I didn't realize that conservative windbag Rush Limbaugh was still around. I thought illegal use of drugs was usually punished harshly with prison. But maybe it's only reserved for serious criminals, like those who smoke a joint in their living room.
Anyway he apparently still has a radio show. In it, he recently launched a verbal attack on the integrity of soldiers who disagreed with President Bush's Iraq policy.
A man whose only experience with combat is berating callers from his plush radio studio had the gall to refer to such troops as 'phony soldiers,' in contrast to the 'real soldiers' who agree with Bush.
Several of the 'phony' soldiers who recently published an op-ed in The New York Times criticizing Bush's Iraq non-policy suffered REAL deaths in REAL combat
The windbag who dodged military service in Vietnam because of hemorrhoids also said that soldiers shouldn't whine about Bush's idiotic decisions because after all, the soldiers "joined to be Iraq."
That's odd... for the last five years, he and his ilk claimed that the role of soldiers was to (hold hand over heart) protect our freedom, not 'to be in Iraq.'
Adirondack Musing wonders who is going to hyperventilatingly demand the US Senate pass a resolution condemning the windbag's comments, like they did with MoveOn.org.
Update: Adirondack Musing notes one GOP Congressman actually had the audacity to introduce a resolution PRAISING Limbaugh for raising troop morale (by calling them phonies, apparently). My head hurts now.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
In solidarity with the Burmese martyrs
This essay is part of a (more or less) weekly feature on this blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel, Iraq, North Korea and Iran.
Today is the tenth day of protests in Burma (also known as Myanmar). The military dictatorship in the country is widely acknowledged as one of the three most repressive regimes in the world. The protests against deteriorating living conditions in the isolated nation were led by Buddhist monks but demonstrations grew to many tens of thousands as the days went on.
The military, in power since 1962, ordered soldiers to fire on the peaceful protesters. At least nine were killed in the massacre with more injured. Additionally, the forces of disorder went on the rampage, as truckloads of troops in riot gear also raided Buddhist monasteries on the outskirts of Yangon [the capital, also known as Rangoon], beating and arresting dozens of monks.
Observers fear that the bloodshed could get worse. In 1988, the military butchered thousands of peaceful anti-government protesters. And there's no reason to think that the desperate despots wouldn't resort to such barbarity again to preserve their power,
Today is the tenth day of protests in Burma (also known as Myanmar). The military dictatorship in the country is widely acknowledged as one of the three most repressive regimes in the world. The protests against deteriorating living conditions in the isolated nation were led by Buddhist monks but demonstrations grew to many tens of thousands as the days went on.
The military, in power since 1962, ordered soldiers to fire on the peaceful protesters. At least nine were killed in the massacre with more injured. Additionally, the forces of disorder went on the rampage, as truckloads of troops in riot gear also raided Buddhist monasteries on the outskirts of Yangon [the capital, also known as Rangoon], beating and arresting dozens of monks.
Observers fear that the bloodshed could get worse. In 1988, the military butchered thousands of peaceful anti-government protesters. And there's no reason to think that the desperate despots wouldn't resort to such barbarity again to preserve their power,
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
A bottom feeder sinks a little lower
It's no secret that I can't stand Rudy Giuliani. I reserve some of my utmost contempt for shameless populist demagogues of all ideologies. The former mayor of New York certainly fits that bill.
It's important to look at the policy positions of candidates in an election. But you can also tell a lot about a candidate's character by how he (or she) campaigns and how and to whom they pander. Giuliani panders to the worst in people: fear, hatred, anger. He offers no positive agenda, only irrational hysteria.
So it's not surprising that one of his supporters came up with the slimeball idea to hold fundraiser parties where an admission would be charged. The rate of admission: $9.11.
Giuliani's campaign disavowed any knowledge of the fundraiser. But the tone was set long ago. When you base your entire campaign on 9/11-themed fearmongering, it's to be expected that supporters would take that to its logical conclusions.
The firefighters' union trashed the idea.
"It is nothing short of disrespectful to the legacy of the thousands of civilians and 343 brave firefighters who died at Ground Zero," said Harold Schaitberger, IAFF president.
However, such disrespect is his trademark. Giuliani has been shamelessly exploiting Sept. 11, 2001 for his own political ends since... Sept. 12, 2001.
He is so divorced from reality that he even had the audacity to claim he was a de facto rescue worker hero. A claim which was denounced by real rescue worker heroes.
Rudy thinks he personally owns 9/11. So it's not the least bit surprising that his supporters think they do too.
It's important to look at the policy positions of candidates in an election. But you can also tell a lot about a candidate's character by how he (or she) campaigns and how and to whom they pander. Giuliani panders to the worst in people: fear, hatred, anger. He offers no positive agenda, only irrational hysteria.
So it's not surprising that one of his supporters came up with the slimeball idea to hold fundraiser parties where an admission would be charged. The rate of admission: $9.11.
Giuliani's campaign disavowed any knowledge of the fundraiser. But the tone was set long ago. When you base your entire campaign on 9/11-themed fearmongering, it's to be expected that supporters would take that to its logical conclusions.
The firefighters' union trashed the idea.
"It is nothing short of disrespectful to the legacy of the thousands of civilians and 343 brave firefighters who died at Ground Zero," said Harold Schaitberger, IAFF president.
However, such disrespect is his trademark. Giuliani has been shamelessly exploiting Sept. 11, 2001 for his own political ends since... Sept. 12, 2001.
He is so divorced from reality that he even had the audacity to claim he was a de facto rescue worker hero. A claim which was denounced by real rescue worker heroes.
Rudy thinks he personally owns 9/11. So it's not the least bit surprising that his supporters think they do too.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Contrived hysteria about Ahmadinejad's visit
Militarists were cackling with glee about the visit of Iran's president to New York for a United Nations' meeting. They were ecstatic because it gave them an excuse to ratchet up their demonization of the "Hitler of the Middle East" (this week's version) to unprecedented levels.
Their incessant attacks against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, punctuated by waves of manufactured righteous indignation, are the latest effort in laying the ground work for the military attack against Iran that the militarists have for several years longed for.
Some like to disingenuously claim that progressives are in love with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It probably doesn't help that leftist icon (in some people's eyes) Hugo Chavez has gotten in bed with the Iranian leader. That an atheistic socialist can make nice with a theocratic hyperconservative says as much about the shallowness of their ideological pretenses as their egomania.
But for the most part, the moderate left recognizes that a theocrat is a theocrat and that they are all a threat to rational societies.
I hear people in this country say stuff like, "Nuke 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out." There isn't a dime's worth of difference between people with that mentality, some of whom hold high ranking positions in this administration, and Ahmadinejad's calls to wipe Israel off the map.
Make no mistake about it, Ahmadinejad is a populist demagogue. Does he bearing watching? Absolutely. Should his calls for Israel's annihilation be condemned? Without question. Is he "Hitler of the Middle East"? Give me a break.
Militarists went into full-scale contrived hysteria mode when Columbia University invited Ahmadinejad to speak there. Originally, I thought it was a good idea. President Bush can say Ahmadinejad is a loon but few people are going to believe him because few believe anything Bush says anymore.
Best let the American people hear the loon in his own words so they can draw their own conclusions. Give Ahmadinejad enough rope to hang himself.
Then I saw reports on the speech and became even more convinced that not only was Columbia right to invite Ahmadinejad, but that they should invite more autocrats.
"You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," one audience member taunted the Iranian leader.
The president of Columbia University denounced Ahmadinejad as a 'cruel dictator' and called him 'simply ridiculous.'
Can you imagine anyone daring to say that to Ahmadinejad's face back home? Imagine how he boiled with rage.
Here you had the head of a religious totalitarian state facing tough questions from a hostile audience. There were people calling him on his b.s. There were people jeering his ridiculous responses. There were people mocking his denial that homosexuality existed in Iran. He had to run the gauntlet of angry protesters to and from the hall. For once, he was subjected to a situation where he didn't have absolute power.
(To give him a microgram of credit, at least Ahmadinejad accepted to speak at Columbia under such circumstances. I'd like to see President Bush speak there. It would be revealing to see how he faced questions from an audience that wasn't packed with specially chosen sycophants, in sharp contrast to nearly all of his events with the public.)
Far from attacking Columbia, I think the university should invite more such leaders. Invite Mugabe. Invite Putin. Invite the head of the Burmese junta. Let them face the tough questions and scorn that they brutally repress with such cowardice at home. Allow Americans the chance to tell these megalomaniacs to go to hell.
Hitler was an evil genius. Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia made him look like the rambling idiot that he is.
And that's precisely what militarists were afraid of.
It's easy to whip up war hysteria against an evil genius. But selling a war of aggression against an incoherent buffoon is a much harder task.
Their incessant attacks against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, punctuated by waves of manufactured righteous indignation, are the latest effort in laying the ground work for the military attack against Iran that the militarists have for several years longed for.
Some like to disingenuously claim that progressives are in love with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It probably doesn't help that leftist icon (in some people's eyes) Hugo Chavez has gotten in bed with the Iranian leader. That an atheistic socialist can make nice with a theocratic hyperconservative says as much about the shallowness of their ideological pretenses as their egomania.
But for the most part, the moderate left recognizes that a theocrat is a theocrat and that they are all a threat to rational societies.
I hear people in this country say stuff like, "Nuke 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out." There isn't a dime's worth of difference between people with that mentality, some of whom hold high ranking positions in this administration, and Ahmadinejad's calls to wipe Israel off the map.
Make no mistake about it, Ahmadinejad is a populist demagogue. Does he bearing watching? Absolutely. Should his calls for Israel's annihilation be condemned? Without question. Is he "Hitler of the Middle East"? Give me a break.
Militarists went into full-scale contrived hysteria mode when Columbia University invited Ahmadinejad to speak there. Originally, I thought it was a good idea. President Bush can say Ahmadinejad is a loon but few people are going to believe him because few believe anything Bush says anymore.
Best let the American people hear the loon in his own words so they can draw their own conclusions. Give Ahmadinejad enough rope to hang himself.
Then I saw reports on the speech and became even more convinced that not only was Columbia right to invite Ahmadinejad, but that they should invite more autocrats.
"You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," one audience member taunted the Iranian leader.
The president of Columbia University denounced Ahmadinejad as a 'cruel dictator' and called him 'simply ridiculous.'
Can you imagine anyone daring to say that to Ahmadinejad's face back home? Imagine how he boiled with rage.
Here you had the head of a religious totalitarian state facing tough questions from a hostile audience. There were people calling him on his b.s. There were people jeering his ridiculous responses. There were people mocking his denial that homosexuality existed in Iran. He had to run the gauntlet of angry protesters to and from the hall. For once, he was subjected to a situation where he didn't have absolute power.
(To give him a microgram of credit, at least Ahmadinejad accepted to speak at Columbia under such circumstances. I'd like to see President Bush speak there. It would be revealing to see how he faced questions from an audience that wasn't packed with specially chosen sycophants, in sharp contrast to nearly all of his events with the public.)
Far from attacking Columbia, I think the university should invite more such leaders. Invite Mugabe. Invite Putin. Invite the head of the Burmese junta. Let them face the tough questions and scorn that they brutally repress with such cowardice at home. Allow Americans the chance to tell these megalomaniacs to go to hell.
Hitler was an evil genius. Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia made him look like the rambling idiot that he is.
And that's precisely what militarists were afraid of.
It's easy to whip up war hysteria against an evil genius. But selling a war of aggression against an incoherent buffoon is a much harder task.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Bush to veto child health bill
While President Bush never met a "defense" spending bill he didn't like, he's drawing the spending line on something he views as far more objectionable than the bloated military-industrial complex.
Congress is debating a bipartisan bill that would expand a state-federal partnership to provide health insurance for kids. President Bush has promised to veto the bill.
His objection?
Bush has attacked the compromise bill because it would expand [health insurance] coverage to some middle-class families....
SHOCK!
HORROR!
[A]s health-care costs soared, states began to grapple with knowing that many families - especially in urban areas where the cost of living was higher than average - had trouble paying for private health insurance even though they earned more than twice the poverty level.
Despite Bush's objections, the bill has cross party support.
Utah Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, a conservative Republican who was one of the creators of the program, says that is well short of providing what the White House says it fears: government-financed health care for the middle class.
Bush likes to brag about how GIs are building hospitals in Iraq. It would be nice if he shared the same concern for the health of American children that he pretends to have for young Iraqis.
Congress is debating a bipartisan bill that would expand a state-federal partnership to provide health insurance for kids. President Bush has promised to veto the bill.
His objection?
Bush has attacked the compromise bill because it would expand [health insurance] coverage to some middle-class families....
SHOCK!
HORROR!
[A]s health-care costs soared, states began to grapple with knowing that many families - especially in urban areas where the cost of living was higher than average - had trouble paying for private health insurance even though they earned more than twice the poverty level.
Despite Bush's objections, the bill has cross party support.
Utah Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, a conservative Republican who was one of the creators of the program, says that is well short of providing what the White House says it fears: government-financed health care for the middle class.
Bush likes to brag about how GIs are building hospitals in Iraq. It would be nice if he shared the same concern for the health of American children that he pretends to have for young Iraqis.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
NPR, AP name at-risk 12 year old
Recently, I've both heard a story on NPR and read one from the Associated Press about the upcoming movie The Kite Runner. In the movie, based on the book of the same name, one of the key scenes is a young Afghan boy being raped by a bully. Both the NPR and AP stories talked about how the 12 year old actor and his family, who live in Kabul, are afraid of potential recriminations.
Rape victims are shunned in Afghan society. "The people of Afghanistan do not understand that it's only acting or playing a role in a film. They think it has actually happened," explained the father to the AP. The boy expressed fear that schoolmates would taunt him.
Both NPR and the AP quoted experts stating that the boy and his family's concern for their safety as a result of the film scene were genuine.
Yet despite this, both NPR and the AP included the name of the boy and his father in their pieces.
Let's hope the film makers are less irresponsible than these news organizations and omit the actor's name for the credits or use a pseudonym.
Update: Since I didn't link to either piece (for obvious reasons), there is some key info missing. Excerpts from the AP piece...
The boy's father said, "When we argued, they said 'We will cut this part of the film. We will take it out of the script. This part will not be in the film.'"
[...]
But the boy with an endearing, crooked smile said he would never have taken the role had he known (the boy) is raped. The family said they found out about the scene only days before it was shot.
[...]
"They didn't give me the script. They didn't give me the story of 'The Kite Runner.' If I knew about the story, I wouldn't have participated as an actor in this film," (the boy) told the AP
Rape victims are shunned in Afghan society. "The people of Afghanistan do not understand that it's only acting or playing a role in a film. They think it has actually happened," explained the father to the AP. The boy expressed fear that schoolmates would taunt him.
Both NPR and the AP quoted experts stating that the boy and his family's concern for their safety as a result of the film scene were genuine.
Yet despite this, both NPR and the AP included the name of the boy and his father in their pieces.
Let's hope the film makers are less irresponsible than these news organizations and omit the actor's name for the credits or use a pseudonym.
Update: Since I didn't link to either piece (for obvious reasons), there is some key info missing. Excerpts from the AP piece...
The boy's father said, "When we argued, they said 'We will cut this part of the film. We will take it out of the script. This part will not be in the film.'"
[...]
But the boy with an endearing, crooked smile said he would never have taken the role had he known (the boy) is raped. The family said they found out about the scene only days before it was shot.
[...]
"They didn't give me the script. They didn't give me the story of 'The Kite Runner.' If I knew about the story, I wouldn't have participated as an actor in this film," (the boy) told the AP
Friday, September 21, 2007
How Senate Republicans support our troops... or at least one of them
I'm already on record as criticizing MoveOn.org's obnoxious 'General Betray-us' ad. But at the same time, I'm annoyed to see that the US Senate wasted time debating and passing a resolution to that effect.
President Bush spouted, Most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org - are more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military,"... somehow ignoring the fact that resolution passed the Democrat controlled Senate by an almost 3-to-1 margin.
The vote came on the same day that Republicans blocked a bill that would've provided longer leave to troops serving in Iraq. The bill proposed by Sens. Jim Webb (a former Republican Navy Secretary under Ronald Reagan) and Chuck Hagel (a Republican), both military veterans, received 56 votes in favor, but short of the 60 required.
I imagine this might've caused a bit more 'irritation' in the ranks of the US military than a newspaper ad.
In the eyes of Senate Republicans, condemning some left-wing activist group is a higher matter of national importance than giving a break to the men and women fighting in Iraq supposedly for our freedom.
Soldiers are stuck in Iraq's hellhole ad infinitum with no plan from the White House and no demand of one from Congress. But at least some people have a plan... even if it's to score cheap political points while our soldiers and innocent Iraqis continue to die.
President Bush spouted, Most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org - are more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military,"... somehow ignoring the fact that resolution passed the Democrat controlled Senate by an almost 3-to-1 margin.
The vote came on the same day that Republicans blocked a bill that would've provided longer leave to troops serving in Iraq. The bill proposed by Sens. Jim Webb (a former Republican Navy Secretary under Ronald Reagan) and Chuck Hagel (a Republican), both military veterans, received 56 votes in favor, but short of the 60 required.
I imagine this might've caused a bit more 'irritation' in the ranks of the US military than a newspaper ad.
In the eyes of Senate Republicans, condemning some left-wing activist group is a higher matter of national importance than giving a break to the men and women fighting in Iraq supposedly for our freedom.
Soldiers are stuck in Iraq's hellhole ad infinitum with no plan from the White House and no demand of one from Congress. But at least some people have a plan... even if it's to score cheap political points while our soldiers and innocent Iraqis continue to die.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Israel's attack on Syria
Adirondack Musing reports on something the mainstream media in this country seems to have missed: Israel's military attack against Syria. So reports both The Washington Post and the Rupert Murdoch-owned Times of London.
The Post speculates that it might have been a dry run for an attack against Iran.
You'd think the broadcast media might be able to cut a minute or so of their OJ Simpson coverage to report on this serious event, but their only responsibility as corporate conglomerates is to 'give people what they want.'
The Post speculates that it might have been a dry run for an attack against Iran.
You'd think the broadcast media might be able to cut a minute or so of their OJ Simpson coverage to report on this serious event, but their only responsibility as corporate conglomerates is to 'give people what they want.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)