Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Is It Worth It?
The dead-enders who still support Bush's war in Iraq often say that we can't afford to leave now and have Iraq dissolve into chaos. Early on, advocates of the war often argued that if the US succeeds in planting the seeds of democracy in the Middle East the price will have been "worth it".
The problem with these statements is that no one demands that they be supported by empirical evidence. More and more I find myself wishing that there was a band of super heroes who I will dub The Math Defenders. I imagine the Math Defenders charging on to the scene a la The Spanish Inquisition sketch in the old Monty Python's Flying Circus television show. The Math Defenders would appear from the shadows when wild unsubstantiated claims are made as if they are fact. These intrepid super heroes would be wearing caps and gowns and would push blackboards on wheels in front of them demanding that the hapless claimants show their work. "If you cannot show your work you cannot get credit." they'd harmonize.
The focus should be on the word "worth". When someone claims, "It was worth it" in order to judge the merits of the claim it is helpful to pose "it" and "worth" in terms of a mathematical equation. If "it" is an ice cream cone then "worth" would be expressed in the simplest example as the monetary cost of the ice cream, i.e. $2.50.
To demonstrate this mathematically one could draw a nice picture of an ice cream cone followed by a >= to symbol and then $2.50 (US). While it may be difficult to prove mathematically that this equation is correct at least it provides the necessary information to judge the statement. Listeners to the claim could look at both sides of the equation and form some sort of opinion as to it's merit and perhaps ask for additional information such as:
1) How much money do you have?
2) Are you lactose intolerant?
3) Are you morbidly obese?
prior to issuing a verdict.
The potential additional information puts me in mind of the beauty of Algebra. Math geeks will remember that if you have 3 equations and 2 unknowns you can always figure out the unknowns.
There are 15 people on a bus. Some are boys and some are girls. There are twice as many girls as boys. That is 3 equations and 2 unknowns.
Bus Riders = 15 (Known)
Boys (B)+Girls(G) = Bus Riders
2 x B = G
So now we can just replace G with its equivalent, 2B, and change the second equation to B+2B = 15 or 3B = 15 which yields B = 5 which means you need to double that to get G = 10 so there are 5 boys and 10 girls and that adds up to 15 so we know we are correct. Golly this is fun.
Astonishingly no would be Math Enforcers seem to hold positions within the main stream press because this sort of showing your work never, ever happens! Oh Math Defenders save us!
So instead we are told earnestly, on a daily basis that in essence Ice Cream Cone >= infinity. Then we are told that to believe otherwise is criminally insane. Afterall, what kind of an asshole doesn't like ice cream?
Thus it is with the Iraq war. Victory in Iraq is worth any price scream the wise molders of public opinion.
Victory in Iraq >= infinity
Wait a minute the detractors say. Victory in Iraq has not been achieved yet and so far we have over 3,000 dead on our side, 20,000 seriously injured on our side, we have spent about $600 billion dollars and no one can seem to agree on how many Iraqi's are dead but we know millions have fled their homes.
The dead enders say. Doesn't matter because:
3,000 dead US soldiers + 20,000 seriously wounded soldiers + $600 billion US + infinity dead Iraqis + 2 million refugees < = Victory In Iraq. Of course their calculation is helped by the bizarre, deeply felt belief that the $600 billion part need not be counted at all since we just borrowed that. It is not as if we actually absorbed this cost yet. In Accounting this is referred to as cost recognition. Say you are running an ice cream parlor and you have $20,000 of ice cream on your books as inventory. There is a power outage effecting only your walk in freezer that contains all but $80 of your ice cream. You know that as soon as you open your freezer all of that melted gloop will flow over your shoes and you will have to write off $19,920 of ice cream because it is now worthless. The problem is that you are in the final stages of negotiating a loan with your bank so you don't want to "recognize" this loss just yet. The Iraq War cheerleaders argue that real leadership demands that the freezer be sealed and the press kept away. No one should tell the children that there will be no ice cream. Eventually the children will grow up and the leaders will be dead. The recognition of the fact that the ice cream is inedible can be safely dealt with at a later time when the children are not quite so passionate in their love of ice cream. The ice cream isn't lost until we recogize that it is lost. Only an asshole would want to spoil the childhood of so many children by destroying their hope that there just might be ice cream for desert tonight. The perpetrators of the Victory in Iraq >= infinity hoax are helped in their stubborn non-recognition mania by a related conviction in the truth of these two mathematical assertions:
"Deficits do not matter, Ronald Reagan proved that." - Dick Cheney
and, "Lower taxes result in higher government revenues. " - Every Republican math flunkee since the Reagan Administration.
Math Enforcers, attack!!
"If you cannot show your work you cannot get credit. Here are four blackboards and we can bring in more. Show us convincingly in mathematical terms that you are not completely full of crap." The Math Defenders sing in perfect harmony.
All of this makes me wonder how the mathematical symbols would flip if the Democrats insisted that from here on out all war funding requests would come with an immediate increase in the federal income tax rate designed to cover the cost. This increase could be in the form of a new Federal War Tax.
So when the President requests $50 Billion for Iraq Congress divides the number of prior year tax filers by $50 billion and raises the new War Tax by the amount requested by Bush. In 2005 there were 134,462,537 tax filers according to the IRS (See Table One - math geek heaven in the form of a spreadsheet). If each of these tax returns, which of course include individuals and joint returns, paid an equal amount they would have to pay $372 each to raise $50 billion.
Do you think the war defenders would continue to say that it is worth it? I doubt it. For some reason I think if the formula changed from:
Victory in Iraq >= infinity to:
Victory in Iraq = Hey you with the ribbon on your car, cough up $372 right now
The answer would be a deafening, "No Way!"
Here's hoping that the Democratic Party acts as the Math Defenders. Only they should ask the President how he wants to spread the $50 billion tax burden that he insists is "worth it". The President is hell bent on not raising taxes. He wants to leave that burden to a future President. The Democrats can force him to choose between the war and actually paying for it to find out once and for all how he really judges the equation:
Victory in Iraq >= infinity.
The dead-enders who still support Bush's war in Iraq often say that we can't afford to leave now and have Iraq dissolve into chaos. Early on, advocates of the war often argued that if the US succeeds in planting the seeds of democracy in the Middle East the price will have been "worth it".
The problem with these statements is that no one demands that they be supported by empirical evidence. More and more I find myself wishing that there was a band of super heroes who I will dub The Math Defenders. I imagine the Math Defenders charging on to the scene a la The Spanish Inquisition sketch in the old Monty Python's Flying Circus television show. The Math Defenders would appear from the shadows when wild unsubstantiated claims are made as if they are fact. These intrepid super heroes would be wearing caps and gowns and would push blackboards on wheels in front of them demanding that the hapless claimants show their work. "If you cannot show your work you cannot get credit." they'd harmonize.
The focus should be on the word "worth". When someone claims, "It was worth it" in order to judge the merits of the claim it is helpful to pose "it" and "worth" in terms of a mathematical equation. If "it" is an ice cream cone then "worth" would be expressed in the simplest example as the monetary cost of the ice cream, i.e. $2.50.
To demonstrate this mathematically one could draw a nice picture of an ice cream cone followed by a >= to symbol and then $2.50 (US). While it may be difficult to prove mathematically that this equation is correct at least it provides the necessary information to judge the statement. Listeners to the claim could look at both sides of the equation and form some sort of opinion as to it's merit and perhaps ask for additional information such as:
1) How much money do you have?
2) Are you lactose intolerant?
3) Are you morbidly obese?
prior to issuing a verdict.
The potential additional information puts me in mind of the beauty of Algebra. Math geeks will remember that if you have 3 equations and 2 unknowns you can always figure out the unknowns.
There are 15 people on a bus. Some are boys and some are girls. There are twice as many girls as boys. That is 3 equations and 2 unknowns.
Bus Riders = 15 (Known)
Boys (B)+Girls(G) = Bus Riders
2 x B = G
So now we can just replace G with its equivalent, 2B, and change the second equation to B+2B = 15 or 3B = 15 which yields B = 5 which means you need to double that to get G = 10 so there are 5 boys and 10 girls and that adds up to 15 so we know we are correct. Golly this is fun.
Astonishingly no would be Math Enforcers seem to hold positions within the main stream press because this sort of showing your work never, ever happens! Oh Math Defenders save us!
So instead we are told earnestly, on a daily basis that in essence Ice Cream Cone >= infinity. Then we are told that to believe otherwise is criminally insane. Afterall, what kind of an asshole doesn't like ice cream?
Thus it is with the Iraq war. Victory in Iraq is worth any price scream the wise molders of public opinion.
Victory in Iraq >= infinity
Wait a minute the detractors say. Victory in Iraq has not been achieved yet and so far we have over 3,000 dead on our side, 20,000 seriously injured on our side, we have spent about $600 billion dollars and no one can seem to agree on how many Iraqi's are dead but we know millions have fled their homes.
The dead enders say. Doesn't matter because:
3,000 dead US soldiers + 20,000 seriously wounded soldiers + $600 billion US + infinity dead Iraqis + 2 million refugees < = Victory In Iraq. Of course their calculation is helped by the bizarre, deeply felt belief that the $600 billion part need not be counted at all since we just borrowed that. It is not as if we actually absorbed this cost yet. In Accounting this is referred to as cost recognition. Say you are running an ice cream parlor and you have $20,000 of ice cream on your books as inventory. There is a power outage effecting only your walk in freezer that contains all but $80 of your ice cream. You know that as soon as you open your freezer all of that melted gloop will flow over your shoes and you will have to write off $19,920 of ice cream because it is now worthless. The problem is that you are in the final stages of negotiating a loan with your bank so you don't want to "recognize" this loss just yet. The Iraq War cheerleaders argue that real leadership demands that the freezer be sealed and the press kept away. No one should tell the children that there will be no ice cream. Eventually the children will grow up and the leaders will be dead. The recognition of the fact that the ice cream is inedible can be safely dealt with at a later time when the children are not quite so passionate in their love of ice cream. The ice cream isn't lost until we recogize that it is lost. Only an asshole would want to spoil the childhood of so many children by destroying their hope that there just might be ice cream for desert tonight. The perpetrators of the Victory in Iraq >= infinity hoax are helped in their stubborn non-recognition mania by a related conviction in the truth of these two mathematical assertions:
"Deficits do not matter, Ronald Reagan proved that." - Dick Cheney
and, "Lower taxes result in higher government revenues. " - Every Republican math flunkee since the Reagan Administration.
Math Enforcers, attack!!
"If you cannot show your work you cannot get credit. Here are four blackboards and we can bring in more. Show us convincingly in mathematical terms that you are not completely full of crap." The Math Defenders sing in perfect harmony.
All of this makes me wonder how the mathematical symbols would flip if the Democrats insisted that from here on out all war funding requests would come with an immediate increase in the federal income tax rate designed to cover the cost. This increase could be in the form of a new Federal War Tax.
So when the President requests $50 Billion for Iraq Congress divides the number of prior year tax filers by $50 billion and raises the new War Tax by the amount requested by Bush. In 2005 there were 134,462,537 tax filers according to the IRS (See Table One - math geek heaven in the form of a spreadsheet). If each of these tax returns, which of course include individuals and joint returns, paid an equal amount they would have to pay $372 each to raise $50 billion.
Do you think the war defenders would continue to say that it is worth it? I doubt it. For some reason I think if the formula changed from:
Victory in Iraq >= infinity to:
Victory in Iraq = Hey you with the ribbon on your car, cough up $372 right now
The answer would be a deafening, "No Way!"
Here's hoping that the Democratic Party acts as the Math Defenders. Only they should ask the President how he wants to spread the $50 billion tax burden that he insists is "worth it". The President is hell bent on not raising taxes. He wants to leave that burden to a future President. The Democrats can force him to choose between the war and actually paying for it to find out once and for all how he really judges the equation:
Victory in Iraq >= infinity.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Friday, June 23, 2006
Conspiracy - R - Us
It is kind of a hobby of mine to come up with the most paranoid fantasy possible and then wait around for a week or so and watch the Bush administration prove that fact is stranger than fiction. Just the other day I introduced a "theory" to a co-worker knowing that his response would be a rolling of the eyes and a mental note to file me away under "Confirmed Loony" in his brain.
Knowing what his reaction was likely to be in advance, owing to my keen perception, I felt the need to poke fun at my own theory to save face. I used qualifiers before describing the theory such as, "Understand that I am suggesting that it is interesting to think about" and "It's not like I am arguing that this is reality but consider ..."
The theory is based on my instinct, gut feeling if you will, that very few certifiably bat-shit crazy individuals are able to command the sort of long term loyalty and devotion needed to run any organization for very long. Generally the dangerously insane flame out in a big way rather quickly. They may attract followers for a time. Some of their followers are even willing to lay their lives down for their psychotic leader given the right frame of mind (think David Koresh). But I have always been leery of the notion that people such as Saddam Hussein, Col. Khaddafi, Kim Jung Il etc are "completely insane". Yet this is how we are encouraged to think of them. My feeling is that one of the characteristics of complete insanity is the inability to conform ones actions to the basic rational instinct for survival.
"I believe that I will take a big bite of this fast moving locomotive for it is made of Twinkies." Would be an example of the last words of a profoundly insane person. Unleashing a gas attack on your political enemies in order to demonstrate a ruthless desire to remain in charge after having procured the weapons from the world's most powerful nations is horribly immoral behavior but is it evidence of insanity? I postulate that because this act demonstrates a well planned, complex, and coordinated effort, aimed at survival, it is not insane. Though to say that it is extraordinarily nasty behavior would be an understatement.
I'm taking a very long time to get to the point so here goes: I do not believe that Kim Jung Il, the leader of North Korea, is insane.
There, I said it. Or, rather, I wrote it. Start throwing garbage at me if you must.
So what am I to make of the latest threat by the kooky leader to demonstrate North Korea's ability to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile?
Many would say, "He's flippin' crazy, there's no point whatsoever in trying to understand his actions since he is nuts!" This reaction, of course, leads to the inevitable conclusion, "Kill the mad dog before he kills us."
And now for the controversial part of my theory. Kim Jung Il is not only not crazy but he is a well paid actor whose roll is to play the Penquin to Bush's Batman. His acting is first rate.
The reason? To make saleable to the American public the idea that our nation should spend upwards of $100 billion on a missile defense system. Clearly a Missile Defense Shield must be built to protect us from this suicidal devil.
I first became suspicious of Kim Jung Il's supposed insanity when George W. Bush rejected a visit by the leader of South Korea at the beginning of his first term. This sent a strong signal that he would not put a priority on continuing US involvement in brokering peace on the Korean Peninsula. This seemed very odd considering that after 50 years of cold war between North and South Korea there was finally enough of a thaw during the Clinton administration for the two sides to begin allowing cross DMZ visits by families separated by the Korean Conflict. There seemed to be real hope that peace would finally break out. But for some the hope for peace represents a more than offsetting fear of loss of extremely lucrative defense work.
In Bush's first State of the Union address following 9/11 he announced that North Korea was part of the axis of evil and declared,
"We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security."
With the Bush gang's long term devotion to selling a missile defense shield to the American public, even after the fall of the Soviet Union (the presumed enemy during the Reagan administration that the shield was needed for) an enemy, real or presumed was needed. They needed a boogeyman and North Korea fit the bill. After reading horrifying excerpts of the Project for a New American Century's (PNAC) own manifesto on its website this seemed to make sense to me. From page 9 (of 90 in the PDF file) of the September 2000 report that is the blueprint for all Bush administration decision making from the moment he took office:
"As will be argued more fully below, effective ballistic missile defenses will be the central element in the exercise of American power and the projection ofU.S. United States homeland itself, America
And from page 19 ..
"Over the next several decades, the United States must field a global system of missile defenses, divine ways to control the new “international commons” of space and cyberspace, and build new kinds of conventional forces for different strategic challenges and a new technological environment."
So torpedo the peace talks, isolate North Korea, build up the threat that they will develop further nuclear capabilities and the payoff is the delivery of $100 billion of defense work to the folks who put these nuts in power.
So I argued to my co-worker that it was more comprehensible that these powerful money interests would be able to buy a foreign leader and have him play the enemy of our nightmares than to believe that Kim Jung Il is so crazy that he'd risk nuking Tokyo and starting a worldwide nuclear conflagration that would result in the end of human life on the planet.
The very evening I exposed my lunatic theory to the light of day at work I flipped on the idiot box and on the network news (ABC) the top stories included a piece discussing the possibility that if North Korea were to go ahead with the test launch of its intercontinental ballistic missile that the US' fledgling missile defense shield would be able to shoot it down.
Those sneaky bastards! Could I be on to something?
In previous tests of our missile defense shield we have failed to hit the target. Even when the Pentagon was caught rigging the test existing systems under development failed with one exception that I am aware of.
"The rocket fired from Vandenberg was carrying a global positioning satellite beacon that guided the kill vehicle toward it. In other words, it would be fair to say that the $100 million test was rigged."
Has the state of the art advanced enough that the PNAC gang could be guaranteed to hit the target this time? With the help of an accomplice coordinating the launch of his missile, again with a homing beacon on it so the US can shoot it down, could we do it this time?
Should this scenario play out Kim Jung Il would angrily claim that we violated the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, that we are evil cheaters and he will be forced to build more missiles as fast as possible.
If relatively small fry defense contractors can buy a US Congressman from San Diego for a paltry 2 million dollars is it so cynical and crazy to believe that the largest defense firms, with the help of top administration officials could not buy the loyalty of a tin pot dictator ruling a dirt poor, ruined nation of starving peasants?
Would there not be a huge public demand for immediate massive investment in perfecting the shield at any price (so long as it is financed in the traditional manner of putting it on our childrens' credit cards)? Afterall, the shield will have proven its usefulness and apparent necessity to protect us from the little mad man in Pyonyang. Defense stocks will soar and the massive theft from the American taxpayer will go on and on.
Combine the timing of this spectacle with the upcoming mid-elections and you have a recipe for a delightful October surprise. Americans would be reminded once again that only Republicans have the testosterone to protect the homeland from the evil surrounding us.
Or, I could be a loony.
PLEASE TELL ME I AM A LOONY.
Follow Up: Looks like I have company.
It is kind of a hobby of mine to come up with the most paranoid fantasy possible and then wait around for a week or so and watch the Bush administration prove that fact is stranger than fiction. Just the other day I introduced a "theory" to a co-worker knowing that his response would be a rolling of the eyes and a mental note to file me away under "Confirmed Loony" in his brain.
Knowing what his reaction was likely to be in advance, owing to my keen perception, I felt the need to poke fun at my own theory to save face. I used qualifiers before describing the theory such as, "Understand that I am suggesting that it is interesting to think about" and "It's not like I am arguing that this is reality but consider ..."
The theory is based on my instinct, gut feeling if you will, that very few certifiably bat-shit crazy individuals are able to command the sort of long term loyalty and devotion needed to run any organization for very long. Generally the dangerously insane flame out in a big way rather quickly. They may attract followers for a time. Some of their followers are even willing to lay their lives down for their psychotic leader given the right frame of mind (think David Koresh). But I have always been leery of the notion that people such as Saddam Hussein, Col. Khaddafi, Kim Jung Il etc are "completely insane". Yet this is how we are encouraged to think of them. My feeling is that one of the characteristics of complete insanity is the inability to conform ones actions to the basic rational instinct for survival.
"I believe that I will take a big bite of this fast moving locomotive for it is made of Twinkies." Would be an example of the last words of a profoundly insane person. Unleashing a gas attack on your political enemies in order to demonstrate a ruthless desire to remain in charge after having procured the weapons from the world's most powerful nations is horribly immoral behavior but is it evidence of insanity? I postulate that because this act demonstrates a well planned, complex, and coordinated effort, aimed at survival, it is not insane. Though to say that it is extraordinarily nasty behavior would be an understatement.
I'm taking a very long time to get to the point so here goes: I do not believe that Kim Jung Il, the leader of North Korea, is insane.
There, I said it. Or, rather, I wrote it. Start throwing garbage at me if you must.
So what am I to make of the latest threat by the kooky leader to demonstrate North Korea's ability to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile?
Many would say, "He's flippin' crazy, there's no point whatsoever in trying to understand his actions since he is nuts!" This reaction, of course, leads to the inevitable conclusion, "Kill the mad dog before he kills us."
And now for the controversial part of my theory. Kim Jung Il is not only not crazy but he is a well paid actor whose roll is to play the Penquin to Bush's Batman. His acting is first rate.
The reason? To make saleable to the American public the idea that our nation should spend upwards of $100 billion on a missile defense system. Clearly a Missile Defense Shield must be built to protect us from this suicidal devil.
I first became suspicious of Kim Jung Il's supposed insanity when George W. Bush rejected a visit by the leader of South Korea at the beginning of his first term. This sent a strong signal that he would not put a priority on continuing US involvement in brokering peace on the Korean Peninsula. This seemed very odd considering that after 50 years of cold war between North and South Korea there was finally enough of a thaw during the Clinton administration for the two sides to begin allowing cross DMZ visits by families separated by the Korean Conflict. There seemed to be real hope that peace would finally break out. But for some the hope for peace represents a more than offsetting fear of loss of extremely lucrative defense work.
In Bush's first State of the Union address following 9/11 he announced that North Korea was part of the axis of evil and declared,
"We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security."
With the Bush gang's long term devotion to selling a missile defense shield to the American public, even after the fall of the Soviet Union (the presumed enemy during the Reagan administration that the shield was needed for) an enemy, real or presumed was needed. They needed a boogeyman and North Korea fit the bill. After reading horrifying excerpts of the Project for a New American Century's (PNAC) own manifesto on its website this seemed to make sense to me. From page 9 (of 90 in the PDF file) of the September 2000 report that is the blueprint for all Bush administration decision making from the moment he took office:
"As will be argued more fully below, effective ballistic missile defenses will be the central element in the exercise of American power and the projection of
And from page 19 ..
"Over the next several decades, the United States must field a global system of missile defenses, divine ways to control the new “international commons” of space and cyberspace, and build new kinds of conventional forces for different strategic challenges and a new technological environment."
So torpedo the peace talks, isolate North Korea, build up the threat that they will develop further nuclear capabilities and the payoff is the delivery of $100 billion of defense work to the folks who put these nuts in power.
So I argued to my co-worker that it was more comprehensible that these powerful money interests would be able to buy a foreign leader and have him play the enemy of our nightmares than to believe that Kim Jung Il is so crazy that he'd risk nuking Tokyo and starting a worldwide nuclear conflagration that would result in the end of human life on the planet.
The very evening I exposed my lunatic theory to the light of day at work I flipped on the idiot box and on the network news (ABC) the top stories included a piece discussing the possibility that if North Korea were to go ahead with the test launch of its intercontinental ballistic missile that the US' fledgling missile defense shield would be able to shoot it down.
Those sneaky bastards! Could I be on to something?
In previous tests of our missile defense shield we have failed to hit the target. Even when the Pentagon was caught rigging the test existing systems under development failed with one exception that I am aware of.
"The rocket fired from Vandenberg was carrying a global positioning satellite beacon that guided the kill vehicle toward it. In other words, it would be fair to say that the $100 million test was rigged."
Has the state of the art advanced enough that the PNAC gang could be guaranteed to hit the target this time? With the help of an accomplice coordinating the launch of his missile, again with a homing beacon on it so the US can shoot it down, could we do it this time?
Should this scenario play out Kim Jung Il would angrily claim that we violated the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, that we are evil cheaters and he will be forced to build more missiles as fast as possible.
If relatively small fry defense contractors can buy a US Congressman from San Diego for a paltry 2 million dollars is it so cynical and crazy to believe that the largest defense firms, with the help of top administration officials could not buy the loyalty of a tin pot dictator ruling a dirt poor, ruined nation of starving peasants?
Would there not be a huge public demand for immediate massive investment in perfecting the shield at any price (so long as it is financed in the traditional manner of putting it on our childrens' credit cards)? Afterall, the shield will have proven its usefulness and apparent necessity to protect us from the little mad man in Pyonyang. Defense stocks will soar and the massive theft from the American taxpayer will go on and on.
Combine the timing of this spectacle with the upcoming mid-elections and you have a recipe for a delightful October surprise. Americans would be reminded once again that only Republicans have the testosterone to protect the homeland from the evil surrounding us.
Or, I could be a loony.
PLEASE TELL ME I AM A LOONY.
Follow Up: Looks like I have company.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
The Emperor's New Clothes
Think Emperor's New Clothes as you watch Rumsfeld actually being forced to answer questions that are not gentle softballs, nay shuttlecocks, aimlessly tossed in his general direction by an arch-liberal press hell bent on establishing an iron fisted Communist dictatorship in our beloved homeland!
We are frustrated because we have seen the naked power grab by hapless thugs with visions of world domination from the beginning. Clearly these people are lacking in sexual gratification, that, however; is a story for another time.
It takes the innocent man-child Steven Colbert to look the president in the eye and essentially tell him that it is clear he has no intellect. He therefore stands naked, revealed for the chimpanzee that he in fact is.
A veil is lifted from the public eye. The sheeple who felt bound to honor him because of his high office now see that he is an object deserving of ridicule.
Ridicule is followed fast by anger. This guy's excellent questioning will unleash the floodgates.
There will be more questions asked now by the few journalists with courage to strike now while there is blood in the water. Whoopee.
It could happen, right??
Think Emperor's New Clothes as you watch Rumsfeld actually being forced to answer questions that are not gentle softballs, nay shuttlecocks, aimlessly tossed in his general direction by an arch-liberal press hell bent on establishing an iron fisted Communist dictatorship in our beloved homeland!
We are frustrated because we have seen the naked power grab by hapless thugs with visions of world domination from the beginning. Clearly these people are lacking in sexual gratification, that, however; is a story for another time.
It takes the innocent man-child Steven Colbert to look the president in the eye and essentially tell him that it is clear he has no intellect. He therefore stands naked, revealed for the chimpanzee that he in fact is.
A veil is lifted from the public eye. The sheeple who felt bound to honor him because of his high office now see that he is an object deserving of ridicule.
Ridicule is followed fast by anger. This guy's excellent questioning will unleash the floodgates.
There will be more questions asked now by the few journalists with courage to strike now while there is blood in the water. Whoopee.
It could happen, right??
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
General Odom
Read this.
Discuss among your neighbors and friends.
Neighbors and friends. -- Sweet Sweet Sweet Sweet City Woman.
Read this.
Discuss among your neighbors and friends.
Neighbors and friends. -- Sweet Sweet Sweet Sweet City Woman.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Katrina
Note: This post has been edited because on re-reading it I realized that I was even more spastic and frothing at the mouth than usual.
I am moved to put words to my exasperation over the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Having watched the video tape that lay buried somewhere for months just begging to be seen, I am in a foul temper.
This video needs to be seen by all citizens. It represents clear evidence of the astonishing neglection by the Emperor of Incompetence, of his duty to protect the United States of America and its citizens.
The destruction wrought by Katrina cannot help but be compared to the calamitous September 11 attack. Of course these two tragic events are profoundly different. One was an act of fanatical human beings and the other was a blind force of nature. A force of nature, widely anticipated for 30 years, that killed 1300 people with 2300 still missing and quite probably dead.
That's more than the number who died on September 11th. Wall Street was open for business the following week. A significant portion of New Orleans' dwellings and businesses, to this day, contain 6 feet of murky water.
In the aftermath of the first disaster it was so important to reopen the financial center of our nation that this administration directed its EPA to hide the fact that the air in downtown Manhattan posed a grave health hazard to the public. Had the cause of the harmful air been an industrial accident rather than a terrorist attack the public would have been advised to remain indoors until the air was safe. The outgoing head of the EPA Christine Todd Whitman admitted this was true.
Instead it was decided, for us, that Americans had, had enough trauma. What was the point of giving us one more thing to worry about? The best thing to do is to restore pride in America by showing the terrorists that we could get the exchanges open quickly.
We can really spring into action when we put our minds to it. When it comes to getting the renowned heart of the nations musical heritage beating again the prevailing wisdom seems to be; good riddance to bad garbage.
It seems to me that this pre-Katrina tape should be getting much more coverage in the mainstream press. Why sit on a tape that shows that the president was inattentive when it counted?
Is it because "September 11 changed everything" and so respect for the commander in chief must dwarf all other concerns?
It seems to me that if this is the case then, to repeat a cliche, the terrorists have already won. Meaning our great nation, with its well planned checks and balances, it's 4th estate acting as a further check on power, it's presumption of innocence, it's rights to a fair trial, its shining example of hope for people struggling for human rights everywhere, has at long last perished from the earth.
That is what Bush and his Attorney General have essentially said. It's done. Representative Democracy is gone. At least until the War on Terror is won. The president is above the law, for the foreseeable future.
Keeping in mind that the passage of time from the bombing of Pearl Harbor to Hitler putting a bullet in his head was just short of 3 years and 5 months (12/7/41 to 5/1/45) while the war on Terror is now 4 years and 6 months on(9/11/2001 -- 3/3/06) I believe that my inalienable rights are going to be suspended for a while.
I am not willing to accept this usurpation of power by this callous collection of morons lying down. Are we to accept that the rule of law will be on holiday until no one, anywhere, hates us enough to die in order to harm us? Wouldn't this be necessary in order to declare victory in such a war? Clearly this war cannot and will not ever end.
Quick, which war will we win first, the drug war or the war on terror?
What should Bush have done?
Am I being unfair to a guy who had the bad luck to be president when a whole lot of shit hit the proverbial fan seemingly at once?
This line of thinking seems to be the fashionable refuge of the apologists for poor Mr. Bush of late. "Boy, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes!" they say.
So what should he have done? Well for starters, how about not insulting our intelligence by saying, or accepting his top officials saying, "I don't think anyone would have predicted the levees would fail" or "I don't think anyone predicted that someone would crash an airplane into a building" and then to bully the press into hiding the fact that not only was it predicted but people wrote it down on paper, waved it in front of his face, while gesticulating wildly and crying for him to wake the hell up and pay attention just before the twin astonishing tragedies interrupted his vacations.
I have a brother in Fort Lauderdale. His office sits within site of the ocean. As hurricanes twist towards the Florida peninsula every year I am glued to the Weather Channel like millions of others. My first thought is for the safety of my brother and his family. When he is out of danger my next thought, having watched several excellent and terrifying documentaries over the past 4 years regarding the grave danger that New Orleans would be in if struck by a strong category 3, never mind a 4 storm, is, "Man, I hope it's not their time."
What should the president have done when told that the storm was a Category 5, that the levees may fail, and that people who could not or would not get out would be put up in the Superdome 12 feet below sea level with a roof that may, or may not remain intact, have done?
Well, how about saying something like this this:
For many years you have been warned about the possibility of New Orleans being drowned by a hurricane that would be followed by a storm surge leaving 20 feet of water in the city that will remain there for 60 days. The best experts in the federal government have advised me that this very storm that we have long feared is arriving very shortly. I have been informed that there is no guarantee that New Orleans' levee system will be able to protect the city.
Your local officials have already informed you that this could be "the big one" and that there is a mandatory evacuation order in effect. I want to add my voice to this dire warning and encourage all in the mandatory evacuation zone to heed this order. It is very important for all able bodied people to evacuate the area immediately and aid others when possible to do the same. Many of your neighbors do not have access to transportation, therefore it is incumbent upon each of you to pick up passengers if your vehicle has room. Please give human beings precedence over mere belongings as you prepare to leave.
This is not a storm that should be ridden out by anyone. Although local, state and federal governments do have resources to aid those impacted by this approaching hurricane, due to the size of the storm and the enormous population in the danger zone there is a strong possibility that if you remain in your homes you will not survive long enough to be rescued.
To those outside of the immediate danger zone. Please refrain from unnecessary driving and especially the purchase of gasoline. Your cooperation will help those that need to move out of harms way to do so more quickly and safely.
When the storm has passed the rest of the nation will provide assistance to those needing it. At this time it is important to move quickly and safely out of harms way.
The nation is with you.
Instead, Bush said nothing, knew nothing, heard nothing.
Maybe he decided, as he did at ground zero, that we'd be better off not knowing.
Our independent press seconded the emotion and decided we'd be better off not knowing what a giant ass we have for a leader!
Oy.
Note: This post has been edited because on re-reading it I realized that I was even more spastic and frothing at the mouth than usual.
I am moved to put words to my exasperation over the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Having watched the video tape that lay buried somewhere for months just begging to be seen, I am in a foul temper.
This video needs to be seen by all citizens. It represents clear evidence of the astonishing neglection by the Emperor of Incompetence, of his duty to protect the United States of America and its citizens.
The destruction wrought by Katrina cannot help but be compared to the calamitous September 11 attack. Of course these two tragic events are profoundly different. One was an act of fanatical human beings and the other was a blind force of nature. A force of nature, widely anticipated for 30 years, that killed 1300 people with 2300 still missing and quite probably dead.
That's more than the number who died on September 11th. Wall Street was open for business the following week. A significant portion of New Orleans' dwellings and businesses, to this day, contain 6 feet of murky water.
In the aftermath of the first disaster it was so important to reopen the financial center of our nation that this administration directed its EPA to hide the fact that the air in downtown Manhattan posed a grave health hazard to the public. Had the cause of the harmful air been an industrial accident rather than a terrorist attack the public would have been advised to remain indoors until the air was safe. The outgoing head of the EPA Christine Todd Whitman admitted this was true.
Instead it was decided, for us, that Americans had, had enough trauma. What was the point of giving us one more thing to worry about? The best thing to do is to restore pride in America by showing the terrorists that we could get the exchanges open quickly.
We can really spring into action when we put our minds to it. When it comes to getting the renowned heart of the nations musical heritage beating again the prevailing wisdom seems to be; good riddance to bad garbage.
It seems to me that this pre-Katrina tape should be getting much more coverage in the mainstream press. Why sit on a tape that shows that the president was inattentive when it counted?
Is it because "September 11 changed everything" and so respect for the commander in chief must dwarf all other concerns?
It seems to me that if this is the case then, to repeat a cliche, the terrorists have already won. Meaning our great nation, with its well planned checks and balances, it's 4th estate acting as a further check on power, it's presumption of innocence, it's rights to a fair trial, its shining example of hope for people struggling for human rights everywhere, has at long last perished from the earth.
That is what Bush and his Attorney General have essentially said. It's done. Representative Democracy is gone. At least until the War on Terror is won. The president is above the law, for the foreseeable future.
Keeping in mind that the passage of time from the bombing of Pearl Harbor to Hitler putting a bullet in his head was just short of 3 years and 5 months (12/7/41 to 5/1/45) while the war on Terror is now 4 years and 6 months on(9/11/2001 -- 3/3/06) I believe that my inalienable rights are going to be suspended for a while.
I am not willing to accept this usurpation of power by this callous collection of morons lying down. Are we to accept that the rule of law will be on holiday until no one, anywhere, hates us enough to die in order to harm us? Wouldn't this be necessary in order to declare victory in such a war? Clearly this war cannot and will not ever end.
Quick, which war will we win first, the drug war or the war on terror?
What should Bush have done?
Am I being unfair to a guy who had the bad luck to be president when a whole lot of shit hit the proverbial fan seemingly at once?
This line of thinking seems to be the fashionable refuge of the apologists for poor Mr. Bush of late. "Boy, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes!" they say.
So what should he have done? Well for starters, how about not insulting our intelligence by saying, or accepting his top officials saying, "I don't think anyone would have predicted the levees would fail" or "I don't think anyone predicted that someone would crash an airplane into a building" and then to bully the press into hiding the fact that not only was it predicted but people wrote it down on paper, waved it in front of his face, while gesticulating wildly and crying for him to wake the hell up and pay attention just before the twin astonishing tragedies interrupted his vacations.
I have a brother in Fort Lauderdale. His office sits within site of the ocean. As hurricanes twist towards the Florida peninsula every year I am glued to the Weather Channel like millions of others. My first thought is for the safety of my brother and his family. When he is out of danger my next thought, having watched several excellent and terrifying documentaries over the past 4 years regarding the grave danger that New Orleans would be in if struck by a strong category 3, never mind a 4 storm, is, "Man, I hope it's not their time."
What should the president have done when told that the storm was a Category 5, that the levees may fail, and that people who could not or would not get out would be put up in the Superdome 12 feet below sea level with a roof that may, or may not remain intact, have done?
Well, how about saying something like this this:
For many years you have been warned about the possibility of New Orleans being drowned by a hurricane that would be followed by a storm surge leaving 20 feet of water in the city that will remain there for 60 days. The best experts in the federal government have advised me that this very storm that we have long feared is arriving very shortly. I have been informed that there is no guarantee that New Orleans' levee system will be able to protect the city.
Your local officials have already informed you that this could be "the big one" and that there is a mandatory evacuation order in effect. I want to add my voice to this dire warning and encourage all in the mandatory evacuation zone to heed this order. It is very important for all able bodied people to evacuate the area immediately and aid others when possible to do the same. Many of your neighbors do not have access to transportation, therefore it is incumbent upon each of you to pick up passengers if your vehicle has room. Please give human beings precedence over mere belongings as you prepare to leave.
This is not a storm that should be ridden out by anyone. Although local, state and federal governments do have resources to aid those impacted by this approaching hurricane, due to the size of the storm and the enormous population in the danger zone there is a strong possibility that if you remain in your homes you will not survive long enough to be rescued.
To those outside of the immediate danger zone. Please refrain from unnecessary driving and especially the purchase of gasoline. Your cooperation will help those that need to move out of harms way to do so more quickly and safely.
When the storm has passed the rest of the nation will provide assistance to those needing it. At this time it is important to move quickly and safely out of harms way.
The nation is with you.
Instead, Bush said nothing, knew nothing, heard nothing.
Maybe he decided, as he did at ground zero, that we'd be better off not knowing.
Our independent press seconded the emotion and decided we'd be better off not knowing what a giant ass we have for a leader!
Oy.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
I'm Back
Recommended reading:
Here's the nitty gritty:
>> Look. We have a President here who is making a claim of unlimited power, for the duration of a war that may never end. Oh, he says it's limited by the country's laws, but they've got a crack legal team that reliably interprets the laws to say that the President gets to do whatever he wants. It amounts to the same thing.
Recommended reading:
Here's the nitty gritty:
>> Look. We have a President here who is making a claim of unlimited power, for the duration of a war that may never end. Oh, he says it's limited by the country's laws, but they've got a crack legal team that reliably interprets the laws to say that the President gets to do whatever he wants. It amounts to the same thing.
I am not exaggerating. I am really and truly not.
September 11 started the war. When will it end? Maybe never. Where is the battlefield? The entire world, including the United States. Who is an enemy combatant? Anyone the President says is an enemy combatant, including a U.S. citizen--no need for a charge, no need for a trial, no need for access to a lawyer. What if they're found not to be an enemy combatant? We can keep them in prison anyway, and we don't have to tell their families they're alive or their lawyers that they were cleared. What can you do to an enemy combatant? Anything you want. Detain him forever, for the rest of his life, because this is a war like any other and we have always been able to detain POWs for the duration of the war. But you don't need to follow the Geneva Conventions, because this is a war like no other in our history. And oh yes--if the President decides that we need to torture a prisoner for the war effort, it's unconstitutional for Congress to stop him. They took that position in an official memo, and they have not backed down from it. They have said it was "unnecessary" but they have never backed down from it.
They are not only entitled to do these things to people; they are entitled to do them in secret. When Congress asks for information about them, they can just ignore it. And they are entitled to actively deceive the public about all this.
That's the power they claim. At what point are we going to take that claim seriously? <<<
Since when is it the belief of people professing to be Republicans that the Executive Branch of the Federal Government must wield unchallengable power?
I thought they were the small government party?
I used to roll my eyes at the "elections were both stolen" crowd. It's worth pondering though, would they really be vesting the Executive with this much power if they ever believed that a Democrat would be elected again?
Friday, March 11, 2005
Strategic Alliance?
They say politics often makes strange bedfellows. This article reveals a very welcome development. It's titled "Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming". The money quote:
These church leaders, scientists, writers and heads of international aid agencies argue that global warming is an urgent threat, a cause of poverty and a Christian issue because the Bible mandates stewardship of God's creation.
Hale-frickin-luia!
I have long thought that people in the environmental movement needed to reach out for common ground with political opponents. It's simple logic that all people with an ounce of instinct for self preservation ought to be "environmentalists". So why do so many people sneer at the word? The answer is that active environmentalists often do a great job of preaching to the choir and recruiting their friends but they do a lousy job at persuading people with political differences that a healthy environment is something they should fight for as well.
The strong statement of support from parts of the Evangelical community is a welcome development and it should be embraced by environmental groups. Allies are needed to prevent us from destroying our habitat.
Let's go fishing!
They say politics often makes strange bedfellows. This article reveals a very welcome development. It's titled "Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming". The money quote:
These church leaders, scientists, writers and heads of international aid agencies argue that global warming is an urgent threat, a cause of poverty and a Christian issue because the Bible mandates stewardship of God's creation.
Hale-frickin-luia!
I have long thought that people in the environmental movement needed to reach out for common ground with political opponents. It's simple logic that all people with an ounce of instinct for self preservation ought to be "environmentalists". So why do so many people sneer at the word? The answer is that active environmentalists often do a great job of preaching to the choir and recruiting their friends but they do a lousy job at persuading people with political differences that a healthy environment is something they should fight for as well.
The strong statement of support from parts of the Evangelical community is a welcome development and it should be embraced by environmental groups. Allies are needed to prevent us from destroying our habitat.
Let's go fishing!
Friday, February 11, 2005
Torture
Check out this very disturbing piece by Frank Herbert. Condoners of torture generally frame the discussion in a way that assumes that the actual guilt of the suspect is a certainty. Their scenarios usually follow along the lines: suspect has direct knowledge of location of biological weapon that will kill 200,000 people if we don't torture him until he reveals where it is. Left wing liberals place the civil rights of this scumbag as a higher priority than the lives of the innocent victims of his evil intentions. While in fact what actually happens is; suspect is the co-worker of a guy whose brother is suspected of being a terrorist. Better torture him just in case he knows something, but we better do it in a foreign country where he cannot count on any legal protections. Freedom aint free mutherf...er!
Maher Arar is a 34-year-old native of Syria who emigrated to Canada as a teenager. On Sept. 26, 2002, as he was returning from a family vacation in Tunisia, he was seized by American authorities at Kennedy Airport in New York, where he was in the process of changing planes.
Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen, was not charged with a crime. But, as Jane Mayer tells us in a compelling and deeply disturbing article in the current issue of The New Yorker, he "was placed in handcuffs and leg irons by plainclothes officials and transferred to an executive jet."
Check out this very disturbing piece by Frank Herbert. Condoners of torture generally frame the discussion in a way that assumes that the actual guilt of the suspect is a certainty. Their scenarios usually follow along the lines: suspect has direct knowledge of location of biological weapon that will kill 200,000 people if we don't torture him until he reveals where it is. Left wing liberals place the civil rights of this scumbag as a higher priority than the lives of the innocent victims of his evil intentions. While in fact what actually happens is; suspect is the co-worker of a guy whose brother is suspected of being a terrorist. Better torture him just in case he knows something, but we better do it in a foreign country where he cannot count on any legal protections. Freedom aint free mutherf...er!
Maher Arar is a 34-year-old native of Syria who emigrated to Canada as a teenager. On Sept. 26, 2002, as he was returning from a family vacation in Tunisia, he was seized by American authorities at Kennedy Airport in New York, where he was in the process of changing planes.
Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen, was not charged with a crime. But, as Jane Mayer tells us in a compelling and deeply disturbing article in the current issue of The New Yorker, he "was placed in handcuffs and leg irons by plainclothes officials and transferred to an executive jet."
In an instant, Mr. Arar was swept into an increasingly common nightmare, courtesy of the United States of America. The plane that took off with him from Kennedy "flew to Washington, continued to Portland, Maine, stopped in Rome, Italy, then landed in Amman, Jordan."
Any rights Mr. Arar might have thought he had, either as a Canadian citizen or a human being, had been left behind. At times during the trip, Mr. Arar heard the pilots and crew identify themselves in radio communications as members of "the Special Removal Unit." He was being taken, on the orders of the U.S. government, to Syria, where he would be tortured.
 |
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Another Reason to Oppose Privatization
Remember this guy. How do you get paid $150 million to run a non-profit corporation? From the Times article:
Richard A. Grasso, the former chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, received $144 million to $156 million in excess compensation during his time at the Big Board, taking deliberate steps to keep his high-profile board in the dark about his soaring pay and get the money out early, according to a stinging internal report released today by the exchange. .... It documents a culture of excessive pay at the exchange, whereby Mr. Grasso's executive assistant was paid $240,000 a year and his two drivers $130,000.
Nice work if you can get it. The thing that puzzles me is when characters like this stand up and argue that they deserve what they got and are willing to fight to keep it. $150 million is an obscene amount of money to receive all at once. A little perspective is in order. Say Mr. Grasso has about 30 years to live. He could spend $571 per hour every hour for the rest of his life before going broke. This is of course if he kept the money under his bed. Grasso's too smart for that.
A guy with Grasso's financial acumen could guarantee himself a lousy 4% rate of return with very conservative investments, like say lending it to the government that he and his friends own. Let's see, 4% of 150 million is $6 million. That comes to interest earned of $16,438 per day or $685 per hour. Wow this means Grasso can spend $685 per hour, every hour for life. With the elimination of the evil death tax, which unfairly punishes successful hard working folks like Mr. Grasso, his heirs can keep doing the same forever and ever, (world without end, amen ... I was an altar boy once) without even touching the sexy, gorgeous pile of 150 million beautiful dollars that he raked off the top of unsuspecting investors' returns in the first place!
This guy will fight for his right to party. It's his due. Now let's hurry up and privatize Social Security to help others on Wall Street achieve the Sun God status that Mr. Grasso has achieved. I am sure that we can trust these altruistic men of stature with our old age security. If not, maybe he'll offer us one of those chauffer jobs.
... Coming soon - a rambling, heart felt cry for the imposition of a maximum wage in this country!
Remember this guy. How do you get paid $150 million to run a non-profit corporation? From the Times article:
Richard A. Grasso, the former chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, received $144 million to $156 million in excess compensation during his time at the Big Board, taking deliberate steps to keep his high-profile board in the dark about his soaring pay and get the money out early, according to a stinging internal report released today by the exchange. .... It documents a culture of excessive pay at the exchange, whereby Mr. Grasso's executive assistant was paid $240,000 a year and his two drivers $130,000.
Nice work if you can get it. The thing that puzzles me is when characters like this stand up and argue that they deserve what they got and are willing to fight to keep it. $150 million is an obscene amount of money to receive all at once. A little perspective is in order. Say Mr. Grasso has about 30 years to live. He could spend $571 per hour every hour for the rest of his life before going broke. This is of course if he kept the money under his bed. Grasso's too smart for that.
A guy with Grasso's financial acumen could guarantee himself a lousy 4% rate of return with very conservative investments, like say lending it to the government that he and his friends own. Let's see, 4% of 150 million is $6 million. That comes to interest earned of $16,438 per day or $685 per hour. Wow this means Grasso can spend $685 per hour, every hour for life. With the elimination of the evil death tax, which unfairly punishes successful hard working folks like Mr. Grasso, his heirs can keep doing the same forever and ever, (world without end, amen ... I was an altar boy once) without even touching the sexy, gorgeous pile of 150 million beautiful dollars that he raked off the top of unsuspecting investors' returns in the first place!
This guy will fight for his right to party. It's his due. Now let's hurry up and privatize Social Security to help others on Wall Street achieve the Sun God status that Mr. Grasso has achieved. I am sure that we can trust these altruistic men of stature with our old age security. If not, maybe he'll offer us one of those chauffer jobs.
... Coming soon - a rambling, heart felt cry for the imposition of a maximum wage in this country!
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Armstrong Williams Follow Up
Well that was fast. Through the Freedom Of Information Act I have already received a PDF file from the Department of Education on the Armstrong Williams matter. They "redacted" some information and only included documents specifically related to Williams interviews with former Secretary of Education Rod Paige, even though my request did not mention Paige at all. It appears that I only received documents covering $139 thousand of contracts in which Williams benefited. I have to read through the 46 pages and try to figure it all out. I expect that Education was hit with lots of FOIA requests on this. Hopefully that may effect future decisions to bribe journalists in order to have them promote administration policies.
I'll have more on this later.
Well that was fast. Through the Freedom Of Information Act I have already received a PDF file from the Department of Education on the Armstrong Williams matter. They "redacted" some information and only included documents specifically related to Williams interviews with former Secretary of Education Rod Paige, even though my request did not mention Paige at all. It appears that I only received documents covering $139 thousand of contracts in which Williams benefited. I have to read through the 46 pages and try to figure it all out. I expect that Education was hit with lots of FOIA requests on this. Hopefully that may effect future decisions to bribe journalists in order to have them promote administration policies.
I'll have more on this later.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Every Child Left Behind
The conservative commentator Armstrong Williams was paid, under a Department of Education contract, $241,000 to promote the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Of course he did not reveal this to his readers and listeners as he promoted the President and his other policies. A very good article in The Nation explores the controversy.
After reading the article at The Nation several questions occurred to me.
First was, How do I file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to learn the specifics of this contract with Williams rather than waiting for the Inspector General to ask the right questions?
I learned how to do this and actually filed my request with the Department of Education by going to this website. A big thank you to Ralph Nader for fighting so hard for this valuable citizen's tool, especially now that we know that the nation's journalists are on the take from the government and are not likely to investigate themselves!
Secondly, how many children were left behind by the choice to allocate valuable educational resources to Armstrong Williams rather than to struggling students through the Federal government's Title I program?
As I have mentioned before, my wife is an elementary school teacher in a rural (poor) school district that she commutes to outside of Portland. I was curious what the average Title I grant per student was in Oregon so I just looked it up. My rough guess is that conservatively it is about $1,700 based on a cursory glance at the long list of figures for every district in Oregon. Title I is the federal program which supplements state and local spending for funding supplemental programs for low achieving k-12 kids, the ones in danger of being "left behind".
Apparently in order to promote the NCLB act, Williams was worthy of allocation of funds equivalent to Title I funding of 141 Oregon kids for one year. I am certain that my wife's fellow dedicated teachers could have put that money to better use!
To make matters worse while "googling" this story I learned through a Washington Post article that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
"The (Education) department already has paid Ketchum (public relations firm) $700,000 to rate journalists on how positively or negatively they report on No Child Left Behind, and to produce a video release on the law that was used by some television stations as if it were real news."
That represents Title I funding for another 412 struggling kids down the toilet in a political scheme which does nothing for our struggling schools!
Now I know that some would point out that such figures when compared to the massive amounts of money spent by the Federal Government are statistically insignificant. That is part of the problem. The larger the organization the more wasteful since larger and larger amounts of wasteful spending become "insignificant". At my wife's school the water from the water fountains in the school is undrinkable. After further drastic budget cuts from the state the teachers voted on whether or not to allocate dwindling resources for teacher supplies to pay for coffee or bottled water (5 gallon jug type) for staff since the district could not afford to provide both. (They chose water, the kids are simply out of luck). The school commonly runs out of all paper by the middle of March and teachers - all of whom are required to get Masters degrees and are paid very poorly - purchase their own paper, and countless other classroom necessities, for the remaining school year out of their own pockets.
As I wrote late last year I am now nearly convinced that we should abolish the Federal Department of Education and give all education dollars directly to the states with no strings attached.
This is an outrage on so many levels I don't even know where to start! When I receive the requested FOIA documents (I'm sure it will be a while!) I will report back.
The conservative commentator Armstrong Williams was paid, under a Department of Education contract, $241,000 to promote the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Of course he did not reveal this to his readers and listeners as he promoted the President and his other policies. A very good article in The Nation explores the controversy.
After reading the article at The Nation several questions occurred to me.
First was, How do I file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to learn the specifics of this contract with Williams rather than waiting for the Inspector General to ask the right questions?
I learned how to do this and actually filed my request with the Department of Education by going to this website. A big thank you to Ralph Nader for fighting so hard for this valuable citizen's tool, especially now that we know that the nation's journalists are on the take from the government and are not likely to investigate themselves!
Secondly, how many children were left behind by the choice to allocate valuable educational resources to Armstrong Williams rather than to struggling students through the Federal government's Title I program?
As I have mentioned before, my wife is an elementary school teacher in a rural (poor) school district that she commutes to outside of Portland. I was curious what the average Title I grant per student was in Oregon so I just looked it up. My rough guess is that conservatively it is about $1,700 based on a cursory glance at the long list of figures for every district in Oregon. Title I is the federal program which supplements state and local spending for funding supplemental programs for low achieving k-12 kids, the ones in danger of being "left behind".
Apparently in order to promote the NCLB act, Williams was worthy of allocation of funds equivalent to Title I funding of 141 Oregon kids for one year. I am certain that my wife's fellow dedicated teachers could have put that money to better use!
To make matters worse while "googling" this story I learned through a Washington Post article that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
"The (Education) department already has paid Ketchum (public relations firm) $700,000 to rate journalists on how positively or negatively they report on No Child Left Behind, and to produce a video release on the law that was used by some television stations as if it were real news."
That represents Title I funding for another 412 struggling kids down the toilet in a political scheme which does nothing for our struggling schools!
Now I know that some would point out that such figures when compared to the massive amounts of money spent by the Federal Government are statistically insignificant. That is part of the problem. The larger the organization the more wasteful since larger and larger amounts of wasteful spending become "insignificant". At my wife's school the water from the water fountains in the school is undrinkable. After further drastic budget cuts from the state the teachers voted on whether or not to allocate dwindling resources for teacher supplies to pay for coffee or bottled water (5 gallon jug type) for staff since the district could not afford to provide both. (They chose water, the kids are simply out of luck). The school commonly runs out of all paper by the middle of March and teachers - all of whom are required to get Masters degrees and are paid very poorly - purchase their own paper, and countless other classroom necessities, for the remaining school year out of their own pockets.
As I wrote late last year I am now nearly convinced that we should abolish the Federal Department of Education and give all education dollars directly to the states with no strings attached.
This is an outrage on so many levels I don't even know where to start! When I receive the requested FOIA documents (I'm sure it will be a while!) I will report back.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Divine Intervention
Idea for a short film:
Scene: Near midfield shortly after the conclusion of a professional football game. Stands are still packed with cheering fans, some just beginning to head for the exits. TV cameras and sportscasters surround several players and both head coaches.
Sportscaster: JT, let me get you over here for a minute. What a game, you had a personal best 140 yards rushing, 3 touchdowns and you made a key block to enable the winning score to put your team into the playoffs. Can you tell us how your team overcame such a strong defense today?
JT: Yea, I just want to say that I give all credit to God! (thumps his left chest firmly twice with his right fist and then lifts his right arm and points his right index finger at the sky)
(As he does, JT's teammates pour an icy bucket of Gatorade over his head and he is swept up in a crowd of jubilant fans and teammates.)
(Sportscaster walks five paces to his right to speak with the losing coach who had just shaken JT's hand.)
Sportscaster: (In a low comforting tone) Marty, boy it was a tough loss. What do you think went wrong this afternoon?
Marty: Well I think it's pretty clear what happened. JT pretty much said it all. You know, you work hard and sacrifice, overcome injuries, plan, prepare and sweat and bleed and then the lord picks the other team.
Sportscaster: (Surprised) What!?
Marty: Oh come on Frank! Everyone knows we're the better team. JT just admitted they won because God chose to help him. Well, we've had it. We plan to lodge a formal complaint with the league. How in the world are mere mortals expected to compete against the hand of the almighty? I tell you, no disrespect intended, (Coach Marty thumps his left chest firmly twice with his right fist and then lifts his right arm and points his right index finger at the sky) but I for one wish that God would just allow these fine athletes to compete fair and square on the field rather than constantly showing favoritism. It just isn't fair! Isn't he supposed to be resting on Sundays anyway? (Coach Marty looks down sheepishly, kicks the ground with his right foot and trudges off in the direction of the end zone)
Sportscaster: (Stands momentarily with mouth agape, then recovers. Not looking into the camera but at the retreating losing coach) Well I must say this has to be the most unusual end-of-game interview I have ever been a p---- (At this point, for no apparent reason one of the goal posts falls and severs the head of Coach Marty and Sportscaster drops his microphone)
(Fade to Black)
Idea for a short film:
Scene: Near midfield shortly after the conclusion of a professional football game. Stands are still packed with cheering fans, some just beginning to head for the exits. TV cameras and sportscasters surround several players and both head coaches.
Sportscaster: JT, let me get you over here for a minute. What a game, you had a personal best 140 yards rushing, 3 touchdowns and you made a key block to enable the winning score to put your team into the playoffs. Can you tell us how your team overcame such a strong defense today?
JT: Yea, I just want to say that I give all credit to God! (thumps his left chest firmly twice with his right fist and then lifts his right arm and points his right index finger at the sky)
(As he does, JT's teammates pour an icy bucket of Gatorade over his head and he is swept up in a crowd of jubilant fans and teammates.)
(Sportscaster walks five paces to his right to speak with the losing coach who had just shaken JT's hand.)
Sportscaster: (In a low comforting tone) Marty, boy it was a tough loss. What do you think went wrong this afternoon?
Marty: Well I think it's pretty clear what happened. JT pretty much said it all. You know, you work hard and sacrifice, overcome injuries, plan, prepare and sweat and bleed and then the lord picks the other team.
Sportscaster: (Surprised) What!?
Marty: Oh come on Frank! Everyone knows we're the better team. JT just admitted they won because God chose to help him. Well, we've had it. We plan to lodge a formal complaint with the league. How in the world are mere mortals expected to compete against the hand of the almighty? I tell you, no disrespect intended, (Coach Marty thumps his left chest firmly twice with his right fist and then lifts his right arm and points his right index finger at the sky) but I for one wish that God would just allow these fine athletes to compete fair and square on the field rather than constantly showing favoritism. It just isn't fair! Isn't he supposed to be resting on Sundays anyway? (Coach Marty looks down sheepishly, kicks the ground with his right foot and trudges off in the direction of the end zone)
Sportscaster: (Stands momentarily with mouth agape, then recovers. Not looking into the camera but at the retreating losing coach) Well I must say this has to be the most unusual end-of-game interview I have ever been a p---- (At this point, for no apparent reason one of the goal posts falls and severs the head of Coach Marty and Sportscaster drops his microphone)
(Fade to Black)
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Quagmire
Terrible news from Iraq this morning.
A lunchtime attack on a U.S. military mess hall in northern Iraq on Tuesday killed 24 people, including Americans and Iraqis, said Lt. Col. Paul Hastings at Camp Marez.
I argued before this disastrous war started that it was a huge mistake. I was convinced that not only would the war lead to the deaths of thousands of innocents but that we would in fact lose the war. People were dumbfounded that I would suggest that the all powerful US military could lose. They were prepared to counter arguments about civilian deaths but were amazed that I thought we would actually be defeated. How could some backwater, third world people defeat us?
Last year near the beginning of the invasion I read Daniel Ellsberg's terrific book, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers. This book should have been read by every member of Congress and by President Bush and then maybe we would not be in this mess.
Ellsberg started out as a hawk on Vietnam. His position evolved over time as he learned first hand about both the facts on the ground and the flaws in decision making at the highest level of our government. One of the key early indicators to him that the war could not be "won" was that US forces were never able to decide when and where to confront the enemy. Unlike In WW2 where enemy forces controlled certain areas and allied forces drew up plans, massed troops and attacked them in Vietnam we were not at war with a country but with a domestic nationalistic insurgency living among the very people we were ostensibly trying to liberate. This insurgency would initiate attacks, then we would react, and they would disperse and blend in.
In Vietnam this lead to the labeling of certain areas as friendly to the insurgency. These areas were therefore bombed into oblivion - "destroy the village in order to save it" - sewing the seeds of hatred and resentment and swelling the ranks of the insurgency. Faluja is the modern example of this philosophy. Since the heady days of the "liberation of Baghdad" in May 2003 Faluja is the one example of us "confronting the enemy". The story of this war since last May has been they attack us, when they want and increasingly even in areas that we thought we maintained some level of control over. How does one "win" such a war?
We could launch more Faluja style attacks but remember the shock of Vietnam was that no matter how many times we bombed these people they never lost their will to resist us. More bombs were dropped on that undeveloped country than in the entire European theatre of war during WW2 and they still kept fighting. Domestic nationalistic insurgencies are like that. They will never give up because they have no where to go. They believe they are defending their homeland.
The lessons of Vietnam should have taught us something but our national memory is incredibly short and our vanity knows no bounds. I am so sick of having people scold me that we "have to win" in Iraq. What does this even mean? Right now our troops number one job is to try not to get killed. We cannot confront the enemy and attack him first because the enemy is everywhere and no where. The enemy decides when and where to attack. We are helpless short of declaring specific areas "free fire zones" and killing anything that moves there. Training Iraqis to take over security sounds like a great idea until you stop and think that a significant number of these trainees harbor deep resentments against us and given the chance will blow up our mess halls to kill as many of us as possible. Chances are high that this is what occurred near Mosul this morning. What will the inevitable response of our troops be? Fear, mistrust and hatred of all locals leading to understandably itchy trigger fingers. This will swell the ranks of the insurgency even more. The insurgency will never stop resisting no matter the cost. We will grow tired of the carnage and at some point we will leave, trying to disguise our defeat. Our military will be weakened for a generation because of this insane war.
We are the problem in Iraq not the solution. We need to get out, the sooner the better.
Another parallel with Vietnam - accepting the inevitability of defeat and cutting our losses is considered weakness - lying to the American people and painting rosy scenarios while the costs pile up is called leadership. Are we protecting America or protecting our leaders reputations? You decide.
Terrible news from Iraq this morning.
A lunchtime attack on a U.S. military mess hall in northern Iraq on Tuesday killed 24 people, including Americans and Iraqis, said Lt. Col. Paul Hastings at Camp Marez.
I argued before this disastrous war started that it was a huge mistake. I was convinced that not only would the war lead to the deaths of thousands of innocents but that we would in fact lose the war. People were dumbfounded that I would suggest that the all powerful US military could lose. They were prepared to counter arguments about civilian deaths but were amazed that I thought we would actually be defeated. How could some backwater, third world people defeat us?
Last year near the beginning of the invasion I read Daniel Ellsberg's terrific book, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers. This book should have been read by every member of Congress and by President Bush and then maybe we would not be in this mess.
Ellsberg started out as a hawk on Vietnam. His position evolved over time as he learned first hand about both the facts on the ground and the flaws in decision making at the highest level of our government. One of the key early indicators to him that the war could not be "won" was that US forces were never able to decide when and where to confront the enemy. Unlike In WW2 where enemy forces controlled certain areas and allied forces drew up plans, massed troops and attacked them in Vietnam we were not at war with a country but with a domestic nationalistic insurgency living among the very people we were ostensibly trying to liberate. This insurgency would initiate attacks, then we would react, and they would disperse and blend in.
In Vietnam this lead to the labeling of certain areas as friendly to the insurgency. These areas were therefore bombed into oblivion - "destroy the village in order to save it" - sewing the seeds of hatred and resentment and swelling the ranks of the insurgency. Faluja is the modern example of this philosophy. Since the heady days of the "liberation of Baghdad" in May 2003 Faluja is the one example of us "confronting the enemy". The story of this war since last May has been they attack us, when they want and increasingly even in areas that we thought we maintained some level of control over. How does one "win" such a war?
We could launch more Faluja style attacks but remember the shock of Vietnam was that no matter how many times we bombed these people they never lost their will to resist us. More bombs were dropped on that undeveloped country than in the entire European theatre of war during WW2 and they still kept fighting. Domestic nationalistic insurgencies are like that. They will never give up because they have no where to go. They believe they are defending their homeland.
The lessons of Vietnam should have taught us something but our national memory is incredibly short and our vanity knows no bounds. I am so sick of having people scold me that we "have to win" in Iraq. What does this even mean? Right now our troops number one job is to try not to get killed. We cannot confront the enemy and attack him first because the enemy is everywhere and no where. The enemy decides when and where to attack. We are helpless short of declaring specific areas "free fire zones" and killing anything that moves there. Training Iraqis to take over security sounds like a great idea until you stop and think that a significant number of these trainees harbor deep resentments against us and given the chance will blow up our mess halls to kill as many of us as possible. Chances are high that this is what occurred near Mosul this morning. What will the inevitable response of our troops be? Fear, mistrust and hatred of all locals leading to understandably itchy trigger fingers. This will swell the ranks of the insurgency even more. The insurgency will never stop resisting no matter the cost. We will grow tired of the carnage and at some point we will leave, trying to disguise our defeat. Our military will be weakened for a generation because of this insane war.
We are the problem in Iraq not the solution. We need to get out, the sooner the better.
Another parallel with Vietnam - accepting the inevitability of defeat and cutting our losses is considered weakness - lying to the American people and painting rosy scenarios while the costs pile up is called leadership. Are we protecting America or protecting our leaders reputations? You decide.
Saturday, December 18, 2004
