Meltdown

Apparently the Bush administration is getting set to appoint a Fox news reporter, Tony Snow, as press secretary.
Now, never having watched Fox news, I don't know who this fellow is. But I gather I haven't missed much.
ThinkProgress has rounded up all the names that Snow has called George Bush recently, like "An Embarrassment" and "Impotent" and a "dime-store democrat". Media Matters has gathered a lengthy list of his botched news stories. And Firedoglake can hardly wait to start using the term "Snow Job" for everything announced by the White House henceforth.
And the guy hasn't even been appointed yet!
I wonder what it feels like to be eaten alive by the press? I have a feeling that Snow is going to find out.
Help meeee, I'm melting!!!!

The reasons NOT to attack Iran

Writing in the International Herald Tribune, former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski tells the United States why they should not attack Iran.
I hope they're listening:

. . . there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:
1. In the absence of an imminent threat (with the Iranians at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without formal Congressional declaration, it would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the UN Security Council . . . it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).
2. Likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and in Afghanistan [and would likely] cause the United States to become bogged down in regional violence for a decade or more to come. Iran is a country of some 70 million people and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.
3. Oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians cut their production and seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely impacted, with America blamed for it. . . .
4. America would become an even more likely target of terrorism, with much of the world concluding that America's support for Israel is itself a major cause of the rise in terrorism. . . With America increasingly the object of widespread hostility, the era of American preponderance could come to a premature end. . .
The choice is either to be stampeded into a reckless adventure profoundly damaging to long-term U.S. national interests or to become serious about giving negotiations with Iran a genuine chance to be productive . . . American policy should not be swayed by a contrived atmosphere of urgency ominously reminiscent of what preceded the intervention in Iraq.

Emphasis mine. These reasons apply equally well to Canada -- I just hope Harper doesn't think that hiding a few caskets will persuade Canadians to string along with Bush on this one -- actually, NOTHING could convince Canadians to join Bush in attacking Iran.

Great line of the day

In his New Yorker riff about Rummy and the generals, Hendrik Hertzberg notes in passing that the United States is looking more and more like a South American banana republic:

In the ongoing South Americanization of political culture north of the border -- a drawn-out historical journey whose markers include fiscal recklessness, an accelerating wealth gap between the rich and the rest, corruption masked by populist rhetoric, a frank official embrace of the techniques of 'dirty war', and ... a judicial autogolpe installing a dynastic presidente -- what has been dubbed the Revolt of the Generals is one of the feebler effusions. But it is striking all the same.

They think we're stupid, don't they

Stephen Harper thinks Canadians are stupid.
He thinks if we don't see flag-covered caskets on our news, then Canadian opposition to the war in Afghanistan will not increase.
After all, this "see no evil" policy has worked just soooooo well for Bush, hasn't it? You know who I'm talking about, don't you -- that president who is not supported now by two out of three Americans?
What Harper doesn't seem to realize that if anything will turn Canadians away from Afghanistan, it will be incompetent, uncaring, callous and cynical leadership.
That's what has turned America off Iraq -- "Bush lied and our soldiers died" has been absorbed into America's consciousness now.
Its neocon slander that either Canadians or Americans could be frightened away from a righteous war just because soldiers are dying. But in both countries, we do demand righteousness. In Iraq, Americans have now realized that this was an illegal war started by lies and executed with increasing incompetence. In Afghanistan, both Americans and Canadians still support this war. But Canadians could change our minds if Harper continues to demonstrate such contempt for our mental processes.
Like Bush, Harper is now preventing coverage of returning soldiers' caskets. And like Bush, Harper will not be meeting the coffins either.
Not exactly a profile in compassion, is it?
The Conservatives can prattle all they like about privacy and tradition, but Canadians know the truth. These are NEW measures, not old ones.
Honestly, do they really think we will believe this fairy tale about how the Liberals were violating some revered "tradition" of not lowering flags for war casualties -- when Canada hasn't actually HAD any war casualties for the last 50 years, except the recent ones for whom the Liberals lowered the flag? And preventing coverage of the caskets is an insult to the families of these soldiers, implying that their sacrifice is not worthy of media coverage.
Some Canadians ARE doing the right thing:

. . . Alberta Premier Ralph Klein says flags at the legislature will be lowered to half-mast whenever a soldier from the province is killed. He said Tuesday that this is what most Albertans would want, as an act of respect for fallen soldiers. He said when soldiers, either from his province or stationed in his province, die, flags will be lowered on the day of the funeral.
Canadian flags outside post offices in Edmonton are also at half-mast -- Lieut. Bill Turner was a part-time army reservist who worked in that city as a letter carrier.
"It is important because (Turner) was one of our members," Ramon Antipas, president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers local, told The Canadian Press. "He truly believed in the mission. This is in recognition for what he was doing." The mayor of Toronto has also made a decision to lower the flag atop Toronto City Hall, beginning Tuesday, to half-mast in honour of the four Canadian soldiers. One of the soldiers, Cpl. Dinning, was from the Toronto area.

The Prime Minister's Office can't do anything about Ralph or about Toronto, but I would imagine Canada Post will be getting a phone call from some PMO flack issuing orders to get that flag back up -- and I hope someone hangs up on them.

Signs of the apocalypse

Oh, come on!
This so-called 'news' story -- Researchers Probe Ghost Sightings on Ship - is presently in the Top Stories section of Yahoo News.
Next, I suppose, we'll be hearing about how the Ghostbusters are investigating an apartment building in New York City which they suspect is a portal for Gozer. And then I suppose Allison and Melinda will be dropping by . . .

Four more dead

Four Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan from a roadside bomb.
And those charlatans who talk, talk, talk about how much they support our military have decided not to fly the flags at half-mast anymore on Parliament Hill when Canadian soldiers die.
Apparently this gesture of respect for Canada's dead soldiers is not part of our "tradition" -- the Liberals started doing this, you see, so of course it cannot be continued. And it costs a few bucks, too, for the staff to raise and lower the flags.
But I wonder if there is a even sleazier reason, a smarmy, disrespectful "neocon" rationale -- like in the US, where they prevented coverage of returning caskets, are the Conservatives thinking that limiting the acknowledgement of dead Canadian soldiers will stop us from wondering if the mission in Afghanistan is worth it?
DarkSyde at Daily Kos has this to say about the situation in Afghanistan -- The Forgotten:

With the world on our side after the events on September 11, 2001, with the contacts in place we had painfully gained during the Soviet occupation, with brave Americans quitting their jobs and signing up for military service while the Twin Tower wreckage was still smoldering, and because of the hard work and careful preparation of thousands of fighting men and women under several Presidents, we could have given the Afghan people the first decent shot at prosperity they've had in modern times. With the kind of resources we had available, applied under the watchful eye of wise leadership, we could have turned Afghanistan into a shining example and demonstrated to the Islamic world what We the People are really all about. All in a region that has endured brutal poverty and devastating warfare for generations.
Our hard won credibility with the Afghan people was pissed away into a Baghdad cesspool along with lives, limbs, blood, and hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, Afghan opium production is soaring, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zahrawi are making videos threatening more attacks against the US and our allies, the Taliban is growing bolder, and the Afghani people are caught smack dab in the middle of another civil war. And our men and women in harm's way there are quickly being relegated to forgotten warriors. All because of the colossal errors of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld.

Bush's ghosts

Digby writes about how the right-wing has gradually jettisoned more and more of the taboos which kept American society civilized:

First, they declare that the taboo against wars of aggression, formed in the blood of more than 70 million dead people in the 20th century's two world wars, is out. Not even a second glance at that taboo. They simply repackage it as "pre-emptive" war . . . Then there's torture. This society used to teach its children that there is no excuse for torture . . . We didn't make exceptions for "except when you suspect the person is a really bad person." We said torture is wrong. Now we have sent a message far and wide that torture is necessary and even good if the person who is committing it is doing it for the right reasons. Those right reasons are usually that we "know" that the victim has information but is refusing to tell us what it is . . . Finally, we seem to have crossed the rubicon with respect to nukes. We are openly discussing using them on television, much as otherwise decent people tossed around the idea of torture after 9/11. . . . just as with torture, once you start talking about how it might be ok in certain circumstances, then you have begun to break down the taboo against it . . . For the sane among us, letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle is simply unthinkable. It's not and never can be "on the table" because once you start talking about it as if it's just another form of warfare somebody is going to do it.

One of the saddest things is watching America slide into a pit of its own making -- sometimes I feel like I'm watching Marley's ghost, whose description of the chain he dragged is surprisingly apt to America's present situation: "I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I crafted it of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it."

They think they have a say

Yes, you have the right to an opinion.
But you don't have a say in how I run my life.
My sister describes a phenomenon she calls "Jerry Springer Syndrome" -- when we start acting like we're a "studio audience" for other people's lives, and therefore we can pass judgment on other people's lifestyles. We act, she says, like we have a say. But we don't.
Every time she would dial past the Jerry Springer show and other shows of this ilk on TV, she would see the studio audience booing and cheering and yelling and jeering and howling at the poor smuck on stage, writhing in self-inflicted and vainglorious agony.
These shows, she says, promote the idea that everybody in the audience has a say -- the whole format of the show encourages people to think that their opinion about whatever is happening on stage must be continuously, enthusiastically and loudly expressed.
Now that we have pundits on TV all the time opining at the drop of a hat on everything political, social, moral, religious and cultural, we all seem to have adopted the attitude that everyone should be constantly judging everyone else all the time. When it comes to politicians, of course, they're asking for it. And they get it, from pundits and columnists and journalists and talk-show hosts all the time. But, too often these days, everyone else gets it too -- from Michael Shiavo to the runaway bride, from Tom Cruise to Elton John, from Michael Jackson to Queen Elizabeth -- everyone seems to think they have to have a say in how other people are living their lives.
Why not, my sister asks, just leave people alone?
You don't like what someone else is doing with their life? OK, fine -- but just shut up about it. Unless they asked for your opinion, or unless what they are doing directly affects you and yours, well, its none of your business.
Ann Landers used to tell people MYOB -- mind your own business. Maybe that's an acronym we should revive.
I thought of my sister when I read this LA Times story, about a US court ruling that yes, a school can tell a student not to wear a gay-bashing t-shirt. The right-wing student, of course, is all outraged that he cannot inflict his anti-gay opinions on all his fellow students, gay or straight. And he's using his religion as his excuse -- just because his religion supposedly condemns homosexuality, he says, this gives him the right to wear a shirt on Day of Silence which said on the front "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned'' and on the back "Homosexuality Is Shameful''.
Well, no one is saying he cannot HAVE a negative opinion about gay people. But he doesn't have shove his opinion in everyone else's face.
While the issue may seem trivial, the principle is not. The majority opinion from the court noted that students have the right to

"be secure and to be let alone...being secure involves not only the freedom from physical assaults but from psychological attacks that cause young people to question their self-worth and their rightful place in society. The 'right to be let alone' has been recognized by the Supreme Court . . . as the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men"

The dissenting judge seemed to think that the shirt was OK because people didn't come to blows:

There was no evidence that gay students were harmed by derogatory messages of the type conveyed on Harper's T-shirt, Kozinski said. Moreover, Kozinski said there was no indication that a discussion Harper had with other students about the T-shirt "turned violent or disrupted school activities." In fact, Kozinski said, "while words were exchanged, the students managed the situation well and without intervention from the school authorities. No doubt, everyone learned an important civics lesson about dealing with others who hold sharply divergent views."

Obviously, this judge has been seriously afflicted by the Jerry Springer Syndrome -- ' no fight, no foul' was his attitude, and apparently he is either blind to the larger context of gay-bashing in the US, or personally biased against gays himself. The LA Times story describes the overall picture:

Today's ruling comes amid a growing campaign across the country to compel public schools, state universities and private companies to annul policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. Plaintiffs in several lawsuits are seeking to knock out tolerance programs on the grounds that they violate religious beliefs that oppose homosexuality. Legal experts, such as UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh, said the issue eventually would reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

I must say, it disgusts me that they are parading around their supposedly-Christian religiousity as a justification for their prejudice. How many gays do they think Jesus would bash?

Did Harper actually INTEND to disrespect every Aboriginal person in Canada?

Or will this be merely a happy byproduct of making Maurice Vellacott chair of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee?
As my husband said, that's like putting Ernst Zundel in charge of a Holocaust survivors' tribute.
There is nothing Harper could do which would indicate more clearly to Canadian Aboriginals that the Kelowna accords are dead. Not only that, but the Conservative government considers Aboriginal people to be second-class citizens, whose history is not worthy of respect and whose concerns are not worthy of consideration.
Star Phoenix columnist Randy Burton's provides the background in his article -- Hard to imagine worse choice than Vellacott:

. . . Vellacott's latest contribution to racial harmony is to suggest that the reason two Native men were found frozen to death outside of Saskatoon is because they were in the habit of going to a shack on the outskirts of town to drink.
This is no doubt going to come as news to the police, to Darrell Night and to anyone else in the city with an interest in this topic.
What shack? Where is it? Can Vellacott provide a tour? Or is this merely another figment of the man's crowded imagination?
After all, the debate over whether the police had a habit of dropping Native people outside of town has dominated the discussion about policing in Saskatoon for years.
It was the core of the case against former Saskatoon police officers Dan Hatchen and Ken Munson, who were convicted of unlawful confinement for dumping Night out of their car on a freezing cold winter night back in 2000.
Vellacott has never accepted that verdict and last year even asked the provincial Justice Department to reopen the case, based on the claim that Night asked to be dropped off.
This line of defence was rejected in the original court case, but Vellacott later claimed to have "new evidence" in the form of a relative of Night's that Vellacott said was living in a Fairhaven apartment complex at the time.
Even if this was true, it does nothing to explain why Night would be left some 2 1/2 kilometres from where he asked to be dropped off.
In any event, the RCMP investigated Vellacott's claim and rejected it. After a review of the relative's rental receipts and the business records of the landlord, police found no evidence the relative had ever lived there. In response, Vellacott said the RCMP "weren't diligent" and "have not done their job."
Now more than a year later, Vellacott has another dead horse to flog. This time, he has a new theory of how Rodney Naistus and Lawrence Wegner died. In an interview with the Globe and Mail this week, Vellacott suggested they must have been drinking in a shack just outside of town and then froze to death when they tried to stumble back home.
For this to be true, Wegner had to have walked five kilometres out of town without shoes or a jacket in order to do some drinking in Vellacott's shack. Of course, he would also have had to be carrying a case of beer or a bottle of whisky. The same applies to Rodney Naistus, who was last seen on a downtown street in front of Winston's pub.
That had to be some nice shack to attract people to walk out to it in the dead of winter. Or if they drove, there would have been some sign of traffic left behind, tire tracks in the fields, cigarette butts, something.
However, throughout the subsequent police investigation and two coroner's inquests, not once did anyone ever report finding any sign of a party shack anywhere on the outskirts of town.
Where Vellacott gets his information I will have to leave for him to explain. His office informs me he is far too busy on his Easter break from Parliament to return phone calls. The reason this issue has arisen is because Vellacott took it upon himself to issue a press release earlier this week saying Prime Minister Stephen Harper is about to name him chair of the aboriginal affairs committee.
Why the prime minister would want to do that is a mystery almost as deep as Vellacott's shack . . .

The CBC reports on the reaction of Aboriginal leaders:

. . . Vellacott wasn't speaking with reporters Tuesday, but some aboriginal leaders were expressing their concerns. "We wonder what kind of message this government, this new government is sending to us having seen the history of the person that's been nominated," said Alphonse Bird, chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. "Mr. Vellacott has been very outspoken but not necessarily in favour of aboriginal issues," said Métis National Council president Clem Chartier.
When questioned by reporters Tuesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not specifically discuss the Vellacott nomination, but he defended his right to hand pick MPs to chair Commons committees. Harper said he doesn't want Conservatives fighting amongst themselves.

Yes, its just so much better that his Conservative MPs should fight with the Canadians whose interests they are supposed to be representing, I guess.

Great line of the day

From Taylor Marsh at Firedoglake:

There are two signs that a Republican is in trouble. One is they start talking about Bill Clinton. The other is they book an interview on Rush Limbaugh's radio show.

I guess Rumsfeld was on Limbaugh yesterday. Maybe he picked up a Gitmo Staff t-shirt?

I hate this man

Nothing personal, but this Idaho man eats 6,500 calories a day -- he has a little trouble gaining weight, you see.
I, on the other hand, do not.
There ain't no justice . . .

Son of Chretien

Amazing, isn't it?
Now that Harper is Prime Minister, he's finding that the rigid, controlling, autocratic way Chretien did things just makes so much more sense than the messy, controversial, democratic way Paul Martin did them -- like for the Prime Minister to appoint the committee chairs again.
Jean will be so proud . . .

Stuff

Looking for some good stuff?
Don't miss Canadian Cynic's "kittens 'n guns" visuals -- baby kittens are so cute!
Ross blogs a great description of how Neil Young's newest protest song was recorded.

. . . when the lyrics we were supposed to sing flashed on the giant screen, a roar went up from the choir. . . . The session was like being at a 12-hour peace rally. . .

Digby refers us to Lance Mannion's take on the David Brooks' NYT column about rape and the Duke team. Mannion also quotes Amanda Marcott's "Shorter David Brooks", which has in a few brief days become a net classic:

"In exchange for shutting up and giving up this silly fight for sexual and racial equality, we white men promise that we won't rape. As much. Well, it won't get into the news, that's for damn sure."

Here's Tom Englehardt's History Ambushes the Bush Administration: In the Rubble, a companion to his earlier post The Hyperpower Hype and Where It Took Us: Exporting Ruins -- both are well worth your reading effort.
And here FYI is one of Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Mike Luckovich's cartoons (from October):

Rogue cop

Canada's own Ian Welsh writes great sense at Firedoglake.

. . . I have to tell you, that from a foreigner's point of view. . . you are a rogue nation. You invade people based on lies. You have no credibility on Iran. You are the boy who cried Wolf. You don't obey the Geneva conventions. You have secret prisons. You torture people, including the citizens of your allies. You have abolished habeas corpus for classes of people. You kidnap foreigners and secretly ship them off to be tortured. . . . There are only two nations in the world who constantly talk about how they're willing to nuke people without even being attacked first: The North Koreans - and the UNITED STATES.
You gave up the ability to stop countries like Iran from getting nukes when you invaded a country like Iraq which had no nukes and no real possibility of getting them. That was your wad, and you blew it. You chose to be weak. At this point, for you to stop Iran would involve you in a war you cannot win -- or at least no victory worth having. You can't occupy Iran, so are you going to really glass Tehran or the entire country? Do you know what the world reaction would be? Do you know what would happen to the dollar? Are you out of your minds?
Why is this even being discussed? And why is it that I can't simply dismiss it as diplomatic posturing? When did the US step through the looking glass? When did insanity become reasonable?

Exactly.
I keep hearing American talking head pundits discuss war with Iran as though it was some kind of obligation -- like, America is the global cop, the global superpower telling other countries what to do, its some kind of divine right or mandate or something.
I want to say this to these talking heads -- America used to have four things: a magnificent Constitution, the sympathy of the world following 9/11, a large economy, and a large military budget. All that is left is a large American economy -- as long as oil is still purchased in American dollars and China is still purchasing debt -- and all that military spending.
But America has no monopoly on morality. Not any more. And no more right to tell everyone else how to live than Brazil does -- in fact, at least Brazil still knows how to have fun.

Great line of the day

Digby:

I find it simply mind-boggling that after the unbelievable intelligence manipulation and incompetence that led us into the Iraq anyone in this country is willing to trust George W. Bush to launch another "pre-emptive" war. What exactly would he have to do to make the beltway courtiers question his good intentions? Get a blow job?