Month: August 2005

My wife and I miss NWI, which was our main TV news source. But, we decided to give the new Gore TV channel, Current, a try.

First off, we are NOT the demographic it is aimed at. We are nerdy, post-35 parents struggling to maintain a nice home in a nice neighborhood. The demographic of Current is young, “hip” kids. More below.
We didn’t much like the format. Too disjointed and the hosts were irritating, almost like Frat boys. I particularly didn’t find myself sucked in at first. But then…

My wife observed that, as it intends, Current TV IS kind of like surfing the internet. Not that you have much control over what you find, but it is that kind of addictive, short-attention span, disjointed sufing feel. We WERE sucked in the same way we were sucked into web surfing. So it succeeds in that.

Then there was content. Some segments (they call them “pods” which I kind of like) just seemed silly and sensationalist, like the one trying to track down Japanese people in Tokyo who had signed online suicide pacts. But two segments in particular made me realize what Gore is up to. He really is trying to give quality (if short-attention-span friendly) progressive TV to the youth. One segment followed a reporter covering the anti-Globalization demonstrations in Miami who got shot in the face by riot police. It showed the whole thing on camera. Police brutality of demonstrators caught on film and actually covered by the media. THAT is something you don’t see everyday and THAT is why Gore is doing this.

Then there was a segment on a woman in Texas who became a Baptist minister. AH, now the PROGRESSIVE end of religion. Another thing you don’t see every day.

They also covered the idea that maybe abstinence only isn’t a good approach to the AIDS epidemic and what we really need is sex ed, but it wasn’t covered as well as the above two pods.

Rather than get further sucked in, we shut off the TV (we try to be good examples to our kids–not TOO MUCH TV). But I was left with a sense that Gore really is aiming at reality-based TV (not reality-TV, but the factual counterpart to Fox “reality” TV. So give it a try, folks. See what you think. I do feel too old for the demographics. I figure if you remember the first days of MTV you probably are too old for the first days of Current TV, but it is still worth a look just to see what Al Gore, backer of the legislaiton that created the internet, is up to today. You can also check it out online.

My 10 year old step-daughter was watching it too. She liked it very much and was REALLY angered by the part about protesters being shot at. So I am now really convinced Gore knows what he is doing! He got a point across to my video-game absorbed, pre-teen step daughter.

All hail to the Chief, who’s giving quite a serious speech about it all. On my teevee. Now Bolton’s speaking … “to my wife Gretchen and to my daughter [C.J.?], in absentia…” WTF?

Update [2005-8-1 10:45:50 by susanhu]: Russ Feingold issues an immediate release on Bolton’s appointment:

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold

On the President’s Recess Appointment of John Bolton


August 1, 2005

I am disappointed in the President’s decision to bypass the Senate and use a recess appointment to make John Bolton the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. Bolton is fundamentally unsuited for the job, and his record reveals a truly disturbing intolerance of dissent. Mr. Bolton did not win the support of a majority of members of the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Senate refused to make a final decision on this nomination pending review of documents that the Administration declined to provide in blatant disregard for the Senate’s constitutional rights and responsibilities. But despite all of the warning signs and all of the red flags, the President has taken this extraordinary step to send a polarizing figure with tattered credibility to represent us at the United Nations. At a time when we need to be doing our very best to mend frayed relationships, encourage real burden-sharing, and nurture a rock-solid international coalition to fight terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the American people deserve better than John Bolton.

In other news: The President addressed the surviving attendees at the National Boy Scout Jamboree.

Five scout leaders and one scout died this week, and scores were treated for heat exhaustion while waiting for the president to show up.

It’s hard to read Will Marshall’s comments without seeing in them a defense of arrogance and abuse of power. Was it arrogant to go to war with the North Vietnamese Army? Was the Gulf of Tonkin incident an abuse of power? Were Mark Felt’s black-bag jobs an abuse of power? Did Richard Nixon abuse his power? Was Nixon arrogant when he said, “When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal”?

When Samuel Johnson said that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” was he completely off the mark?

American liberals love America as much as anyone. But most of us see patriotism as problematic. The problem arises when people think in purely national terms. The big issues facing the world today are the availability of energy, global warming, medical epidemics, transnational terrorism, and nuclear proliferation. None of these issues are national in character, and none of them can be managed unilaterally.

Moreover, there is something unseemly in an ordinary person taking extraordinary pride in accomplishments they had no role in bringing about and which they poorly understand. The controversial psychiatrist, Wilhelm Reich, touched on this in his book, Listen, Little Man.

It’s true that “no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people”, and a wise politician will not forget to utilize the Stars and Stripes in their signs, pamphlets, and commercials. But trite appeals for God to bless America are not absolutely necessary to political success. And base appeals to the jingoistic side of American culture remain suspect in most liberals’ minds.

It would be different if we hadn’t so frequently fallen so short of our freedom loving rhetoric. Will Marshall refers to the ‘excesses of protest politics’ as if those excesses weren’t in the service of ending Jim Crow, getting women equal pay, or curbing the excesses of a national security apparatus run amok, violating our civil rights, and armed to the teeth.

As far as I am concerned, we are right back in the early 1970’s. The same characters are in power, we are losing a war that we started based on a pack of lies, and there is a cancer at the heart of the Presidency.

If we are suffering from anything, it is the lack of excessive protest politics.

According to Reuters:

According to CNN, Bolton’s appointment will be announced at 10 am ET this morning.
Chris Dodd spoke about the impending appointment on Sunday and echoed what his opponents have been saying for months:

Bolton will hold the position until January, 2007 – just enough time for Bolton to cause major chaos, as is his pattern, in his efforts to “reform” the UN. Stay tuned for some hard line statements by Bolton as he attempts to further the agenda on the neocons. He will not sit quietly.

More as reactions come in…

The recent success of GM’s rebate program giving consumers the same prices as their employees gives me an idea that if a similar program is adopted by major products and services such as housing, appliances,medical services etc. could lead to a boom.There is even a precedence ( although not a very successful one) on the Republican side. I am referring,of course, to the Supply Side Voodoo Economics program. Tax cuts were supposed to usher in  investment and boom times. I think the program I have outlined will increase demand and is more likely to result in employment, higher tax revenues.

What do our resident economic mavens think about this?

With a constitution in place in Iraq,
We’ll be able to pull our troops back.
But it sounds a bit crummy,
This position from Rummy,
That paper armor will cease all attack.

(four more after the fold)
Poor George had just left for vacation,
Must he now go step up for the nation?
With the death of King Fahd,
America’s “Bling God”,
He must kowtow to fight oily inflation.

The Atkins Corporation’s bankrupted,
With the diet claiming carbs are corrupted.
Were their profits all leeched,
By massive flights to South Beach,
Or when Bob died, was the company abducted?

At the Jamboree, Bush proceeded to tout,
Of his staff who were all former scouts.
But it seems that old Dub,
Never made it past Cub,
His own mother having thrown the boy out.

The engineers are all poring o’er reams,
Of fabric and temperature extremes.
Should they consult a good tailor,
`Fore the next time they sail her
With Discovery coming apart at the seams?

To Whose Benefit, this “Cui Bono?”

To tell you the truth, I’m getting a bit sick of all the thoughtful, allusive, grey-beard-pulling making the rhetorical rounds these days.  All any wiser-than-wise alternative pundit needs to say this week is Cui bono?…and arguments are a priori quelled, stomped on, pulled from the shelves as stale post-sell-by-date refuse.  I’d really like to sponsor an investigation into who benefits from this phrase-borne viral phenomenon.

First of all, I’ll make crystal-clear that I am entirely of the belief that 9/11, 7/7 and the upcoming “whatever” are of unadulterated Western origin.  I am convinced that the U.S. (and Israel) connived to bring about our millenial disasters for fun and profit.  And I’m also convinced that MI6 has not only learned from but acted in accordance with false-flag examples in recent weeks.

What I can’t abide is the smug, know-it-all rhetoric abounding in the ether that hints at all and reveals/resolves nothing.  Let’s have forthright accusation, all you sly-boots; or keep your unrisen dough to yourselves.  Do some serious and seriously dangerous digging.  Cui bono doesn’t cut it – not entirely.

“What fresh hell is this?” (Shakespeare) Stay tuned to the Times On Line.  Tony Blair is going to have one of the worst weeks of his life this week. Just to kick off the celebrations, it is Monday Bank Holiday in Ireland. Buy a pint of Guiness and buy a banned book today..  Whitehall is trying to supress a biography that gives further details about the lead-up to the war on Iraq and the pre- war double bombing campaign…. more and more ministers and advisors are giving evidence and naming names…. and dates…. and once again the fastidious British record keeping has left a trail of paper that can’t be scrubbed.

The curious thing is that one of those who says she expressed her doubts about the war’s legality is Baroness Sally Morgan…. and this is really fishy since she co-wrote with Falconer the final opinion that the illegal war would be legal under existing UN Resolutions…… thus spinning the ball back into Attorney Lord Peter Goldsmith’s court.

D-Day For Tony Blair, Part I. 9 May 2005 ;By Linda Heard;Counterpunch Magazine. (Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Mid-East affairs based in Cairo.)

D-Day for Tony Blair, Part 2. Seldon’s New Biography of Blair; Not quite available at bookstores near you

And not looking good at all for George Bush, either.

Key No 10 aides were split over war

Times On Line UK; July 31, 2005
Robert Winnett, Whitehall Correspondent

The disclosures have been made by Blair’s biographer Anthony Seldon, who has benefited from insider accounts that the government is now seeking to suppress

Seldon is understood to have had access to the private unpublished papers of key officials. Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador in Washington; Lance Price, former deputy to Campbell at Downing Street; and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations and then special envoy to Iraq, are all understood to have kept detailed records and were all interviewed by Seldon

Blair/Whitehall Attempt To Supress The Facts About Going To War on Iraq

The most sensitive sections of Seldon’s biography detail the run-up to the war in Iraq during 2002 and 2003, Blair’s relationship with the White House, and attempts to persuade the United Nations to back action.

Decisions were made largely by a tight group of Downing Street advisers, diplomats and intelligence chiefs working with the prime minister. However, Seldon discovered that even within this group there was unease about Blair’s actions. “Even No 10 was divided, with Jonathan Powell (Blair’s chief of staff) strongly advocating closeness to the (American) administration, and Sally (Baroness) Morgan in particular pressing for the need to go down the UN route, ” writes Seldon.

“Many senior diplomats in the Foreign Office were deeply concerned but failed to speak out . . . Within his closest team in No 10, Campbell and Morgan had private reservations while (David) Manning (Blair’s foreign policy adviser) was often uneasy . . . The intelligence chiefs (Sir John Scarlett, Sir Stephen Lander and Sir Richard Dearlove) were not counselling caution.”

The noose tightens:

LEAKED DATA REVEAL REASONS FOR INCREASED BOMBING RAIDS WERE A SHAM

Figures released by the Ministry of Defence have shown the reasons given by Britain and America for stepping up bombing raids in Iraq in the run-up to war were a sham, writes Michael Smith.

Geoff Hoon, who was then defence secretary, and Donald Rumsfeld, his American counterpart, both claimed that the rise in air attacks was in response to Iraqi attempts to shoot down allied aircraft

Blair Was Told He Could Have Stopped The War

Seldon writes that during the autumn of 2002 British diplomats and politicians were involved in tense negotiations at the UN, but it seemed that Blair was being bounced into war. Dick Cheney, the vice-president, was hostile to Blair and the British and sat in meetings “like a lump”, according to one official present.

However, Blair was told by diplomats, thought to be Meyer and Greenstock, that he could have stopped America invading Iraq had he been prepared to use his influence.

“Advice Blair received from diplomats that autumn (in 2002) was that Britain could be the swing vote on whether or not the US would go to war.”

The Intelligence Has Come Unfixed: The Numbers Don’t Add Up

Ministers have since insisted that the stepped-up attacks, which began in May 2002, were as a result of increased Iraqi activity and were not an attempt to provoke a response that would give the allies an excuse for war.

The figures do not support those claims. In the first seven months of 2001 the allies recorded a total of 370 “provocations” by the Iraqis against allied aircraft. But in the seven months between October 2001 and May 2002 there were just 32.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, who obtained the MoD data in a Commons written answer, said it reinforced the need for an inquiry into ministers’ conduct in the run-up to war.

Once again, Michael Smith of Times On Line, contributed to this story…. what would our weekends be like without him?

National Geographic News is reporting that some neuroscientists believe the heart drug propranolol may help treat or prevent Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Other researchers argue that the emotional stress that atrocities cause can be a necessary part of life and should not be supressed. For instance, would you want a soldier to be desensitized to the horrors of killing innocent children so he does it again?

Researchers say the beta-blocker propranolol, commonly prescribed to treat high blood pressure and heart problems, disrupts the way the brain stores memories.

If taken at the right time, the drug may benefit people who suffer post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), said Joseph LeDoux, a neuroscientist at New York University.

“We’re not erasing memories,” he said. “But we think it will reduce the emotional component of the memory.”

The science journal Nature reported Wednesday that LeDoux and colleagues are conducting a clinical trial of propranolol in PTSD patients.

Propranolol has been used not only for high blood pressure, but also for the nerves and anxiety that accompany stressful events like public speaking.

Memories are active at two points, storage, and recall. In order to be most effective, our soldiers would need to take the drug immediately following whatever trauma they witness or suffer, during the storage phase. It may only help a little if taken later during the recall phase.

Other researchers warn that propranolol could be abused. They fear the government could give it to soldiers to desensitize them to the atrocities of war, creating virtually unfeeling killing machines.

This is a delicate issue. PTSD can be a debilitating condition. On the other hand, a person who has no emotional connection to their experiences is what we commonly call a psychopath. What do you think?

Hi, everyone, I am starting this diary early tonight so it will be there for you folks in the morning.  Today I thought we could gather in the shade of these palms.

I wish everyone a good day today.  Refreshments will be served on the patio, if it gets too hot please take a dip in the pool.

Well it might be a bit tiny, I think there is a larger pool down this path!

Please be sure to stop by the Booman store and purchase your T shirts and mugs.
I would also invite you to hop over to Village Blue a non political interactive site with lots of interesting diaries, comments and some really beautiful pictures.
Have a great night/morning everyone and I will see you around 8 am PDT.