The Unsatisfied Mind

If one person reads this and learns about Jonah, my job is done

Fuck Jonah Goldberg. He is about as gutless a piece of shit as exists in the neo- con conservative movement.

Read. Write to him. What a puke. From Eschaton:

This is pretty unbelievable. Jonah's explanation for why he can't go fight bad guys in Iraq:

As for why my sorry a** isn't in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give -- I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my a** is, er, sorry, are a few -- ever seem to suffice.

Yes, that's right. Being 30something and having a wife and baby make you ineligible to go to Iraq.

Oh, wait, that's not actually true at all.

MASCOTTE, Fla. — Mourners remembered Spec. Eric Ulysses Ramirez as one of his unit’s most valuable soldiers in Iraq and as a Star Wars fan who lived to be a “Jedi in his time.”

Ramirez, 31, was killed while on patrol near a prison about 30 miles west of Baghdad before dawn Feb. 12 when his California National Guard unit was attacked by small arms, rocket-propelled grenades and homemade explosive devices, the U.S. Army said.


...

Ramirez’s widow, Tracy Benson-Ramirez, accepted three Gold Stars — one for herself and one each for her daughter, Isis, who turns 2 next week, and son, Chase, who was born in December.

Remember, Goldberg was one of the lead flag-carriers for the President and his false war. We need to DESTROY him.

And then Savage.

And then Limbaugh.

Go see Juan Cole and understand what education and study gets you when you are challenged by an imbicile. It gets you a massive mother-fucking bat to smack the gutless mouth-breathers into submission. One of my favorite quotes:

In the topsy-turvy world of the American conservative extremist, academics who invest years in training and study are despised as aristocratic elitists, while the man who failed at every business and had his presidency handed to him by virtue of his family connections is respected as an earthy man of the people. And a slug like Jonah Goldberg becomes a widely read ‘pundit’ by the good fortune of having a sleazy gossip-monger for a mother.

From Pharyngula, my peeps.

Says it all, from Financial Times

This article is from FT, via Mydd:

In a second inaugural address tinged with evangelical zeal, George W. Bush declared: "Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world." The peoples of the world, however, do not seem to be listening. A new world order is indeed emerging - but its architecture is being drafted in Asia and Europe, at meetings to which Americans have not been invited.

Consider Asean Plus Three (APT), which unites the member countries of the Association of Southeast Asia Nations with China, Japan and South Korea. This group has the potential to be the world's largest trade bloc, dwarfing the European Union and North American Free Trade Association. The deepening ties of the APT member states represent a major diplomatic defeat for the US, which hoped to use the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum to limit the growth of Asian economic regionalism at American expense. In the same way, recent moves by South American countries to bolster an economic community represent a clear rejection of US aims to dominate a western-hemisphere free trade zone.

Consider, as well, the EU's rapid progress toward military independence. American protests failed to prevent the EU establishing its own military planning agency, independent of the Nato alliance (and thus of Washington). Europe is building up its own rapid reaction force. And despite US resistance, the EU is developing Galileo, its own satellite network, which will break the monopoly of the US global positioning satellite system.

The participation of China in Europe's Galileo project has alarmed the US military. But China shares an interest with other aspiring space powers in preventing American control of space for military and commercial uses. Even while collaborating with Europe on Galileo, China is partnering Brazil to launch satellites. And in an unprecedented move, China recently agreed to host Russian forces for joint Russo-Chinese military exercises.

The US is being sidelined even in the area that Mr Bush identified in last week's address as America's mission: the promotion of democracy and human rights. The EU has devoted far more resources to consolidating democracy in post-communist Europe than has the US. By contrast, under Mr Bush, the US hypocritically uses the promotion of democracy as the rationale for campaigns against states it opposes for strategic reasons. Washington denounces tyranny in Iran but tolerates it in Pakistan. In Iraq, the goal of democratisation was invoked only after the invasion, which was justified earlier by claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was collaborating with al-Qaeda.

Nor is American democracy a shining example to mankind. The present one-party rule in the US has been produced in part by the artificial redrawing of political districts to favour Republicans, reinforcing the domination of money in American politics. America's judges -- many of whom will be appointed by Mr Bush -- increasingly behave as partisan political activists in black robes. America's antiquated winner-take-all electoral system has been abandoned by most other democracies for more inclusive versions of proportional representation.

In other areas of global moral and institutional reform, the US today is a follower rather than a leader. Human rights? Europe has banned the death penalty and torture, while the US is a leading practitioner of execution. Under Mr Bush, the US has constructed an international military gulag in which the torture of suspects has frequently occurred. The international rule of law? For generations, promoting international law in collaboration with other nations was a US goal. But the neoconservatives who dominate Washington today mock the very idea of international law. The next US attorney general will be the White House counsel who scorned the Geneva Conventions as obsolete.

A decade ago, American triumphalists mocked those who argued that the world was becoming multipolar, rather than unipolar. Where was the evidence of balancing against the US, they asked. Today the evidence of foreign co-operation to reduce American primacy is everywhere -- from the increasing importance of regional trade blocs that exclude the US to international space projects and military exercises in which the US is conspicuous by its absence.

It is true that the US remains the only country capable of projecting military power throughout the world. But unipolarity in the military sphere, narrowly defined, is not preventing the rapid development of multipolarity in the geopolitical and economic arenas -- far from it. And the other great powers are content to let the US waste blood and treasure on its doomed attempt to recreate the post-first world war British imperium in the Middle East.

That the rest of the world is building institutions and alliances that shut out the US should come as no surprise. The view that American leaders can be trusted to use a monopoly of military and economic power for the good of humanity has never been widely shared outside of the US. The trend toward multipolarity has probably been accelerated by the truculent unilateralism of the Bush administration, whose motto seems to be that of the Hollywood mogul: "Include me out."

In recent memory, nothing could be done without the US. Today, however, practically all new international institution-building of any long-term importance in global diplomacy and trade occurs without American participation.

In 1998 Madeleine Albright, then US secretary of state, said of the U.S.: "We are the indispensable nation." By backfiring, the unilateralism of Mr Bush has proven her wrong. The US, it turns out, is a dispensable nation.

Europe, China, Russia, Latin America and other regions and nations are quietly taking measures whose effect if not sole purpose will be to cut America down to size.

Ironically, the US, having won the cold war, is adopting the strategy that led the Soviet Union to lose it: hoping that raw military power will be sufficient to intimidate other great powers alienated by its belligerence. To compound the irony, these other great powers are drafting the blueprints for new international institutions and alliances. That is what the US did during and after the second world war.

But that was a different America, led by wise and constructive statesmen like Dean Acheson, the secretary of state who wrote of being "present at the creation." The bullying approach of the Bush administration has ensured that the US will not be invited to take part in designing the international architecture of Europe and Asia in the 21st century. This time, the US is absent at the creation.

Pretty much says it all. Bush has killed this country, it is now only a matter of time. Unless things drastically change.

Evidence of our dog getting into his xmas treats:)
Posted by Hello

It's on now

OK, Im back. I'm not sure that I will be doing so much political crap now, but I'm turning against the idiots in the ID battle.

Or, wait, there is no battle. Chris Anderson, editor of Wired Magazine, says it best:

The Intelligent Design movement has opened my eyes. I realize that although I believe that evolution explains why the living world is the way it is, I can't actually prove it. At least not to the satisfaction of the ID folk, who seem to require that every example of extraordinary complexity and clever plumbing in nature be fully traced back (not just traceable back) along an evolutionary tree to prove that it wasn't directed by an invisible hand. If the scientific community won't do that, then the arguments goes that they must accept a large red "theory" stamp placed on the evolution textbooks and that alternative theories, such as "guided" evolution and creationism, be taught alongside.

So, by this standard, virtually everything I believe in must now fall under the shadow of unproveability. Most importantly, this includes the belief that democracy, capitalism and other market-driven systems (including evolution!) are better than their alternatives. Indeed, I suppose I should now refer to them as the "theory of democracy" and the "theory of capitalism", to join the theory of evolution, and accept the teaching of living Marxism and fascism as alternatives in high schools.

The battle is on, now. We will fight in the fields, we will fight on the landing grounds...

This is from the best article I have read this year, Edge.com's annual question, "What do you belive is true, but you cannot prove it?". One of the best answers (edited a bit for clarity), is from Carolyn Porco, Planetary Scientist and Director of CICLOPS:

This is a treacherous question to ask, and a trivial one to answer. Treacherous because the shoals between the written lines can be navigated by some to the conclusion that truth and religious belief develop by the same means and are therefore equivalent. To those unfamiliar with the process by which scientific hunches and hypotheses are advanced to the level of verifiable fact, and the exacting standards applied in that process, the impression may be left that the work of the scientist is no different than that of the prophet or the priest.

Of course, nothing could be further from reality.

The whole scientific method relies on the deliberate, high magnification scrutiny and criticism by other scientists of any mechanisms proposed by any individual to explain the natural world. No matter how fervently a scientist may "believe'"something to be true, and unlike religious dogma, his or her belief is not accepted as a true description or even approximation of reality until it passes every test conceivable, executable and reproducible. Nature is the final arbiter, and great minds are great only in so far as they can intuit the way nature works and are shown by subsequent examination and proof to be right.

This is one of the best explanations of how the scientific process works that I have read, especially versus religious dogma. Two great quotes to start off the year.

Religion is a weakness.

Victory

From Digby:

Obviously, there are many reasons any person runs for president having to do with ego and accident. After observing him for a while, I think John Kerry is responding to the call in the 30 year political civil war with the Republicans. He understands that they have become dangerously radical and that it's time to break their hold on power. He knows this territory.

In that sense, I confess I'm surprised that liberals aren't taking more heart in the fact that John Kerry is a card carrying fighting Massachusetts liberal. We should be thrilled that somebody as liberal as Kerry has got a chance to be president. Because let's not kid ourselves, anybody more liberal than John Kerry is unelectable...

He's not a crook, he's not lazy, he's not stupid. He's very accomplished, he's highly experienced and he's got good instincts. But, I'm convinced that the most important character traits in a successful President at this point in history are resiliance and cunning; even if we win the election, politics are going to remain a bloodsport. The Republicans aren't going to fade away. This battle is ongoing and we must have someone who can withstand a punch and come back. It is going to be very, very difficult to govern. I think Kerry is running not because he's "electable," but because he's one of the few Democrats of his generation who has spent his life preparing to govern in the face of a radical political opposition. The job is not for the fainthearted...

I believe that right now the Democrats are essentially the conservative party, which means as great an emphasis on preservation as progress. This comes as a result of the two party system that places us in contrast to the radical Republican party which seeks to overturn the New Deal and dissolve the international order of the last 50 years. By necessity, our candidates are not going to be able to run on as progressive a platform as many of us might wish. One has to take into consideration the nature of the opposition and the character of the body politic when framing a case.

Kerry is not a reformer as Dean was perceived to be, nor is he a champion of a particular constituency as Gephardt was. But, perhaps at a time like this it is more helpful to judge the candidate by the quality of his enemies than his friends. His career has been about fighting bad guys, from Vietnam to Dick Nixon to BCCI.

In light of that, I believe Kerry is running for the simple reason that this time and place requires somebody who has the experience and character to keep the country secure while fighting back a rabid political opposition at home and a series of difficult threats overseas. His life has uniquely prepared him for this political moment.

It is happening right now. It is HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. My wife and I are observing polling places around Houston, making sure that no Reslugs try anything funny. Then, it's on to the victory party.

I probably won't be around for the next 2 days:)

Bush wanted to attack Iraq before 2000

Written by his ghost biographer:

Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer.

Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. “Suddenly, he’s at 91 percent in the polls, and he’d barely crawled out of the bunker.”

That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work – and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war – has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush’s unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters – well before he became president.

Tell everyone you know. Make sure that those who support this fucking liar know. Make sure everyone knows.

Indescribable

From the Whisky Bar:

"I want you to stand, raise your right hands," and recite "the Bush Pledge," said Florida state Sen. Ken Pruitt. The assembled mass of about 2,000 in this Treasure Coast town about an hour north of West Palm Beach dutifully rose, arms aloft, and repeated after Pruitt: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States."

Slate
One Nation Under Bush
October 29, 2004

All officers of the SS were required to take the loyalty oath. Raising their right hand and their left hand placed on their officers sword, the oath went as follows: "I swear to thee, Adolph Hitler as Fuhrer and chancellor of the German Reich, my Loyalty and Bravery. I vow to thee and the superiors whom those shall appoint, obedience until death, so help me God."

Jim Harris
World War II Stories: In Their Own Words

"Sure, only here they'll call it anti-fascism."

I can't even comment.

From Dave Sirota

What Kerry should do immediately after being sworn in:

If Kerry is elected, there will be much work for him to do that will take long negotiations with Congress. But there are a number of executive orders he can issue immediately upon taking his office. All they need is his signature. He can:

- Repeal Bush's executive order reducing overtime pay protections for up to 8 million American workers.

- Overturn Bush's anti-union executive order that "effectively bars project labor agreements on all federally funded construction projects, even in situations where they have been regularly used since the 1940s."

- Revise Bush's excecutive order that "allows service contractors in federal buildings to layoff low-wage workers, who are mostly women, whenever there is a turnover of government contractors, which in effect erodes their job security."

- Reinstate "labor-management cooperation systems that serve the federal government and hundreds of thousands of federal workers" and that had "resulted in numerous productivity gains and cost-savings measures benefiting all taxpayers." When Bush repealed this, he was opposed by some in his own party.

- Terminate the requirement demanding government contractors effectively discouraging union membership (even though union jobs have higher wages/benefits), while discouraging contractors from telling workers about their union rights.

- Revoke the Bush executive order that restricts public access to historical records. This Bush order was opposed by some Republicans.

- Reform the Bush order that "requires federal agencies to give special consideration to energy interests in devising new regulation." This order "mirrored a draft proposal submitted by the American Petroleum Institute" (the oil industry's lobbying group), actually "borrowing words almost verbatim for a key section."

- Repeal the Bush order "that broadens the authority of agencies to withhold information from the public." The Bush order, signed in May of 2002, for instance "gave the EPA Administrator authority to designate documents 'Secret' or 'Confidential,' two of the three highest possible security classifications." It also allows the Administrator "to delegate classification authority to senior EPA officials." Once classified, a person can gain access to information only when an agency head or their designee reviews the request, the person signs a non-disclosure agreement, and the person can establish a "need-to-know" to the satisfaction of agency official.

Things are looking good

OBL tape be damned. We only have 3 more days, people, until we get our country back..

This will all be over soon.

Nail in the coffin of the Bush Administration

Definitive proof that the explosives were at Al Qaqaa after we invaded, and that we did nothing to protect them.

Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne Division, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS has determined the crew embedded with the troops may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where the ammunition disappeared. The news crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa, and drove two or three miles north of there with soldiers on April 18, 2003.

During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS news crew bunker after bunker of material labelled "explosives." Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get into the bunkers and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.

"We can stick it in those and make some good bombs." a soldier told our crew.

n one bunker, there were boxes marked with the name "Al Qaqaa", the munitions plant where tons of explosives allegedly went missing.

Once the doors to the bunkers were opened, they weren't secured. They were left open when the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew and the military went back to their base.

"We weren't quite sure what were looking at, but we saw so much of it and it didn't appear that this was being secured in any way," said photojournalist Joe Caffrey. "It was several miles away from where military people were staying in their tents".

Officers with the 101st Airborne told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that the bunkers were within the U.S. military perimeter and protected. But Caffrey and former 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Reporter Dean Staley, who spent three months together in Iraq, said Iraqis were coming and going freely.

As of this moment, we have proof (again, sigh) that the administration is lying to us. That Fox news (the only one still saying that the explosives were not there when the Bush Administration invaded).

It will all be over in 5 days. Im leaving to vote right now.