Author’s Note: this blog post is more in the vein of how the media has been complicit in lying to us. This brought back some memories, including that I still got a newspaper delivered back then–something I long ago dropped, since there’s more than enough coverage on the web.

Some other blog posts from May 2003 that you may want to check out:

• “How Nice” (When I discovered a very good example of Christians incapable of seeing non-Christians as moral)
• “Bush’s Record” (Most of his misdeeds before taking office)
• “Yakitori You Don’t Want to Miss” (Great yakitori at Akiyoshi Yakitoriya)
• “And Here Comes the Payoff” (Media Corporations being rewarded by the Bush administration)

“Has Anybody Noticed?” Posted May 14, 2003

Today in the Yomiuri there were some Washington Post articles, as there are every week. As I read some of these gems from what is supposed to be the bastion of “the liberal media,” I wondered how anyone could believe in such an outrageous mischaracterization. The media have become shills for the government, driven by the success of conservative networks, good ratings for being flag-waving patriots, and the knowledge that conservatives back telecommunications laws and policies that benefit media conglomerates.

This morning’s examples include three articles. One was a “reproach” against Bush’s honesty, but it’s kind of hard to see it. While calling Clinton and Gore outright “liars,” the story goes soft on Bush, saying he is “flexible on leveling with the public,” and saying things that are “not exactly true,” but “necessary.” Ooooh, that’s biting. Bush’s record on lying makes Clinton and Gore look like George Washington with the Cherry Tree.

The other two articles refer to the so far not-found WMD (weapons of mass destruction) in Iraq. But instead of asking where they are and why did you lie to us, the articles basically speak of ways we might be able to uncover them better, and if we don’t, it doesn’t matter anyway. I got a very different perspective in Europe on my Spain trip, when I picked up a copy of Britain’s “The Independent,”, which had the banner headline, “So where are they, Mr. Blair? Not one illegal warhead. Not one drum of chemicals. Not one incriminating document. Not one shred of evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction in more than a month of war and occupation.”

A slight difference, wouldn’t you say? Something most Americans are unaware of or are unwilling to accept is that we are being systematically lied to and misled. No, this is not paranoid conspiracy-buff territory. The evidence is pretty glaring, especially if you have an international viewpoint.

Take, for instance, the April 9th toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad’s al-Fardos Square. First we were told that it was Iraqi’s but when the pictures came in showing marines draping the U.S. flag over the statue’s head and using a winch to pull it down, the story got revised. Still, news reports told us that huge throngs of Iraqis watched, cheered and danced when the statue was pulled down, and we saw tight shots (left) of the crowds that made it look true. ABC News reported that “hundreds of Iraqis then cheered and waved an Iraqi flag as a Marine tank tow truck pulled the statue to the ground. A frenzied mob roared and jumped and danced on the fallen statue.”

This was repeated again and again over the major networks, seen everywhere by everyone. Pretty convincing stuff. Except that later on, if you were diligent enough to leave the networks and get on the Internet, you would have found out a few galling facts. First of all, the tight shots were framed so as to hide the fact that only a hundred or so people–many of whom were marines and reporters–populated the large square; the photograph below shows the whole square, and as you can see, it looks rather deserted in reality.

Next, we learned more about the staging of the event. The flag marines draped over the statue’s head turns out to have been the same flag that flew at the Pentagon on 9-11. Flags like that one don’t just happen to pop up at places like that. And as it turns out, neither do “frenzied mobs” of Iraqis. One photo shown widely in the press of a jubilant Iraqi turned out to be none other that Ahmed Chalabi, a U.S. military chosen puppet leader. Other Iraqis who “spontaneously” appeared at the scene have been photographed with Chalabi in the past.

Remember how we saw frenzied mobs of Floridians in the 2000 election aftermath who succeeded in shutting down the recounting process in some parts? Remember that we later found out that they were not only not Floridians, but they were paid staff of Washington D.C. Republicans sent down to disrupt legal state processes? the Iraq statue story is the same kind of thing. And again, the fake image gets broadcast everywhere, while the truth, learned later, is barely heard anywhere. But with the Baghdad incident, the press was without doubt a willing accomplice to the fraud.

But that’s not an isolated incident. Here’s another recent example. Last March, Bush held a sham “press conference” that was effectively scripted. Reporters were not allowed to filter in, but rather were escorted in one by one, to demonstrate White House control. Reporters unwilling to throw softballs were relegated to the back rows, and even Helen Thomas, for the first time in more than 30 years, was not seated front row and was not allowed to ask any questions. White House Communication director Dan Bartlett announced publicly that he knew what the questions were going to be and that only those reporters would be called upon; Bush had a list of 17 reporters whom he knew would ask questions he wanted to answer, and stuck tightly to the list when calling on reporters. No one was allowed to stray from approved topics, and no follow-up questions were permitted; when one reported tried to, Bush shut him up, blurting out, “This is a scripted–” and then stopped short, after which the press corps, mostly in the back of the room, laughed (Listen for yourself).

And the press sucking up to Bush not just because of the war–otherwise how come the press was so light on Bush even before the war? Especially during the election process. Remember how we were scandalized when we read incessant coverage of Clinton saying he “didn’t inhale”? The endless stories on Whitewater which turned out to be nothing? The incredible number of stories about Monica? Small-time stuff compared to Bush.

Get this: Bush is a convicted drunk driver, has a reputation for being a long-time coke addict which he accentuated by claiming he’s been drug-free since 1974, just after, coincidentally, he went AWOL from the National Guard where his dad got him into a celebrity unit and was trained on a jet that had been taken out of service and would never be used in Vietnam. He has three felony SEC violations that were never prosecuted (his father was president at the time), and “borrowed” $180,000 from one of his companies, which later forgave about $340,000 in debts to “unnamed executives.” And to top it off, as Governor of Texas, he lied under oath–not about an affair, but about an investigation into one of Bush’s cronies, a Robert L. Waltrip, owner of a chain of funeral homes. Bush himself was named as a defendant, and he signed the affidavit to avoid being involved in the trial–and he lied. There are at least half a dozen other skeletons in his closet that are less blatant, each one more around the level of Whitewater.

If Clinton had even a fraction of this kind of dirt, the media would have gone into frenzy mode. He was impeached in the Senate and pilloried in the press for lying under oath about an affair, and yet Bush has not been touched by the media despite the fact that it has been proven that he lied under oath in a serious case of political and financial corruption.

This does not happen with an impartial press.

Over the past decade, Republicans have shown that they do stick tight to one principle above all others: do anything and everything to grab more power. To win an election, get it any which way, from smears to pandering; disenfranchise voters from the other party, trick them into not voting, try to get them disqualified by any means. In blue states, demand justice by dividing the districts and electoral votes “objectively” and “fairly,” but by all means claim that this is not needed in red states.

If you lose an election, do everything you can to tie it up or reclaim it. In Minnesota, Coleman knows he’s lost, but is tying up the seat in court for as long as he can–if a Republican can’t have the seat, then simply remove his people’s right to have a Senator for as long as possible. Recalls, recounts, whatever works. If you win by even a single vote, claim victory and say that a recount is not needed and is somehow robbing the people; if you lose by a small margin, call for recounts and court battles till the cows come home.

By this principle, we now witness Republicans, roundly slapped back by angry voters stung by GOP mismanagement, desperate to get seats back. Recognizing that this is hard to do by honest means, Republicans are looking eagerly forward to an alternate means: gerrymandering. Already they see the 2010 census as favoring them, with blue states losing population and red states gaining–and when the time comes for redistricting after the census, the GOP wants to be in place for controlling how that works. With the recent Supreme Court ruling that even non-census gerrymandering is A-OK, they are ready to be as shameless as they can be is shaping those districts.

That, at least, is how Republicans are approaching this. I just watched John McCain making a statement about the stimulus bill.

Now, first consider the fact that for the six years they had more or less complete control, Republicans ran up literally trillions of dollars in debt, with at the very least tens of billions of that literally disappearing, unaccounted for. Consider that one of the last acts of the Republican administration was to fork over $700 billion, a figure they literally pulled out of their asses, with no accounting nor accountability, no strings attached, to wasteful, untrustworthy money merchants.

Here comes a Democratic Congress and president with a plan rich with middle-class tax cuts and infrastructure building, not to mention strict accountability, a plan far superior by any measure to the “let’s fork money into the pockets of rich people” plans the Republicans steamrolled through Congress several times during their tenure as a supposed means of “stimulating” economic growth.

Keep in mind that Republicans, during their time in full power, had no problems shoving their plans through Congress with coercive tactics, abused their power to keep votes open until they could twist arms, and screamed bloody murder when Democrats even hinted at a filibuster. Forget that Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate Republicans, adding their proposals to his plan, inviting them in and consulting them at every turn, showing them every ounce of respect that Bush and the Republicans utterly refused to show to Democrats when the roles were reversed. Obama went to the Capitol, and spent two hours in closed session with Republicans, answering their questions in person. Can you even imagine Bush having done that? Republicans’ heads would have exploded at the very idea of such a gesture.

So here we have Republicans calling the current plan “wasteful,” and objecting otherwise purely because, according to McCain:

Well, the plan was written by the majority in — a Democrat majority in the House, primarily. And so, yeah, I think there has to be major rewrites if we want to stimulate the economy.

Now, consider this: McCain is claiming here that he’s trying to be bipartisan. And yet, one of his major beefs here is not what is in the bill, but rather who wrote the bill. As if there was nothing wrong with Republicans writing every bill when they had power and cramming it down the Democrats’ throats, but now the Democrats, how dare they, now that they’re in power, even think about writing legislation themselves! What bastards!

But here’s the real telling point in McCain’s speech: note his use of the term, “Democrat majority.” That’s a term which he knows full well is a slick, sly political epithet. And yet, here he is, claiming to be the voice of bipartisanship, and he can’t even use the non-insulting term to describe the other party.

That one expression speaks volumes: this is not about responsible legislation, this is not about wasteful spending, and this is certainly not about Republicans trying to be bipartisan. This is about one thing, and one thing only: the beginning of a 4- to 8-year campaign on the part of Republicans to damn every advance to help the American people in the name of playing a smear game that will lead to Republicans reclaiming power.

Pure and simple.

Author’s Note: this was posted on the first day of the ‘official’ blog, the same day I also first wrote about eyelid twitching, which has since attracted unbelievable attention. As for the post below, many of the points could have been made recently without much change, and a few points have been recurring themes in this blog.

Some other blog posts from April 2003 that you may want to check out:

• Days one, two, and three of my 2003 trip to Spain (day four was covered in May; I never got around to blogging about days 5 to 13, alas)
• “Enough With the French Already” (My reaction to the Bush-inspired anti-French crusade. You remember “freedom fries,” right?)
• “A New handheld” (Check out the cool Sony PDA I bought and never used again!)
• “It’s not hard to tell…” (Elections and loudspeaker trucks in Japan)

“The State of the Disunion,” Posted April 6, 2003

This is something I’ll be writing on from time to time–not just the current sorry state of the press but of many areas of American life and culture that I find important, as do a lot of people obviously. But there just are not enough people talking about these things, or making the points that need to be made. One thesis that covers most of these topics is that the United States of America is no longer the country I was always told it was supposed to be, is no longer the country we have always wanted it to be. There have always been times where things have slipped or where imperfections had not yet been rectified, but we have been backsliding big-time recently.

One of the ways we are doing so is with the press. At one time, the label of “Liberal Media” was appropriate to a certain degree, in that many reporters have personal liberal leanings, and those leanings would sometimes color their reporting. But what effect this had on the news media collectively was mild enough that one had to run statistical analyses for it to show up in any objective way whatsoever–it was never something that made much of a difference.

Conservatives made it an issue, however, not because it was really a problem for them or that they hated to see inequality (har), but because it profited them politically. If, after all, everyone considered the media to be left-leaning, then the general impression would be that the truth lay to the right of what reports and opinions were read by Americans, and that would profit conservatives. Many conservatives felt it was true in any case because anything to their left seemed liberal, no matter how right of center it might be.

But the idea of a liberal media today is laughable. Most editors and media owners are right-wing, and since the conservative revolution in the early 90’s showed that right-wing shows got good ratings, the media has taken a conservative turn which far exceeds the extent of what liberal biases used to exist. And since 9-11, conservatives have turned patriotism into a base political weapon: we are fighting a war (against Afghanistan, Iraq, terrorism, you name it), the war is constantly on, the President is our leader in this time of crisis, what he says goes–and anyone who disagrees or criticizes him is unpatriotic and unAmerican.

Most people accept this through tradition and fear. Tradition because we have in the past supported presidents in time of war. Fear because we are worried about 9-11 and terrorism and we know that people around the world hate us, and we have to do something about it. And we depend on the president for that.

But the man we have in office today doesn’t even deserve to be there. His character (Republicans no longer talk about that, do they) is shoddy–drunk driver, corrupt businessman, drug abuser, hid in the National Guard in Vietnam and then went AWOL when they started drug testing, and much more… how could we accept a man with such a history? In part because too many Americans vote the party line no matter who is there, and partly because we don’t want to believe that such a man could be in high office, so we are in denial. There was clearly fraud in Florida–non-felon Democrats, mostly African-Americans, forbidden to vote because of a rigged “felon” blacklist created by the Republican Attorney General of Florida, absentee ballot tampering by Republicans of thousands of ballots in two counties (solidly proven to have ocurred, confessed to by the election officials who let it happen), these just being a few examples. All illegal, each one by themselves turning enough votes to Bush to win him the election, and then the tsunami wave of political and illicit judicial action to deny a recount. Gore won by more than a half million votes. Blatantly illegal vote tampering in Florida turned thousands of votes to Bush in that state, who won the vital electoral votes for the state by just over 500 votes. But we tolerated it because too many believed the faked outrage in Florida, but more because we value stability higher than out-and-out justice.

And now this leader is thought of as a hero–not because he did anything heroic, but because in our time of crisis we needed a great leader, so we fabricated one out of whole cloth.

And the press? Not just conservative-leaning, but now blinded, and blinded by themselves. Shilling for the government is so blatant that the news agencies hardly cover it up any more. Of course, they do not focus attention on it, and so many do not hear of it and do not think of it. But it’s clearly there if you look.

Take the president’s last “news conference,” for example. That was a news conference? No, it wasn’t–it was a sham. A scripted mockery of a press conference. Here are a few things that were wrong:

1. The first two questions were pre-approved and the answers carefully scripted (considered commonplace now)

2. Reporters who were known to ask tough questions were not allowed to participate, or were seated in back and not called upon

3. Helen Thomas, Dean (or “doyenne”) of the press corps, for the first time in several decades, was relegated to the third row and was not allowed to ask Bush a question (she’s known to ask tough questions and would not play ball in the charade)

4. Bush had a list of 17 reporters whom he knew would toss softballs, and asked only them for questions, sticking tightly to the list

5. No follow-ups were permitted; when one reported tried to, Bush shut him up, blurting out, “This is a scripted–” and then stopped short, after which the press corps, mostly in the back of the room, laughed (search this page for the word “scripted”; and here is a link to a site with an audio recording of it)

6. No reporters were allowed to stray off the White House’s approved topics, even though a story about U.S. spying on U.N. Security Council Members had just broken, not to mention a lot of other important stories; questions were not allowed to be overly critical

7. White House Communication director Dan Bartlett announced publicly that he knew what the questions were going to be and that only those reporters would be called upon

8. Many other small details, including items such as how reporters were closely escorted into the press room in pairs, added to the controlled atmosphere of the news conference.

Just as disturbing, the president’s slip about the conference being “scripted” was audible and clear. There is no mistaking what he said if you listen to it. And yet, The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Fox News, and Wall Street Journal all printed transcripts with the word “scripted” altered to “unscripted”–some transcripts rewriting more than just that one word, editing and adding at different points.

And this is just one example. How about Fox News? I know some people whom I otherwise consider intelligent who believe that Fox is not conservative. Um, yeah. A week ago, there was a legal protest against the war, and Fox News, supposedly an “unbiased” news source, in their streaming banner, displayed the following “news items”:

“War protester auditions here today … thanks for coming!”

“Who won your right to show up here today? Protesters or soldiers?”

“How do you keep a war protester in suspense? Ignore them.”

“Attention protesters: the Michael Moore Fan Club meets Thursday at a phone booth at Sixth Avenue and 50th Street”

And to wrap up what could be a lot more ranting if I didn’t stop myself, was something that I swear to God I heard on CNN a few days ago. CNN was showing a press conference being held by the Iraqi government, their usual propaganda line, and in mid-conference, CNN cuts away. Says the CNN reporter: “We’re cutting away because we don’t think that the government wants to see that.”

I swear to God, that’s what she said.

We don’t have a press anymore, we really don’t. Read the Canadian news for slightly more balanced coverage.

Someone over at Forbes decided to define liberalism with the rather inaccurate brush of current events, which led me to ask myself if I could do a better job defining liberalism. So here goes.

Liberalism is the philosophy and practice of adhering to principles of freedom, fairness, kindness, and liberty over gut instincts.

I think that says it all, pretty accurately. Bill O’Reilly kinda nailed that one when he said, “I didn’t like the line in the speech about we don’t have to compromise our values to protect ourself [sic]. I think sometimes we do.” That, to me, speaks of the heart of conservatism–the deference to base instincts such as selfishness, fear, and vengeance when it contradicts values that the same people claim to hold in such high reverence. For example, liberals actually believe in turning the other cheek; conservatives say they value that philosophy, but quickly turn to “an eye for an eye” the instant a real-world application presents itself.

Obama’s initial approval ratings as president, while not exceeding Kennedy’s, are still very high–68% approve, 12% disapprove. What surprises me? That only 12% disapprove. Why does that surprise me? Because the incessant, virulent, some might even say hysterical, right-wing line of smears and attacks against Obama have not only not abated, they seem to have intensified. As John Stewart points out comically:

With an entire television news network and dozens of popular rabid, frothing pundits continuing to excoriate Obama on a daily basis, that only 12% of the nation disapproves of Obama is startlingly positive news for the new president. It is hard to see how the a majority of the hardcore right wing 30% who still think that Bush did a good job somehow approve of Obama when their main news source is continuously shouting at them that the new president is a dangerous Socialist traitor who must fail if the nation is to survive.

Even for less than one week, you have to be pretty resilient to withstand that pounding.

The Vatican is pissed:

Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life at the Vatican, described President Barack Obama’s signing of an executive order allowing U.S. tax dollars to fund pro-abortion organizations beyond the shores of the United States saying it is “the arrogance of someone who believes they are right, in signing a decree which will open the door to abortion and thus to the destruction of human life,” as quoted by Italian daily Corriere della Sera on January 24.

The outspoken prelate, who also once denounced what he termed as “racism” on the part of instructors at the Academy, added “What is important is to know how to listen… without locking oneself into ideological visions with the arrogance of a person who, having the power, thinks they can decide on life and death.”

Let’s take a look at what we’re dealing with, shall we?

First of all, the Mexico City Policy, also called the Global Gag Rule, was about far more than “funding pro-abortion organizations,” a highly misleading characterization. It sounds like it means that the U.S. government is giving money to groups whose objective it is to perform abortions, which is not what we’re talking about. The term “pro-abortion” itself is highly biased and politicized charged, like calling pro-life “anti-choice.”

The Global Gag Rule was a set of rules that went so far as to essentially force a strict, zero-tolerance pro-life agenda on all medical organizations that received U.S. funds. You did not have to be a “pro-abortion” to have your funds cut off. You simply had to be an institution which did not fully and utterly eschew any and all references to abortion. For example, let’s say that you received U.S. aid for performing vaccinations, but one part of your hospital, completely disassociated from the funded program except for being in the same hospital, provides not abortions, but rather family planning advice which could include a reference to legal abortion as one choice. The Global Gag Rule cuts off your funding for this. Unless your entire organization toes the line with conservative pro-life politicians halfway around the world, even to the point of not even talking about abortions, you get nothing from the United States to help heal people and save their lives. Hospitals around the world were even afraid to hand out condoms or give other family planning advice for fear of getting their essential funding slashed.

In short, the gag rule shoves a far-right political agenda down the throats of doctors worldwide, holding the lives of innocent patients as hostage to these demands. That’s arrogance.

The gag rule is objectionable for many reasons, that being one of them. It effectively legislates local American political policy worldwide where it has no right to do so. It restricts free speech and the right for doctors and patients to discuss all medical options which may be legal in that country. In fact, such a policy, enacted within the United States itself would be illegal–here, we have the freedom of choice. Imagine if a foreign country tried to shove their morals down our throats. Yet, here we are telling people they have to accept a policy that would not even be allowed within our own borders.

There is no evidence that this policy even does what is intended–reducing the number of abortions. To the contrary, it does what any anti-abortion policy tends to do, which is to displace them, allowing for more unsafe procedures that only cost more life in the end.

In the end, it is not Obama, but this dick in the Vatican who is so arrogant as to think he can dictate terms of life and death. But the lifting of the gag rule? Not about life and death. It’s about freedom of speech. It’s about free access to medical consultation. But most of all, it’s about not giving Obama or the Vatican the power to decide–it’s about giving each and every person to right to decide for themselves, on an issue which is morally ambiguous at best, how they wish to believe.

You’ve probably heard a lot about the stimulus plan, but what you have probably not seen is exactly where the money is going. So many reports in the news and on blogs mention major elements of the plan, general categories and notable expenditures–but you probably have not seen a dollar-by-dollar breakdown of everything in the plan as proposed by Obama (before the Congress leaves its mark). After searching, I found a great report in the New York Times that gave the details I was looking for. Below is the NYT’s Catherine Rempel’s pie-chart breakdown. The pink “???” slice represents money that was not listed in the summary she reviewed (presumably a large number of programs not specified in the report?).

You can also follow this link to a PDF (or better, right-click to download) for the House Committee on Appropriations’ 13-page report detailing each segment of the plan and how much it will cost.

The plan includes $275 billion in tax cuts, maybe Obama’s proposed middle-class tax cuts we heard about earlier (PDF report on Obama’s proposal alongside McCain’s). Possibly not, though–I am not sure if this is the first step towards achieving that, or if it is something completely different–perhaps this is a one-year measure as opposed to a permanent change. Republicans are suddenly proposing a middle-class tax plan which, on the surface, is even bigger than Obama’s. We can confidently read this as hypocritical pre-midterm-election posturing–the GOP never forwarded this kind of a middle-class tax cut before. It is probably nothing more than congressional Republicans forwarding a plan they know will never pass but they can later claim, “we tried to pass bigger tax cuts for you, but the damn Democrats nixed it!”

In any case, the other major elements of Obama’s plan, sorted by cost, are:

• $87 billion for a temporary increase in the Medicaid matching rate;
• $79 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cutbacks to key services, including $39 billion to local school districts and public colleges and universities distributed through existing state and federal formulas, $15 billion to states as bonus grants as a reward for meeting key performance measures, and $25 billion to states for other high priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education;
• $43 billion for increased unemployment benefits and job training;
• $41 billion to local school districts through Title I ($13 billion), IDEA ($13 billion), a new School Modernization and Repair Program ($14 billion), and the Education Technology program ($1 billion);
• $39 billion to support those who lose their jobs by helping them to pay the cost of keeping their employer provided healthcare under COBRA and providing short-term options to be covered by Medicaid;
• $32 billion to transform the nation’s energy transmission, distribution, and production systems by allowing for a smarter and better grid and focusing investment in renewable technology;
• $31 billion to modernize federal and other public infrastructure with investments that lead to long term energy cost savings;
• $30 billion for highway construction;
• $20 billion to increase the food stamp benefit by over 13% in order to help defray rising food costs;
• $20 billion for health information technology to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies;
• $19 billion for clean water, flood control, and environmental restoration investments;
• $16 billion to repair public housing and make key energy efficiency retrofits;
• $15.6 billion to increase the Pell grant by $500;
• $10 billion for transit and rail to reduce traffic congestion and gas consumption;
• $10 billion for science facilities, research, and instrumentation;
• $6 billion to weatherize modest-income homes;
• $6 billion to expand broadband internet access so businesses in rural and other underserved areas can link up to the global economy;
• $6 billion for higher education modernization;
• $4.1 billion to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments;
• $4 billion for state and local law enforcement funding.

I have hardly done a thorough analysis, but a quick read of that list is pretty hard to argue with. Emphasis on middle-class tax cuts and local-level services are a direct reversal of Bush administration policies, and about time, too–I don’t see anything in there at all that is aimed at the nation’s wealthy, or at corporations specifically (the only corporate tax breaks I found are tied to job creation). You know that if this had come out of the Bush administration, it would have asked to give more upper-income and corporate tax cuts, repeal of the estate tax, and all other kinds of giveaways to the rich which would not benefit the nation one bit. Instead, here we have a plan which leaves us with a dramatically improved infrastructure: better schools, more affordable education, improved roads, bridges, & highways, energy grids, housing, Internet, law enforcement–in short, instead of coming out with richer rich people and corporate coffers overflowing even more than before, we instead come out with a better and more solid national infrastructure which will pay off many times over in the future. Hell, even without an economic crisis, this plan would be a good idea.

With the passing of this plan, Obama would live up to a large number of his campaign promises–about 500 of which are tracked on this web page. Once the plan is launched, you can track its progress and how the money is being spent on this page. Remember how the Bush administration had similar web pages to show how all the money was spent on the Iraq War and the bank bailout? Of course you don’t, because there was never any such accounting. Another sign of change–we will have transparency, a switch from the years where corrupt Republicans could shovel billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of huge corporations and then claim “national security” or “we’re just not interested in telling you” as reasons why we never got a straight accounting.

We’re hardly there yet, but we are starting on the way towards a far better, fairer, stronger, and more competitive America.

(Note: yeah, I know, I’m still blogging daily. Harder to stop than I thought!)

A year and nearly three weeks ago, I wrote a blog post detailing how Obama might be the Democratic Reagan, and specifically, I noted that he would probably pick up a Reagan technique for selling his initiatives:

From 2009, we might start hearing people talk about “Obama Republicans,” like we heard of “Reagan Democrats” in the 80’s. Obama could get these the same way Reagan did, by speaking directly to the nation in a way that would cause a popular upswell, bringing enough Republicans nervous about their electability over to Obama’s side. And he would not need too many Republicans to get the bills he wants passed, as Congress will likely still have a Democratic majority.

And that’s pretty much exactly what he’s doing now, selling his stimulus plan via his weekly address.

(For better-quality video, click on the “HQ” button in the YouTube menu at lower right after the video starts playing.)

While he is not yet suggesting Americans contact their representatives in Congress and urge them to vote for the bill, this is close to that. And there is evidence of those “Obama Republicans” in Congress, as we saw with the passing of the Lily Ledbetter Act, shot down by Republicans previously, was passed with the votes of all Democrats and a few Republicans, including Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe, considered key swing votes.

By the way, I am very impressed with the new administration’s use of hi-resolution video over broadband Internet. Have you seen the high-quality MP4 version of his weekly addresses on the White House web site? 1280 x 720 resolution (or 720p, HDTV quality), and it downloads dang fast. The whole picture is like this on a 15“ Macbook Pro screen:

With the pixel-for-pixel image quality being this:

Hell, when they get to the closer shot, you can almost count the stars on his lapel-pin flag.

Former Bush speechwriter Mark Thiessen wrote:

Less than 48 hours after taking office, Obama has begun dismantling those institutions without time for any such review. The CIA program he is effectively shutting down is the reason why America has not been attacked again after 9/11. He has removed the tool that is singularly responsible for stopping al-Qaeda from flying planes into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, Heathrow Airport, and London’s Canary Warf [sic], and blowing up apartment buildings in Chicago, among other plots. It’s not even the end of inauguration week, and Obama is already proving to be the most dangerous man ever to occupy the Oval Office. [emphasis mine]

Previously in the article, the only CIA program listed was its overseas prisons; placing them overseas effectively allowed the CIA to ignore all laws regarding the handling of prisoners. But, hey, this is what I asked for earlier: examples of specific terror attacks that Bush’s policies stopped. So let’s review all the horrific terror plots that Bush’s secret CIA prisons were “singularly” responsible for stopping:

Library Tower in Los Angeles: supposedly, Al Qaeda planned to use Asian men to use shoe bombs to breach an airplane’s cockpit door and then fly the plane into the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles. However, officials later characterized this as a plot that “had not gone much past the conceptual stage.” Another official reported, “There was no definitive plot. It never materialized or got past the thought stage.” In short, when you get past all the chest-puffing on the part of Bush, it was nothing more than terrorist wanna-bes cooking up schemes that never amounted to anything, but Bush, wanting to seem like he was being effective, grabbed the paper-napkin “plot” and claimed it was some kind of imminent threat thwarted by his own heroic efforts.

Heathrow Airport: The infamous water-bottle plot, which is responsible for your having to surrender water bottles, toothpaste, shampoo, and other exotic explosive devices before boarding airplanes. The advanced stages of the plot? “None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not have passports. It could be pretty difficult to convince a jury that these individuals were about to go through with suicide bombings, whatever they bragged about on the net. What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for more than a year….” At best, this was another bunch of terrorist wanna-bes dreaming up an improbable plan, one which explosives experts doubt would ever have worked. And before real connections could actually be made with terror groups so that authorities could maybe flush out people who actually posed some potential threat, the Bush administration pressured the Brits to arrest these guys so that Bush could flaunt yet another “foiled” terror plot. But again, we have another paper-napkin plot that never advanced beyond the “aspirational” phase.

London’s Canary Wharf: It’s kind of hard to track this one down, but again seems to be a would-be plot. Despite claims of a “real” threat, the claims of wanting to fly airplanes into skyscrapers at Canary Wharf were soon called out as “bogus.” This one was probably just another paper-napkin idea listed in the sketchbook of yet another terrorist wanna-be, trotted out by officials desperate to show how “effective” they were at protecting the people.

Blowing up apartment buildings in Chicago: Here, Thiessen appears to be referring to the “plot” to detonate hand grenades in a Chicago shopping mall around Christmastime. In fact, it was some young punk in Illinois whom an FBI agent goaded into trying to trade stereo speakers for hand grenades. Or maybe Thiessen was thinking of the infamous Miami “plot” to attack Sears Tower in Chicago, hatched by seven doofuses who needed the help of their FBI mole to buy boots. I don’t know, there are so many “terror plots” by disaffected losers who never had a snowball’s chance in hell of doing anything, it’s hard to sort them all out. As with most of the above terror “plots,” it’s difficult to track down exactly how these apocalyptic threats were somehow thwarted by secret prisons.

In short, the horrific terror plots that our heroic former president saved us all from amount to pretty much squat–just a collection of pathetic someday-maybe crackpot schemes that never would have worked.

But hey, if all you’ve got is bupkis, then I guess you gotta make the most of it, eh?

But the real question is: how can you argue with Thiessen’s central thesis that Obama is “the most dangerous man ever to occupy the Oval Office” because he shut down Bush’s secret CIA prison network? The answer: you don’t have to argue with it, as it’s complete BS.

It’s still a trojan, and not a virus or worm, but this one seems to be the first serious malware for the Mac found out there in the wild. It’s been dubbed “OSX.Trojan.iServices.A” and is embedded in some pirated versions of iWork 09 downloaded from Warez and BitTorrent sites. There are reports of people having downloaded installed the trojan, and as many as 20,000 may have downloaded the file. Once installed, the trojan then sends out a signal to its creators telling them that the machine has the trojan; the hackers can then “perform various actions” and install additional malicious software. There are reports that already such software is being used to launch denial-of-service attacks on some web sites.

It is simple to find out if you have been infected. First, did you download a complete iWork installer package from BitTorrent or from a warez site? If so, did you install it? If so, then you should go to your main hard drive directory, open “System,” open “Library,” and then check inside the folder called “StartrupItems.” If there is a file in there called “iWorkServices,” then you’re infected. If not, then relax.

To remove the trojan, this procedure is recommended:

1) (open Terminal.app)
2) sudo su (enter password)
3) rm -r /System/Library/StartupItems/iWorkServices
4) rm /private/tmp/.iWorkServices
5) rm /usr/bin/iWorkServices
6) rm -r /Library/Receipts/iWorkServices.pkg
7) killall -9 iWorkServices

However, if the hackers installed other software on your computer, it may be hard to find it. Most recommended is to back up all data (though not applications or system files), then do a clean wipe-and-reinstall of the OS, re-install your software, and then copy back all your backed-up data files.

Frankly, when I saw the iWork 09 torrent files pop up immediately after the software was released, I was somewhat puzzled. Even if you’re not willing to spring for the $80 package ($71 if you’re in education; I’ve bought every new version that came out), then why were people downloading the torrent anyway? All it is is the exact same installer Apple provides as a test-drive download, but with serials attached. All that’s needed, really, are the serials which people list in the torrent’s comments, and the download from Apple is much, much faster.

This news does all come from Intego, an anti-virus software vendor, so the usual caveats of self-promotion apply. But this one has the ring of truth to it, plus there have been reports from actual users of having been infected.

Anyway, this is still significant in that up to 20,000 people could have been infected (it will be interesting to see how many really were hit by it), making this the first widespread piece of malware for the Mac which can actually have harmful effects on your computer. That said, it is a trojan, so it will not spread like a virus or worm. But it’s also still a major threat, even if to a limited community of Mac users, and likely few if any people from this time forward. But it could also pop up elsewhere–it doesn’t have to be iWork 09, it could probably be applied to any pirated software with an installer that accesses the System.

Well, that’s it folks. An unbroken, 2000-day streak of blogging, spanning more than five years.

I started this madness on a lesser scale back on August 5th, 2002, just when I secured the domain name. Like many, I started my blog as an outlet for my opinions in the wake of 9/11. At first, however, it was a blog in name only–I did not post regularly (just nine times in one month, from 8/5/02 to 9/1/02), and I stopped blogging because it was so much work–I had not yet discovered blog software, and so I wrote the entire code for the site by hand. (The original logo I made for the site at the time adorns the top of this post.)

Nevertheless, I maintained the domain name and in April 2003, figured out how to install Movable Type. I blogged for a bit, then broke off for my trip to Spain, and then came back, blogging several times a week, but not without breaks.

But then, on August 2, 2003, I started blogging daily. It was a conscious decision–I wanted to prove to myself that I could maintain a regular task. At that time, I had trouble when confronted with even mundane stuff, such as keeping a schedule book or regular exercise. Blogging without a break became kind of my demonstration to myself that I could keep up a regular activity. Plus, it was valuable to me in other ways: it helped sharpen my writing skills (one blog post made it into a college reader), and it forced me to be more read-up and knowledgeable about current events. While such writing was also an enjoyable catharsis, I didn’t have stuff to say every day, so it was often somewhat of a challenge to find topics to write about.

After a while, the streak took on a life of its own, and I didn’t want to break it simply because it was a streak. However, when I saw the five-year mark coming, I asked myself what I thought I was doing–after all, I didn’t intend to keep this up for the rest of my life! And if not at five years, then when would I stop? It’s not an easy thing to suddenly stop for no reason.

But I couldn’t stop at the five-year mark, not with the most momentous election in my life coming up three months later. But shortly beyond that was a different landmark, the 2000th-day anniversary, and I figured that that would serve quite nicely. It was only later that I realized that this would work out to be the day after Obama’s inauguration.

Not that I’m quitting blogging, or that the site is shutting down–far from it. I will continue to blog, just not every day–from now on, it’ll only be when I feel like it. That means that probably a lot of my traffic will switch to RSS, as it is of more use when you don’t know when new posts will appear.

Initially, I might not even stop posting daily, though I will stop writing daily. That is, I’m starting a new feature: Recycled BlogD (“Classic BlogD” sounds too pompous and clichéd), in which I’ll find what I think are still-readable posts from the past which are of some significance or interest, along with links to other posts of interest from the same period which didn’t make the “Recycled” cut. That ought to keep material appearing on a regular basis while not requiring me to blog every day. Considering that there are almost 70 months of posts (over 3,500 entries in all), even choosing only one out of every 30 or 40 would keep me going for a few months, even without any new blogging.

Also, I won’t quit blogging regularly, either–I’ll just be shifting focus. I’m going to try to switch to blogging for my college’s web site, combining posts on events and local news with articles on subjects of potential interest. Partly this is to increase student interest in the site, but it is also partly to increase search engine traffic. As I found out on this site, incoming traffic increases a lot when there is a good deal of content being produced; the more content you have on a wider variety of topics, the more traffic comes your way. It might be a good way of bringing more attention and publicity to the school.

More on all of this later. In the meantime, thanks for your readership, and don’t erase that bookmark–this site still has lots of life left in it, new stuff as well as recycled. Enjoy!

Obama freezes higher White House salaries, forbids lobbyists’ gifts or leaving the White House to become a lobbyist, and issues a new policy saying that things become classified only for good reason: “Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution.” This after suspending the trials at Gitmo. So, on his first day, so far, we have austerity, anti-corruption, and government transparency, with rule of law being worked on.

Next on the schedule: closing Gitmo.

Sounds to me like someone is restoring honor and dignity to the White House. I guess that you gotta pay more attention to what people do than to what they say.

A lot of people are talking about how Obama’s inaugural address was lacking because it did not have memorable phrases. Well, I think that “we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,” “a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous,” and “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist” are all pretty memorable. But that misses the point: meaningful is far more important than memorable. People came away from that speech with the impression of someone who was strong, principled, even-handed, and capable. I’d rather have all of that than a catchphrase.

A writer for TIME suggests that Bush could do what Hoover did:

Of all his predecessors, Bush may have the most to learn from Hoover, the one to whom, given the current Great Recession, he is increasingly compared. Bush may not be popular, but there aren’t crowds calling for him to be hanged or accusing him of raiding Fort Knox before fleeing the country. Hoover left office in an even deeper hole than Bush, but he had the great advantage of a strong constitution. He lived another 31 years, during which time he was among the greatest champions of children this country has ever known. He drove the growth of Boys Clubs of America, the creation of UNICEF; he led the campaign to get food to millions of civilians who faced a catastrophic famine after World War II. That’s what he was good at — fixing things like the engineer he was.

Somehow, I just don’t see Bush doing any of these things, or anything even remotely similar. He may be a whiz at clearing brush, but he’s no engineer, and he’s not good at fixing things. Nor do I believe that he has the inclination even were he able.

Apple reports another record quarter, not only beating expectations, but for the first time in its history, topping $10 billion in revenues. Computer sales are up 9%, and iPhone sales have almost doubled. Despite being seen as an almost luxury-class high-end maker of computer software and equipment in harder economic times than most people can remember, despite criticism of being over-priced and aiming too high, Apple has a bigger market share and better brand recognition and appeal than before. Everyone was saying that Apple’s gear was wrong for a bad economy, but the prognosticators in the industry have been forecasting Apple’s doom every other week for more than a decade now. Apple’s doing just fine, thank you.

I know that the WSJ is right-wing and probably got even more so since it got bought by Murdoch, but this opening paragraph to an article made me gag:

House Minority Leader John Boehner recently attacked the potential “wasteful spending” and “mountains of debt” in President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan. A few days later, he warmly invited Mr. Obama to address House Republicans, saying, “We do not want partisan differences to stall achievement.”

In light of what has happened over the past eight years, do I even need to explain why this made me gag?

The filibuster mentality, interestingly, is noted quickly in the article:

Republicans can’t simply be “the party of ‘no,’ ” Mr. Boehner, of Ohio, said in an interview this month, but must offer solutions to voters’ problems. “We have to give the American people reasons to take a look at us,” he said.

However, the gag-inducing opening paragraph made clear that the usual GOP Reality Distortion Field is at full strength–as if they have not been the ones responsible for the exploding budget deficit, or that they have not been ultra-partisan for the past decade and more.

We’ve heard this conciliatory tone from them before, and it has come to nothing before; I don’t trust them to be any more non-partisan than is in their own self-interest, and usually they find that it is not at all in their interest.

I have the feeling that Republicans will simply do what they do best: lie and smear. Likely, they will simply run against themselves–as it was put in an article someone showed me a few months ago, they will run out the back door, come around to the front, and start shouting in protest against the house they built. They will now blame all of the mess that Republicans created over the past eight years on the majority; they will loudly protest against every necessary and painful hard choice that must be made to correct things. They will put forth as their “ideas” unworkable, pandering, pipe-dream “solutions” which they know will never be tested but which will sound nice to voters, from whom Obama will ask for sacrifice instead. When Obama asks for work, Republicans will say that Americans deserve to rest; when Obama asks the wealthy to pay their fair share, they will scream bloody murder about “taxing Americans to death”; when Obama tries to introduce reasonable regulations on businesses so as to avoid more of the kind of economic disasters we now face, Republicans will say he’s anti-business and is destroying the economy, and that we should trust the marketplace.

We’ve seen the “ideas” that the GOP is enamored of, and we now suffer the damage those ideas bring. Hopefully, the American people will be able to see beyond the attractive fluff they will throw up. But do not believe for a second that the lies and obstructionism are a thing of the past. At best, we’re going to see a new set of sheep’s clothing for the wolves, but it’s still the same old pack of wolves. While the pack has been decimated, they still have teeth, and they are still wolves. That, so far, has not been subject to change.

Wow. Some are actually saying that Obama should re-take the oath of office because he partially followed Robert’s flub and put “faithfully” at the end of the oath instead of near the beginning. As if it made the least bit of difference in actual meaning.

Adverbs can come before the verb or at the end of the sentence, which is why Robert’s flub came out the way it did–in a natural speech pattern.

To suggest that this somehow meant that Obama did not actually take the oath of office is, to be as generous as possible, completely ludicrous.

Welcome to the extreme wingnut’s view of reality, which we’ll be seeing inordinate amounts of over the next four to eight years.

Fascinating that the election of 2000, with the Supreme Court electing a president, with illegal election fraud perpetrated by state officials stealing an election away from the rightful winner is somehow authentic, but because an adverb is moved from one legitimate position to another, somehow that is enough to nullify a presidency.

Simply astonishing.

Update: Just to be sure, Obama re-took the oath. Overdoing it, if you ask me, but if it clears up one more messy detail that the wingnuts would use to generate disorder, maybe it’s worth the effort.

I have to say, I am impatient to see Obama at work. I do not buy into the right-wing mockery which suggests that Obama supporters expect magic ponies to fly out of certain executive orifices. But it will be nice to see some long-standing conservative monoliths tumble, like 4th-Amendment violations or constant favoritism toward corporations and the wealthy over the simple common-sense well-being of the American people. That’ll be just as good if not better than seeing Obama elected, to see him overturn the stupid, ignorant, corrupt, and illegal policies we have had to endure over the past eight years.

Bring it on, Barack.

Those words, according to the wingnuts, were “racist.” The words from the Reverend Joseph Lowery, whose benediction was far more wise and knowing than the simple platitudes of Rick Warren, Lowery, who used poetry rather than obsequiousness, is being labeled as a racist by the people who proudly sing and chant “Barack the Magic Negro.” And why? Because of the simple words: “When white will embrace what is right.”

So, it is racist to suggest that whites have not always been right?

Fascinating.