A senior Bush administration official, commenting on the unholy mess that Iraq is turning into, said that the day of the car bombing that killed the Shi’ite Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim and suicide attacks in Israel was “by far the worst political day for Bush since 9/11.”

Say what? Yes, it has been bad for Bush recently, but let’s face it: politically, 9-11 was a godsend for him. Already at 51% popularity and dropping fast, joked about for his ineptness, he was spinning down the tubes–and 9-11 turned him into an overnight success, people saying he stood “a hundred feet tall” and his polls shooting up to 90%. 9-11 saved his presidency. It was a tragic day for the rest of us, but it saved Bush politically.

Speaking of which, Iraq is indeed turning into an unholy mess. Dick Cheney, on Meet the Press on March 16th, said: “I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.” He pooh-poohed Russert’s suggestion that perhaps not all Iraqis would be overjoyed to have their country invaded by American forces, saying “The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.”

Well, guess what?

Daily Kos has a good piece on it, and that was back in March. Anyway, Bush has been trying to put his best face on things; just a month ago, Bush tried to calm us with the idea that “conditions in most of Iraq are growing more peaceful,” and that came two months or so after Bush’s infamous carrier landing, in which, dressed as the top gun he never came close to being as he was too busy being AWOL from draft-dodging, he declared “victory.” Since then, of course, more U.S. soldiers have died than before our “victory.”

Yeah, this guy is definitely a foreign policy genius.

And since when is Iraq a “war on terror“? The press has been calling it that recently, meekly going along with the Bush administrations long-term attempt to try to justify the war in Iraq by merging it with the post-9-11 offense against terrorism. The Bush administration began, of course, by claiming a terrorist link between Iraq and al Qaeda, which turned out to be bogus; then, when Iraqis started killing our soldiers and carrying out bomb attacks after Bush declared “victory,” he started calling them terrorists.

Let’s get something straight. They’re guerillas. That’s always been the term used for such small hit-and-run military forces in these situations. They were never called “terrorists” before 9-11, and it just shows how much the terms “terrorist” and “terrorism” have been devalued by their constant abuse and overuse by politicians trying to score some points.

Despite administration claims, there is zero evidence that any of the attacks made in Iraq are by terrorist groups rather than Iraqi Hussein partisans. Read the articles carefully, and you will see that the strongest evidence ever claimed for terrorist involvement has to do with nebulous “reports.” I’m not saying that guerillas are nice; I’m just saying that we should call a spade a spade and not let the politicians weasel out of trouble by blurring definitions. Don’t buy into it.

The Texas 11, that is, the Texas Democrats who temporarily moved to New Mexico to stop a Republican gerrymander and grab for power, are still there. It is very difficult for them, living in a hotel and being away from home and family for an entire month, in which time their political enemies decimated their staff’s salary benefits and started fining the absent lawmakers up to $5,000 a day, trying to force them to come back so the GOP can form a quorum and commence to illegitimately pillage the political treasures of the state before the 2004 election.

In the meantime, in just two weeks, the web site MoveOn.org has raised a million dollars to help them out. Much of the money will go to pay for an advertising campaign to alert the public to what’s going on there. Right on, MoveOn.

I was alerted to this one by my folks, who said they did a bit of a double-take when they heard it:

Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the Sean Hannity show, was asked about gay marriages.

“I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman,” Arnold replied.

Indeed. A man and a woman should have the right to a gay marriage. So should we all.

A 1977 interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger from the adult magazine Oui has surfaced, in which Arnold, then pre-Conan and -Terminator, talks about using pot and hash, not having any problems with “fags,” and “gang banging” a black woman with a group of other male bodybuilders.

The liberal establishment will likely not react too harshly to it; while very racy, it was 25 years ago, he was a young man, it does reveal progressive beliefs and tendencies, and hey, it is California.

The test here, however, is how conservatives react to it. Were it Gray Davis or Cruz Bustamante, you can bet that the GOP would be raising holy heck over it, publicizing it like crazy, calling their opponent a crazed, drug-using, sexed-up hedonist.

But then again, if Gore had had Bush’s background, they would have gone nuts over that, too.

For the GOP, it only matters if the other guy has flaws.

I have to admit, I am greatly troubled by the anger and anguish demonstrated by those protesting the removal of the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama. The people have been shouting, crying, and generally reacting with powerful negative emotion at the state action to remove the monument. They claim the removal is bigotry against them, that they are being attacked and betrayed.

I have a great respect for individual religious beliefs, and I am without doubt that most and perhaps all of the people here are earnest and well-intentioned. However, they are also dead wrong, and the vehemence of their protest is disturbing. Bigotry against your faith is when your faith is treated worse than others, held below other beliefs, or is unduly denigrated. The removal of the monument is not bigotry against Christianity; rather, it is the reverse. If the monument were being removed with disrespect or animosity, that would be bigotry. If there were all manner of monuments in the courthouse–Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, Jewish, and so on–and the Christian monument were the only one being removed, then that would be bigotry. But these are not the case.

Instead, Christianity has held a special, elevated position in our government, a place that it should not have, as the government was designed to be secular. Either all belief systems must be represented equally or not at all, but Christian testaments like the monument in Alabama have been snuck in over time, just as Roy Moore snuck his monument into the building, late one night, to the chagrin of his colleagues. As I discussed before, “In God We Trust” replaced “Liberty” and “E Pluribus Unum” on money over many years of time; “under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance during anti-communist fervor; “so help me God” was tacked on to oaths of office and testimony in courts. None were there originally. All, by the way, were chiseled into the Alabama monument, which made it even more a religious-political statement, as it represented a history of Christian appropriation of governmental special representation. No other faiths or belief systems were represented or elevated in such ways.

It is this special elevation of Christianity that represents, if anything, bigotry against all other belief systems, as if to say that Christianity alone is worth praise and worship, that other belief systems deserve less respect. Removing the monument represents a level field where all are equal. But Christians–not all, of course, but like those seen at the courthouse–have become so used to the idea of elevation that anything less then dominance feels to them as if it were an attack against them.

There were many such people demonstrating outside the courthouse, on the ground, face-down, crying hoarsely into microphones, wailing to God, imploring Him not to abandon them to their enemies (those are the exact words used). To put it lightly, they are overreacting. The removal of the monument is not the End of Days, in fact it is little more than real fairness to others.

That is why it is so scary to see these people reacting so: if they become so anguished and vehemently angered when their special advantage is nulled just a little bit, then what is in store for the future? How radical will their reactions become if Americans decide that we bring our nation back to the secular state it was intended to be? These protesters seem to be of the same stripe as those who are vehemently opposed to abortion, to the point of approving of the murder of doctors who carry out the procedures, and the frightening harassment of anyone seeking the services of a clinic.

But there is something even more disturbing: for these fundamentalists, this is not just a protest–it is a rally cry to elevate their religion even higher. That their intentions are good, that they feel they are on the path to saving us all, is little comfort; from such intentions, Crusades are fashioned (as well as certain roads to certain places).

It should be noted that despite the immense media coverage these people are enjoying, there are only several hundred participating, despite the calls of evangelists for all to come and stand with them. However, it is not uncommon that an enraged, committed minority can, by being loud and highly public, gain concessions out of proportion to their numbers and true importance.

The reaction to this enraged pocket of fundamentalism must be calm but openly, widely and firmly expressed opposition to religious encroachment on the state, an affirmation of both the freedom of religion and the political principle of separation that protects that freedom.

When Bush was running for president, one of his greatest advantages was the claim that he was at a disadvantage. His people stressed that Bush was just an ordinary guy, and not a practiced, high-power speaker like Gore; therefore, so long as he didn’t get completely trounced in the debate, it would be a victory. And indeed, he performed more poorly than Gore, but was declared the winner for, effectively, not drooling.

The same tactic is behind the conservative myth of the liberal media. By claiming that the media is left of center when, in fact, it is to the right of center, they gain the ability to spin perception in their favor. If a story comes out which looks bad for conservatives, they can just say that the liberal media is spinning it to look that way, but it really isn’t as bad. If a story comes out favoring liberals, they can also claim that the liberals aren’t really so good, it’s just the liberal media making it look that way.

The fact of the matter is that while a majority of reporters, about 60%, are liberal, a greater majority of editors, commentators, and media owners, about two-thirds, are conservative. Editors and owners are the ones who decide what gets reported on and how. A liberal reporter cannot get liberal bias by a conservative editor unless s/he approves it.

Besides, straight reporting of the news is less where the bias is; it is in editorializing, in commentary where spin really comes into play–and a great majority of commentary is right-wing. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Robert Novak, George Will, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Laura Ingraham, “Doctor” Laura Schlessinger, Bill O’Reilly, William Kristol, William Safire, John McLaughlin, Tucker Carlson, Bill Bennett, Matt Drudge, Pat Buchanan, Bay Buchanan, Pat Robertson, William F. Buckley, Sean Hannity, Jonah Goldberg, Brit Hume, and several dozen more. At least a few dozen are very well-known names, and have their own TV and/or radio shows (as opposed to sharing the show with opposing commentators).

Compare this with liberal commentators. How many can you name? Just a few, probably–James Caraville and Jesse Jackson come to mind quickly; Paul Begala, simply because he’s often on Crossfire; Arianna Huffington (a recent switch from right to left); Columnists Molly Ivins and Joe Conason, and George Stephanopolous, mildly liberal as he may be. Outside of these people, it is very hard to name any liberal commentators with the same kind of name recognition that dozens of conservatives enjoy, and you will note that not a single one of the above liberals has their own television or radio talk show at present. (Bill Maher is more Libertarian than liberal or conservative, in case you were thinking of him.)

In short, conservatives who control the news and who comment on it with bias are not only greater in number, but also more radically leaning than their liberal counterparts.

The only reason we hear about the “liberal media” is because conservatives have pushed that particular big lie in a correspondingly big manner, because they benefit from it in a big way.

Think about it: the media branded Gore a liar for errors in detail (such as which fire site he visited) and for statements misquoted or taken out of context (he never said he “invented the Internet,” he rather stated quite correctly that he “took the initiative” in creating it, as one of many people who created it; Gore indeed was the greatest proponent of Internet-friendly legislation while in the Senate, championing legislation that allowed the Internet to boom and bring the economy along with it. He deserves credit for it, not mocking due to a poorly-worded sentence. Nevertheless, he is still misquoted today by smirking, self-righteous right-wing pundits).

On the other hand, we had Bush, who dodged the cocaine question in a manner more Clintonesque than Clinton, who lied many times about draft-dodging into a celebrity unit of the Guard, and about his going AWOL thereafter, who lied about his arrest record and blamed his drunk-driving label on his opponents, and who should have been questioned much more closely about these things and about his many other questionable acts (SEC violations, lying under oath as governor of Texas, etc.).

If there really were a liberal media,they would have virtually ignored Gore’s slips and focused all their attention on Bush’s lawbreaking, draft-dodging and general lying.

Instead, the media labeled Gore a liar and Bush as “plainspoken.” Does that sound like liberal bias, or even a neutral one?

As the church lady said, “you be the judge.” It’s not much of a choice, if you’re honest with yourself.

Thought $450 billion was a high deficit number? Try $500 billion for next year–and that’s just the initial estimate, bound to go even higher once tax cuts and defense spending are factored in. Deficits are bound to stay above $300 billion for the next decade, according to the same report.

If, that is, we keep the GOP in charge of the economy.

The huge tax cut was swept in primarily under the idea that since we had such a huge surplus, and a surplus means we’re charging taxpayers too much. Sorry, I want to be civil, but that’s just plain stupid. If you personally have, say, $50,000 in debts, and suddenly, you find yourself making enough money to start paying off those debts, is your conclusion going to be that you are working too hard and need to cut back? Or are you going to start paying off that crippling debt? Any fiscally responsible person will start paying the debt.

Another criminally moronic reason: “It’s your money.” Well, of course it’s your money. It’s also your national debt.

Some people say that having the debt there is a positive thing, usually using convoluted and wishful thinking, but the fact of the matter is that we will spend something around $375 billion this year alone to pay interest on the debt, and probably close to $4 trillion over the next ten years.

Think about it. Four trillion dollars. And that will not be paid to reduce the debt, but only to maintain it. And that’s assuming that interest rates stay low. Can you imagine what could be done with that money? These interest payments are the third biggest expenditure, after entitlements and defense–and paying interest on the debt is threatening to overtake defense spending.

Remember back in the 80’s, when people warned that our children and grandchildren would pay for the deficits? Well, that’s what we’re doing, and Bush Jr. is pushing up the tab, after Clinton and the Democrats came so close to actually starting to pay off the debt. With the money we spend to pay the interest, we could be doing so much–revitalizing the educational system, guaranteeing solid social security and medicare, strengthening defense, the list goes on–it could pay for all of that. Instead, we fail to learn, even as we pay the painful price.

The debt today is $6,787,289,153,093.89 (according to the Treasury Dep’t.). It may very well break $10 trillion by the end of the decade.

Bush claims he has cut our taxes, but the truth is he is raising them tremendously–because the interest on the national debt is a tax, and under Bush, that tax will rise dramatically.

The first step we need to take is to roll back the tax cuts, as the flawed rationale for making them is no longer valid, even under the guise of wishful thinking. The tax cuts have not helped the economy, and it is crystal clear that the wealthy, at least, are not spending the money in ways that revitalize the economy, as claimed. (The Bush people will tell you the jury is still out, but they’re just waiting for the economic tide to turn naturally and then pounce on it to take credit.) Remember when Clinton raised taxes in ’93–and then we had the biggest economic surge in history? Not direct cause-and-effect, to be certain, but absolutely evidence that tax levels and the economy are not exactly linked so tightly.

At the very least, we should immediately repeal all tax cuts given to people making more than, say, half a million dollars a year. (Do I hear shouts of, “But that’s not fair!” Hey, rich people got far more in tax cuts over the past 20 years than the middle class; to make things “fair,” you have to raise their taxes, not cut them.)

After that, we’re going to have to take a long, hard look at how we spend out money–and that means cutting spending on programs both parties prefer. (I hate it when one side accuses the other of overspending, when the “overspending” is always on the priorities of the other parties, never their own. In Washington, everyone, by definition, is a spender.)

Do I have real hope this will happen? Certainly not with the GOP pulling all the strings. They are not exactly known to compromise, and despite past reputation, they are now no longer the party of fiscal responsibility.

Bush’s numbers, right on schedule, have dropped below 50%. In a new poll, Bush would not be re-elected; 49% would vote against him, with 44% voting for him. Considering that these numbers do not count the idea of an actual person running against him, someone who might have something going for him, things do not look good for Bush. And as I noted earlier, decline is the natural state of Bush’s support. By the end of the year, we will likely see him at 40% or less.

What the heck is Feinstein thinking? She is urging people to vote “no” on the recall–good enough–but she is also suggesting that one should not vote for a candidate on the second part of the ballot, should the recall come through.

This makes no sense whatsoever. From a logical and strategic standpoint, it is nonsense–you only help the chances of Republicans to win California. If you’re there voting on the recall issue, it takes almost no extra effort at all to choose a name on the second part of the ballot. As a statement against the recall in itself, it is useless; perhaps if the recall were voted down and most people did not vote for a replacement, it might appear as a symbol of faith in Davis–but such a symbol would be nearly meaningless, and would seem like a slam against Bustamante, the main Democratic candidate.

So I have little idea where Feinstein is going with this; I only know that I heartily disagree. Vote, both against the recall and for Bustamante.

Religious fundamentalists, lead by the judicial zealot Roy Moore, protested yet again, many weeping, that they are being discriminated against for not being able to have a great stone monument to their religion inside a government building funded by taxpayer dollars, and representing equal justice to all. It all begs the question as to why the monument cannot reside in front of the church next door; it is similar to asking why there must be prayer in schools when children have countless opportunities elsewhere to pray. The point, though rarely spoken aloud because those who advocate it know it is against our constitutional principles, is that fundamentalists do not just want to influence morality in court houses and schools, they do not just want to reflect on the idea that American law is based on Christianity. They want to proselytize. They want to use the state as a tool to actively push the doctrine of their church and recruit more people to their faith. To their credit, they believe they are doing good. To their detriment, they know they are violating our nation’s highest laws, and they do not care.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; […]

— First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

establish: vt. Definition: To secure public recognition in favor of; to prove and cause to be accepted as true; as, to establish a fact, usage, principle, opinion, doctrine, etc.

— Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary

It is one of the most clearly established principles in our history as a country. Many of the first colonists came from countries where church and state were merged, and as a result, other religions and denominations of the same religion were persecuted and/or banned. The founders of this nation made it clear that the state cannot, indeed, must not endorse any one faith nor make it the official church of any state or of the nation.

The worthiness of this philosophy can be found in the stories of millions who came to America, including that of my grandfather. Not religious himself, he nevertheless felt that individual freedom of belief was of great importance. When Franco and the fascists began their rise to power in Spain, they promised to make the Catholic Church the national church of Spain. My grandfather, like many others, spoke out against the fascists; when they won, he closely escaped a death sentence and was forced to flee the country, emigrating to the United States. Spain suffered under such religious repression during Franco’s reign, and to this day is almost completely Catholic. Tell religious minorities there that mixing church and state doesn’t lead to discrimination and persecution.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

— Thomas Jefferson

To me, the claim that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American law, aside from being wholly inaccurate, is an attempt to lay a stone in the foundation of civil law by religious doctrine. The establishment of religious crafting and overview of civil law is the next step toward the religious persecution and disenfranchisement of those with other beliefs. Don’t accept the word of anyone who says that American law is founded upon Christianity; it just isn’t so.

The Constitution fairly repudiates the first two commandments (i.e., it leaves us free to worship other Gods than the LORD, and to make graven images), and is silent on commandments three through ten.

— Source

Fundamentalist Christian extremists have been trying to claim a religious state for some time. Some cite the fact that officials are sworn into office by placing their hand on a bible and swearing before God; however, Article VI of the constitution makes clear that no such religious test is required, and the “so help me God” tacked on to the end of the oath is absent in the constitution, added by those taking the oath, and not required by law.

Some claim that proof can be found in the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words, “under God”; however, these words were absent in the original pledge. They were added in the years after World War II when the Cold War was raging in full strength, and someone decided it would be a good way to differentiate us from the Communists.

Some may point to “In God We Trust” being printed on money; again, that is a recent addition. It was not introduced on paper money until 1957, and coins did not bear the motto regularly until 1908; before then, currency always bore the motto “Liberty.” The drive to include God was in full swing in the latter part of the 19th century–there was even a proposed amendment to the constitution that said: “humbly acknowledging almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler among nations, his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government […].” The amendment was introduced twice, and failed both times.

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.

— James Madison

We hear protests from fundamentalists who say that excluding the Ten Commandments from public venues is bigotry, but the truth is that religious displays made, funded, or endorsed by civil government are the greatest threat of nationwide, institutionalized bigotry. It is not bigotry to exclude religion from government when it is the highest law of the land to do so, intended solely to protect the people from a potential theocracy.

The fundamentalists claim that the state “hates” the church, “hates” God, as do all who support the separation of church and state. Some few individuals may hate religion, but in the eyes of many, there could be no greater way to promote freedom of religion and worship than by maintaining this separation.

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.

— James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

And yet we are still subjected, without pause, by garbage like this, in countless corners of the country, repeated ad infinitum. Not the religious mainstream, mind you, and not religion or religious people per se. The fundamentalists. I would say that they just don’t “get it,” but unfortunately, I believe they “get it” all too well, and simply don’t like it. But this is America; this is what we are. That should not change.

It’s not like we expect him not to lie or anything, but he seems to get more and more shameless concerning whom or what he steals credit from. This time it’s the ocean. “We can have good clean hydroelectric power and salmon restoration going on at the same time,” Bush said during a speech in which he claimed his policies were responsible for the increase in Salmon runs in the northwest. Bush got a great deal of applause from the stacked audience, and a nice photo-op. Unfortunately, he was also lying through his teeth.

There is widespread agreement that the increase in Salmon numbers are due to improved oceanic conditions, a natural phenomenon that has no relation to Bush’s policies. Furthermore, the fish that are returning now bred four years ago, well before Bush became president. And Bush’s policies have been to keep fish-unfriendly dams in place, rather doing the minimum possible to make the dams “fish-friendly.” But the higher number of fish is also due to hatcheries, which avoid the river-blocking dams; wild fish numbers continue to be dangerously low.

An analyst for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission pointed out that “the policies of this administration will not prevent these fish from extinction. … They are basically doing nothing.” Rebecca Wodder, a conservationist for American Rivers, said that “far from contributing to healthy salmon populations, the administration’s policies actually threaten wild salmon and the local economies that depend on them.” Joe Lieberman chimed in, saying, “George Bush taking credit for increased salmon populations is like a sailor taking credit for the tides.” Glen Spain, speaking for the Pacific Coast Federation Fisherman’s Association, said, “I’m a Republican. I don’t want to criticize the administration, but they haven’t done anything for us.”

Bush, on a campaign tour through the northwest, was planning on presenting his case for forest-thinning at Camp Sherman in the Cascade Mountains. Critics claim the policy is a thinly-veiled excuse for increased logging, as it thins trees in places where fires are not really a threat, and that the logging companies would be taking out mature trees as much as it would be removing undergrowth, the real danger.

Ironically, Bush had to change venue. The forest he wanted to make his photo-op in front of was on fire.

As expected, the lawsuit brought by Fox News against Al Franken was shot down in flames by a U.S. district judge, who called the suit “wholly without merit, both factually and legally.” You didn’t have to be a legal expert to see that one coming, and one has to wonder was Fox News was smoking when it slapped that particular lawsuit together. “There are hard cases and there are easy cases. This is an easy case,” the judge ruled. He also pointed out the irony of a media company which depends on the First Amendment trying to “undermine it.”

Fox News, which should have simply slunk away with its collective tail between its legs, instead dug themselves even deeper into the stupid hole in front of the judge: “To me, it’s quite ambiguous as to what the message is,” Fox’s lawyer said. “It’s a deadly serious cover … This is much too subtle to be considered a parody.”

Um, yeah. First of all, Al Franken is well-known for not being a satirist, right? Second, so many people would probably think that Fox News is going to call its own people “liars,” and use language like “lies and the lying liars who tell them.” Yeah, that’s way too subtle.

Franken was not ungrateful for the whole situation, obviously: “In addition to thanking my own lawyers, I’d like to thank Fox’s lawyers for filing one of the stupidest briefs I’ve ever seen in my life.”

In the meantime, Franken’s book has been given an increased first printing, and Franken has been invited to be the liberal voice on CNN’s Crossfire show next Monday and Tuesday (that’s Tuesday and Wednesday, 3:30 pm here in Japan). And don’t overlook the aptness of Franken being on CNN, considering its harsh rivalry with Fox News.

MoveOn.org has started a fundraiser to get money to pay for the hotel bills of the Texas Democrats holed up in New Mexico, and to start a media campaign to raise awareness of the relentless and single-minded effort by Washington and Texas Republicans to redistrict in favor of the GOP for the 2004 election. This is considered way out of line, as redistricting is supposed to take place at census time only, not every time one party takes control of a state legislature.

What’s so surprising about this? After only a week of fundraising, already $750,000 (at time of posting) of the $1 million goal has been raised. At this rate, they could almost fund a presidential candidate. When they get to a million bucks, they shouldn’t stop–advertise as far as the funding will take them. That’s the kind of issue-oriented funding we should have, not the $5,000-a-plate GOP fundraising or the major-corporate-backing “voice of the people” nonsense.

There is a series of articles on the Salon web site which introduce the book “Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth.” The columns, written by the “Big Lies” author Joe Conason, so far are excellent, and I would suggest you read them.

The full text of the articles are part of Salon’s “premium” content, but can be accessed by clicking on the “day pass” link. You’ll have to look at an ad or click on it, and then (if your cookies are turned on), you’ll be able to read any of their stuff for free–fairly painless, and in my opinion, less so that having to fill out a form every time like the Washington Post makes you do…

The articles can be found in the following links, for part one, part two, and part three. Amazon.com sells the book here, or you can get it at amazon.co.jp.

My own comments on a bit of the subject matter: there’s a lot to agree with here. What Conason touches on in part is the full-out cultural and linguistic assault by conservatives over the past many years. I have commented before on things like Newt Gingrich’s attack on language; there is a very real conservative drive to co-opt the American identity and to culturally outlaw liberalism. While the current calls for such action remain at the extreme pundit level, it is worrying. Ann Coulter making a case that liberals are traitors is, of course, laughable–but a lot of people read the tripe and take it in as their own. Whenever the opportunity arises, liberalism is under attack. When the “American Taliban” was caught, he was labeled as a liberal. Conservatives made big hay out of the rumor that some terror suspects were registered Democrats. Even many liberals buy into the assault, calling themselves “progressives” to avoid the “L-word,” as coined by Bush Sr.

Sometimes it is frustrating, and on more than one occasion, I have found myself wishing that liberals were just as good as conservatives at being jingoistic, condescending b*stards, caring little about fact or evidence, and being always ready to make nasty attacks on the opposition. Don’t you sometimes wish that Democrats could muster an all-out smear campaign making full use of Bush’s cocaine use and his dodging of the issue, his AWOL draft-dodging, his many criminal acts, just as then right-wingers went en masse against Clinton (and still do)?

It can be hard and painful to see the public officials you want in office take the higher road, while not only does the other side smear and stab, but when much of America accepts and believes it. It’s even harder when you see these sneering self-righteous hypocrites then claim that they are taking the high road and the Democrats are doing the smearing.

According to a new poll, three-quarters of Californians believe that the recall election is “headed in the wrong direction,” vividly illustrating Californians’ grasp for the bloody obvious. Just this visual alone is enough to make one wonder why more signatures were not needed for a candidate to get on the ballot.

Not that some of the more “serious” candidates should be taken too seriously. Arnold has come out with more “specifics” in a new press conference, in which he declares he will not cut education nor will he raise taxes, but he will make cuts–he just won’t say what he is going to cut. What substance.

New developments in California…

Schwarzenegger claims he is ready to debate, and interestingly includes Gray Davis in the proceedings. No doubt he wants an easy, unpopular punching bag on the other side of the political divide, as aside from Cruz Bustamante (less easy to knock over), all of the other likely debate candidates are Republicans also (McClintock, Simon and Ueberroth–and Simon has already opened fire on Arnold). If it were just to be the top five candidates, it would be four Republicans against one Democrat, obviously an advantage for Bustamante. I’ll bet that if Davis is either disqualified (for not being a candidate) or unwilling to come, Schwarzenegger’s people will demand that the standards be lowered to let in Arianna Huffington, Green Party candidate Peter Camejo and porn publisher Larry Flynt.

In the meantime, Republicans, who at first elated in the perception that (a) the Democrats were split and the GOP was represented by a single strong candidate, and (b) that Schwarzenegger was an actual Republican (being against the Clinton impeachment, pro-gay rights, pro gun-control and pro-choice, they are trying to figure out exactly where he is right-wing), are a bit less enthused now that the situation has reversed itself and it is the Republicans who are split.

Cruz Bustamante is accusing Gray Davis of interfering with his campaign, a charge that, at this point, might only help Bustamante, given Davis’s low standing in the polls.

Fox News (Motto: “We Can Call Ourselves Fair and Balanced Six Times out of Ten with a Straight Face”) is reporting that the Democrat-controlled California Assembly will try to ram through “Davis-friendly” legislation in case a Democrat is no longer in office after October. No news yet on whether the Republican minority will be heading to New Mexico.

The election is not even locked down yet, however, as two different challenges are being heard in federal courts. At least one is set to delay the elections for another six months in order to update polling places in six counties which have outdated equipment.

I almost expect the case to be taken to the Supreme Court, where they will declare a Republican the default winner in a 5-4 decision…

More and more, retired general Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO and Vietnam veteran, is making sounds like he is going to run for office. He just bashed Bush, saying, “We went into Iraq under false pretenses. There was, you call it deceptive advertising, you’d be taking him to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq.” Many have been trying to “draft” the general into service as a candidate.

He says that he’ll decide in the next two or three weeks. I don’t know too much about him, but the prospect of having a veteran military commander going up against Bush is highly appealing. Next to Clark, Bush’s flight-suit carrier-landing fake-soldier routine will look a lot more like Dukakis riding in a tank, as it should. After dodging the draft, going AWOL from the Guard and lying to invade Iraq, he should be lambasted, and Clark seems to have the authority to do it thoroughly and without it backfiring on him in anyway. The GOP, still fantasizing about Al Sharpton being the nominee, will have to sit up and take serious notice if he enters the race.

Another scenario is if Clark becomes a vice-presidential candidate. Can you picture Dean and Clark, from Vermont and Arkansas? That wouldn’t be too shabby, either.

The cause of the major blackout in the eastern United States is being tracked down to Ohio.

Ohio’s power company is First Energy, headed by Tony Alexander.

Tony Alexander is a “Bush Pioneer,” a major fundraiser for the Bush administration and a member of the Bush-Cheney Energy Transition team.

First Energy also has just lost a lawsuit filed by the Clinton Administration for violating the Clean Air Act.

Bush calls the blackout a “wake-up call” to modernize the energy grid. One citizen asked, “what were the California brownouts, a snooze button?” But Johnny-come-lately accusations aside, who will pay for the modernization, and who will take the blame and pay reparations for the damage? Bet it’s not the Bush fundraiser.

Is Ken Lay in jail yet? Nope. He’s enjoying his money quite nicely, thank you, President Bush.

Robert Novak, the lovable curmudgeon and conservative pundit, reported recently that we have found evidence of WMD in Iraq, and that the information will be released in mid-September. He claims that the administration is waiting for more discoveries to be made before revealing what they have. The information purportedly includes “substantial evidence of biological weapons in Iraq, plus considerable missile development.”

If such information will in fact be released in September, this raises natural suspicions about what is being done to the information and whatever evidence there may be in the meantime; it is unlikely that anyone outside Bush supporters will feel that evidence tampering could be ruled out, not to mention the unethical move of withholding vital evidence for political reasons.

The fact is that the Bush administration has botched the job. By lying so often to the people and the world, by pushing trumped-up evidence and claiming validation, by selling off Iraq profits not just to American industries but especially to those with ties to Bush and Cheney, and by refusing to allow any non-American weapons inspectors into Iraq, the administration would have to be fantasizing if they thought they will be believed by the world when they show up with anything of substance, even if it is real.

Of course, this is all assuming Novak has something here.

But personally, I have the strong feeling that there is nothing to this story at all. Why?

It’s been claimed before. Senators returning from a junket to Iraq claimed on July 3 that “there’s going to be breaking, positive news on that front in a very near term,” and urged Bush to release the information. Of course, nothing came out.

And then there are the news stories: parts for an atomic bomb program were dug up in an Iraqi scientist’s backyard (but were found to be older then the Gulf War and, instead, proof that the program was not reconstituted); two truck trailers were found which the administration told us were mobile labs for creating bioweapons (but it turns out no trace of bioweapons were found, though they would have been if the trucks had been used for that purpose).

We keep hearing these stories, that evidence is on the way or has been found, each time the story being reported wide, far and loud, and each time the fact that it is a bust being reported in a much smaller voice. And I don’t think that these are random errors.

I bet that if you performed a survey of all Americans and asked if we’ve found evidence of WMD in Iraq, that a sizable percent–not over 50%, probably, but still sizable–would say that we have. You spread rumors enough and people start to believe something is there.

The Pentagon and the president, already in hot water for cutting veteran’s benefits and education for their kids after sending scores of them to fight and die for Halliburton, are now digging themselves an even deeper hole: they want to directly cut the already measly pay given to soldiers in Iraq.

Why? Because it would cost another $300 million if they don’t.

Now, I never supported the whole Iraq invasion thing, but our men and women who are there deserve all of our respect and support, and that includes paying at least minimum wage, for crying out loud.

Somehow Bush feels it is a travesty to not give a trillion dollars back to the rich, and that it is acceptable to run up a deficit of $450 billion every year, which this country will soon gag on, just so he can have his political agenda played out–but when it comes to paying a tiny fraction of that to the Americans who are dying for his botched policies, suddenly this is just too much and we have to cut back somewhere.

I’m sorry. You know that I criticize Bush for all sorts of horrible stuff that he does. But this is just plain, stinking obscene.

On these rainy days with not much to do, one has more time to surf and find some interesting information.

The web site AWOLBush.com has an interesting list of prominent Democrats and Republicans and what their military service records are. It has long been a widely-disseminated and yet little-known fact that Democratic politicians have far better record of serving their country than Republicans do. I haven’t done the research, but the list is certainly tilted towards showcasing Dems that served and Repubs that didn’t; still, when you look at it, a surprising number of Republicans have shirked their duty, including:

George W. Bush (joined celebrity unit of Texas National Guard, then went AWOL)
Dick Cheney (deferments, said he had “other priorities”)
John Ashcroft (seven deferments to teach business)
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (avoided the draft)
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (college deferment)
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (avoided the draft) … and many others

Democrats who did serve, on the other hand, include Tom Daschle, John Kerrey (Silver Star, Bronze Star, three Purple Hearts), Ted Kennedy (Korea), Daniel Inouye (Medal of Honor), Charles Rangel (Bronze Star), Al Gore (served as journalist in Vietnam), Tom Harkin, and let’s not forget Gray Davis (Army Captain in Vietnam; received Bronze Star).

Republican pundits are also listed, including non-servers George Will, Bill O’Reilly, Bill Bennett, Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Pat Robertson, Bill Kristol, Kenneth Starr, and so on.

The point, of course, is that conservatives are usually very hawkish when it comes to sending the youth of our country off to fight foreign wars, but chicken when it comes to signing up themselves–thus the term “chickenhawks.”

Does the president, who dodged the draft and went AWOL when drug tests were instituted, for whom someone else served and perhaps died, have the right to spend one million taxpayer dollars to slow the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln down and delay the homecoming of 4,000 men and women who are serving so that he can have a government-paid photo-op for re-election in which he declared victory in Iraq, even though 60 soldiers and counting have died since then? A convoluted question, but well worth asking.

Imagine if Clinton had done something similar. Republicans would have impeached him just for that.