::Brakes Screech; Car Door Slams. GS Bitchslaps Hannity::

WhoawhoawhoawhoaWHOAWHOA Mr. Hannity. Don't you DARE go there.

Sean Hannity, purveyor of all things incorrect has absolutely inflamed our passions. Hannity, in trying to drum up hatred of the left, has pawned Mecha-Conservative anti-gay activist Rev. Phelps on the left. Phelps is the boneless sleazebucket who has actually taken to picketing funerals of fallen US soldiers, holding up signs like "Thank God for IEDS" and "God Hates USO Fags." Hannity, however, in his journalistic ignorance, read a story on air from an Indianapolis newspaper about Phelps' picketing, and attributed it to the "anti-war left."

Nuh-UH, Mr. Hannity. This pile of bloodsucking leech is YOUR guy. He's got more in common with your pal Rick Santorum than ANYBODY on the left. And as far as the AntiCentenarian is concerned, you can go to hell right along side him for being negligent and ignorant in your reporting. We'll save a slightly higher level of hell for you, but it's still eternal damnation.

Hannity talking about a protest of a man named Jeremy Doyle, killed in Action in Iraq:

Now, who's Jeremy Doyle? Well, he died along with three other soldiers on August the 18th, when their Humvee hit a landmine on an Iraqi highway. This guy died for all of us. His final journey was a procession down Main Street, past the courthouse square. "'If I had to lose a son, if I had to lose one, I'd -- I'd rather it be serving our country,' his father explained. The protesters were headquartered in Kansas. They traveled across the country to demonstrate against a soldier." And you know something? I guess this is just another example of how the anti-war left supports our brave troops.

'Cause isn't that what they always say? They're disrupting the funeral, tormenting a grieving family. Can you believe I even have to bring this story to the airwaves? And creating an incredible spectacle in the middle of an occasion to honor a guy who died serving his country? But of course, they're supporting our troops. They're not supporting them; they're targeting our troops!

Wow.

Fuck you, Sean Hannity.

First off: You're right about your idea of these guys not supporting the troops. But guess what? They're YOUR GUYS. The extreme socially conservative anti-gay hatred spewed by Fred Phelps is echoed in Rick Santorum, is politicised in Bush's anti-gay amendment. These are your compatriots, the extremists of the right.

But the thing is, Sean Hannity knows who Fred Phelps is. He knows what Phelps has done. And I wonder if Hannity even disapproves of it. The only thing Hannity is after in this incident is a political invective aimed at vilifying the left. He should be using his own argument to vilify his own kind. Or at least criticise his own crowd, put them in check.

But he won't. He'll pawn it off. Because that's the kind of Nematomorph hairworm Sean Hannity can be.

PS- Lesson learned: when Sean Hannity starts talking about soldiers who have fallen, take cover. Let's hope he doesn't really take up the case of Casey Sheehan, who knows what kind of ridiculousness and pseudo-compassion he'll have.

::GS gets back in car, drives off leaving Hannity caughing in wheel-kicked dust.::

[Post concept delivered via Atrios. Indignation via General Stan]

Plan B

The highly regarded women's health chief at the Food and Drug Administration resigned Wednesday in protest of her agency's refusal to allow over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception.

Assistant Commissioner Susan Wood charged that FDA's leader overruled his own scientists' determination that the morning-after pill could safely be sold without a prescription, and stunned his employees last week by instead postponing indefinitely a decision on whether to let that happen.

"There's fairly widespread concern about FDA's credibility" among agency veterans as a result, Wood told The Associated Press hours after submitting her resignation Wednesday.

The so called "morning after" pill is an intensely political drug- one that has been under constant attack and review by the right. There would be scrutiny over Wood's resignation by the right as a kind of political statement of her own. She has, however, made her intentions clear in her resignation:

"I have spent the last 15 years working to ensure that science informs good health-policy decisions," Wood, director of FDA's Office of Women's Health, wrote in an e-mail about her departure to agency colleagues. "I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended by the professional staff here, has been overruled."

It's clear that she's talking about the constant pressure by rightist moralist organizations and individuals who have exerted political pressure to end the possibility of OTC emergency contraceptives. They don't see any health benefit, or any necessity, or any reasonable need. To them, it is a farce.

To them, science and cultural need are a farce.

Since January

The number of US soldiers killed in Iraq this past month has been the most since January. Thank god that Major Military Operations ended... 2 years ago. I think we'd all be a little bit annoyed if they were still going on.

Chickenhawk Roost

Wonder where all of America's Chickenhawks turn to take inspiration for going to war but not going to it? Just look for the signs!

Maps

The NYT has a good graphic up with an "interactive map" of the damage done by Katrina and the levee ruptures.

$4.00

For four dollars what can you buy? A cheap meal at a fast food restaurant. Some deoderant, with change. A handful of cheap T-Shirts at roadside tourist souvenir shops.

And soon, a gallon of gasoline.

Americans pay so little for gas, and use it so much. What will expensive gasoline do to the country? We'll likely find out soon.

The Book of Route 66

Link sent in by Nate.

Those wacky creationists will do anything to build their cultural status as an American pre-historic supremicists. They've begun to buy all of our Dinosaurs.

Yes. Those roadside attractions, those anatomically absurd concrete dinosaurs built in the 50s and 60s as tourist traps have begun to fill a new niche market. No longer will bucket-hatted and suspendered Dad take family photos in front of the Dinosaurs, later used in Pee Wee Herman films. The Dinos are being bought up, reconditioned, and rebuilt, complete with huge sprawling creationist museums disputing the accepted history of dinosaurs and telling it how it really was:

Dinny's new owners, pointing to the Book of Genesis, contend that most dinosaurs arrived on Earth the same day as Adam and Eve, some 6,000 years ago, and later marched two by two onto Noah's Ark. The gift shop at the attraction, called the Cabazon Dinosaurs, sells toy dinosaurs whose labels warn, "Don't swallow it! The fossil record does not support evolution."

The Cabazon Dinosaurs join at least half a dozen other roadside attractions nationwide that use the giant reptiles' popularity in seeking to win converts to creationism. And more are on the way.

"We're putting evolutionists on notice: We're taking the dinosaurs back," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a Christian group building a $25-million creationist museum in Petersburg, Ky., that's already overrun with model sauropods and velociraptors.

"They're used to teach people that there's no God, and they're used to brainwash people," he said. "Evolutionists get very upset when we use dinosaurs. That's their star."

None of the AntiCentenarians are prehistoric experts of any stripe, so we'll hold off from arguing that the belief that it takes less than, oh, say, 10 million years of heat and compression to fossilize a bone naturally, or that this alone raises questions as to how dinosaurs were found on the ark. We also won't raise the other problems with this theory, such as the well-accepted understanding that the ark was travelling in great thunderstorms, which would have inevitably shorted out Noah's electrified dino containment zones, and would have released the tyrannosaurs and the velociraptors, leaving very few survivors. Those things were smarter, you see, than what we've credited them with.

The idea that Dinos and Man walked together is not new, of course. It is, at least somewhat, ridiculous.

There is a cultural analysis piece out there, somewhere, haunting the fogged-up long-term memory cells - I think I might have heard it on NPR - where a dinosaur expert also is a cultural critic discussing what we can learn about the culture in the United States at any given time by how they treated and taught Dinosaurs. In the 80's, for instance, the primary focus in the dinosaur world was the Tyrannosaur- depicted as king, as nostalgic patriarch, ruthless, brutal, domineering and bloodthirsty, and a little bit dumb. He ruled the land. This reflected a kind of 80's ultra-consumerism and hunt for power in the US- a kind of Cold War King, if you will.

In the 90's, with Michael Chrichton's subtle revisionism, the focus moved to the Velociraptor. The Tyrannosaur, now primarily dumb, a loner, more a scavenger than a killer, was a cool-kid of the past. In the age of Information, the Raptor was king- small, slight, geeky and ruthlessly smart. He was a beast who worked in teams, who solved puzzles, who was as smart as we, and killed for the joy of it.

And it seems as though the Contemporary Age of the Dinosaur, the Culture War Dinosaur, is immensely wealthy, a concret statue resurrected and restored from the 60s [oh, those bygone days] and reformed as a forgivable Christian. Our T-Rex is bloodthirsty but repentant; our velociraptor is a concrete lamb of God. The Millenial Dinosaur is reclaimed from the streets- a kind of upgraded trailor trash dino, a kind of trap: pull the tourists in, but do not let them free unless they repent their sinful prehistoric demons.

More Math Games

The US has seen a significant increase in poverty rates. Now, 12.7% of all Americans live below the poverty lines. 1.1 million more Americans joined the ranks of the impoverished, 37 million people. This is the forth consecutive year of an increase in the poverty rates in America. The number of Americans without health insurance rose to 48 million uninsured Americans.

Also, similarly, this has been a significant series of years of increase for another important aspect of Americans: the extremely wealthy. In 2004, the number of US millionaires increased by 14%:

Four years after a stock-market downturn flattened many investment portfolios, a new study finds that one of every 125 Americans is a millionaire -- reflecting a growth rate not seen since the late 1990s, at the peak of the stock-market bubble.

The 2004 World Wealth Report, compiled by brokerage firm Merrill Lynch & Co. and consultancy Capgemini Group, paints a picture of financial resurgence among the world's wealthy. The number of millionaires in the U.S. was up 14%, and the U.S. and Canada together added more new millionaires last year than Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, combined.

Most striking: the study found that in the U.S. and Canada, the number of ultra-rich -- those with investment assets of more than $30 million -- has reached 30,000, about the same number of people as live in Juneau, Alaska's capital.

Wealthy individuals in most of the world enjoyed a strong 2003, ending two years in the doldrums. In the U.S., rising stock markets and wealth-friendly tax cuts combined to create strong returns for the wealthy. Globally, wealthy investors, after shying from stocks in 2001 and 2002, re-entered the market aggressively in 2003, expanding their exposure to 35% of their holdings from 20% (see related article).

What a great success! This Administration has pushed 1 out of every 125 Americans into the stratosphere of millionairedom; [but the surprising levels of exceptionaly growth has occured amongst the Ultra-Rich!] and has strenthened and bulked up their vitally important stock portfolios! At last, the benefit of this war can be seen in clear, simple terms.

At the same time, he's succeeded in pushing 1 out of every 8 Americans into poverty. Interesting value choices and systems we've got here.

Who is succeeding in America, and who is suffering? Who benefits; who loses out?

You Do the Math

U.S.: Air strikes kill seven insurgents
Police report dozens of civilians also killed

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Air strikes have flattened insurgent safe houses used by militants linked to al Qaeda in western Iraq, the U.S. Marines told CNN Tuesday.

The air attacks near the Syrian border killed at least seven militants, the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force said.

A top operative called Abu Islam was among the dead, the force said.

Police in Baghdad reported that 56 civilians were killed in the strikes.

They said police contacts in the region told them 40 civilians died in one house and 16 in another. Two children survived, they added.

Anybody else absolutely inflamed by this? "Two children survived, they added." "56 civilians killed."

But PHEW! We LEVELED THOSE FUCKING SEVEN INSURGENTS!

Is this an effective war practice that I'm not grasping? Because to me, it seems like for every one civilian that's killed as "collateral," that's irreparable damage. That can't be undone by reality TV; that can't be bought by trifling military reparations pay. That can't be mistaken for justice.

At this point, over 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in this Invasion. This is not okay.

And thankfully the two children survived. But what is life to be for them? What is life to be for any of these millions of Iraqis directly affected by these kinds of actions? It's just an absurdity.

Hurricanes and Oil Pricing

The price of oil has lept once again after Katrina's wrath in the gulf has moved past.

The shutdown of oil platforms, refineries and pipelines along the Gulf Coast drove energy prices sharply higher Tuesday, all-but-guaranteeing a surge in pump prices in the days ahead. Oil prices jumped by more than $3 a barrel to climb above $70 a barrel.

The buying frenzy reflected uncertainty and fear about the full extent of the damage Hurricane Katrina inflicted on key energy infrastructure.

"This is an extremely serious situation," said Tom Kloza, director of the Wall, N.J.-based Oil Price Information Service.

Analysts said that even if Katrina did less harm than feared its effects would nevertheless tighten the availability of already scarce refined products, such as heating oil and gasoline.

America's introduction to Peak Oil. We must understand that literally overnight Katrina blasted oil prices to over $3.00/gallon. She affected over 25% of domestic oil production herself; at the time the peak occurs, an event such as this could exponentially increase oil costs.

Check out this AP image of a Gulf oil derrick that became unanchored and impacted a bridge in Mobile, Alabama: [A town that shares a name with an oil company...]

In Iraq: Inspiration and Reality TV

A New Hit Show has come to a television near you, if you're in Falujah. At least, if you're one of the lucky ones that has reliable electical power. And if your television set hasn't been destroyed by an errant US bomb-drop or strewn with Insurgency bullets:

Laborers were already toiling away, hammering planks, laying bricks and pouring concrete. They had begun their work in early August, when an Iraqi television network hired a contractor to rebuild the house.

"I get chills thinking about this," said Ms. Ismail, whose father had died from injuries he suffered in the explosion, as she raced across the street in a blue robe toward a cameraman filming the laborers. "Words can't express how grateful I am."

So went a recent taping in mid-August of "Materials and Labor," a homegrown Iraqi show inspired by "This Old House" and "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," but with a twist of "Apocalypse Now."

Reality TV could turn out to be the most durable Western import in Iraq. It has taken root with considerably greater ease than American-style democracy. Since spring 2004, when "Materials and Labor" made its debut, a constellation of reality shows has burst onto TV screens across Iraq.

And so the reality TV craze seeks to rebuild Iraq where American contractors have failed. It's a subtle irony that "Materials and Labor" seeks a similar sect of the socially victimized populace as "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" that have little or nothing that they can rely on. They've exhausted their official options; they've been abandoned or left out by the social system [at least, this is the pretense of "EM:HE"]. So it's an interesting irony that both nations have turned to this strange tool, reality television, to both capitalize on their audience and presumably attempt to document a sense of improvement in these circumstances.

Is this the best tool that Americans can give to the country of their invasion? Let's hope not.

UN Official Criticises US AIDS Policy in Africa

This story is not new. It has been in action since it the beginning of The Administration. Early in their quest to end poverty and end AIDS in the most devastated continent in the world, Africa, The Administration decided to pursue these tasks with vehement moralism. And so, the fact that the UN is once again criticising the US' approach to AIDS relief and assistence in Uganda should not be surprising.

The US has reduced the assistance given to Uganda until their AIDS programs teach abstinence moralism in lieu of sexual health [ie: condom usage, the single most useful deterent to AIDS].

What makes this shocking is that the US is putting at risk a country whose AIDS programs to this point has been surprisingly successful: they are among a great minority of countries in Africa to actually turn around the rates of infection. The UN official claims that the US programs have led to a pronounced shortage of condoms in Uganda.

This policy of abstinence is dangerous because it is not realistic, and therefore not supple to the demands of humanity. It won't make meaningful change. In many places, it causes greater disruption and potentially exposes individuals to greater danger: In America, recent abstinent vowing teenagers were found to participate in oral sex as often and anal sex up to 4 times more often than non-vowing peers; the less they knew about sexual health, the more danger the put themselves in.

The AIDS pandemic needs responsible health care and education, as well as poverty reduction in order to ease the weight. Reasonable, cheap sexual health programs; access to AIDS medication that will not bankrupt a country; economic assistence and accountability. Moralising does little for anybody. It may save a soul, but it doesn't save the world.

Demotions

A top Army contracting official who criticized a large, noncompetitive contract with the Halliburton Company for work in Iraq was demoted Saturday for what the Army called poor job performance.

The official, Bunnatine H. Greenhouse, has worked in military procurement for 20 years and for the past several years had been the chief overseer of contracts at the Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that has managed much of the reconstruction work in Iraq.

The demotion removes her from the elite Senior Executive Service and reassigns her to a lesser job in the corps' civil works division.

Ms. Greenhouse's lawyer, Michael Kohn, called the action an "obvious reprisal" for the strong objections she raised in 2003 to a series of corps decisions involving the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root, which has garnered more than $10 billion for work in Iraq.

Dick Cheney led Halliburton, which is based in Texas, before he became vice president.

Yes. I wish this was more shocking than it is. A 20 year Army Contracting official with outstanding service reviews, is demoted after raising serious questions over the no-bid contracting policy of The Administration with a company, Halliburton, who was previously helmed by the very top Administration officials, in the build-up to the by-choice invasion of another country by The Administration.

I'm not saying this is a conspiracy, or even convenient. In fact, the AntiCentenarian feels that it is convenient for those who doubt that this stuff goes on in The Administraiton. But we're not alone:

Known as a stickler for the rules on competition, Ms. Greenhouse initially received stellar performance ratings, Mr. Kohn said. But her reviews became negative at roughly the time she began objecting to decisions she saw as improperly favoring Kellogg Brown & Root, he said. Often she hand-wrote her concerns on the contract documents, a practice that corps leaders called unprofessional and confusing.

It's clear that Ms. Greenhouse was targeted due to "poor job performance," but remember, her job was to raise issues with the way that the Army was contracting corporations in the interest of the Army. It clearly struck her as being not in the interest of the Army to have a no-bid contract with a huge corporation that is so deeply invested in the upcoming war.

It's Important for Him to Live His Life, Too

Heh heh heh... The Coalition of the Willing To Vacation During Near-Crises:

Tony Blair was criticised by the Conservatives yesterday for taking a three-week holiday in Barbados while Britain was still recovering from the terrorist attacks and facing financial problems sparked by petrol price rises.

The shadow Commons leader, Chris Grayling, said the amount of time Mr Blair had been away from his desk was "just not good enough".

Mr Grayling said: "We've got a continuing threat from terrorism, the health service is in financial chaos, there's a possible petrol price crisis, and yet the prime minister doesn't even seem to think it important to spend time at his own desk back in Britain."

Ahh the "working Vacation." A dream of the west that most of the world can't enjoy...

Enraged by Iraq

From the BBC:

The [British] government was warned over a year ago by its most senior Foreign Office official that the Iraq war was fuelling UK Muslim extremism, it has emerged.

Foreign Office Permanent Secretary Michael Jay issued the warning in a May 2004 letter, leaked to the Observer.

The letter to Cabinet Secretary Sir Andrew Turnbull said British foreign policy was a "key driver" behind recruitment by extremist Muslim groups.

Any question to whether Iraq is a hotbed of terrorism and to recruit fanatics should be answered resoundingly "yes." But, it still is shocking how many think that Iraq's connection to terrorism was stronger before the Invasion than after the Invasion. Kids are recruited these days to fight the fight because of the current situation in Iraq.

Oil and Katrina

Thankfully, Katrina has been downgraded to a Category 3 hurricaine, hopefully stemming the hell on earth projected.

The pain and endurance of those directly affected is not for me to share- there are many places we can find hurricane blogs that will show the horrors of this thing.

But Katrina has already had a dramatic effect on the nation. The Big Easy is a hugely important shipping city for many goods and industries, and the condition of the ports may well be wildly damaged. But you need look no futher than the Gulf Coast Oil Rigs to see how incredible an indirect impact the hurricaine will have on us all:

U.S. energy companies said U.S. Gulf of Mexico crude oil output was cut by more than one-third on Saturday as Hurricane Katrina appeared poised to charge through central production areas toward New Orleans.

The Gulf of Mexico is home to roughly a quarter of U.S. domestic oil and gas output, with a capacity to produce about 1.5 million barrels per day of crude and 12.3 billion cubic feet per day of gas.

As of Saturday, 563,000 barrels daily crude output had been shut in due to the threatening storm.

Half a Million barrels. What can that do to the oil market? Well, it can spike already-elevated prices to more record-breaking levels instantly, raising prices above $70.oo/ barrel. Bush has even considered the pinch that this one hurricaine event produces in America's oil needs significant enough to tap into the strategic oil reserves. This is not insignificant.

The twist is here: The US has reached its current capacity for refining crude oil and has sustained it through several years. The oil fields across the world, including OPEC countries, continue to vow to increase production, but it's questionable whether they even can. Tapping something as insignificant as the Alaskan Wildlife Reserves, where there will be no oil benefit or relief for 20 years and the production will barely make an impact anyway, is meaningless. What we have to understand is that our oil consumption is what's absurd here, not the natural world which affects our oil.

One way we can think about Katrina is to consider what happens when Katrina II, followed by Andrew II, sweep through the Gulf; what happens when these events destroy our remaining Gulf oil rigs and coastal refineries, currently responsible for up to 20% of domestic oil production, after the Peak Oil moment occurs, in 5, 10, 15 years? What happens when the hurricane crushes our energy supply and we don't have way to avoid the crippling effect then?

Comments

Those of you scant few who comment on The AntiC will notice that you are now required to type in that annoying word-verification. This is due to the spam - to - valid comment ratio [Sp : VC], whose index was steadily increasing. No hard feelings, I'm sure.

Discuss here!

We All Hate Cindy... And Each Other

Earlier this week the AntiCentenarian posted a thought talking about the Right's difficult problem of falling in against itself and how when they come in conflict with themselves, the results are violent.

[via Atrios] Literally:

A handful also got themselves arrested, including a protester whose anti-Sheehan sign was deemed unnecessarily offensive by organizers of a large pro-Bush rally. The man carrying the sign became violent when he was asked to put it down.

Ken Robinson, of Richardson, Texas, who described himself as a Vietnam veteran, was carrying a sign at a “You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy!” rally. The sign read, “How to wreck your family in 30 days by ‘b**** in the ditch' Cindy Sheehan.”

Kristinn Taylor, an event organizer with FreeRepublic.com, heard about the sign and rushed up to Robinson.

“This is our rally and you can't do that here,” he said, only for Robinson to insist he was within his rights.

Camera crews rushed in and Taylor turned to face them.

“To all the media here, this sign is not representative of the crowd here today,” Taylor announced. Some of the crowd around Robinson came forward to shake his hand, while others chanted, “Idiot, go home.”

The two men then squared off and raised their voices.

“Just get outta here!” Robinson yelled, and aimed a kick at Taylor's midsection. Taylor called for security, and a young Woodway policeman quickly showed up.

“I have the right to freedom of speech,” Robinson said.

Robinson continued to protest loudly as police handcuffed him and led him away.

Many will want to talk about just how inappropriate and childish Robinson's sign was, or some of us might even consider discussing how the FreeRepublic.com counterrally is as much an orchestrated propaganda scene as Sheehans, although withotu the personal spark and validity that makes her vigil interesting. Some might desire to attack Sheehan more in one of the established anti-Sheehan lines; others will want to discuss how reactionary and absurd the Right has been or how arrogantly The Administration has handled this.

At the AntiCentenarian, I just want to point out how potent a weapon Cindy Sheehan is. She has reduced their thought to this kind of bickering over what's appropriate or not- she has broken past that point. What power- she has reduced them to pure hatred for hatred's sake, the kind of loathing that froths mouths senslessly, inspires stomach kicking and self-loathing. She has brought the Free Republic in conflict with their primary readers- the same reactionary ideologues that they pander to hourly.

Cindy Sheehan is a wonderfully powerful woman!

Rejection Notice

Those Sunnis have rejected the draft of the Iraqi Constitution.

Intervention is unlikely, however, and no further amendments to the draft are possible under the law, said a legal expert on the drafting committee, Hussein Addab.

"I think if this constitution passes as it is, it will worsen everything in the country," said Saleh al-Mutlaq, a Sunni negotiator.

President Bush expressed disappointment that the Sunnis did not sign on but pinned his hopes on the referendum, saying it was a chance for Iraqis to "set the foundation for a permanent Iraqi government."

But the depth of disillusionment over the charter in the Sunni establishment extended beyond the 15 negotiators, who were appointed to the constitutional committee in June under U.S. pressure.

The country's Sunni vice president, Ghazi al-Yawer, did not show up at a Sunday ceremony marking completion of the document. When President Jalal Talabani said that al-Yawer was ill, senior government officials including Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi howled with laughter.

"The constitution is left to our people to approve or reject it," said Talabani, a Kurd. "I hope that our people will accept it despite some flaws."

A top Sunni who did attend the ceremony, parliament speaker Hajim al-Hassani, said he thought the final document contained "too much religion" and too little protection of womens' rights.

The Constitution will continue its public fight on October 15th, when it will have a public referendum, albeit without endorsement by the Iraqi minority Sunnis. The reasons above certainly don't seen to be out of line with a certain moral desire- the more-secular Sunnis have everything to lose in an Islamicized official government in Iraq. And apparently, they didn't see the same Constitution that Georgy says that Condi told him about. It does appear, however, that the Kurds and Shi'ites have taken a page out of The Administration's rhetoric of Mandate:

"I think to them, they won the election ... so it is an opportunity to them to get whatever they want," al-Hassani told reporters. "If I was in their camp, I would have been more generous."

Safety in Reportage

Incredible count of the killed reporters in Iraq:

More journalists have been killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003 than during the 20 years of conflict in Vietnam, media rights group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said on Sunday.

Since U.S. forces and its allies launched their campaign in Iraq on March 20, 2003, 66 journalists and their assistants have been killed, RSF said.

The latest casualty was a Reuters Television soundman who was shot dead in Baghdad on Sunday, while a cameraman with him was wounded and then detained by U.S. soldiers.

The death toll in Iraq compares with a total of 63 journalists in Vietnam, but which was over a period of 20 years from 1955 to 1975, the Paris-based organization that campaigns to protect journalists said on its Web site.

It's hard to say exactly what this means. Early in the invasion there were a string of saddening attacks by US tanks on hotels and office buildings of reporters; and coupled with the official policy of "embedded" reporters, this suggests that when it comes to the Invasion in Iraq, the information that we're allowed to have reported to us had best fit a certain interest, otherwise the protection does not exist.

The Map

Kos over at dKos has more: Check out THE MAP.

Gen. Clark and Iraq

Armando over at dKos has an excellent breakdown of Gen. Wesley Clark's sharp and pointed criticism of the handling of the war in Iraq from Invasion through restructuring:

Unfortunately, the administration didn't see the need for a diplomatic track, and its scattershot diplomacy in the region -- threats, grandiose pronouncements and truncated communications -- has been ill-advised and counterproductive. The U.S. diplomatic failure has magnified the difficulties facing the political and military elements of strategy by contributing to the increasing infiltration of jihadists and the surprising resiliency of the insurgency.

On the political track, aiming for a legitimate, democratic Iraqi government was essential, but the United States was far too slow in mobilizing Iraqi political action. A wasted first year encouraged a rise in sectarian militias and the emergence of strong fractionating forces. Months went by without a U.S. ambassador in Iraq, and today political development among the Iraqis is hampered by the lack not only of security but also of a stable infrastructure program that can reliably deliver gas, electricity and jobs.

Meanwhile, on the military track, security on the ground remains poor at best. U.S. armed forces still haven't received resources, restructuring and guidance adequate for the magnitude of the task. Only in June, over two years into the mission of training Iraqi forces, did the president announce such "new steps" as partnering with Iraqi units, establishing "transition teams" to work with Iraqi units and training Iraqi ministries to conduct antiterrorist operations. But there is nothing new about any of this; it is the same nation-building doctrine that we used in Vietnam. Where are the thousands of trained linguists? Where are the flexible, well-resourced, military-led infrastructure development programs to win "hearts and minds?" Where are the smart operations and adequate numbers of forces -- U.S., coalition or Iraqi -- to strengthen control over the borders?

With each passing month the difficulties are compounded and the chances for a successful outcome are reduced. Urgent modification of the strategy is required before it is too late to do anything other than simply withdraw our forces.

Armando's read of Gen. Clark's thoughts:

So the onus is on Bush. If he does not do what Clark (and other Dems hopefully) say, then Bush will lose Iraq and be forced to cut and run. Excellent. This, in my opinion, should have been the lead paragraph. In fact, he should have junked the lead paragraph. The column should have been that Bush has placed us on the brink in Iraq leaving us thisclose from having no options but to withdraw.

Clark follows with some policy wonkery that Bush is never gonna do and finishes with this flourish:


"The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home."

There you go General. Bush is losing Iraq and will lose Iraq and have to "cut and run" unless he adopts our winning proposals (which he of course will never do).
Ok. I am sold. Lose the first paragraph, and we can adopt this as our Democratic manifesto on Iraq now. That would be good politics and can lead to good policy after we win the 2006 elections.

In my opinion of course.

Gen. Clark does have an additional responsibility with these thoughts, and Armando slightly dismisses them: He must communicate this as something of a Democratic talking point; these ideas need to be adopted by the Democratic leadership as an opposition doctrine on Iraq.

Are You An Extremist?: A User's Litmus

Having Trouble Determining How EXTREME You Are?

Bill O'Reilly's fabulous reporting tool, the "Talking Points Memo," has unearthed the penultimate test to determine whether or not you are an extremist. The AntiCentenarian, always interested in exposing the truth of our readers, encourages you to print this post and fill out the appropriate responses.

Number 2 pencils only; please fill in the bubble completely.


True / False
ⓐ ⓑ
---------------------------------------------

ⓐ ⓑ If you think Michael Moore reports accurately, you're an extremist.

ⓐ ⓑ If you think the documentary "Outfoxed" tells the truth about this network, you're in the extreme zone.

ⓐ ⓑ If you agree with Reverends Falwell and Robertson that gays and abortionists caused God to allow 9/11, you're an extremist.

ⓐ ⓑ If you still think Terri Schiavo (search ) is aware of her surroundings, this extreme is for you.

ⓐ ⓑ If you believe an open border is good for the USA, you have entered extreme territory.

ⓐ ⓑ If you feel foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, and convicted child sex offenders should not serve long prison terms, say hello to the extremist label.

ⓐ ⓑ If you agree that Allah is OK with slaughtering civilians, you're extreme.

ⓐ ⓑ If you admire the philosophy of the Third Reich (search), you're there.

ⓐ ⓑ And if you agree with everything President Bush has done, you're an extremist.

ⓐ ⓑ And if you think everything he's done has been wrong, put a big 'E' on your forehead as well.

ⓐ ⓑ And finally, if you applaud when Barbra Streisand (search) talks geopolitics or when a right wing talk show host urges a nuclear strike on Iran, welcome to the wonderful world of extremism.

every True is +1
Every Fals is +0

+1 and above: You're an extremist!

Thanks Bill. I really think that you took care of this one. It's not just a litmus test, it's a Foxworthy routine worth treasuring. Everybody make sure that you don't have any stray lines or that you've written outside of the bubbles- if you haven't fallowed the rules, you're an extremist!

Zarqawi Update: The Horn of Africa

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who we've nearly almost caught [really!], might escape. [Not really. We don't let terrorists escape.]

US Major General Doublas Lute says that Zarqawi may "face too much resistance in Iraq and will move on" from the war in Iraq. He cites the "safe havens" for jihadists and Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Ethiopia as likely "safe havens" for jihadists "vast ungoverned spaces" of Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Ethiopia as potential desirable retreat zones for Zarqawi, the great al Queda terrorist mastermind operating within Iraq [Note: Zarqawi was not in Iraq before the invasion; he rose to power in the cesspool of madness and wild abandon that followed the US invasion as a front for the al Queda jihad].

A plan is already in place. It is unlikely that Zarqawi reads the highly-secretive internet branches of friendly nation states' news sources, but if so, he clearly won't click this link [It is a known fact that Zarqawi despises the AntiCentenarian].

Other plans to reduce the areas of sympathizers and protectors; as well as reduce the interest of native Iraqis to resist their benevolent Liberators are known but will never be undertaken.

Reasons given that they will never be attempted: too "communistic"; too "Lovey Dovey;" too eliminationist [eliminate poverty = eliminate war on terror = eliminate need for Halliburton contract]; too "Definitive;" not "Cynical Enough."

-----
Bison Index: What We Can't See Can't Hurt Us

Devouring Their Own

In excruciatingly poor hunt years, loner polar bear males have been witnessed stalking a mother and her cubs for miles across ice floes until they are too tired to move. At this point, the male, desparate and hungry, but ruthless and compassionless, will trap the worn cubs, dominate and beat back the mother, and devour the cubs.

Male Grizzly bears have been known to cruelly and needlessly attack a family of young cubs and kill them. Not to eat the cubs, but rather to force the mother to copulate with them.

Bear males also have a tendency to go to great, epic battles. They can slaughter one another for the right to dominate and court a female, to stake out hunting or feeding territory, or for other unknown reasons.

And so too with Republicans. The brutal, bloodthirsty right, not comfortable with their evangelical calls for assassination, have begun to pull against themselves. The violence begins.

Bill Frist is the current stalk. Trent Lott might consider this internal bloodletting an instance of poetic justice, but the rest of us wildlife observers know that this is simply the nature of the beast, the rightwing wild west participates in this cycle of betraying violence every so often.

As much as we wish we could intervene, we can only bear witness lest we get too close.

Moustache'o'Ruckus

With less than a month's worth of his not-Senate-approved tenure as [temporary] US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton has begun aggressively forcing his desired changes to the UN. He seems to have taken to the equivalent method of a school-yard bully's arm-twist: He's drowning the UN in amendments and bureaucratic crap work which all seek to undermine the UN's current reform plan and reinforce the idea that the US is lord and master. After all, if the US can put the UN into such turmoil, than they can restore it to grace:

Less than a month before world leaders arrive in New York for a world summit on poverty and U.N. reform, the Bush administration has thrown the proceedings in turmoil with a call for drastic renegotiation of a draft agreement to be signed by presidents and prime ministers attending the event.

The United States has only recently introduced more than 750 amendments that would eliminate new pledges of foreign aid to impoverished nations, scrap provisions that call for action to halt climate change and urge nuclear powers to make greater progress in dismantling their nuclear arms. At the same time, the administration is urging members of the United Nations to strengthen language in the 29-page document that would underscore the importance of taking tougher action against terrorism, promoting human rights and democracy, and halting the spread of the world's deadliest weapons.

Next month's summit, an unusual meeting at the United Nations of heads of state, was called by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to reinvigorate efforts to fight poverty and to take stronger steps in the battles against terrorism and genocide. The leaders of 175 nations are expected to attend and sign the agreement, which has been under negotiation for six months.

But Annan's effort to press for changes has been hampered by investigations into fraud in the U.N. oil-for-food program and revelations of sexual misconduct by U.N. peacekeepers.

The US has other aims for the summit: originally designed as a method of restructuring the international push to meeting the G8 demands of poverty reduction and in reinvigorating the UN's place in the reduction of cultures that support and build terrorism. Instead, the US and John Bolton prefer to ram home their anti-internationalist agendas of significant UN reform:

The U.S. amendments call for striking any mention of the Millennium Development Goals, and the administration has publicly complained that the document's section on poverty is too long. Instead, the United States has sought to underscore the importance of the Monterrey Consensus, a 2002 summit in Mexico that focused on free-market reforms, and required governments to improve accountability in exchange for aid and debt relief.

The proposed U.S. amendments, contained in a confidential 36-page document obtained by The Washington Post, have been presented this week to select envoys. The U.N. General Assembly's president, Jean Ping of Gabon, is organizing a core group of 20 to 30 countries, including the United States and other major powers, to engage in an intensive final round of negotiations in an attempt to strike a deal.

"Now it is maybe time to go on some key issues where we still have controversies and negotiate on these key issues," he said Tuesday.

The proposed changes, submitted by U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton, touch on virtually every aspect of U.N. affairs and provide a detailed look at U.S. concerns about the world body's future. They underscore U.S. efforts to impose greater oversight of U.N. spending and to eliminate any reference to the International Criminal Court. The administration also opposes language that urges the five permanent members of the Security Council not to cast vetoes to block action to halt genocide, war crimes or ethnic cleansing.

Russia, Pakistan and several other developing countries have also introduced plans for changes in the power of some U.N. bodies.

Bolton and a spokesman did not respond to requests to comment Wednesday.

What are we so offended by that we must hold up the entire process of re-negotiating Annan's plan for reform, the needs of the third world in development, and the international approach to terrorism and security?

... [H]e has suggested that the entire document could be scrapped and replaced with a brief statement. He also has indicated that the document could be split up by themes, and that nations could choose the ones to support, the diplomats said.

In meetings with foreign delegates, Bolton has expressed concern about a provision of the agreement that urges wealthy countries, including the United States, to contribute 0.7 percent of their gross national product in assistance to poor countries. He has also objected to language that urges nations to observe a moratorium on nuclear testing and to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the Bush administration opposes.

All about US.

Rove and Time Magazine: Partners in Crime

Both AMERICAblog and Salon have short posts about this LA Times story that takes a deep look back through the Plame Affair and the timeline of events. Among the minor revelations is the considerably intriguing evidence that Time Magazine intentionally delayed an inevitable exposure of Rove's conversations with Time reporter Matt Cooper due to the timing of the election year. AMERICAblog asserts that this is a form of complicency on Time's part: they refused to run with vital information directly pointing at potentially very illegal activities at the highest level of The Administration because they didn't want to be percieved as participating in the political warfare of an election year.

This is a point that, as E&P notes, Vanity Fair makes in its current issue. The mainstream media was complicit in hiding this story for two years from the American people. And we now find out that TIME intentionally influenced a US election as a result.

It's one thing for TIME to do its job and ignore the effects of its reporting and overall work on US elections, it's quite another for TIME to make decisions BASED ON whether they'll influence US elections. That's about as journalistically unethical as it comes, and makes TIME no better than FOX News.

The vital point in the complacency of the New Media Corporations with the political process is this: That they are absolutely more concerned with the perception of their being involved in politics than they are about reporting on politics. The problem is that they are involved in politics. They don't care about the reportage of it, but rather the way that the shadow will be cast upon them, which will result in a series of political losses and disconnections from the Washington inside which will pull them out of the running from the deep political dish that they get. It will make them more in line with Glamour and People than with Newsweek. I should point out that none of the above mentioned rags carry much political clout- they all have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. In fact, Time already is on the same level as Glamour and People: they all require the most pedestrian complacency with the culture in order to maintain their high, corporate profits.

The fact that they became cowards when they were sitting on some of the hottest political scandals around based on their fear of their perception of political status simply proves this fact: their credibility lies solely with their being able to have a modicrum of access; not with any valid reportage.

Sheehan's Return

While The Administration is taking breaks from their vacation to re-propagandize the nation during the worst Presidential approval ratings storm ever, Cindy Sheehan has returned to Crawford.

Even when she was in California taking care of her mother, Cindy Sheehan said part of her remained at the protest campsite she had set up outside President Bush's ranch.

On Wednesday, Sheehan returned to "Camp Casey," named after her 24-year-old son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed last year in Iraq.

"This is where I belong, until Aug. 31, like I told the president," Sheehan said at the Waco airport before driving about 20 miles to the Crawford site.

When Sheehan arrived at the campsite, she saw a large banner depicting her son's face. She sobbed and said she felt ill. Supporters brought her water and cold towels, and she recovered about 20 minutes later.

Sheehan began her vigil Aug. 6 on the road leading to Bush's ranch, vowing to stay through his monthlong vacation unless he met with her. She left last week to visit her 74-year-old mother in Los Angeles after the woman suffered a stroke. Sheehan said her mother has started physical therapy for paralysis on her right side.

Sheehan said she realizes that Bush has no intentions of meeting with the protesters, but that her vigil has accomplished other things.

"I absolutely think it's worthwhile because we've galvanized the peace movement," she said. "We've started people talking about the war again."

Sheehan's return marks a proud moment in her protest. Those on the right that thought she was cowering, when in fact she was dealing with personal pain, are fools bent on personal destruction. Sheehan, indeed, is a threat to them: a personal symbol of their support for a flawed and dangerous war, and she has inspired many others to take up that argument once again.

The threat is in her timing. She has found a way to invigorate the left's perception of this debate, to infuse it with personal meaning.

Yet we are still waiting for the political figures, those Democrats, to take a stand... Not for political gain off of Sheehan's name, but out of disdain for this callous, manipulation-based war.

9 States

9 Northeastern states have decided to develop their own standards for capping and reducing greenhouse gasses. Bush, fresh off of his paltry attempts to pacify the enviornmental needs when it comes to automobile milage, and forging ridiculous anti-Kyoto concepts, seems to be upholding his position as one of the worst Administrations for environmental issues. The 9 states directly are contradicting Bush's Kyoto policies in particular:

The move comes as California, Washington and Oregon are considering a similar pact -- a dynamic environmentalists say could pressure the federal government to adopt a national law. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, the greenhouse gas reduction plan adopted by more than 150 countries.

Under the plan being worked on, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont would cap carbon dioxide emissions at 150 million tons a year -- roughly equal to the average emissions in the highest three years between 2000 and 2004.

Starting in 2015, the cap would be lowered, and emissions would be cut by 10 percent in 2020.

Bush, uber-republican, seems to be doing more for States' Rights than he had ever imagined. States are suing against his No Child Left Behind policies, states are forced to develop their own environmental policies... Unintenional emboldening of the State.

My Liberator

Will Bush meet his friend, Dr. Raja Khuzai, again a forth time? Or has her change of heart pushed her against the interests of The Administration? Bush has a habit of meeting women happily when they are in a situation of his mercy and ignoring them when they are find themselves on the opposite end of his admiration.

Bush Solves Oil Crisis

Yesterday, The Administration released their much-anticipated oil overhaul for the nation's automobile industry, with drastic improvements in the quality of life of all Americans due to the beautiful reductions of oil consumption now required:

The administration said its plan would increase the average mileage of light trucks to 24 miles a gallon for 2011 models, compared with 21.2 miles a gallon in today's models.

"This plan is good news for American consumers," Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta said in a statement, "because it will ensure the vehicles they buy get more miles to the gallon, requiring fewer stops at the gas station, and ultimately saving them money at the pump." Mr. Mineta announced the plan at a news conference in Los Angeles, where he arrived in a silver Lincoln Navigator sport utility vehicle.

Wow! Light trucks will get almost 3 more miles to the gallon, in six years! We're well on the way to a responsible oil-consuming policy!

For those of you who might condemn such aggressively positive moves toward fuel-consumption reduction, and who might call something such as this amazing new plan "Woefully Inadequate" or "Ridiculous," or "Self-Interested Political Back-Patting" or "Crap," please keep in mind that it's not The Administration that's to blame:

One concern among critics is that an automaker could slightly enlarge some vehicles to move them into a less demanding category. For instance, if the length and width of the Subaru Outback were increased by a fraction of an inch, it could move from a category with a fuel target of 28.7 miles a gallon in 2011 to a category requiring 27.1 miles a gallon.

Such gaming characterizes the current system; Subaru recently raised the Outback higher off the ground and made other technical design modifications to change its classification from a passenger car to the less-demanding status of light truck.

The new approach makes it both easier and harder to reclassify cars as trucks. Much-criticized rules related to seat design have allowed vehicles like the Chrysler PT Cruiser to be counted as trucks, and the loophole would be expanded in the new system. But since the smallest trucks would have mileage targets comparable to cars, there might be less incentive to do so.

And taht if they do so, remember, that there's always room for improvement!

The proposal does not extend fuel regulations to the largest and least fuel-efficient S.U.V.'s and pickup trucks - those like the Hummer H2 that are more than 8,500 pounds when loaded. The administration said it would seek further comment on whether larger S.U.V.'s alone should be inserted into the final rule.

Your Enthusiastic Admin Pal, General Stan.

Rummy Versus The Commies

Rumsfeld yesterday wrote Iraq and the War on Terror into a framework where it has no meaningful place: the Cold War. In fact, the War on Terror does has a relationship to the Cold War, but it's not the one Rumsfeld intends to invoke. The GWoT has a logistical lineage that stems from the Cold War, it's like a causal relationship, but more a historical one. However, the GWoT is not part of the Cold War, it does not equal the Cold War, and its detractors are nothing like those doubters from the Cold War:

Of course, some are arguing that the effort in Iraq is doomed. Recently we've again been told that Iraq may prove worse than Vietnam, and it's been alleged that we're not winning.

It's worth noting that the enemy does not appear to share that view. On the contrary, terrorists like Zarqawi are indicating concern about the lack of support from the Iraqi people, and the reasons are clear. They are -- the terrorists, the insurgents, are not a nationalist movement with a strong popular support. They have lost their safe havens in Iraq. Their most prominent leaders are not Iraqis, they're not Ho Chi Minhs with a nationalist base, but, in the case of Zarqawi, a Jordanian murderer. And their massacres of innocents have outraged most Iraqis rather than attracting broad support. Indeed, polls indicate that the anger against the terrorists and the insurgents is growing.

I'm reminded that a few weeks after Operation Enduring Freedom began in Afghanistan, a news story suggested that the U.S. was already in a quagmire. But it was several weeks later, only, that Kabul actually fell to the Northern Alliance and our forces. Throughout history there have always been those who predict America's failure just around every corner. At the height of World War II, a prominent U.S. diplomat predicted that democracy was finished in Britain and probably in America too. Many Western intellectuals praised Stalin during that period. For a time, Communism was very much in vogue. It was called Euro-Communism to try to mute or mask the totalitarian core. And thankfully, the American people are better centered. They ultimately come to the right decisions on big issues. And the future of Iraq is a very big issue. So those being tossed about by the winds of concern should recall that Americans are a tough lot and will see their commitments through.

Rumsfeld wants to ratchet the GWoT as part of an extended Cold War era effort. Something that is sustained and undefined, amourphous and unapproachable by most, but feared by all.

But the disconnect is here: the war in Iraq has proven itself to be not part of the War on Terror by virtue of neccessity. In fact, Iraq is only related to the GWoT because it fuels the causes of Terrorists at this point, and because it has distracted from the completion of the war on terror against the terrorist networks, fractured those networks, and made the entire thing one gigantic mess.

His comment that "Euro-Communism" was seeking to simply "mask the totalitarian core" may or may not be accurate. But it is equally clear that slamming the term Communism in any way; Invading an unrelated country for the purpose of the War on Terror; and embarking on any number of bizarre justifications for these issues is an equal attempt at masking the totalitarian core. Only this one is here, in Washington.

AntiC Kids' Book Picks: Help! Mom!

Yes, finally there is a good, reasonable, thought provoking political book for your children.

Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed! promotes nothing but good American thoughtful politics to your child's idle brain. Just read the abstract!

Book Description
This full-color illustrated book is a fun way for parents to teach young children [i.e.: unaborted - GS] the valuable lessons of conservatism. Written in simple text, readers can follow along with Tommy and Lou as they open a lemonade stand to earn money for a swing set. But when liberals start demanding that Tommy and Lou pay half their money in taxes, take down their picture of Jesus, and serve broccoli with every glass of lemonade, the young brothers experience the downside to living in Liberaland. [Note: They do not discuss the benefits given to them by a liberal society paid for by those taxes they disdain so, such as subsidized lemonade powder; access to a safe potable water supply; an education system whereby they could comprehend the economics of their project; a right to freely practice their religion and hang their Jesus picture in the privacy of their home; the government protected loans that Tommy and Lou will take out when they start their Lemonade Corp Co; and the massive tax breaks they'll inevitably get as such a huge lemonade corporation; the social security which they'll collect when they get laid off from Lemonade Corp Co., but which they faught tooth and nail against; the right to freely express their disdain for Liberaland; the consumer protections which insure a safe swingset; the legal rights which allow them, as consumers, to pursue damages when Tommy idiotically dumps Lou from the swingset but they decide it's the manufacturer's fault; the right to healthcare that Lou will have to heal... oh... haha, nevermind. Fuck you and your healthcare dreams, Lou! etc. But hey. None of these things exist in Conservativeland- or at least, we don't have to credit them, we can just benefit. They don't want to talk about the Successes of Liberaland in the media, only the challenges. - GS]

From the Publisher
Would you let your child read blatantly liberal stories with titles such as "King & King," "No, George, No," or "It's Just a Plant"? [Or: Where the Wild Things Are; Chronicles of Narnia; The Giving Tree... Those... damn... LIBERALS! They're infiltrating the brains of our precious unaborted FETUS-CHILDREN! - GS]

Unless you live in Haight-Ashbury or write for the New York Times, probably not. [Ha, ha! Get it? If not, you're an unfunny LIBERAL! - GS] But with the nation’s libraries and classrooms filled with overtly liberal [Those BASTARDS have infiltrated our LIBRARIES! If we had any choice we'd shut down every library, that'd show em!] children’s books advocating everything from gay marriage to marijuana use, kids everywhere are being deluged with left-wing propaganda. [It's a veritable deluge of Liberal infiltration! - GS]

"Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed" is the book conservative parents have been seeking. This illustrated book — the first in the "Help! Mom!" series from Kids Ahead — is perfect for parents who seek to share their traditional values with their children, as well as adults who wish to give a humorous gift to a friend.

Hailed as "the answer to a baseball mom's prayers" by talk radio host Melanie Morgan [Don't worry all you prissy Liberals, she's ultra-reasonable {and my, what a nice web design} and always right. - GS] "Liberals Under My Bed" has already been the subject of coverage in The Wall Street Journal and Harper’s magazine. Written by a self-proclaimed "Security Mom for Bush" and featuring hilarious full-color illustrations by a Reuben Award winning artist, it is certain to be one of the most talked about children's books of the year.

Well, fellas and ladies-cooking-me-dinner-cause-I'm-tired-after-working, you know that I'm going to read my [unaborted, praise be!] children this evening!

News Flash: The Vagrant Terrorist

The US says that Terrorists may be hatching a devious plot to pose in the US as Vagrants. Signs to look out for: begging for change, holding cardboard signs, road-worn beards, general looks of despondance.

Please Be Vigilant and Alert.

Warning: Ann Coulter does not immediately recommend to cowardly New Yorkers that you cow to the Homeless NOW, but she does suspect that you will.

Also BE ADVISED: Due to the razor-thin economy and tenuous industry sector in America, not every Vagrant will be a Terrorist.

-----
UPDATED Bison Alert: Orange.

Spot the Bias

Mr. Ronin and I have stumbled across this "fair and balanced" gem from the liberal establishment media... Or rather, Fox News, about an apparent clash between anti-war protestors and pro-war... uh... protestors [?] in Cindy Sheehan's home town of Sacramento, California, where Sheehan has retreated for the moment due to her mother's stroke and illness. Let's play a game of "spot the reportage bias:"

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Supporters of President Bush clashed with anti-war activists as they wound their way through California after rallying in the hometown of Cindy Sheehan (search), the mother of a soldier slain in Iraq who started a protest camp outside Bush's Texas ranch.

Conservative activists and military families embarked on the tour Monday, calling it "You don't speak for me, Cindy!" A verbal confrontation erupted when the caravan arrived in Sacramento and was met by anti-war protesters chanting for Bush to bring home the troops.

Sheehan supporter Dan Elliott, 71, confronted caravan members by waving a sign reading "Death is not support" and heckling one of the tour's organizers as she addressed the crowd.

"You are ruining the morale over there," responded Greg Parkinson, a Bush supporter.

Note the cinematic entrance of Mr. Elliott, old, grizzled, embittered by a life-time of Lefist hatred for the Right. His whole purpose in life, or at least in this story, is to pester the patriotic Right, those guys who protest the protestors in support of... I'm confused. Or rather, I'm not. The patriotic Right simply refuses to admit that the actions of the protesting and mobilized left are patriotic. Hell, you'd think that the 56% of Americans that are not in support of this war [but DO support their troops] were "extremists" the way that they talk about us. Oh wait. As MSNBC anchor Nora O'Donnell believes, we are. [Note to Self: redefine "majority" to equate with "extremist."]

Onward:

The pro-Bush caravan planned rallies in several California cities before heading to Crawford, where Sheehan opponents have formed their own camp.

"It's time to lay down the anger. We need to continue to uphold those people over there, to uphold those men and women with their boots on the ground," said Deborah Johns (search) of the Northern California Marine Moms, who helped organize the caravan and addressed supporters outside the Vacaville Reporter newspaper in Sheehan's hometown.

"It's time to lay down the Anger." And get to the warrin'! "let all that anger and frustration goooo. You hyperactive violence-mongering Leftists!" Yep. News Flash, kids: Fox News prints opinions that communicate that A) anger is unjustified emotional reaction when your children are killed in war and B) going to war is a good, peaceful, reasonable response when a country does... nothing to you.

Shit man. With war-mongering hatred-filled 71 year old Liberals and the ultra-angry Leftists behind them, I'd half expect the Right to start flinging around nonsense supposed epithets from a cold-war era in self-pitying defense. I'd expect them to call Sheehanites Communists or something.

Oh yeah:

Some caravan members called the anti-war protesters communists and said they were "aiding and abetting the enemy." Those comments enraged Sheehan supporter Dee Ann Heath, who said she has two sons serving in Iraq and another preparing to leave.

"I don't support the war, but I support my sons," she said. "I simply want them to come home."

But I am sure that all of these comments came only after the ultra-aggressive septegenarian Dan Elliott practically assaulted these peace-mongering protest protestors. Right? Certainly it wouldn't have occurred the other way.

Be sure to read the rest of the story, and all of Fox News' coverage on anything and play your own game of Spot the Bias!

Life Imprisonment

Eric Robert Rudolph will serve the remainder of his life in prison, in a plea deal that spares his life. He was sentenced to serve 4 consecutive life sentences plus 120 years for his decades-long bombing sprees with with anti-abortion and anti-homosexual bombings and peaking with the bombing of the Olympic Games in Atlanta in 1996. Rudolph continued his bombings of abortion clinics and homosexual clubs, including one attack in 1997 in Atlanta.

Rudolf was grief-stricken and apologetic for his attack in the games that injured more than 100:

"I would do anything to take that night back," Rudolph said.

But the apology was only a partial one and did not mention the 11 people injured in the two other bombings he was sentenced for Monday, one at a gay nightclub and the other at an Atlanta abortion clinic in 1997.

As in past statements, Rudolph said he detonated the bomb at the Olympics because he wanted to force the cancellation of the Summer Games and "confound, anger and embarrass" Washington for sanctioning abortion.

His remorse is limited: he sees no fault in his anti-gay and anti-abortion actions- only justice.

The Cure for Dementia

In fact, some would argue that it only causes dementia...

Left Behind

A flagpole piece of The Administration's first-term legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act, is coming under heavy critcism and scrutiny. The primary complaint: it requires too much federally mandated restrictions and controls on standards, provides inequal incentives for underperforming districts, and is so underfunded that it is bankrupting state school systems.

The situation with No Child is so drastic that the State of Connecticuit has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Education.

"We in Connecticut do a lot of testing already, far more than most other states. Our taxpayers are sagging under the crushing costs of local education. What we don't need is a new laundry list of things to do — with no new money to do them," Rell said.

The federal government is providing Connecticut with $5.8 million this fiscal year to pay for the testing, Sternberg said. She estimates federal funds will fall $41.6 million short of paying for staffing, program development, standardized tests and other costs associated with implementing the law through 2008.

The state is not the first entity to sue in response to No Child Left Behind. The National Education Association, a national teacher's union, filed a lawsuit last spring on behalf of local districts and 10 state union chapters, including Connecticut.

In fact, at this point a majority of states have begun to at least question the No Child Act. They've found that the costs that they must shoulder, most of the time unneccesarily [Connecticuit has consistently scored in the top 5 across the board for their students in primary and middle schools], are obscene injustices. Injustices because they require extreme shifts and changes in teaching style with no local control and without funding them; this results in the degregation of the schools which need the most assistence.

The No Child Left Behind Act was formed to emulate a successful program Bush enacted while governor or Texas. Will Bush balk on the national scale?

Apparently Texas isn't too happy with No Child, either. Bush can present a mirage of success which really dumbs down our country and bankrupts our school systems, he can present a mirage of success with fighting Terrorism that bankrupts our economy and sends us into permanent war in the Middle East and actually fuels terrorism, he can present a mirage of justice while remaining arrogant and detached. But he can't do that forever.

Militiamen

At least certain factions of the Pro-Invasion right are consistent about something: Militias. Those gun-nut rightists starting their own private armies to patrol the border and keep Michael Moore out of Rural North Dakota and Montana, as well as making sure he sure's hell doesn't try to swim cross the Ree-oh Grand-ay should be proud of their Militia forming Iraqi brethren:

Shiite and Kurdish militias, often operating as part of Iraqi government security forces, have carried out a wave of abductions, assassinations and other acts of intimidation, consolidating their control over territory across northern and southern Iraq and deepening the country's divide along ethnic and sectarian lines, according to political leaders, families of the victims, human rights activists and Iraqi officials.

While Iraqi representatives wrangle over the drafting of a constitution in Baghdad, the militias, and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that control them, are creating their own institutions of authority, unaccountable to elected governments, the activists and officials said. In Basra in the south, dominated by the Shiites, and Mosul in the north, ruled by the Kurds, as well as cities and villages around them, many residents have said they are powerless before the growing sway of the militias, which instill a climate of fear that many see as redolent of the era of former president Saddam Hussein.

The parties and their armed wings sometimes operate independently, and other times as part of Iraqi army and police units trained and equipped by the United States and Britain and controlled by the central government. Their growing authority has enabled them to control territory, confront their perceived enemies and provide patronage to their followers. Their ascendance has come about because of a power vacuum in Baghdad and their own success in the January parliamentary elections.

Even in America: tribalist/ideological militias running the country would result in one thing and one thing only: Civil War.

But hey, like any good father, they must be proud.

Check out some good discussion on this at Obsidian Wings.

Women's Rights and the Invasion

Yesterday, still on "working vacation," the President hailed the "amazing progress" in Iraq and made note of women's rights in the version of the Iraqi Constitution.

James Wolcott builds a substantial arugment for the Right's political manipulation of the rights of women as a justification for the war on Terror. We all remember those calls: We're liberating the women of Afghanistan, we're liberating the women of Iraq and giving them the right to vote, rights of equality and representation:

Roger L. Simon, August 16: "Women's rights are the very center of the War on Terror. In fact I would argue Islamofascism at its core is more than anything else an expression of rage against women and that Islam itself is not much better on that score."

[snip]

"Those who think this war is not worth fighting chose to ignore the fate of hundreds of millions of Muslim women. Shame on them."

Reuel Marc Gerecht, discussing the forthcoming Iraqi constitution on Meet the Press, August 21: "Women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there, I think they will be there, but I think we need to keep this perspective."

So those who think this war isn't worth fighting are shameful because of their craven indifference to women's rights while one of the leading neocon architects of the very war that Simon champions--and not just any architect, but a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the Director of the Middle East Initiative for the Project for the New American Century--isn't that concerned that a new Iraq constitution might roll back and restrict women's freedoms, subjecting them to Islamic law.

His exact words to MTP guest host David Gregory were, "Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this."

Why am I reminded of George's boss Kruger on Seinfeld, who shrugged off every crisis with, "I'm not too worried about it"?

Simon has been conned by his new comrades, which is no excuse for conning his readers, whose gullibility could fill a pelican's pouch. Women's rights aren't at the center of the War on Terror, nowhere near the center. They're a flimsy, detachable rationale that neoconservatives won't hesitate to discard if inconvenient to their goals. If neocons have to choose between women's rights or permanent US military bases in Iraq, it'll be, "Burkas are a small price to pay for democracy. Besides, black is so fashionably slimming!"

Bush's comments yesterday underscore this political manipulation of the to justify what many see as a failing political process in Iraq:

I talked to Condi, and there is not -- as I understand it, the way the constitution is written is that women have got rights, inherent rights recognized in the constitution, and that the constitution talks about not "the religion," but "a religion." Twenty-five percent of the assembly is going to be women, which is a -- is embedded in the constitution.

Whereas the constitution itself is very contradictory when it comes to the acceptability of women's rights in Iraq. For one, it demands that women have equality and equal protections, and provides for their participation in government and the political process. It also has an overriding principle of Islamic law as the primary basis for decision, and states that no national law can contradict Islamic Law. Islamic Law, of course, has many legal protections against women, depending on how fundamentally it is practiced. So here, the constition has severe rifts within itself.

Hardly, as Bush understands it, the protection for the liberation of women's rights that he so politically is willing to use to further his agenda abroad.

Karl Currently

Karl Rove hasn't slowed down. Not according to a US News and World Report short piece:

The recent controversy swirling around Karl Rove hasn't slowed him a bit. That's according to White House insiders who say Bush's political boy genius is as engaged as ever in high-level decision making despite all the attacks by angry Democrats alleging he improperly--and possibly illegally--outed a covert CIA operative. Rove was a key player behind the recently passed transportation and energy bills, and now he's planning Bush's fall agenda, which will include a renewed push for Social Security overhaul, changes in immigration law, and tax restructuring. Says a White House insider who talks to Rove regularly, "He is as instrumental as he ever was."

The tactic of going after Roberts upon his nomination to the Supreme Court seems to have taken precious attention away from this story. The Plame Affair deserves much more than the 2 week news cycle read it received.

Thirty Six Percent

I just really wanted to spell that out: that is our president's approval rating.

Thirty Six Percent.

Wow.

Among registered voters, his approval rating is 38%. That means that of the 51% of people that voted for him, up to 13% feel they've been disappointed.

-----
APPEND: Jiggavegas

My favorite "putting it in perspective" quote I've seen attached to these numbers:

"Lower than Nixon during Watergate."

Mark Steyn and Marriage

Mark Steyn has worked it all out re: Sheehan: Her failed marriage in lieu of her activism is an appropriate metaphor for the Democratic party.

On unwatched Sunday talk shows, you can still stumble across the occasional sane, responsible Dem. But, in the absence of any serious intellectual attempt to confront their long-term decline, all the energy on the left is with the fringe. The Democratic Party is a coalition of Pat Sheehans and Cindy Sheehans, and the noisier the Cindys get the more estranged the Pats are likely to feel.

Sorry about that, but, if Mrs. Sheehan can insist her son's corpse be the determining factor in American policy on Iraq, I don't see why her marriage can't be a metaphor for the state of the Democratic Party.

Casey Sheehan was a 21-year old man when he enlisted in 2000. He re-enlisted for a second tour, and he died after volunteering for a rescue mission in Sadr City. Mrs. Sheehan says she wishes she'd driven him to Canada, though that's not what he would have wished, and it was his decision.

Steyn drags out a deeply personal metaphor in a direct effort to reduce to irrelevence both the media's coverage over Sheehan and Sheehan's personal motivations and political statements.

Steyn frames his argument against Sheehan by using quotes from appearances Sheehan has made to illustrate her supposed extremist agenda, and by deriding and mocking supporters of Sheehan and sympathizers with Sheehan's perspective. In this passage, which starts a slew of quotes from Sheehan, he attempts to do it all:

I resisted writing about "Mother Sheehan" (as one leftie has proposed designating her), as it seemed obvious that she was at best a little unhinged by grief and at worst mentally ill. It's one thing to mourn a son's death and even to question the cause for which he died, but quite another to roar that he was "murdered by the Bush crime family."

What Steyn actually accomplishes here is the exposure of his own bias. Steyn shows how much he abhorred and dismissed Sheehan before he even thought about her. He, essentially, dismissed her outright, a "left wing lunatic" not worth the graceful pressure of his mighty pen to fall upon her. It is an interesting point, really: as he hesitates and denigrades Sheehan for her personal fallability [indeed, who is to say that anybody's marriage would stay intact in circumstances such as these?], he mirrors Bush's reluctance in dealing with Sheehan. Perhaps Steyn's magic pen could have produced such an idologic blockade as to prevent Sheehan's story from catching flame as much as it has.

First impressions are always the most treasured; and it's impressive to see a man such as Mark Steyn expose just how much derision he has from anybody who presents themselves as an opposite to his point of view, upon soley the first impression.

From Steyn's early-Invasion interview over at Right Wing News:

John Hawkins: Do you think we would have been better off if we would have invaded Iraq this summer instead of waiting this long?

Mark Steyn: Yes. The time lost has emboldened America's enemies - I use the term elastically - from the peace movement, which is a little less of a joke today than it was last spring, to Jacques Chirac to Kim Jong-Il. John Podhoretz keeps writing these columns in The New York Post congratulating Bush on one tremendous victory after another - over Tom Daschle, over Kofi Annan, over Dominique de Villepin. But these are not the enemy, they're just speed-bumps on the way to the enemy, and they should all have been left receding into the distance in the rear-view mirror a long time ago.

John Hawkins: Hypothetically, let's say that somehow, someway, George Bush were convinced not to invade Iraq and were to promise not to invade any other nation during the war on terrorism. What do you think the consequences of that would be?

Mark Steyn: He'd be a one-term President, and the death of the west would be pretty much a certainty. In hard terms, the best reason to hang Saddam is pour encourager les autres. Similarly, if he gets off, the North Koreans and Syrians and the more devious princes in the House of Saud will draw entirely reasonable conclusions about their freedom to operate.

John Hawkins: If we invade Iraq without getting UN approval, what do you think the consequences will be for the United Nations?

Mark Steyn: The UN will survive but it will be greatly diminished, which will be a good thing. I don't want it involved in the war, or in the post-war reconstruction.

Democrats are inherently weak, waffling middling fools who are reactive and unreasonable; Bush-style Conservatives need to be extreme, aggressive, brutalist, exclusionary. This is Steyn's world, one in which there is no alternative point of view. This world is indicative of the right- use a skewed version of Enlightenment era justification of "Reason" when it comes to being a political conservative in order to push your enemy to "Unreason, irrationality." And yet, the right also clings to pre-enlightenment priciples of social morality [such as their consistent homophobia] and justice.

And Steyn, the bringer of all things reasonable and justified, refuses to even consider Sheehan. Some would suggest that Steyn feels threatened: not only has somebody been more powerful at pushing her agenda onto the front page of the newspaper, but that person is a woman, with personal investment and personal loss in a war he deeply supports, and that person is politically his opposite. She is nothing but a threat to him.