Wednesday, January 25, 2006
More silliness from the Administrations defense of their "workaround" for FISA
Glenn Greenwald noted some important contradictions in the Administrations intepretation of FISA, found here...
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Contrarian Congressman Charles O. Porter, 86
Associated Press - Friday, January 6, 2006Charles O. Porter, 86, an Oregon Democrat who served two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and then spent decades working as a lawyer to fight for his beliefs, died Jan. 1 in Eugene, Ore. He had Alzheimer's disease.
A member of Congress from 1957 to 1961, Rep. Porter endorsed several unpopular ideas, including admitting China to the United Nations and trading with China in nonstrategic materials. He also backed disarmament and called for a halt to nuclear testing.
In 1958, after Rep. Porter was warmly welcomed in Venezuela, the Roseburg (Ore.) News-Review wrote that "Porter's speeches sound as if they were made by Khrushchev."
Rep. Porter, who opposed the Vietnam War, unsuccessfully sought reelection several times.
On a local level, Rep. Porter is perhaps best remembered for his fight to remove a hilltop Christian cross from Skinner Butte. He had sought to have the cross removed ever since it was erected by two Eugene business people in 1964.
The first lawsuit to remove the cross was filed in 1965, and the issue wasn't decided until 1997, when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the cross unconstitutional.
"My father, who was a Christian, would say his greatest accomplishment would have been taking the cross down from Skinner Butte," Rep. Porter's son, Sam Porter, told the Eugene Register-Guard newspaper.
As a lawyer, Rep. Porter fought against a nuclear plant in the Eugene area and the use of ratepayers' money to promote it; for tubal ligations by choice for social and economic reasons; for decriminalization of marijuana; and for statutory status reviews of institutionalized mentally retarded people.
In 1975, Rep. Porter demanded under the Freedom of Information Act that the CIA turn over the file it was keeping on him. The 222-page document dealt largely with his peace activities and his efforts to abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee.
In 2001, he wrote a resolution seeking to impeach the five Supreme Court justices who voted to stop the presidential ballot recount in Florida. He said their decision was transparently political and "tarnished the integrity" of the court.
Charles Orlando Porter was born in Klamath Falls, Ore., on April 4, 1919. He was a 1941 graduate of Harvard University and a 1947 graduate of its law school. He was an Army Air Forces veteran of World War II.
He practiced law in Eugene until winning election to the House. He resumed his practice after returning to Oregon.
More Porter... Sept 15th LTE of the Eugene Weekly
Recent criticism of the UO's School of Journalism & Communications does not go far enough. George Beres (8/18 Viewpoint) is on target when he identifies the very name of the educational program as symbolic of the crisis. What, precisely, is meant by "communications": deep linguistic or manipulative?
And just what is "public relations"? Beres says PR is "mixing facts with fiction," that is, lying. I disagree. At its best, PR works to cultivate an understanding of and goodwill toward a person, firm or institution.
Yet, in On Bullshit (2005), Princeton University moral philosopher Harry Frankfurt writes, "advertising and public relations … are replete with instances of bullshit so unmitigated that they can serve among the most indisputable and classic paradigms of the concept." It's insufficient for former UO Journalism School Dean Arnold Ismach to say other journalism schools combine with advertising and public relations schools.
Neither Beres nor UO administrators grasp a broader issue: economic interests colonizing and steering all other institutions — even universities. Instead of universities, op-ed pages, coffee houses and other forums where a free exchange of ideas and opinions form, corporate and government imperatives control the direction in which our society goes. Means — money and power — become ends.
The market economy and administrative state impose an ethos of instrumental rationality — knowledge for wealth and power — on educational and other institutions: Truth is not good in the deepest sense, values are not what is in fact valuable, rationality is merely instrumental, being human and the natural environment have no intrinsic value, what it means to be human has no higher or shared purposes, only individual purposes.
In such atmosphere, there is no reason the UO — let alone the journalism school — should continue to have loyalty and consensus from within, respect among citizens and freedom from tight corporate and state control. Efficiency management for externally imposed objectives would be its rational role.
Sam Porter, Eugene
Noam on the New Global Alliance...
*January 10, 2006*
Iraq, Iran and China: a New Global Alliance?
Beyond the Ballot
By NOAM CHOMSKY
The US President Bush called last month's Iraqi elections a "major milestone in the march to democracy." They are indeed a milestone -- just not the kind that Washington would welcome. Disregarding the standard declarations of benign intent on the part of leaders, let's review the history. When Bush and Britain's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, invaded Iraq, the pretext, insistently repeated, was a "single question": Will Iraq eliminate its weapons of mass destruction?
Within a few months this "single question" was answered the wrong way. Then, very quickly, the real reason for the invasion became Bush's "messianic mission" to bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. Even apart from the timing, the democratisation bandwagon runs up against the fact that the United States has tried, in every possible way, to prevent elections in Iraq.
Last January's elections came about because of mass nonviolent resistance, for which the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani became a symbol. (The violent insurgency is another creature altogether from this popular movement.) Few competent observers would disagree with the editors of the Financial Times, who wrote last March that "the reason (the elections) took place was the insistence of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who vetoed three schemes by the US-led occupation authorities to shelve or dilute them."
Elections, if taken seriously, mean you pay some attention to the will of the population. The crucial question for an invading army is: "Do they want us to be here?"
There is no lack of information about the answer. One important source is a poll for the British Ministry of Defence this past August, carried out by Iraqi university researchers and leaked to the British Press. It found that 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops and less than 1 per cent believe they are responsible for any improvement in security.
Analysts of the Brookings Institution in Washington report that in November, 80 per cent of Iraqis favoured "near-term US troop withdrawal." Other sources generally concur. So the coalition forces should withdraw, as the population wants them to, instead of trying desperately to set up a client regime with military forces that they can control. But Bush and Blair still refuse to set a timetable for withdrawal, limiting themselves to token withdrawals as their goals are achieved.
There's a good reason why the United States cannot tolerate a sovereign, more or less democratic Iraq. The issue can scarcely be raised because it conflicts with firmly established doctrine: We're supposed to believe that the United States would have invaded Iraq if it was an island in the Indian Ocean and its main export was pickles, not petroleum.
As is obvious to anyone not committed to the party line, taking control of Iraq will enormously strengthen US power over global energy resources, a crucial lever of world control. Suppose that Iraq were to become sovereign and democratic. Imagine the policies it would be likely to pursue. The Shia population in the South, where much of Iraq's oil is, would have a predominant influence. They would prefer friendly relations with Shia Iran.
The relations are already close. The Badr brigade, the militia that mostly controls the south, was trained in Iran. The highly influential clerics also have long- standing relations with Iran, including Sistani, who grew up there. And the Shia-dominant interim government has already begun to establish economic and possibly military relations with Iran.
Furthermore, right across the border in Saudi Arabia is a substantial, bitter Shia population. Any move toward independence in Iraq is likely to increase efforts to gain a degree of autonomy and justice there, too. This also happens to be the region where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. The outcome could be a loose Shia alliance comprising Iraq, Iran and the major oil regions of Saudi Arabia, independent of Washington and controlling large portions of the world's oil reserves. It's not unlikely that an independent bloc of this kind might follow Iran's lead in developing major energy projects jointly with China and India.
Iran may give up on Western Europe, assuming that it will be unwilling to act independently of the United States. China, however, can't be intimidated. That's why the United States is so frightened by China.
China is already establishing relations with Iran -- and even with Saudi Arabia, both military and economic. There is an Asian energy security grid, based on China and Russia, but probably bringing in India, Korea and others. If Iran moves in that direction, it can become the lynchpin of that power grid.
Such developments, including a sovereign Iraq and possibly even major Saudi energy resources, would be the ultimate nightmare for Washington. Also, a labour movement is forming in Iraq, a very important one. Washington insists on keeping Saddam Hussein's bitter anti-labour laws, but the labour movement continues its organising work despite them.
Their activists are being killed. Nobody knows by whom, maybe by insurgents, maybe by former Baathists, maybe by somebody else. But they're persisting. They constitute one of the major democratising forces that have deep roots in Iraqi history, and that might revitalise, also much to the horror of the occupying forces. One critical question is how Westerners will react. Will we be on the side of the occupying forces trying to prevent democracy and sovereignty? Or will we be on the side of the Iraqi people?
*Noam Chomsky*'s most recent book is Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080507967X/counterpunchmaga>.
Iraq, Iran and China: a New Global Alliance?
Beyond the Ballot
By NOAM CHOMSKY
The US President Bush called last month's Iraqi elections a "major milestone in the march to democracy." They are indeed a milestone -- just not the kind that Washington would welcome. Disregarding the standard declarations of benign intent on the part of leaders, let's review the history. When Bush and Britain's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, invaded Iraq, the pretext, insistently repeated, was a "single question": Will Iraq eliminate its weapons of mass destruction?
Within a few months this "single question" was answered the wrong way. Then, very quickly, the real reason for the invasion became Bush's "messianic mission" to bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. Even apart from the timing, the democratisation bandwagon runs up against the fact that the United States has tried, in every possible way, to prevent elections in Iraq.
Last January's elections came about because of mass nonviolent resistance, for which the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani became a symbol. (The violent insurgency is another creature altogether from this popular movement.) Few competent observers would disagree with the editors of the Financial Times, who wrote last March that "the reason (the elections) took place was the insistence of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who vetoed three schemes by the US-led occupation authorities to shelve or dilute them."
Elections, if taken seriously, mean you pay some attention to the will of the population. The crucial question for an invading army is: "Do they want us to be here?"
There is no lack of information about the answer. One important source is a poll for the British Ministry of Defence this past August, carried out by Iraqi university researchers and leaked to the British Press. It found that 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops and less than 1 per cent believe they are responsible for any improvement in security.
Analysts of the Brookings Institution in Washington report that in November, 80 per cent of Iraqis favoured "near-term US troop withdrawal." Other sources generally concur. So the coalition forces should withdraw, as the population wants them to, instead of trying desperately to set up a client regime with military forces that they can control. But Bush and Blair still refuse to set a timetable for withdrawal, limiting themselves to token withdrawals as their goals are achieved.
There's a good reason why the United States cannot tolerate a sovereign, more or less democratic Iraq. The issue can scarcely be raised because it conflicts with firmly established doctrine: We're supposed to believe that the United States would have invaded Iraq if it was an island in the Indian Ocean and its main export was pickles, not petroleum.
As is obvious to anyone not committed to the party line, taking control of Iraq will enormously strengthen US power over global energy resources, a crucial lever of world control. Suppose that Iraq were to become sovereign and democratic. Imagine the policies it would be likely to pursue. The Shia population in the South, where much of Iraq's oil is, would have a predominant influence. They would prefer friendly relations with Shia Iran.
The relations are already close. The Badr brigade, the militia that mostly controls the south, was trained in Iran. The highly influential clerics also have long- standing relations with Iran, including Sistani, who grew up there. And the Shia-dominant interim government has already begun to establish economic and possibly military relations with Iran.
Furthermore, right across the border in Saudi Arabia is a substantial, bitter Shia population. Any move toward independence in Iraq is likely to increase efforts to gain a degree of autonomy and justice there, too. This also happens to be the region where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. The outcome could be a loose Shia alliance comprising Iraq, Iran and the major oil regions of Saudi Arabia, independent of Washington and controlling large portions of the world's oil reserves. It's not unlikely that an independent bloc of this kind might follow Iran's lead in developing major energy projects jointly with China and India.
Iran may give up on Western Europe, assuming that it will be unwilling to act independently of the United States. China, however, can't be intimidated. That's why the United States is so frightened by China.
China is already establishing relations with Iran -- and even with Saudi Arabia, both military and economic. There is an Asian energy security grid, based on China and Russia, but probably bringing in India, Korea and others. If Iran moves in that direction, it can become the lynchpin of that power grid.
Such developments, including a sovereign Iraq and possibly even major Saudi energy resources, would be the ultimate nightmare for Washington. Also, a labour movement is forming in Iraq, a very important one. Washington insists on keeping Saddam Hussein's bitter anti-labour laws, but the labour movement continues its organising work despite them.
Their activists are being killed. Nobody knows by whom, maybe by insurgents, maybe by former Baathists, maybe by somebody else. But they're persisting. They constitute one of the major democratising forces that have deep roots in Iraqi history, and that might revitalise, also much to the horror of the occupying forces. One critical question is how Westerners will react. Will we be on the side of the occupying forces trying to prevent democracy and sovereignty? Or will we be on the side of the Iraqi people?
*Noam Chomsky*'s most recent book is Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080507967X/counterpunchmaga>.
Yahoo! Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
Photo Books. You design it and we’ll bind it!
Friday, January 13, 2006
Take it away, Noam...
The Last Word: Noam Chomsky
A Tale of Two Quagmires
Newsweek International
Jan. 9, 2006 issue - Noam Chomsky has been called one of the most influential intellectuals of the 20th century, but it's an accolade the 77-year-old MIT professor doesn't take very seriously. "People just want to hear something outside the rigid dogma they're used to," he says. "They're not going to hear it in the media." The linguistics prodigy turned political theorist has been a leading mind in the antiwar movement since the early '60s; he's also still a prolific author, producing more than six books in the past five years. He spoke to NEWSWEEK's Michael Hastings about the current geopolitical climate. Excerpts:
Hastings: Where do you see Iraq heading right now?
Chomsky: Well, it's extremely difficult to talk about this because of a very rigid doctrine that prevails in the United States and Britain which prevents us from looking at the situation realistically. The doctrine, to oversimplify, is that we have to believe the United States would have so-called liberated Iraq even if its main products were lettuce and pickles and [the] main energy resource of the world were in central Africa. Anyone who doesn't accept that is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic or something. But anyone with a functioning brain knows that that's not true—as all Iraqis do, for example. The United States invaded Iraq because its major resource is oil. And it gives the United States, to quote [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, "critical leverage" over its competitors, Europe and Japan. That's a policy that goes way back to the second world war. That's the fundamental reason for invading Iraq, not anything else.
Once we recognize that, we're able to begin talking about where Iraq is going. For example, there's a lot of talk about the United States bringing [about] a sovereign independent Iraq. That can't possibly be true. All you have to do is ask yourself what the policies would be in a more-or-less democratic Iraq. We know what they're likely to be. A democratic Iraq will have a Shiite majority, [with] close links to Iran. Furthermore, it's right across the border from Saudi Arabia, where there's a Shiite population which has been brutally repressed by the U.S.-backed fundamentalist tyranny. If there are any moves toward sovereignty in Shiite Iraq, or at least some sort of freedom, there are going to be effects across the border. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. So you can see the ultimate nightmare developing from Washington's point of view.
You were involved in the antiwar movement in the 1960s. What do you think of the Vietnam-Iraq analogy?
I think there is no analogy whatsoever. That analogy is based on a misunderstanding of Iraq, and a misunderstanding of Vietnam. The misunderstanding of Iraq I've already described. The misunderstanding of Vietnam had to do with the war aims. The United States went to war in Vietnam for a very good reason. They were afraid Vietnam would be a successful model of independent development and that would have a virus effect—infect others who might try to follow the same course. There was a very simple war aim—destroy Vietnam. And they did it. The United States basically achieved its war aims in Vietnam by [1967]. It's called a loss, a defeat, because they didn't achieve the maximal aims, the maximal aims being turning it into something like the Philippines. They didn't do that. [But] they did achieve the major aims. It was possible to destroy Vietnam and leave. You can't destroy Iraq and leave. It's inconceivable.
Was the antiwar movement more successful in the '60s than it is today?
I think it's the other way around. The United States attacked Vietnam in 1962. It took years before any protest developed. Iraq is the first time in hundreds of years of European and American history that a war was massively protested before it was launched. There was huge protest in February 2003. It had never happened in the history of the West.
Where do you put George W. Bush in the pantheon of American presidents?
He's more or less a symbol, but I think the people around him are the most dangerous administration in American history. I think they're driving the world to destruction. There are two major threats that face the world, threats of the destruction of the species, and they're not a joke. One of them is nuclear war, and the other is environmental catastrophe, and they are driving toward destruction in both domains. They're compelling competitors to escalate their own offensive military capacity—Russia, China, now Iran. That means putting their offensive nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert.
The Bush administration has succeeded in making the United States one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. The talent of these guys is unbelievable. They have even succeeded at alienating Canada. I mean, that takes genius, literally.
© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10682403/site/newsweek/
A Tale of Two Quagmires
Newsweek International
Jan. 9, 2006 issue - Noam Chomsky has been called one of the most influential intellectuals of the 20th century, but it's an accolade the 77-year-old MIT professor doesn't take very seriously. "People just want to hear something outside the rigid dogma they're used to," he says. "They're not going to hear it in the media." The linguistics prodigy turned political theorist has been a leading mind in the antiwar movement since the early '60s; he's also still a prolific author, producing more than six books in the past five years. He spoke to NEWSWEEK's Michael Hastings about the current geopolitical climate. Excerpts:
Hastings: Where do you see Iraq heading right now?
Chomsky: Well, it's extremely difficult to talk about this because of a very rigid doctrine that prevails in the United States and Britain which prevents us from looking at the situation realistically. The doctrine, to oversimplify, is that we have to believe the United States would have so-called liberated Iraq even if its main products were lettuce and pickles and [the] main energy resource of the world were in central Africa. Anyone who doesn't accept that is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic or something. But anyone with a functioning brain knows that that's not true—as all Iraqis do, for example. The United States invaded Iraq because its major resource is oil. And it gives the United States, to quote [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, "critical leverage" over its competitors, Europe and Japan. That's a policy that goes way back to the second world war. That's the fundamental reason for invading Iraq, not anything else.
Once we recognize that, we're able to begin talking about where Iraq is going. For example, there's a lot of talk about the United States bringing [about] a sovereign independent Iraq. That can't possibly be true. All you have to do is ask yourself what the policies would be in a more-or-less democratic Iraq. We know what they're likely to be. A democratic Iraq will have a Shiite majority, [with] close links to Iran. Furthermore, it's right across the border from Saudi Arabia, where there's a Shiite population which has been brutally repressed by the U.S.-backed fundamentalist tyranny. If there are any moves toward sovereignty in Shiite Iraq, or at least some sort of freedom, there are going to be effects across the border. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabia's oil is. So you can see the ultimate nightmare developing from Washington's point of view.
You were involved in the antiwar movement in the 1960s. What do you think of the Vietnam-Iraq analogy?
I think there is no analogy whatsoever. That analogy is based on a misunderstanding of Iraq, and a misunderstanding of Vietnam. The misunderstanding of Iraq I've already described. The misunderstanding of Vietnam had to do with the war aims. The United States went to war in Vietnam for a very good reason. They were afraid Vietnam would be a successful model of independent development and that would have a virus effect—infect others who might try to follow the same course. There was a very simple war aim—destroy Vietnam. And they did it. The United States basically achieved its war aims in Vietnam by [1967]. It's called a loss, a defeat, because they didn't achieve the maximal aims, the maximal aims being turning it into something like the Philippines. They didn't do that. [But] they did achieve the major aims. It was possible to destroy Vietnam and leave. You can't destroy Iraq and leave. It's inconceivable.
Was the antiwar movement more successful in the '60s than it is today?
I think it's the other way around. The United States attacked Vietnam in 1962. It took years before any protest developed. Iraq is the first time in hundreds of years of European and American history that a war was massively protested before it was launched. There was huge protest in February 2003. It had never happened in the history of the West.
Where do you put George W. Bush in the pantheon of American presidents?
He's more or less a symbol, but I think the people around him are the most dangerous administration in American history. I think they're driving the world to destruction. There are two major threats that face the world, threats of the destruction of the species, and they're not a joke. One of them is nuclear war, and the other is environmental catastrophe, and they are driving toward destruction in both domains. They're compelling competitors to escalate their own offensive military capacity—Russia, China, now Iran. That means putting their offensive nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert.
The Bush administration has succeeded in making the United States one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. The talent of these guys is unbelievable. They have even succeeded at alienating Canada. I mean, that takes genius, literally.
© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10682403/site/newsweek/
Monday, January 09, 2006
A piece from Secrecy News on the language of the 2001 resolution authorizing the use of military force the administration keeps pointing to...
... and the lies just keep on rolling
SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 4
January 9, 2006
** CRS ON AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE
CRS ON AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE
The legislative history of the September 14, 2001 Congressional
resolution authorizing the use of force in response to the
September 11 attacks is concisely examined in a new report of the
Congressional Research Service.
The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, has been
in the news lately because the Bush Administration has claimed that
it provided statutory authority for the National Security Agency to
conduct warrantless surveillance within the United States, a claim
that has been disputed by some in Congress and elsewhere.
The new CRS legislative history notes that the White House had
initially sought legislative authority "to deter and pre-empt any
future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States."
But "This language would have seemingly authorized the President,
without durational limitation, and at his sole discretion, to take
military action against any nation, terrorist group or individuals
in the world without having to seek further authority from the
Congress."
"It would have granted the President open-ended authority to act
against all terrorism and terrorists or potential aggressors
against the United States anywhere, not just the authority to act
against the terrorists involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks,
and those nations, organizations and persons who had aided or
harbored the terrorists.
"As a consequence, this portion of the language in the proposed
White House draft resolution was strongly opposed by key
legislators in Congress and was not included in the final version
of the legislation that was passed," the CRS explained.
A copy of the new CRS publication was obtained by Secrecy News.
See "Authorization For Use Of Military Force in Response to the 9/11
Attacks (P.L. 107-40): Legislative History," January 4, 2006:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22357.pdf
SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 4
January 9, 2006
** CRS ON AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE
CRS ON AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE
The legislative history of the September 14, 2001 Congressional
resolution authorizing the use of force in response to the
September 11 attacks is concisely examined in a new report of the
Congressional Research Service.
The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, has been
in the news lately because the Bush Administration has claimed that
it provided statutory authority for the National Security Agency to
conduct warrantless surveillance within the United States, a claim
that has been disputed by some in Congress and elsewhere.
The new CRS legislative history notes that the White House had
initially sought legislative authority "to deter and pre-empt any
future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States."
But "This language would have seemingly authorized the President,
without durational limitation, and at his sole discretion, to take
military action against any nation, terrorist group or individuals
in the world without having to seek further authority from the
Congress."
"It would have granted the President open-ended authority to act
against all terrorism and terrorists or potential aggressors
against the United States anywhere, not just the authority to act
against the terrorists involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks,
and those nations, organizations and persons who had aided or
harbored the terrorists.
"As a consequence, this portion of the language in the proposed
White House draft resolution was strongly opposed by key
legislators in Congress and was not included in the final version
of the legislation that was passed," the CRS explained.
A copy of the new CRS publication was obtained by Secrecy News.
See "Authorization For Use Of Military Force in Response to the 9/11
Attacks (P.L. 107-40): Legislative History," January 4, 2006:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22357.pdf
Friday, January 06, 2006
The best in the business...
Can't believe that I missed this last month... nice article from Jacob Weisberg at Slate on the Bush administrations "raising the bar" on spin. These guys, led by Rove, have set a standard in misinformation not seen since the glory days of the Third Reich.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Watch out when he get's this look...
We're not sure exactly how many teeth he actually has, but we're pretty sure that he knows how to use them all!Riddick reminds us a lot of Willie - he does a lot of non-verbal communication. When it's time to eat, he walks over to his bowl and looks at you. If you aren't paying attention, he starts a little whine/bark thing. When we're outside and he's ready to come in, he'll go part way toward the door, stop and sit down, then look over his shoulder at you - glance at the door, look at you, glance at the door, look at you. It's very, very cute. And he is starting to get the "go to the door and whine when I have to go" down pretty good.
Anyway, the whole fan damily thinks he's a pretty good pup.
Riddick the Destroyer!
This is Riddick. As of the new year, he is all of nine weeks old. He's all black lab and is already 2/3rds of the way to being housetrained (let's not talk about that last third...)Jake, after a week or so of great dissatisfaction with our choice to increase our local population, has now taken a pretty fair liking to Riddick. They can be heard running around the house, wrestling and playing tug of war with whatever piece of clothing the kids happened to have left on the floor.
All in all, we think that he is a pretty damn good dog!
The passing of an Oregon original...
Charlie O. Porter died quietly Sunday night at age 86. It is hard to sum up Charlie in words, but here's an effort by one Eugene Register Guard reporter. Porter is "brash, glib, witty, smarter than hell, younger than springtime, a political disaster, a martyr who won't stay dead, a chronic meddler, a thick-skinned egomaniac who;s lovable as a puppy, persistent as a bulldog, optimistic as a bride, moral as a preacher, imaginative as a mad scientist and beneath it all, where it really counts, an authentic American hero."
I didn't and don't know much about Porter. My Dad, a former Oregon democrat, always speaks of him with a twinkle in his eye (which he reserves for folks he truly admires.) I'm familiar with some of his more highly publicized work; the de-crossing of Skinner Butte - second story down, or his success in getting Oregon Democrats to publically call for an investigation of the "Felonious Five" that stole the Presidential election for W. in 2000. These have been reported on more or less recently, but I will be curious to see what else I can learn about Porter. He seems like my sort of cultural hero.
I didn't and don't know much about Porter. My Dad, a former Oregon democrat, always speaks of him with a twinkle in his eye (which he reserves for folks he truly admires.) I'm familiar with some of his more highly publicized work; the de-crossing of Skinner Butte - second story down, or his success in getting Oregon Democrats to publically call for an investigation of the "Felonious Five" that stole the Presidential election for W. in 2000. These have been reported on more or less recently, but I will be curious to see what else I can learn about Porter. He seems like my sort of cultural hero.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
All in all, just another brick in the wall...
Good opinion piece in USA Today (not a great newspaper, but every now and again, even a blind squirrel finds a nut.) The obsurdity of the "deficit reduction package" before Congress now is an insult to the intelligence of every American, red states included. Take money from anyone that hasn't already bought and paid for their own legislation. The Empire's decay is entering its death spiral and no where is it more evident than in the budgetary considerations made by the US Congress. The tree of liberty continues to wilt while the lobbiest scavange every last nut and leaf to pad their own nests. Cryin' shame...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)