trade.

From all of this conjecture then, the only plausible arguments about our government’s motives is that (a) it’s pursuing the profits of perpetual war via the arms trade, or (b) it’s looking for an excuse to nuke Iran out of existence, perhaps to demonstrate to every current and potential enemy that we’re willing to use our nuclear arsenal no matter what the rest of the world thinks.

That raises the greatest question: if it’s profits our government is after, are we willing to pay the costs (which includes, especially, the lives of our troops, along with every retaliation that may come to our homeland, while we do not share the profits) and, if the goal’s nuking Iran as a lesson in deterrence, is it likely to succeed to deter current and potential enemies?

The answer to both possibilities is clearly ‘No’. The potential cost does not justify the potential gain. The potential deterrent is offset by the potential for numerous outcomes that increase threats against us.

It makes more sense to accelerate the schedule for destruction of raw materials needed for the manufacture of nukes. It makes more sense to utilize diplomacy to fashion non-proliferation treaties and gradually eliminate nuclear weaponry so it can never fall into hostile hands. And it makes more sense to weigh the potential of all the nations with enormous capacities to wreak nuclear nightmares on the world. China, Pakistan, India and Russia are the big players that are not longterm allies. And while major efforts to forge such alliances have been undertaken, especially with Russia and India, such alliances with Pakistan and China have a long way to go.

Nuking their neighbor, Iran, does not create ripe opportunities to forge stronger alliances with any major player among those four. More likely, it would provoke two or more of those four to build a counter-alliance. And that new Cold War standoff would pose enormous economic perils with all competing for dwindling supplies of oil to sustain the needs of their huge populations.

Sanity says the most practical national security strategy is to eliminate the raw materials, negotiate treaties and develop alternate energy sources. The propaganda campaign against Iran produces an array of numerous unfavorable outcomes that lead only to further dangers and greater casualties for Americans. It does not produce additional national security. It results in less.

Now Stevens can take his bridge to Nowhere to his veto to Nothing. Now, to achieve energy independence, we need to put a hold on his reeelection so the journey to Nowhere on his private Nothing is made by a Nobody who used to be Somebody till he got swallowed by the tubes.

A relatively recent version of this song that John played for many years. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

zencomix

There were heroes that day, though they don’t view themselves that way. It’s those they lost that they measure themselves by.

Many countries and international organizations have offered the United States relief aid in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Initially, the United States had been reluctant during several days to accept donations and aid from foreign countries other than Canada and the United Kingdom. However, this policy was reversed, and as the reports of damage grew more grim, the United States has slowly started to accept the foreign aid. Currently, countries and organizations offering to send aid mentioned by the State Department are Afghanistan, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Chile, People’s Republic of China, Colombia, Cuba, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, the European Union, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, International Energy Agency, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Iraq, Republic of Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, South Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, NATO, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Organization of American States, Oman, OPEC, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan (Republic of China), Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, the United Nations, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Venezuela and the World Health Organization. Other countries not on this list have also offered aid, but the State Department mentioned that they (the State Department) had not been asked. Later, the US State Department said all offers were being examined.

According to the European Commission, one week after the disaster, on September 4th, 2005, the United States offically asked the European Union for emergency help, asking for couvertures, emergency medical kits, water and 500.000 food rations for victims. Help proposed by EU member states will be coordinated through their crisis center. A technical coordinator for the “European package” will be named. The British presidency of the EU will function as contact with the USA.

Communist countries. Countries containing more than three quarters of the world’s Muslims. Countries our current government likes to disparage, like Venezuela. Not as many that reached out after 9-11, but still a considerable number of countries that rightist warhawks would love to see nuked.

It’s on the framework of tragedy, of shared grief, where all the vain and foolish divides of humankind are set aside and people reach to each other to console, to assist, to share.

That’s a framework from which greater bonds can be built. Visionary leaders can utilize these moments to end old animosities and seek to heal far more than several devastated cities.

Katrina was a tragedy and its pain is ongoing. The neglect of our federal government, with the lack of will from our White House and Congressional leaders to advance the rebuilding effort from its current glacial pace remains one of the most shameful performances in US history.

This is New Orleans still.

That last frame with the commemorative plaque?

“Let us be guided by a sense of justice. Let us build a system of just laws and demand adherence to those laws. Let us create a city of equal opportunity for all, with all sharing in both the responsibilities and benefits.

Let us create a city where neither the choice of religion nor the accident of color is an obstacle to opportunity and advancement, nor a substitute for effort and ability.”

Moon Landrieu
Mayoral Inaugural Address
May 4, 1970

How ironic that he said those words on an infamous day when another misbegotten war was diverting the nation’s attention with its own set of tragedies, not unlike the day Katrina arrived.

And then came the blame. With more politicians defending those who made matters worse than the politicians who defended the neighborhoods demolished.

It created the largest mass of refugees since the Dust Bowl exodus of the Great Depression. Most of the hundreds of thousands are refugees still.

And what have we lost, as a nation?

From Louisiana and Mississippi, most of our country’s greatest music forms were given birth: blues, jazz, country, the rock and roll of Elvis, even great gospel arose to add major elements to our culture. What song sounds today today to inspire us to resume greater possibilities in our national character?

Perhaps a tune from the late Warren Zevon.

(Part Two coming, later this afternoon.)

(To the tune of Led Zeppelin’s “When The Levee Breaks”.)

If they keep on drillin’, marshland’s goin’ to sink
If the Corps keeps paddin’, audit’s goin’ to stink
If the storms reach Five, no water’s fit to drink

Global warmin’ made the waves grow so high
Vultures swarmin’ made all the Ninth Ward cry
They let homes soak until they could never all get dry

Your mouth moans your heart groans
When they say they don’t want you back home
No one will hire an exile
From the city they lost
You’re stopped at the turnstyle
Lest you remind them of the high cost

Votin’ is useless, suin’ just wastes you more time
The pols are truthless, judges are partners in crime
When hurricane says, poor folk, your home is mine

Ten long months tried livin’ in Texas and moped
All this year we acted like damn fools and hoped
Pictures show our section’s still left police roped

Turning, turning back to NOLA…. Driftin’ to New Orleans… There ain’t no point to take you…
Going back… going back now… going back

I heard a piece on NPR yesterday about the contracting and sub-contracting of debris removal in the aftermath of Katrina. I don’t remember the exact number, but there was about 7 or 8 levels of subcontracting. The initial bid got $23 a cubic yard, and by the time it got down to the last level of contracting, the company doing the actual work was getting $3 a cubic yard. This is your Republican controlled, “Conservative” government at work.

Shakespeare’s Sister is doing a round-up of links for a Hurricane Katrina blogswarm.

political, political cartoons, satire, Bush, cartoons,parody,Zora Neale Hurston,Their Eyes Were Watching God, Hurricane Katrina, Katrina, fema, levees, New Orleans, Mississippi, Halliburton,

zencomix

(To the tune of ZZ Top’s “Jesus Just Left Chicago”.)

The man took off from Crawford, to fly over New Orleans
From scripts he did read off word, ’bout those underwater scenes
Oh, woe
Photo-opping all the press on board, so they’d show he’s not mean

Made a stop in Mississippi, on the porch of Strom’s fan’s home
Agreed it was such a pity, that the poor folk had to roam
So, go
Away from their own city (’cept those trapped inside the Dome)

His guards will not let you near him, and they’ll keep you in a Zone
Keeping free speech all neat and trim, until Air Force One has flown
Stow, yo
No one will, on a whim, have any chance to tell him facts unknown

political, political cartoons, satire, Bush, cartoons, Peanuts, Charlie Brown,parody, Hurricane Katrina, Katrina, fema, levees, New Orleans, Mississippi, Halliburton,

zencomix

At Daily Kos, blogger theyreal is reporting that there’s an upcoming ABC docudrama that will blame Clinton and Democrats for 9/11. Allegedly, Conservative leaders are pumping it up for all its worth.

Disgusting.

Who’s failed to capture Osama Bin Laden each and every day for the past 5 years?
George W. Bush, thanks to the divisive, failed, and stubborn perversion he calls a foreign policy.

After all the educated warnings given to the Bush administration by the likes of Richard Clarke and Sandy Berger. they knew - don’t let anyone tell you that the Bush administation didn’t know that attacks were imminent in this country.

Their bungling and hanging out at the Texas ranch while death warrants were being written by Bin Laden for innocent American civilians can’t easily be passed off to the Clinton administration, because Clinton knew about the danger all along and tried, actively and intelligently, to warn and protect us!

In the pre-9/11 world, back in the late 90s when rightwing as*holes were doing all they could to hunt and drag down the POTUS, they contributed directly to exposing our nation to sheer peril. Rightwing trash poo-pooed terrorism warninings and cried out for appeasing Bin Laden themselves - all at the expense of President Clinton’s credibility.

It’s high time for former President Clinton to get real - to get angry - and to speak out.

~~~~~~~~

The most important point to remember, in my opinion, is that we had a pre 9-11 world and a post-9-11 world.

Those worlds are nearly strangers to one another.

Look at this information from an AP article in 2004 about the preliminary findings of the 9/11 Commission:

Both civilian and military officials of the Defense Department said that neither Congress nor the American public would have supported large-scale military operations in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, 2001.

The GOP Clinton-witch-hunters would have gone all ‘WAG-THE-DOG‘ on Clinton if he’d asked for a ground war on terror. They would have accused him of creating distractions to get America’s mind off Monica Lewinsky. That’s how much these rightwing bozos thought (and cared) about the threat of terrorism.

Here’s just ONE horrific (but true) example from a 1999 article by rightwing harpy Phyllis Shlafly about Bill Clinton and his clear pre-9/11 world terrorism warnings. Schlafly tired to make Clinton look like a liar and an exaggerator. This was the late 90s-MO of rightwing fools and detractors, and we can see how it actually harmed American security via political shenanigans that bordered on evil intent. This is from Schlafly in 1997 (my own comments are in bold letters):

Read the rest of this entry »

I just read an interview with the author of One Party Country, Tom Hamburger on BuzzFlash. One Party Country talks about redistricting efforts but more importantly it illustrates the use of MicroTargeting campaigns by the GOP. MicroTargeting is basically gathering very personal data (buying habits, book orders, medical info, ect) and using it to sell politicians to you. Here is the author talking about a specific example in Dayton, Ohio (Supposedly Ohio and New Mexico are hotspots for these GOP efforts):

Tom Hamburger: Felicia Hill lives outside of Dayton, and she is married to a UAW union auto worker. She’s a registered Democrat who has traditionally voted for Democratic presidential candidates. In the rule book by which politics is traditionally played, she would not be a target for Republican Party mobilization. She simply would not be on the list of people who were likely to vote Republican. But, thanks to this database, which the Republicans call Voter Vault, the Republican party activists in Ohio had some detailed information about Felicia Hill. Though she was in a Democratic precinct, had voted in Democratic primaries in the past, and was an African-American woman married to an auto worker, they knew she also sends her children to private schools. She is a member of a conservative Evangelical church. She is a member of a golf club and subscribes to golfing magazines.

These accumulated interests were known to Republicans who were actively engaged in an African-American outreach effort in Ohio in 2004. And so Felicia Hill, for the first time during this campaign, found herself the recipient of a multitude of Republican Party entreaties, many of them personal telephone calls inviting her to specific events. Some were mailers that appealed to her special interests. Because she sends her kids to private schools, for example, she is interested in school vouchers — and that is an issue the Republicans are talking a lot about, the Democrats not so much. She told us she found herself subtly feeling for the first time that the Republican Party was a place where she could feel at home.

Now, ultimately, she went to the ballot box in 2004 and cast her vote for John Kerry. But Republicans viewed this outreach to Felicia Hill and others like her in Ohio and other states as a victory nonetheless, because she is now open to the Republican Party and to Republican Party ideas.

There are a couple of lessons in this for Democrats and for those who are interested in how things are evolving politically. One of them is to look at how this Republican Party investment over the preceding decade might reap success in the long term. They are in this for the long haul. If you did not get Felicia Hill in 2004 — well, maybe in 2006 or maybe in 2008. And they now have a way to reach her.

BuzzFlash: Did she, in that period, receive an equal number of entreaties, either over the phone or in the mail, from the Democrats?

Tom Hamburger: She did receive Democratic Party mailings and local calls, but she really felt that she was bombarded — I think was the phrase she used to us — with the Republican message, and was at times, kind of even overwhelmed by it, but also interested in it. She had a personal invitation to be part of the audience when Bush or Cheney were visiting Dayton, and the personal nature of it made a huge difference to her. She described going to some of these events, and finding, to her surprise, as she put it, “there were people just like me who had my values, my concerns” at some of these rallies. One of the things that we observed in the case of Felicia Hill and others who were in her circumstances is that they were on the mobilization plan. The Republicans outdo the Democrats in this voter mobilization. Of course, that was remarkable to us, because traditionally voter mobilization is an area where Democrats have reigned supreme.

My husband and I recieved stuff like this from the Republican party in 2004. Most of it was related to us being small business owners, we actually received an “award” from the Bush Adminstration and an invitation to a “special” event. Of course, if we wanted to receive the award we needed to attend a $500 fundraiser. It was exciting to receive an “award” even if it was a phony one and I am sure many small business owners took them up on it.

I am worried that the Democratic party is already behind on this one. There are so many things the Democrats could do to really take back a lot of moderates with this kind of marketing. I’d like to see them microtarget Hunting and Fishing magazine subscribers. These people truly enjoy the outdoors and believe in conservation programs not the Republican privitazation schemes that sell their wild parks to logging and mining companies. They are just are so scared about losing 2nd Amendment rights that they don’t think about voting for Democratic candidates. A few personal phone calls and reassurances and they might start thinking about what the Democrats have to offer. Of course, it always takes guts to establish connections with people who might have misconceptions about you and your beliefs.

But - Maybe the Democrats are utilizing MicroTargeting - I wouldn’t know, if they are doing there job well - they shouldn’t be targeting me.

Has anyone else experienced these kind of crossover marketing attempts by the GOP?

Crossposted at AsOhioGoes.com

Brad DeLong covering Bradford Plumer on welfare reform’s record.

And this, the least we must do, for Darfur.

On September 11, 2001, we lost our innocence, many lives, and our composure as a nation. All our actions afterward point to some necessary actions, but many mistakes have been ultimately made.

On August 29, 2005, some of our poorest, oldest and weakest fellow citizens fared worse due to mismanagement of a natural disaster. Again, many lives were lost. But it at least finally compelled us to demand greater accountability from our elected public servants. It began the process of a citizenry insisting we can be a better nation than the one we had fallen to.

Our commitment now, to do a better job eradicating poverty, to grant living wage jobs to those who can and do work, and to fashion a substantive response to an ongoing genocide are the places where the character of a nation reforming itself and renewing its best attributes will be defined.

Read DeLong’s posts. Then ask yourself what you plan to do today, and tomorrow, to change these things for the better.

Then do them.

Having been a college writer once, with a penchant for immature satire on occasion, I don’t think Stephen Laffey’s college resume is a campaign killer. But it’s also clear his stuff wasn’t really satire, but bias based on ignorance.

That’s really what he should say: “I did dumb stuff when I was immature and thought I knew it all. I long ago recognized that my words were rooted in ignorance and insensitivity and they likely caused some of my fellow students real emotional pain. There’s no way I’ll stand and defend my actions as justified. I was wrong then. I apologize, to everyone.

“I ask, however, that you grant me greater consideration than I displayed back then. I harbor no ill will and advance no stereotypes - even in jest - about people who are gay, or are defined by any other demographic characteristic. There are blessings granted with maturity and I’ve been grateful to receive them. I ask that voters understand that I’m not just speaking of the wisdom of the mind, but of the kindness and neighborliness that grows in the heart.

“No one need fear the better human I’ve become, which should be clear by my record as a public servant. I stand now for the rights of all humans. And I rebuke the moments of stupidity and biases of my youth.”

But I doubt Laffey is smart enough to say that. Because he’s still a jerk. Yeah, I’d like Whitehouse to capture that seat and I think it’ll be easy pickings against Laffey. But I still harbor the greater hope that Rhode Island Republicans will rebuke him precisely because of such evidence that he’s still a very hateful man.

I’ve heard the Rust Belt denizens complain about the export of good jobs. NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, certainly need fixing, but pointing fingers doesn’t resolve the crisis.

So, what if there were an issue that granted struggling Dem incumbents in Michigan and challenger Dems from Wisconsin to West Virginia with a popular solution? And what if it also offered Dems a way to exhibit their strength on Homeland Security?

I think if there were truly a JFK-esque Dem leader today running for president, his inspiring race to the moon would now be a race to energy freedom. His strategy for Iraq would be withdrawal…. with a surprise diversion of half of those troops to Afghanistan to finish off Bin Laden and his opium funding base. And his jobs plan/homeland security plan would be to fix this mess, before it breaks us.

It’s so good to see a man of diplomacy sinking his teeth into Bonnie Prince Muttonbutt.

To be fair, compared to Bush, the Bonnie Prince truly seems genial and literate and human. But he acts like a colonial governor in King George’s empire in such perky fashion, I think he may be Bush’s actual dick.

Such a lovely way to start a Monday, eh?

Kudos to all the players that utilize this approach to the fall campaigns.