The New Hampshire primaries have begun. You know, something I really do not understand is why there is such a thing as an open primary. It just seems stupid to me. It allows members of one party to come in and vote for the least electable candidate of the other, something you can bet a lot of Republicans are doing today, since the Republican primaries are meaningless. So you’ll probably see more votes for Al Sharpton than can be accounted for by just Democrats; one can only hope that it doesn’t screw things up too much.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, who railed at Bustamante in the California elections last year because Bustamante accepted $2 million from Indian tribes (before Arnold himself accepted millions from other special interests), is in bigger trouble: $4.5 million in bank loans, which he took out to save his campaign in the last critical days of the election, were illegal. Apparently, he may have to pay back the money from his own personal funds. But he gets to keep the election. That’s kind of like an arrested drug trafficker having to pay duty fees but he can keep the drugs. And it’s not like Arnold, who made tens of millions of dollars per movie, will really suffer to much. But by now we should all be used to Republicans stealing elections by committing illegal acts and then getting to stay in office. Who’s next?

Oscar nominations are out, and The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King is getting the nominations for pretty much the whole series. In a trilogy like this, you know they’ll save the big awards for after the whole thing is out. It’s nominated for eleven awards, most of them technical except for Best Picture, Directing, and Writing (Adapted Screenplay). The actors all got hosed–no nominations, though one could readily pick out several worthy of awards. With luck, the trilogy will come out with one of the big three awards. Don’t count on it, though–the industry has long looked down upon Science Fiction and Fantasy as being unworthy of notice. No SF or Fantasy film has ever won Best Picture or Director awards.

On a Japan note, Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation netted four nominations–Best Picture, Actor, Directing, and Original Screenplay. It’s a good flick, but don’t count to see too much plot or action–it has been accurately described as a “mood piece.” Still, I liked it enough–but then, a lot of the background is in a part of Tokyo I am very familiar with, so much of my interest was in that area.

Bush’s case for WMD in Iraq continues to crumble. Bush & Co. have already been trying to downgrade the requirements for proving their claim (from “WMD” to “WMD-related program activities”) while trying desperately to maintain the fiction that there really were WMD in Iraq, and that (a) they went to Syria, (b) they’re cleverly hidden in someone’s garage, or (c) they were so completely and thoroughly destroyed that not a trace remains of either the weapons or the effort to destroy them.

Today, David Kay, the Bush administration’s own point-man on the campaign of deception, has dealt another blow–he says that he now believes that WMD do not exist, and that none have been produced since 1991. That’s one hell of an admission, and may show up the frustration this man feels at having been the front man for such a massive deception. While Kay blames the intelligence community, evidence points rather to Bush and Blair for “sexing up” the intelligence, being highly selective in what intelligence to listen to and what not to listen to. Bush’s choice of sources for the Niger yellowcake, for example–he ignored his own people’s reports that the claims were false, and instead chose to quote foreign intelligence sources. What leader would ignore his own people and instead report on foreign sources which contradicts his own best intelligence? It is very clear that Bush was being selective, and there is no reason not to believe that this selectiveness was widespread in order to sell a war that could not have been sold otherwise.

It seems that Howard Dean is making a comeback, and is now close on the tail of John Kerry, with 28% to Kerry’s 31% Clark has dropped to 13%, and that would be easy to understand if people were watching the national news. It seems every time I see a broadcast, Clark’s exposure is either cut down to a minimum or is completely absent. One bit I saw just a few minutes ago gave a fair amount of air time to Kerry, Dean, Edwards and Lieberman, but Clark was limited to a small sentence of coverage while we heard him say, “We’re gonna go!” to a crowd cheering “Go Clark, Go!” Not exactly balanced. He seems to be getting ignored lately, even worse than being dissed. We can only hope that New Hampshire voters will overturn expectations like the Iowans did….

Okay, reality check. Just saw a promo clip on CNN where the Pope waved congenially to a performing break dancer. Huh?

In positive news, the Mars rovers’ stories continue to get better and better. Opportunity, by great fortune, happened to land inside a small, 30-foot crates with desirable mineral deposits and ideal rock outcroppings. And, as always, the photos are tantalizing–you can keep track of them all on the rover image page, which includes smaller raw images and all the press release images–but this page offers full-size images, so if you don’t like the limited, selective postage-stamp images on the news services, come to these pages to check out the real deal.

My bout with stomach flu continues; after a morning respite, I am back up to 102 F again. Hopefully, I’ll whip this thing soon. In the meantime, I’ll try to blog a little from bed. My commentary on Bush’s state of the union speech will hopefully continue soon, when I have more energy.

In the meantime, a lot has been happening. Good news from Mars–Spirit is back on track for a recovery, and better yet, the second probe, Opportunity, has safely landed in Meridiani Planum, near the equator, and already is sending back tantalizing photos with quite interesting features (panorama, smaller shot, color image). As we saw with Spirit, the surface of Mars has an interesting reaction when disturbed. Here’s the main page. Enjoy!

On a sad not, Bob Keeshan, the longtime friend of children on the TV show Captain Kangaroo, has died at age 76. He was a friend of mine when I was young, too. Thanks for everything, Bob.

In less sympathetic news, Iraq arms inspector David Kay, apparently under pressure from the Republican party for having slipped and told the truth that there are no WMD’s in Iraq, is now claiming that it is pretty much certain that they were all moved to Syria before the U.S. took over. Um, yeah. Okay. Right. Whatever.

And Bill Gates is claiming that he has a plan to do away with all spam by 2006. Again, we at the BfAD (which is to say, me) look upon this with the same cynical eye as when Congress passed the anti-spam legislation a few months ago. I’m getting more spam than ever. And one should not that Gate’s claimed timeline almost matches up with the release of his new OS, Longhorn. PR stunt, anyone?

Not that there’s nothing I want to blog about, but I seem to have a stomach little bug, with a temp of 102 F and a few muscle aches… Will be back as soon as I can.

Here is part two of my reaction to Bush’s State of the Union speech.

Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible — and no one can now doubt the word of America.

This claim is ludicrous, but expected. It did not take just 9 months to get Libya to give up their WMD; that simply demarcates a more recent round of talks, among many over the past decade or more. And Libya did not give up their WMD because they were afraid of a U.S. invasion; the U.S. made no threats, nor were we in any position, militarily, diplomatically or economically, to do so. Had we started a military buildup against Libya and threatened to invade over their paltry WMD holdings, it would have provoked worldwide outrage and protests at home, and any action would far overextend our already stretched-thin resources.

Libya gave up the WMD as part of a long-term process of trying to come in out of the cold and get sanctions lifted, a process which had the first public results with the Lockerbie settlement, where Libya handed over the suspects and started agreements to pay–under the Clinton administration.

I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime — a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments.

A common Bush tactic: mischaracterization. Terrorism is, in a rational light, a political cause taken to violence by groups which are not governments. They are no more a threat now than they were before, no less a threat ten years ago than they are now. Clinton did not respond mainly with indictments, as Bush claims–he reacted militarily as well, at one point trying to take out bin Laden in Afghanistan with a missile strike–a move that was actually criticized by Republicans at the time, who were more obsessed with Monica Lewinsky.

After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted, tried, convicted and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans.

Again, a petty swipe at Democrats–and again, ignoring the fact that Clinton handed Bush a fully-formed strategy to deal with al Qaeda, one which Bush promptly dropped and ignored because it was inconvenient for their plans to spend trillions on a missile shield. Clinton did far more than indict, and at least he got that far with al Qaeda–while Bush is still fumbling to find bin Laden.

But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We are seeking all the facts — already the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations.

“Mass destruction-related program activities“?? First it was WMD. Then, when WMD were not found, it was “WMD programs.” Now, with not even a program found, it is “WMD-related program activities”? What the hell does that even mean? They found trailers, but they were not for WMD. They found storage facilities several times that they thought were WMD-related, but they were not. Is Bush referring to the small, more-than-decade-old stash of a few nuclear equipment parts buried in the garden of an Iraqi scientist? Though I suppose with such a general term as “related program activities” almost anything could qualify. And yet again, Bush tries to snow the American people into believing we actually found something.

Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.

What programs? He just said we found only “related activities”! What, Saddam would have called that scientist and asked him to keep the parts buried another ten years? Saddam had no program to continue, meaning he was far less a current threat than North Korea, Libya, or a dozen other countries we don’t like.

Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world.

Which is exactly what Bush claimed they were–he can’t have it both ways. Not to mention that Israel has had a slew of UNSC resolutions and condemnations aimed at them–should we invade? What gall Bush has to use the U.N. as an excuse for his war when he so totally dismissed and belittled them?

Iraq’s torture chambers would still be filled with victims — terrified and innocent.

Where he kicked puppies and orphans, no doubt. Not to defend Saddam, but Bush overstates the case (remember the fake stories from Kuwait to make us angry?). Sure, Saddam was a tyrant and tortured his political enemies. But Bush is hypocritical, because it is crystal clear that he cared not a whit for those people being tortured.

This is further exemplified by the case of Maher Arar, the Canadian software engineer who was detained by U.S. officials in N.Y., who then deliberately sent him to Syria so he could be put into a torture chamber, innocent and afraid. Bush put him there, not Saddam. Bush could care less about people in torture chambers, he sends them there himself. Taking Iraq was not a humanitarian mission, it’s only belatedly characterized as one since the initial fictitious reasons were proven so completely false for the world to see.

For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein’s regime is a better and safer place.

The real question is, was it worth it? The world is not that much safer, nor are the people of Iraq truly free, nor will they be soon. And we have paid for it with the lives of 500 more Americans, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the loss of respect for America worldwide. All to swat a relatively harmless tin-pot dictator. The world would be safer if we invaded a dozen other dictators around the planet, where dictators just as vile and violent torture the innocent and plot to acquire WMD. Saddam was a major focus of ours, but he was a dime-a-dozen thug.

Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq.

Yes, no effort is international until El Salvador is in on it. This bit got a big rise out of the Republican side, which rose to cheer as Bush spoke. But if Bush were only to include those nations that gave troops, it would have been a damned short list (nine countries including the U.S.), even shorter to mention those that had troops during major combat (three–the U.S., Great Britain, and Australia).

And the 17 other countries Bush mentioned, which of course he decided not to list, included such luminaries as Palau, Lithuania, Slovenia, Albania, Rwanda, Latvia, Eritrea, and Costa Rica. Wow! What a list! And hey, you can’t make a move without Costa Rica! Especially since they have no military!

And let’s not forget that even in the countries that signed on, almost all had populations strongly opposed to the war–Spain, one of Bush’s major allies, had 90% of its population disapproving (I was there during the Iraq war, and they were pissed), similar to Japan, whose people objected strongly to sending troops in non-combat roles.

Those who were against the war outnumbered the “coalition of the willing” (what a pathetic name) by 57 to 37. Those against included China, Russia, Canada, France, Germany, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Greece, India, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, and many more–indisputably a much more impressive list.

In summary, an “international” cause is more than just three countries sending troops with a dozen more saying “go get ’em”! The Gulf War, by contrast, included troops from 34 countries, and had the support of most of the world.

As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners or dismiss their sacrifices.

Does he mean like the time he went to Australia and attended a memorial of a dead Aussie soldier–and refused to allow the man’s wife to even attend because it might have embarrassed him?

There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few.

The count was 37 for, 57 against, and 93 abstaining. This is an outright lie.

America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.

This was one of the most popular lines from the script, and of course was also an outrageous and arrogant mischaracterization. There is a difference between using diplomatic skill to garner international support–something his father did with skill, but Junior completely botched–and asking submissively for permission. This line exemplifies Bush’s crass disregard for diplomacy: he has always been far more concerned about scoring political points at home than being a statesman and not pissing off the rest of the world. Bush himself said during his campaign in 2000, ” if we are an arrogant nation [foreign countries] will view us that way, but if we’re a humble nation they’ll respect us.”

He is arrogant, dismissive, and condescending to the world. Is it any wonder the star of the United States has fallen internationally since Bush started his watch?

More commentary coming soon.

Republicans are now changing their tack when it comes to reporting the “discovery” of WMD in Iraq. Previously, it was their habit to report the secret discovery of WMD and tell an expectant public that the official report was just days or weeks away. This gave everyone the idea that WMD had been found, though of course the reports always (quietly) ended up false.

But now, since this is an election year and apparently too many people might be getting wise to the scam, so there’s a new strategy: we are told with the same assuredness that WMD are indeed there–but it will years before they will be able to tell us about them exactly. This, without any doubt, is to give everyone the idea that WMD will be found without ever really having to produce any evidence at all.

“I would say that we are probably a couple of years away from getting through all the material and talking to all the people we need to talk to about exactly what was going on, not only with the Saddam Hussein regime but with some of the Taliban and some of the things that have been going on in North Korea, Libya, Iran and other places,” Republican Representative Porter Gross said.

In his State of the Union Speech (Part II of my commentary coming soon), Bush said, “Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.” Oh really. What weapons of mass destruction programs exactly?

This is such blatant deception. We need to fight it by saying–as often and as loudly as possible–there are no weapons of mass destruction or even any programs for it that have been discovered in Iraq. Nothing.

And that’s little more than what his speech was: a campaign stump. He aimed at his base, fired heavily upon the Democrats, and as usual, misrepresented the facts in ugly ways. There is just too much here for me to cover in one post, so I will spread this over many posts–and you may get tired of this before I am through. Nevertheless, many Americans actually believe the majority of what this man says, and so it must be rebutted as often and as loudly as possible. Here are direct quotes from the speech and my own reactions to them.

As we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror.

Except for the ones in Iraq–despite Bush’s claims in this speech, the fact remains that there was no terrorist connection to Iraq.

By bringing hope to the oppressed, and delivering justice to the violent, they are making America more secure.

The oppressed were never Bush’s priority. They were not the reason given before the war, but were pushed forward after the WMD and terrorist links proved false. And most of those “oppressed” are not any better off today–they just feel as if there is a different oppressor. Were there to be an international, a U.N. presence, Iraqis would feel more secure, and less oppressed. There would be more legitimacy. But Bush was far too arrogant, and never the humble leader he promised to be to get anything near the support that was needed to do the job right.

As for making America more secure, there was no threat to us from Iraq–but now that we occupy the country, thousands more join the terrorists and vow to strike against us. We are not safer today–if anything, the opposite.

Each day, law enforcement personnel and intelligence officers are tracking terrorist threats; analysts are examining airline passenger lists; the men and women of our new Homeland Security Department are patrolling our coasts and borders. And their vigilance is protecting America.

Except for the fact that Bush has failed to adequately fund security within the United States. The coasts and borders he claims are being patrolled are not being much more patrolled today than they were three years ago. Local authorities decry the lack of funds to do their jobs. Only 5% or less of cargo coming to the U.S. by land or sea is inspected. Bush is unwilling to fund the necessary measures to inspect and patrol enough to protect our borders, nor is he helping to provide any real security on our streets or in our cities. Clinton aimed to increase the police to protect the people–Bush is only interested in increasing police powers to the detriment of our freedoms.

Americans are proving once again to be the hardest working people in the world. The American economy is growing stronger. The tax relief you passed is working.

No, it’s not. The tax relief has helped the wealthy, not the average American. Businesses see a mild recovery, in large part because the government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars more–as Lloyd Bentsen put so well in the 1988 debates, “You know, if you let me write $200 billion worth of hot checks every year, I could give you the illusion of prosperity too.”

But the false face of the “recovery” shows in jobs. Instead of producing 250,000 jobs in the last month as Bush predicted, only 1,000 jobs were forthcoming, exposing the facade of the recovery. The owners and stockholders get rich from the tax cuts and business contracts, and get more money by exporting jobs. The few jobs that have been created in the U.S. are all too often “McJobs” that pay little and have poor benefits. This is the “recovery” Bush is providing–good for the wealthy, but not for most hardworking Americans.

We have faced serious challenges together — and now we face a choice. We can go forward with confidence and resolve — or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us.

Here is the first of a long stream of sharp, hateful, partisan jabs against the Democrats. Choose me, or the Democrats will get us all killed, he is saying. Here he makes the most of the crass exaggeration and misrepresentation of the threat to us–Iraq was indeed no threat.

And at the same time, he insinuates that Democrats are weak on security. Actually, Clinton was strong against terrorism–Bush praised himself for there being no attacks on U.S. soil after two years–but Clinton managed to keep away any attacks on U.S. soil for his entire term of office after the car bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993, only a month after he took office–and he had the good grace not to plaster blame all over the prior administration–and he caught the conspirators, who are now in jail. Where is Osama now? Bush certainly has no idea.

And Clinton fought hard against terrorism while in office, stopping many terrorist attempts. He managed to pass strong anti-terrorism laws without abridging the rights and freedoms of Americans. And he left Bush Jr. with ample warnings about al Qaeda and terrorism threats in general, warnings and plans that Bush Jr. insolently disregarded and discarded. CIA chief George Tenet warned the incoming Bush administration that al Qaeda was the biggest security threat we faced–and was ignored. Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and the NSC’s counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke warned Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney about al Qaeda, and were dismissed while Bush and Cheney focused on how to funnel money to their campaign contributors by spending trillions on a missile defense system that not only promised not to work, but would be useless against terrorists. (See chapter 10 of Joe Conason’s book, Big Lies.)

Terrorism is, has always been, and always will be a threat. The fact that Bush makes frightening exhortations about it is a weakness. The threat must be calmly accepted, and if the government does its job quietly and efficiently, it is doing its best. Bush’s efforts are loud, to frighten people into supporting him, and weak, as he has turned from the security of our people to military conquest with terrorism as no more than an excuse, and allowed our real security at home to falter. The Democrats, meanwhile, have been trying to work to shore this up, but have been turned away while the GOP opens up the trough of the treasury to pork for Red States.

Inside the United States, where the war began, we must continue to give homeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the PATRIOT Act, which allows federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells and to seize their assets.

There is a reason the words “police state” exist. Such states are incredibly secure–and very much fascist, and certainly not free. The “Patriot” Act gives far too much power to the government, and has already fallen to abuse. Give the police the tools they need, yes–but “Patriot” goes far too far, and Patriot II goes even farther.

Key provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire next year.

In what was an amusing and comforting turn of events, there was applause to this sentence–from the liberal side of the aisle. Easy to miss, because the Republicans applauded almost every sentence Bush spoke. You could see Bush trying to hold his temper when this happened.

Last August 11th brought the capture of the terrorist Hambali, who was a key player in the attack in Indonesia that killed over 200 people. We are tracking al-Qaida around the world — and nearly two-thirds of their known leaders have now been captured or killed.

If Bush believes that this has done anything to lessen the influence or abilities of terrorists, he is dangerously naive.

As part of the offensive against terror, we are also confronting the regimes that harbor and support terrorists, and could supply them with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The United States and our allies are determined: We refuse to live in the shadow of this ultimate danger.

Except for the fact that we haven’t. Afghanistan was harboring terrorists, but Bush turned away from that task when Iraq came into view–and now the Taliban have retaken a foothold in Afghanistan. As for Iraq, there were no WMD, and no terrorist ties. If anything, Bush has fumbled the ball and allowed terrorism to thrive while shooting America in the foot with the Iraq war. And yet still, here, Bush makes the patently false claim that Iraq was a threat to us due to both WMD and terrorism.

Since we last met in this chamber, combat forces of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Poland and other countries enforced the demands of the United Nations, ended the rule of Saddam Hussein — and the people of Iraq are free.

Beg pardon? The “demands of the United Nations”? Is he joking? And note that he mentions the few countries that actually have provided troops support–albeit the U.S. and Great Britain were the only real participants.

These killers, joined by foreign terrorists, are a serious, continuing danger. Yet we are making progress against them.

Not really. Yes, we got Saddam–but attacks continue with the same frequency as before. Recently the 500th U.S. soldier was killed, and almost 600 coalition and diplomatic deaths have been recorded. December had more deaths per day than any other month since April, and January is so far as deadly a month as many before.

The work of building a new Iraq is hard, and it is right. And America has always been willing to do what it takes for what is right. Last January, Iraq’s only law was the whim of one brutal man.

And now it is the whim of another brutal man, the one speaking to us. America wants to do right, but in order to do right, Americans must have the truth–something Bush has tried hard to obfuscate. 70% of Americans believed Saddam was behind 9/11 because of Bush and Cheney’s lies. Garbage in, garbage out–Bush has led the American people to do wrong because he has led them falsely.

Today our coalition is working with the Iraqi Governing Council to draft a basic law, with a bill of rights. We are working with Iraqis and the United Nations to prepare for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June. As democracy takes hold in Iraq, the enemies of freedom will do all in their power to spread violence and fear.

Except that Bush wants no Democracy in Iraq: 60% are Shi’ites, and a true Democracy would lead to an Islamic state, which Bush wants to avoid at all costs. A puppet government is being drafted, and yet still, even the moderates want to go to less free ways, including a return to Islamic laws that would strip Iraq’s women of most of their rights and liberties. And more on the “coalition” later.

More to come soon. But one last thought: Bush & Co. always try to push the idea, “everything is OK now, so we’re the ones to vote for.” Despite the ongoing violence and instability, the Bush administration tries to act as if everything is now under control in Iraq. Even if it were, it would not change the fact that going there in the first place was a bad choice. “We have international support,” Bush says–and even if that were really true in the sense that matters, it would not change the fact that Bush did an atrocious job of diplomacy, turning worldwide sympathy after 9/11 into worldwide animosity less than two years later. If Iraq had really been necessary, Bush could have brought the world in with us, paying most of the bill (as it did in the Gulf War), taking on heavy military responsibilities (as it did in the Gulf War), and adding legitimacy to the takeover of Iraq (which we lack now and are suffering for it). It is not good enough that we invaded Iraq and have Saddam–the fact that it was done so badly on the political end, costing us so much in blood and money, has forced us back into deficits, has enraged the world and turned so many against us, and has empowered the terrorists–that shows a lack of skill on the part of the president.

My point is that Bush is incompetent as a president, and even if things turned out a tenth as rosily as he claims, would we still want a bungling clown to run things for us? Despite high-powered help, he has demonstrated that he cannot eat pretzels without choking. We need someone who does the right things, and a person who is able to do them without being an inept fool.

Depending on your point of view, Howard Dean either got a little carried away last night, or he went stark raving mad. Either way, a lot of people’s heads were turned upon hearing him give some kind of wild “Yeah!” at the end of a strongly delivered sentence. As one commentator noted, he will almost definitely be lampooned on Saturday Night Live now.

For those of you who missed it, here is a WAV file of the entire sentence (250 KB, 8-bit sound at 11KHz), or for those who want a clip for your sound archive or just a really weird ‘beep’ sound for your computer, here is a better-quality sound file of just the “Yeah!” (75 KB, 16-bit at 22 KHz).

Enjoy.

Listening to it right now. Boy, am I going to comment on this in detail the first chance I get. Bush is being outright shameless this time, even more than before. I’ve got to go to work very soon, but when I come back I will have a transcript and will probably have to restrain myself from producing too long a tome….

A quick summary would include a rehashed wish list, a string of exaggerations and outright fantasy, and brazen partisanship. He wants to make the tax cuts for the rich permanent, wants to renew the dangerous Patriot Act, and gave a rather lame defense of his war in Iraq, naturally trying to use the bravery of the soldiers to his advantage. He even referenced his war experience by mentioning his carrier landing and his Iraq mess hall event, both blatant PR stunts. The applause for the speech is rather one-sided, with the conservative side applauding automatically at the end of practically every sentence.

More coverage later.

Well, as Bush gets ready to lie to us some more, the Democrats go to New Hampshire pretty much shaken and stirred.

Kerry shook up the room, and he’s going into New Hampshire fairly strong (Dean 28%, Kerry 20%, Clark 19%, changed from Dean 28%, Clark 20%, Kerry 19% two days ago), But Clark is still holding strong as well, even in Dean country (he should, he been there long enough alone). Josh Marshall blogged from his campaign tonight. Their spin was that Kerry “doesn’t have the ground organization in those states or the money to play everywhere at once in those later contests.” Maybe. Could change. We’ll see. For me, Kerry is more of Mondale 2.0 like Clark is Dean 2.0. I’m sure he’s good, but he’s got this soft center and has been one of the go-alongs among the Democrats. It should be very interesting to follow things over the next several days; I have a feeling that Dean, Clark, Edwards and Kerry will be some of the real survivors, with perhaps Leiberman, Kucinich and Sharpton staying on for staying’s sake. Edwards will stay at least until they get some southern numbers in, Dean because despite what may happen he’s got too much momentum before he stops, and Kerry because he’s building. Clark will be interesting to watch because he’s just coming into it, and Leiberman I think will be more or less technically out unless he scores big, which I don’t think–he’s too hawkish for the Dems right now.

Keep an eye on Josh Marshall, he should have some interesting things to say as he follows his independently funded junket through New Hampshire.

In other, more techy news, the Mars rover is looking at a rock and saying “yum.”

Canadian teen Mike Rowe is having fun with Microsoft over his personal site MikeRoweSoft.com. Microsoft, in what I feel is a supremely stupid gesture, is suing the Canadian lad for using “their” name–as if people will actually be confused by this. Good for Mike!

If you are tired of Yahoo Mail or Hotmail, look for Google Mail soon (under the name “googlemail.com”).

And in an age of Internet this and that, and people worrying about too many cameras, this woman is grateful–her webcam showed her being kicked by her mare, which had just given birth. Without web watchers calling for help, she may very well have died.

Don’t click on the Bagle’s calculator.

Don’t believe all that you hear about our current deficit being due to 9/11 and the economic slump. A large amount of that deficit comes from the tax cuts for the wealthy–but an equally large amount comes from GOP spending. Despite the fact that right-wingers have constantly labeled Democrats as “tax-and-spend,” the truth is that since the Reagan years, it has been the Democrats who are less likely to spend. The GOP has gone more than a little nuts in spending now that they have both houses of Congress and the White House. Joe Conason devoted a chapter to this in his definitive text on lies and misconceptions planted by the right, entitled Big Lies (see chapter 4). Since the GOP took control of the House in 1995, thousands more pork projects appeared in the final budget than had been there previously–that’s additional, not replacement. Even Republicans are beginning to be disgusted with the gorging at the trough–and you are paying for it.

Dan Morgan has an excellent new piece on the issue in the Washington Post. He notes, “Republican leaders have winked at the stampede by lawmakers to capture the spoils for their home states and districts. … For a while, President Bush’s budget office complained loudly about earmarking, but lately those protests have died away. The pork barreling, meanwhile, has the support and complicity of top Republican leaders, who have begun using it as a political weapon against Democratic opponents and overly independent GOP lawmakers. Last year hundreds of projects were denied to House members, mostly Democrats, who cast votes against appropriations bills.”

Which means that if you are from a red state, you’re in luck–other people’s tax dollars are coming your way. Blue states, watch out–you’re getting robbed. And the GOP is hardly apologetic. House Majority Leader Dick Armey said without shame, “to the victor goes [sic] the spoils.”

But the spoils are growing drastically, and they are being looted from the pocketbooks of generations to come.

The only way out of this spending hell is to vote the Republicans out–not just of the White House, where our future has been handed to the wealthy on a silver platter and our youth sent off to fight wars for control of oil fields, but the Congress itself must be at least halfway emancipated to stop the hemorrhaging of tax dollars and the runaway debt that already costs us four hundred billion dollars in interest payments each year. Gore was going to pay down the debt and would have protected the surplus. Learn from the lesson.

Kenneth Pollack is a former CIA analyst and NSC member who supported the case for war in Iraq in his book called “The Threatening Storm.” Pollack now says that the intelligence estimates were exaggerated and that the Bush administration used “creative omission” in informing the public and Congress on the real threats, and that while the cost of containment and the human misery “also suggest that there may still have been a case for war, it just wasn’t nearly as compelling as I thought.”

And probably not nearly compelling enough for the American people to support, ergo the “creative omission.” Pollack’s admission of error is admirable, but his inability to tag the outright lies of the administration is less so. This has been a general failing of the media, which is lightning fast in calling the Democratic contenders liars at the drop of a hat, but when Bush pulls off the biggest whoppers we’ve ever seen, will go no further than to say that he has been “not entirely candid” or “inventive with the truth” or some other euphemism that avoids saying the obvious, that Bush is an unabashed liar.

My own choice among the Democratic candidates has become Wesley Clark. For a beginning of an idea, you might take a look at the biographical short “American Son,” similar in ways to Clinton’s “The Man from Hope” film made during his own campaign.

Clark appealed to me from the beginning, with his focus on people (“Republicans like weapons systems; Democrats like the soldiers”), his willingness to stand and fight when the media gave him crap, and the fact that he so clearly saw through Bush and has not been shy to speak about it. His stance on the issues is laudable, especially his willingness to reform the tax system–cutting taxes for the middle and lower classes, and adding a 5% increase on millionaires. He is serious about education, is critical of the Patriot Act, and is on the right side of health care, labor, gun control, the environment and many other issues.

Furthermore, his personal abilities and accomplishments are impressive; his intelligence and drive are extraordinary, his willingness to serve and sacrifice admirable, his career remarkable. And think of this highly honorable, incredibly intelligent four-star general going up against AWOL draft-dodger Bush… it almost makes one giddy to think.

Another feather in his cap from my point of view is his endorsement by Michael Moore, who has been watching Clark carefully and whose judgment a lot of Americans trust.

You will not see much about Clark in Iowa, where he pulled out (his late entry into the race meant he missed too much time in that state), but he is waiting to make a surprise showing–he is now second in New Hampshire, 23% to Dean’s 32% and rising–he has pulled far ahead of Kerry and stands to challenge Dean on his home turf in New England. We will definitely be hearing more about Clark. Time Magazine has called Clark “Dean 2.0,” and for good reason–he’s better, stronger, faster, the six-million-dollar candidate, so to speak. As much as Dean seems like a strong candidate, Clark seems stronger–and less assailable in many ways. But Clark’s message, though public, has not been clearly or loudly heard yet. We’ll see how it goes.

It is not surprising that the Bush White House pulled the plug on Katherine Harris’ hopes to become the next Senator from Florida–clearly, in this presidential election year, the last thing that Bush wants is for people to be reminded of how Bush stole the last election by spotlighting the woman responsible for stealing it for him, seriously abusing her power to do so.

The lame excuse for her not running? She has too much important work in the House of Representatives. Riiiiiight.

Bush, in the meantime, is not having a much of a picnic in public opinion. His artificial boost from the capture of Saddam Hussein has evaporated, he is back down to around 50%, and shows as two points behind an unspecified Democratic candidate, according to a new CBS/NYT poll.

This should not come as too much of a surprise considering that the capture of Hussein has not led to much at all–though I am still convinced that Bush is holding back Hussein until a time when he can take full political advantage of him, trotting him out on the stage to earn Bush extra points and take attention away from the fact that our soldiers are getting killed as much now as they were before Hussein got nabbed.

Additionally, Bush now faces the rather predictable issue of free elections and sovereignty in Iraq: 60% of the country is Shi’ite Muslim, and their religious leader is now insisting that free democratic elections be held. Bush is pushing for a caucus system, but it will not be easy to placate the Shi’ites, who can certainly make a lot of trouble. If free elections are held, then you can expect things to go in a way America most definitely does not want to see.

Some of that fundamentalism may already be showing in Iraq. Under Saddam Hussein, there was at least a secular state, and women had rights and legal protections not commonly found in the Arab world. But the governing council–backed by the Bush administration–has voted to bring back the Sharia, traditional Islamic law, which would deal a serious blow to those rights and legal protections that Iraqi women have had for the past four decades.

Bush’s representative in Iraq, administrator Paul Bremer, has to approve such decisions; it is suspected that he will reject it–but if even the relatively moderate governing council will try to do this now, what will happen after America leaves?

If you watched the QuickTime video I posted of the New Year’s “hatsumode” visit to the local shrine, then you undoubtedly noticed the young people in the strange masks (above and below) dancing about in a rather stylized fashion. These are known as “Hyottoko,” as you may have heard Hiromi exclaim in the video.

Hyottoko is an abbreviation fo “Hi Otoko,” or “Fire Man,” from the idea that this character blows fire from a bamboo tube (hence the mouth shaped as it is). Their dance is considered comical, and is said to have been used as long as 900 years ago to amuse troops fresh from battle. The female equivalent is known as “okame,” though I didn’t see any at the shrine. As far as I know, there is no special tie between Hyottoko and New Year’s, but it was fun to have them there; you may have noticed one of them doing the shishi-mai head-biting thing on me in the video. I’m guessing that a lot of mixing and matching of traditional entertainment was going on there. Whatever the case, it was fun!

It’s a little bit late, but distractions kept me from this project for a while.

Every year at New Year’s Eve, I go to a local shrine–somewhat of a private tradition since I first came to Japan. I really enjoy the people, the music, the local atmosphere, the free sake. One year (on the millennium, in fact) I spent New Year’s back home in the U.S., but everyone went to bed at 11 pm, and I just sat there watching Dick Clark on TV and thought, hey! I could be at a shrine right now!

When I moved to this town, I thought I had found the perfect shrine, a place atop a hill near the train station, with a view of Tokyo and a beautiful temple just below in a pocket valley (I’m a bit out in the boonies, though still close to Tokyo proper). But when I went there one New Year’s Eve, I found the place deserted–I guess they went out of business some time ago, though the shrine still stood. The temple was in business, but it was just people ringing the bell. I was about to go home, disappointed, when I saw fireworks a bit of a ways off. Well, I followed the fireworks and found the shrine I go to now.

It’s a great place. They shoot off the fireworks–real sky-reaching stuff, not the kind you buy at the store–and they have pretty much everything else, too. The sake (including kids’ sake, non-alcoholic and, to me, really bad-tasting), a traditional band, the shishi-mai dance, a nice bonfire, with nice trinkets, charms and arrows (for luck) on sale. The works.

This year, Hiromi made her way over to join me, and we brought a video camera along. What kept me from doing this until now, a few weeks after the fact, was that I knew that editing together the video would take several hours–but tonight I finally had enough free time, and got the darn thing done. The movie, a little over two and a half minutes long, is available on this page, for anyone who has QuickTime software installed. Be warned, the movie is a touch over 5MB in size; if you have a dial-up connection it will take forever. Broadband (DSL or cable) is recommended.

I hope you enjoy. Until next year….

Well, the election year strategy of the Bush administration is beginning to take shape. According to plans, the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq and elections in Afghanistan are to take place in the summer of 2004, conveniently timed to take place just a few months before the presidential election. Never mind the fact that the three-step schedule designed to end the occupation in name (if not substance) by the end of June is considered too aggressive considering the mess the country is still in. This is an election year, and just like in 2002 (“from a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August” –Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card), the potential political gain outweighs other factors like national security and people’s lives. Kudos to Kennedy, by the way, for keeping up the effort to raise awareness of the truth in this area. And truth be told, Bush will not allow the occupation to flow into November, no matter what the cost.

Similarly, Bush has sought to pretty up his administration with the lofty goal of a new space program that will take us to Mars. After having spent hundreds of billions on the Iraq war and trillions of tax cuts for the rich, how much is he giving NASA to accomplish the goal? One billion dollars for the first year. One billion. At a time when Bush is proposing one and a half billion for a program that would train poor people to get married more. I am not joking, follow the link and see for yourself. The money would be spent on “advertising campaigns to publicize the value of marriage, instruction in marriage skills and mentoring programs that use married couples as role models.”

Note, by the way, that the NASA program will cost very little during a possible second Bush administration, but in later years, long after Bush would be gone, costs would soar into the tens of billions per year. This sounds very much (as one visitor to this site put it) like vaporware; something that costs little, sounds majestic, soaring and daring, and can be easily dropped for expediency when its political usefulness has passed. I have already heard commentators driveling about how this is a big risk for Bush, that he is showing courage in stating this goal. What claptrap. It is little more than cheap theatrics.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for a program to send us to Mars. For less than the cost of the wholly unnecessary Iraq war, we could have paid for the complete mission to the moon and Mars, and in so doing generated not only an amazing source of pride and wonder, but also massive amounts of new technology that could drive our economy into a new boom. What steams me as much as this is the fact that the space program is now being used as a political weapon by Bush with no real commitment to follow through. this could very well wind up hurting our space program far more than helping it.

Over the coming months, expect to see more along these lines as Bush & Co. prepare to put on the Greatest Show On Earth to razzle and dazzle the crowds into ignoring harsh reality and accepting a pleasing fantasy–perhaps the only ability that this administration truly has talent for.

In the past, I have discussed Bush’s poll ratings. According to a pattern that had held for the better part of three years, his numbers should have been down to at least the low-forties by now. However, in the last month or two of 2003, Bush and his administration put a great deal of effort into reshaping opinion with the whole “media filter” nonsense, and the capture of Saddam Hussein, meaningless as it was, gave Bush another boost.

New poll information, however, puts his present numbers in a very interesting light: according to the surveys, Bush’s “personal qualities” are what mainly props up his numbers. I got a hint of this on my trip home when a fellow traveler commented that Bush had real leadership skills strengthened by his Iraq experience. People seem to be convinced that this is a man of character.

People, it seems, have not been paying attention. This man has a frankly despicable character; if you read this line of entries I posted in the latter half of 2003 on Bush’s character (still unfinished–I have yet to cover his business dealings or tenure as governor of Texas, or even his presidential years yet), you will get an indication of what I am talking about.

This is a man who had a silver-spoon upbringing, all the benefits and perks one can have in life from being in a family of wealth and influence. And perhaps that is what helped bring him to be the wayward playboy he was–drunk, using drugs, using family influence to get into schools he didn’t rate and to stay out of Vietnam. He displayed hypocrisy many times (castigating a friend for avoiding service, while he chickened out himself, for example). He displayed an arrogant disregard for the law, being arrested three times and later violating SEC regs three or more times. He went AWOL while dodging the draft in the National Guard. He had his family connections (including bin Laden family members) buy him companies that he drove into the ground. He displayed unforgivably despicable behavior in public, like the time he drunkenly cussed out and threatened a newspaper editor in front of his four-year-old son. He cruelly mocked a woman on death row in Texas who had reformed herself and was a born-again Christian before ordering her killed. He knowingly and actively lied (even under oath when he was governor and answered, abortively, a call to jury duty) about his criminal record. He lied under oath again as governor of Texas, in an affidavit (concerning an investigation into one of his cronies, a Robert L. Waltrip, owner of a chain of funeral homes). He supported and was supported by slimy businessmen of the likes of Ken Lay (his biggest contributor in Texas). And as president, he has acted arrogantly towards the world, broken many treaties, lied continuously to the American people about Iraq–Lord knows I could go on for pages.

And this is a man whose personal qualities a majority of Americans admire?

Are so many people completely and utterly blind?

More likely, they have simply put too much trust in the conservative news media, which has so shamelessly been Bush’s cheerleading section, either by being cowed into it, tricked into it, or simply flat-out wanting to.

Clearly word has to be let out so that more people are aware of the truth about this man. There is so much that is solid, detailed, evidenced fact here. So start the chain. Tell your friends. Point them to this post and the links, to the “Bush and Character” section. Feel free to take any and all of that information and reprint it if you have your own blog. Print it out and pass it around. But start getting the word out. People have to know.

The American space program has always been a popular endeavor with the people of this country. Aside from the excitement, pride and sense of wonder, Americans have long heard of the economic and scientific benefits of the program. When people see and hear about missions like the current Spirit rover on Mars, there is a surge of public interest.

So you can count on George W. Bush to suck all the interest out of it. Bush, who somehow convinced the American people that his tax cuts really benefitted the middle class, who made 70% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11–this same master huckster has managed to make Americans apathetic about a mission to the Moon and to Mars. But then, with Bush, one can easily imagine that he has wealthy aerospace contractors lined up somewhere to take some lucrative government contracts, or some large research firms that contributed big-time to his campaign waiting to be awarded big research projects from which they can keep the patents and capitalize on them. Or, more likely, people feel that Bush simply sees an opportunity to make a popular speech about a lofty goal during an election year, a goal that (like AIDS help in Africa) will turn out to be poorly funded and will be dropped after its political usefulness has expired. Or maybe Bush just botched this sales job, having floated too many trial balloons, letting the air out of the enterprise before an official announcement could be made.

We need to get back into space. We need to go to Mars. A true revival in the space program could indeed help us achieve new technological advances that could spur industry growth, and American contractors could create substantial, well-paying jobs to get the mission off the ground. And we do need a common, peaceful, adventurous goal to unite us and inspire us.

But Bush is not the man to get it done, or to make people believe that it is true. He can make us believe from fear or greed–he is masterful at manipulating those feelings within us. But the man cannot inspire true wonder or the spirit of adventure. As much as I hope for the program to come alive, even if Bush is the one to get credit for it, I simply have no confidence that he can actually do something so worthwhile in earnest. Not to mention the fact that Bush has already broken the piggy bank and spent our grandkids’ last dollar on his tax cuts for rich people and on his botched war in Iraq.

The space program deserves better. Just don’t let Bush reflect badly upon it.

When Ambassador Wilson dared go public and expose Bush for having lied to the American people, the Bush White House made it crystal clear that this kind of truthtelling would be met with harsh retribution; they accomplished this by deliberately blowing his wife’s cover as a CIA agent, endangering her life and the lives of those she had recruited or was managing. When this blatant, treasonous felony was committed, the White House did nothing, until more than two months later when the “liberal” media finally picked it up. And even then, the investigation was taken over by the most biased and compromised person possible, John Ashcroft, who could hardly have had more personal interest in investigating Karl Rove, who got Ashcroft his job. It took a few more months before they finally, at long last, took on the barest appearance of propriety and assigned a nominally independent investigator (Republican, of course) to the Plame affair–and it still appears today that it is all being whitewashed and buried.

So it should be no surprise that the Bush White House took every immediate measure to use an official investigation to smite former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill for having the similar temerity to speak the truth about his former boss–and in the process, naturally, making him look bad. Apparently, one of the 19,000 documents released with the new book, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O’Neill, had a “secret” stamp on it. Forget the fact that the document in question was not secret (it was a cover document for the actual secret docs, which were not revealed), and don’t mind the fact that all documents released by O’Neill were cleared by Bush’s own people. A paper stamped “secret” was released by this guy! There’s a blatantly false pretense for investigating the guy! Did Bush wait two months to investigate O’Neill? Hell, no, it took him just one day. Then there is the added benefit of (a) making O’Neill look somehow dishonest, and (b) controlling the news cycle and taking people’s attention away from Bush’s incompetence and corruption.

Two to four months to get a whitewashed investigation going into a serious, major felony (of Karl Rove and other Bush staff), but one day to investigate a fully bogus and trumped up charge.

The message is clear: tell the unflattering truth about this president, and we destroy you, even if we have to break the law and abuse the system to do so.

Well, all things come and pass, and today it was time for poor little Mocha. Almost two years old, about par for your average hamster, Mocha stuffed one too many sunflower seeds into her cheek pouch. She got an infection which damaged her left eye, and despite antibiotics, special feed and the best efforts of the vet, she just couldn’t take on the infection. She slowed down, and seemed to have stopped eating. I’ve been dropper-feeding her and she would take a little bit of it, but as the day went on she had less and less energy, until the poor thing was simply breathing and little else. Warm and cuddled up in her bedding, she passed away late tonight.

Paul O’Neill has come out and raised the tent flap on the Bush administration a little, showing everyone some of the inside workings that a lot of us assumed was true but had not had direct confirmation. O’Neill, the Bush administration’s Treasury Secretary for the first two years, is featured in a book (with 19,000 pages of documentation on a CD-ROM) about his time in the Bush realm, entitled The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O’Neill, written by Pulitzer-winner Ron Suskind.

Time Magazine has an article out on the book, and just that is fairly revealing:

O’Neill had been preaching that a fiscal crisis was looming and more tax cuts would exacerbate it. But others in the White House saw a chance to capitalize on the historic Republican congressional gains in the 2002 elections. Surely, Cheney would not be so smug. He would hear O’Neill out. In an economic meeting in the Vice President’s office, O’Neill started pitching, describing how the numbers showed that growing budget deficits threatened the economy. Cheney cut him off. “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said. O’Neill was too dumbfounded to respond. Cheney continued: “We won the midterms. This is our due.”

Cheney is described as “an unstoppable force, unbowed by inconvenient facts as he drives Administration policy toward his goals,” pretty much the image held of Cheney as the real power in the White House, though controlling it from his “undisclosed” hideout.

Bush is described as opaque, with even his top officials not knowing what he was thinking, having to guess at what policy initiatives he favored, even having to float ideas to the media in order to get Bush to indicate how he felt–usually resulting in embarrassing contradictions. O’Neill describes Bush as being “like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people.”

He also notes that there never was evidence of WMD, having been a member of the National Security Council during his tenure; rather, Hussein and Iraq were targets of the Bush people from very early on. The conclusion we can draw is that all the WMD talk (again, as many of us have suspected) and 9/11 were simply pretexts engineered for the benefit of a public otherwise unwilling to go to war.

Looks to be a very interesting read, and may have some implications in the upcoming election year.