That is, of course, a line memorably delivered by Sir John Gielgud playing the butler to Dudley Moore's spoiled rich kid character in the 1970s-era movie 'Arthur.'
It's a line that came to my mind today as Bush and Cheney perform their ventriloquist-and-dummy act before the 9/11 Commission.
What a bind they got themselves into. It had become politically untenable for Bush to continue stone-walling the commission, and yet the administration also knew that Bush is too stupid, ill-informed, transparently dishonest and immature to be trusted to testify by himself. They had no other option but to have Cheney right in the next seat to, if I may, hold Bush's dick for him.
They've trotted out a number of explanations for the joint appearance-- 'it saves time,' 'they were in different places that day so this lets them give the commission a broader picture'--but each of them is laughably inane. No one believes them and they know it.
All they can do is brazen it through, while knowing full well in their hearts that in the eyes of the world, they have all but admitted that Bush is a pretty-boy figurehead who lacks the capacity to be president.
But you're not fooling anyone, boys.
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Saturday, April 24, 2004
No Shame and No Morals
Utterly amoral and utterly shameless. How else to describe the Bush Republican attack machine for trying to smear John Kerry's military record? This, from a president who pulled all the strings available to him to avoid service in Vietnam, and then barely showed up for the stateside duty he landed, along with garnering mediocre reviews from his superiors, losing his flying status, refusing to submit to drug testing (and why would that be, unless you knew you would test positive?).
For a good short side-by-side comparison of the military records of Bush and Kerry, CLICK HERE.
For an administration that's constantly braying about how it values our men and women in uniform, they sure seem to have few qualms about disparaging one when it suits their purposes. Of course, this is also the administration that outed a CIA agent out of political vindictiveness, so why should we be surprised?
For a good short side-by-side comparison of the military records of Bush and Kerry, CLICK HERE.
For an administration that's constantly braying about how it values our men and women in uniform, they sure seem to have few qualms about disparaging one when it suits their purposes. Of course, this is also the administration that outed a CIA agent out of political vindictiveness, so why should we be surprised?
Friday, April 23, 2004
Draped in the Flag
I wonder how many of the soldiers you served turkey to in Baghdad on Thanksgiving are dead now, Mr. Bush? Maybe some of them are even in this picture that you don't want the American people to be able to see:
A policy adopted by the Pentagon during Daddy Bush's first Gulf War in 1991 prohibits news organizations from photographing caskets being returned to the United States. Allowing the public to see row upon row of these flag-draped coffins, they say, would be insensitive to the grieving families.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy confirms Bush's support for this policy: "In all of this, we must pay attention to the privacy and to the sensitivity of the families of the fallen, and that's what the policy is based on and that has to be the utmost concern."
Which is bullshit, of course. The names and faces of the fallen in Iraq are shown in the print and broadcast media every day--real names and actual faces. These images of coffins are completely anonymous. There are no names, no faces, no personal identification of any kind.
No, it's not for anyone's privacy that Bush wants these images suppressed. He wants them suppressed because he knows they are powerful in their stark simplicity. Oddly enough, it is the anonymity itself which helps lend them power, as the hearken back to our long collective visual memory, dating to Vietnam, World War II and beyond, of similar pictures of war. Vital human beings, soldiers, now reduced to silent flag-draped cargo.
This president who so loves draping himself in the flag, does not want us to see these images of flag-draped coffins of those who have died in the service of his ill-advised policies.
Oh, and woe to any who try to cross the Bush administration's censorship. The flag-draped coffin issue originally arose when the Seattle Times published a similar photograph on its front page last Sunday. That photo had originally been taken by Tami Silicio, a 50 year old American working in Kuwait for the Maytag Aircraft Corporation, a government contractor providing ground handling services for military air bases. She since has been fired from her job. For good measure, they fired her husband too.
Silicio says she shared the photo because she hoped it would portray the care and devotion with which civilian and military crews treat the remains of fallen soldiers. In return, she was squashed by the petty vindictiveness of the Bush administration.
A policy adopted by the Pentagon during Daddy Bush's first Gulf War in 1991 prohibits news organizations from photographing caskets being returned to the United States. Allowing the public to see row upon row of these flag-draped coffins, they say, would be insensitive to the grieving families.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy confirms Bush's support for this policy: "In all of this, we must pay attention to the privacy and to the sensitivity of the families of the fallen, and that's what the policy is based on and that has to be the utmost concern."
Which is bullshit, of course. The names and faces of the fallen in Iraq are shown in the print and broadcast media every day--real names and actual faces. These images of coffins are completely anonymous. There are no names, no faces, no personal identification of any kind.
No, it's not for anyone's privacy that Bush wants these images suppressed. He wants them suppressed because he knows they are powerful in their stark simplicity. Oddly enough, it is the anonymity itself which helps lend them power, as the hearken back to our long collective visual memory, dating to Vietnam, World War II and beyond, of similar pictures of war. Vital human beings, soldiers, now reduced to silent flag-draped cargo.
This president who so loves draping himself in the flag, does not want us to see these images of flag-draped coffins of those who have died in the service of his ill-advised policies.
Oh, and woe to any who try to cross the Bush administration's censorship. The flag-draped coffin issue originally arose when the Seattle Times published a similar photograph on its front page last Sunday. That photo had originally been taken by Tami Silicio, a 50 year old American working in Kuwait for the Maytag Aircraft Corporation, a government contractor providing ground handling services for military air bases. She since has been fired from her job. For good measure, they fired her husband too.
Silicio says she shared the photo because she hoped it would portray the care and devotion with which civilian and military crews treat the remains of fallen soldiers. In return, she was squashed by the petty vindictiveness of the Bush administration.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Cheney Endorses Freedom to Sell Guns to Terrorists
At least that what he seems to be saying in his speech yesterday to the National Rifle Association convention. According to the news reports, Cheney blasted John Kerry for supporting various gun control initiatives over the years, including one that allows random federal inspections of gun dealerships.
OK, I happen to be in favor of strict gun control, but I recognize that there is a middle ground where reasonable people may disagree. To oppose legislation like this, however, seems totally unreasonable. Our entire commercial business code includes as part of its standard operating principles the idea of random unannounced inspections. Agricultural inspectors check out slaughterhouses, health inspectors inspect food production facilities and restaurant kitchens, weights-and-measures inspectors make sure the prices posted and the scales used in retail establishments are accurate, fire marshals and building inspectors make sure that structures are up to code.
These inspections are done to help ensure that our food is unadulterated, our buildings are sound, and that we are not being cheated. Believe it or not, businesses have been known on occasion to cut corners in ways that make their products less healthy, less safe and more dangerous. They may do it innocently, not having the time, resources or workforce to make sure things are done to a certain standard, or they may do it for unscrupulous reasons, a greed for more profits.
You know this is true.
Gun dealers are no different than anyone else. The vast majority are honest and diligent in their business practices. But there may be a few who are lax in making sure that the rules and regulations concerning the sale of guns are followed, and there may be a greedy, corrupt few who are tempted by the money to be made selling guns outside the regulatory system.
All the law says is that gun dealers should be in the same position as virtually every other business in the United States: to be aware that on occasion, someone will check to see that you are fulfilling the requirements to which you agreed when you received the license to operate your trade, to make sure that you are not selling to people with criminal records, and to ensure that all the weapons you have procured are accounted for either in stock or in sales records.
In short, to help ensure that you are not acting, either through laxity or design, as a conduit for criminals and terrorists to obtain weapons.
This is a well-established feature of our commercial code, Mr. Cheney. Perhaps you have not had to deal with it so much in heading such crony-capitalist companies as Halliburton, but for most businesses in the United States it is accepted, and our society enjoys safer food, buildings, transportation and fairer services because of it. There is no reason gun dealers should have a special exemption from having their businesses subject to inspection.
If you had your way with the Patriot Act, even the book buying habits of every American would be open to government inspection. Yet you want the vendors of weapons to be free from inspection!
And we're supposed to believe you take the 'war on terror' seriously?
OK, I happen to be in favor of strict gun control, but I recognize that there is a middle ground where reasonable people may disagree. To oppose legislation like this, however, seems totally unreasonable. Our entire commercial business code includes as part of its standard operating principles the idea of random unannounced inspections. Agricultural inspectors check out slaughterhouses, health inspectors inspect food production facilities and restaurant kitchens, weights-and-measures inspectors make sure the prices posted and the scales used in retail establishments are accurate, fire marshals and building inspectors make sure that structures are up to code.
These inspections are done to help ensure that our food is unadulterated, our buildings are sound, and that we are not being cheated. Believe it or not, businesses have been known on occasion to cut corners in ways that make their products less healthy, less safe and more dangerous. They may do it innocently, not having the time, resources or workforce to make sure things are done to a certain standard, or they may do it for unscrupulous reasons, a greed for more profits.
You know this is true.
Gun dealers are no different than anyone else. The vast majority are honest and diligent in their business practices. But there may be a few who are lax in making sure that the rules and regulations concerning the sale of guns are followed, and there may be a greedy, corrupt few who are tempted by the money to be made selling guns outside the regulatory system.
All the law says is that gun dealers should be in the same position as virtually every other business in the United States: to be aware that on occasion, someone will check to see that you are fulfilling the requirements to which you agreed when you received the license to operate your trade, to make sure that you are not selling to people with criminal records, and to ensure that all the weapons you have procured are accounted for either in stock or in sales records.
In short, to help ensure that you are not acting, either through laxity or design, as a conduit for criminals and terrorists to obtain weapons.
This is a well-established feature of our commercial code, Mr. Cheney. Perhaps you have not had to deal with it so much in heading such crony-capitalist companies as Halliburton, but for most businesses in the United States it is accepted, and our society enjoys safer food, buildings, transportation and fairer services because of it. There is no reason gun dealers should have a special exemption from having their businesses subject to inspection.
If you had your way with the Patriot Act, even the book buying habits of every American would be open to government inspection. Yet you want the vendors of weapons to be free from inspection!
And we're supposed to believe you take the 'war on terror' seriously?
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Where's the Money, George?
Here's one question I wish some reporter had asked of President George W. "I never make mistakes" Bush at his press conference this evening:
"Mr. President: Given your stated determination to 'stay the course' and do whatever necessary to follow through on your policy in Iraq, and given both the increasing costs of our Iraqi operations and of the burgeoning budget deficits here at home, would you be willing to raise taxes, or even to consider forgoing any of the new tax cuts you seek, in order to finance our military operations?"
I wonder how he would answer that. Somehow, I don't think his determination to do whatever has to be done to "achieve victory" in Iraq would include cutting back any of the goodies he's passing out to the wealthy. No, let the little people pay for his war, both with their lives and with the economic well-being of the future generations who will be forced to foot the bill for our economic recklessness today. Let no cost fall on the wealthy and the powerful.
"Mr. President: Given your stated determination to 'stay the course' and do whatever necessary to follow through on your policy in Iraq, and given both the increasing costs of our Iraqi operations and of the burgeoning budget deficits here at home, would you be willing to raise taxes, or even to consider forgoing any of the new tax cuts you seek, in order to finance our military operations?"
I wonder how he would answer that. Somehow, I don't think his determination to do whatever has to be done to "achieve victory" in Iraq would include cutting back any of the goodies he's passing out to the wealthy. No, let the little people pay for his war, both with their lives and with the economic well-being of the future generations who will be forced to foot the bill for our economic recklessness today. Let no cost fall on the wealthy and the powerful.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
THIS is the interview the Bushes claim show Richard Clarke is a liar?!
The Bush administration is in a real panic over former counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke's revelation of how clueless they have been in dealing with terrorism. As part of their flailing, desperate attempts to smear and discredit him, they gave permission to Fox News and other media outlets to disclose Clarke as the 'anonymous administration official' who gave a background briefing in 2002.
They claim that in that interview, Clarke praised the Bush administrations anti-terror policies.
Well, I've read the transcript of that backgrounder, and I certainly wouldn't call it a ringing defense, even though at the time he was still working for Bush and dutifully trying to put the best face on things. As you read it, you can sense his struggling, complete with umms and uhhhs, to make it sound like the Bushies were actually doing something.
Helpful hint to the Bush crowd: you may hope people will see Clarke's words back in 2002 as praise, but in truth, any intelligent person can see that they are in fact damning with faint praise.
Of course, the most laughable part of the Bush smear campaign is still their decision to send Vice Presdient Cheney to sit in on Rush Limbaugh's show to badmouth Clarke. (Read that transcript HERE) Rush Limbaugh? Sheesh! What next? Condi Rice appearing on The Simpsons?
They claim that in that interview, Clarke praised the Bush administrations anti-terror policies.
Well, I've read the transcript of that backgrounder, and I certainly wouldn't call it a ringing defense, even though at the time he was still working for Bush and dutifully trying to put the best face on things. As you read it, you can sense his struggling, complete with umms and uhhhs, to make it sound like the Bushies were actually doing something.
Helpful hint to the Bush crowd: you may hope people will see Clarke's words back in 2002 as praise, but in truth, any intelligent person can see that they are in fact damning with faint praise.
Of course, the most laughable part of the Bush smear campaign is still their decision to send Vice Presdient Cheney to sit in on Rush Limbaugh's show to badmouth Clarke. (Read that transcript HERE) Rush Limbaugh? Sheesh! What next? Condi Rice appearing on The Simpsons?
Sunday, March 21, 2004
A Little Too Truthful
The Philadelphia Inquirer last Thursday started out an article about the continuing attacks in Iraq with a sentence that perhaps conveyed a bit more truth than intended:
Oops. Usually we're told that we're fighting for just plain old democracy in Iraq, but here someone forgot to delete the modifier 'pro-U.S.' It seems that some democracies are more equal that others. Should Iraq dare to ever democratically elect an Islamist government that isn't sufficiently "pro-U.S.," I guess it will be regime change time all over again.
In the meantime, we've probably got a division of troops readying an invasion of Spain now that their voters have democratically turned out their pro-U.S. prime minister.
Let's make this clear to the world: democracy doesn't mean you get to vote for what YOU want; it means you get to vote in favor of what the United States says you can have.
"As military analysts see it, yesterday's car bombing of a downtown Baghdad hotel is the latest in a surge of attacks on "soft targets" - poorly protected civilians - in the shadowy war to disrupt Iraq's march toward pro-U.S. democracy."
Oops. Usually we're told that we're fighting for just plain old democracy in Iraq, but here someone forgot to delete the modifier 'pro-U.S.' It seems that some democracies are more equal that others. Should Iraq dare to ever democratically elect an Islamist government that isn't sufficiently "pro-U.S.," I guess it will be regime change time all over again.
In the meantime, we've probably got a division of troops readying an invasion of Spain now that their voters have democratically turned out their pro-U.S. prime minister.
Let's make this clear to the world: democracy doesn't mean you get to vote for what YOU want; it means you get to vote in favor of what the United States says you can have.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Why Do They Keep Saying 'Re-Elect?'
I don't know why they keep talking about the re-election campaign of George W. Bush, since he was never elected in the first place.
I know, I know, get over it already, you're probably thinking. And I have gotten over it, for the most part. I don't call it a stolen election anymore, but rather accept that it was an unusual situation in which the party most willing to use lies and deceit won the day. I occasionally will write the words President Bush, rather than 'President' Bush or President* Bush or President (sic) Bush or White House Resident Bush.
No, I've mostly gotten over the stolen election (oops), even though his White House Residency has been much worse than I ever envisioned. All I care about now is semantics, about accuracy, about a pure and simple love for the English language. I hate to see the word "re-elect" used improperly.
Now if you're talking about the nine Supreme Court justices, you may validly use the term "re-elect." Strictly speaking, the vote of those nine people was the only election that George W. Bush actually won in 2000. Next time Vice President Cheney goes duck hunting with Justice Scalia, he can feel free to urge the re-election of Bush, should circumstances once again lead to that situation this year.
But Bush lost the election in popular votes--there is no disagreement that more votes were cast for Gore. And after reading many analyses both for and against Bush of the Florida voting irregularities, it seems convincing to me that had the ballots been properly counted, Gore would have won the electoral vote count as well.
So lets honor the proper use of the English language and stop using the term 're-elect.' You can work to elect George W. Bush for the first time. You can work to bestow legitimacy on his future time in office after four years of illegitimate rule. But it is not possible to work for his 're-election.'
I know, I know, get over it already, you're probably thinking. And I have gotten over it, for the most part. I don't call it a stolen election anymore, but rather accept that it was an unusual situation in which the party most willing to use lies and deceit won the day. I occasionally will write the words President Bush, rather than 'President' Bush or President* Bush or President (sic) Bush or White House Resident Bush.
No, I've mostly gotten over the stolen election (oops), even though his White House Residency has been much worse than I ever envisioned. All I care about now is semantics, about accuracy, about a pure and simple love for the English language. I hate to see the word "re-elect" used improperly.
Now if you're talking about the nine Supreme Court justices, you may validly use the term "re-elect." Strictly speaking, the vote of those nine people was the only election that George W. Bush actually won in 2000. Next time Vice President Cheney goes duck hunting with Justice Scalia, he can feel free to urge the re-election of Bush, should circumstances once again lead to that situation this year.
But Bush lost the election in popular votes--there is no disagreement that more votes were cast for Gore. And after reading many analyses both for and against Bush of the Florida voting irregularities, it seems convincing to me that had the ballots been properly counted, Gore would have won the electoral vote count as well.
So lets honor the proper use of the English language and stop using the term 're-elect.' You can work to elect George W. Bush for the first time. You can work to bestow legitimacy on his future time in office after four years of illegitimate rule. But it is not possible to work for his 're-election.'
Friday, January 02, 2004
Put Away Those Almanacs!
Happy New Year to all from DebtorsPrison. One of America’s most beloved annual publications has been in the news at this start of 2004: The World Almanac and Book of Facts.
Yes, the annually updated World Almanac has been the bestselling reference book for millions of Americans since it was first published in 1868, and has played a supporting role in our nation’s history as well. During World War II, the US government commissioned a special print run of over 100,000 copies each year for distribution to our fighting men and women. In White House photographs, the Almanac can be seen close at hand on the desks of presidents Kennedy and Clinton.
You might want to hide that Almanac of yours for the time being, however. According to the Associated Press, the FBI has put out an alert to 18,000 police departments warning that terrorists might be using World Almanacs to assist them in their nefarious plans.
They urged police to be on the lookout for anyone carrying almanacs, especially if they seemed to be loitering or writing in them, for that "may point to possible terrorist planning."
Wow!
Now it’s true that the World Almanac and Book of Facts does have a lot of information. It lists the airports, rail lines, port facilities and truck cargo stations for the 100 largest US cities. It names the highest buildings, notable bridges, longest tunnels, biggest dams and reservoirs. It lists the Most Widely Known Americans of the Present.
Of course, it also lists the most commonly confused words in the English language. Who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. Who had the highest batting average in the National League.
But you can never be too careful. Who knows what evil plots these bastards could be hatching?
The Associated Press story goes on to quote publisher John Pierce of the Old Farmers’ Almanac as saying that his publication is of little use to terrorists, unlike the book put out by those traitors over at the World Almanac. Nevertheless, he vows that "while we doubt that our editorial content would be of particular interest to people who would wish to do us harm, we will certainly cooperate to the fullest with national authorities at any level they deem appropriate."
We’re still waiting for other publishers of reference guides to say whether they are on the side of America or of the terrorists. Will Zagats exhort us to be suspicious any under-nourished persons of a certain nationality checking out what eateries are most likely to be packed? Is Spa Finder watching out for those who would soil our favorite mudbaths? Are the Kelly Blue Book people making sure that no one uses their books to make sure that their potential car bomb isn’t a lemon? Is The Ultimate Hollywood Tour Book making sure that those people prowling Beverly Hills for glimpses of movie stars’ homes are only fantasizing about kidnapping their favorite sex god or goddess?
Perhaps the safest course is to not publish any reference books at all. Yes! Add the slogan to the Department of Homeland Security website: “Ignorance is the Best Prevention!”
Yes, the annually updated World Almanac has been the bestselling reference book for millions of Americans since it was first published in 1868, and has played a supporting role in our nation’s history as well. During World War II, the US government commissioned a special print run of over 100,000 copies each year for distribution to our fighting men and women. In White House photographs, the Almanac can be seen close at hand on the desks of presidents Kennedy and Clinton.
You might want to hide that Almanac of yours for the time being, however. According to the Associated Press, the FBI has put out an alert to 18,000 police departments warning that terrorists might be using World Almanacs to assist them in their nefarious plans.
They urged police to be on the lookout for anyone carrying almanacs, especially if they seemed to be loitering or writing in them, for that "may point to possible terrorist planning."
Wow!
Now it’s true that the World Almanac and Book of Facts does have a lot of information. It lists the airports, rail lines, port facilities and truck cargo stations for the 100 largest US cities. It names the highest buildings, notable bridges, longest tunnels, biggest dams and reservoirs. It lists the Most Widely Known Americans of the Present.
Of course, it also lists the most commonly confused words in the English language. Who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. Who had the highest batting average in the National League.
But you can never be too careful. Who knows what evil plots these bastards could be hatching?
The Associated Press story goes on to quote publisher John Pierce of the Old Farmers’ Almanac as saying that his publication is of little use to terrorists, unlike the book put out by those traitors over at the World Almanac. Nevertheless, he vows that "while we doubt that our editorial content would be of particular interest to people who would wish to do us harm, we will certainly cooperate to the fullest with national authorities at any level they deem appropriate."
We’re still waiting for other publishers of reference guides to say whether they are on the side of America or of the terrorists. Will Zagats exhort us to be suspicious any under-nourished persons of a certain nationality checking out what eateries are most likely to be packed? Is Spa Finder watching out for those who would soil our favorite mudbaths? Are the Kelly Blue Book people making sure that no one uses their books to make sure that their potential car bomb isn’t a lemon? Is The Ultimate Hollywood Tour Book making sure that those people prowling Beverly Hills for glimpses of movie stars’ homes are only fantasizing about kidnapping their favorite sex god or goddess?
Perhaps the safest course is to not publish any reference books at all. Yes! Add the slogan to the Department of Homeland Security website: “Ignorance is the Best Prevention!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)