What Comic Best Represents the Democratic and Republican Party’s?
In the comments section of this post over at NewsHog Desert Island Boy said something that I think is worth pondering. He brought up comic book hero’s and their relationship to politics. I would like to take this a step further.
Historically there have been two major competing comic book publishers, DC Comics and Marvel. DC carries Superman and Batman, while Marvel carries Spiderman and X-Men. Based on your knowledge of the Democratic and Republican party’s, which comic book publisher best represents them and why? Base your reasoning on characters if at all possible. Just so you know, my initial take is that DC are the Republicans (Justice League) and Marvel the Democrats (X-Men) but I want to know what you think.
Projecting Power by Fomenting Anarchy: The Latest George Orwell Bush "Newspeak" Speech
To people of conscience the world over, the situation in Iraq is a humanitarian disaster.
But to others, fomenting anarchy — in predictable response to a foreign policy carefully constructed with lies upon lies and irresistibly enforced by the greatest military power the world has ever seen — has achieved precisely the goals long stated.
The Mission has indeed been Accomplished for the Neo-Conservatives: Their long-held dream of “projecting power” from the heart of the Middle East for the foreseeable future is now a reality, the cost in lives and treasure — to others — be damned.
In that light, consider the President’s speech last evening: Was he a desperate blunderer appealing to a restive public for continued patience in an overly idealistic crusade, or a warlord savoring his spoils and declaring his will as unassailable to an effectively “captive audience” (and I refer not only to the military personnel ordered to attend and goaded, by presidential shills, to applaud).
With the carnage in Iraq continuing, spasmodically worsening, and showing no signs of abating,
With the President’s approval ratings dropping to historic lows, even in Red States,
And yet again re-written history: We aren’t in Iraq to eliminate those non-existent WMDs (which the Downing Street Memos reveal the Administration knew were not an imminent threat, despite what they impeachably testified to the US Congress, and the American people); we aren’t in Iraq to eliminate Saddam Hussein (who never attacked America, despite the Administration’s goading him with dramatically increased airstrikes well before going to Congress for the Constitutionally required authorization to initiate hostilities, and who was boxed in by the UN, which the Administration systematically misled and whose inspections it manipulated, in a failed attempt to goad Hussein into non-compliance, another trumped-up and unsuccessful casus belli); and although we may still be in Iraq to establish a “beacon” of democracy to shine throughout the region (whose people could, of course, use a lot more liberty — particularly from autocratic regimes that we support — but who are being predictably incited to the very opposite effect by our open-ended occupation in the heart of the Middle East), we are now in Iraq — we are told — to prevent another 9/11-style attack on our Homeland by all those evil-doers being drawn to Iraq, like moths to flame, by our very presence in Iraq.
Talk about your self-fulfilling prophesies!
By piling lies upon lies, George Orwell Bush has finally arrived at something approaching the truth: Just as we had to invade Afghanistan to root out the Al Qaeda terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 — a job that we never did complete, as we threw the bulk of our resources into Iraq (and threw away most our international good will in the process) — we now find ourselves facing a maniacally religiously frenzied, well funded new breeding grounds for Al Qaeda terrorists, primarily in the region of Iraq home to Sunnis (a minority in Iraq, a majority in the Muslim world at large), which our policies have predictably fomented but which we truly do ignore at our peril.
With a tiger by the tail (we’re not just in a quagmire, as in Vietnam; the Viet Cong never flew jetliners into our skyscrapers), the polls indicate that no one — not Bush, not his supporters in Congress, not the Democrats (predictably divided into hawks and doves), not the public at large or overseas — no one really knows how to get us out of this deathtrap. And that’s the scariest part of all…to most of us.
To most of us, this arrival at a point of no good options may seem like the unintended consequence of a bungled policy based upon deception, even self-deception.
However, there is another, even more influential perspective to consider.
To the NeoCons, the situation in Iraq has turned out pretty much as they have planned it all along, from the bowels of Right Wing think tanks to the halls of the White House (They sold that “We’ll be welcomed as liberators” line of BS, but I doubt they bought it). They have achieved the very goal that they have publicly and privately lusted after since well before the tragedy of 9/11 gave them the pretext they had long awaited for invading any country deemed a terrorist state, in particular Iraq: The establishment of a massive American military force, ultimately in permanent bases, in the strategic heart of the Middle East.
And it’s not just about sitting atop the world’s second-largest known petroleum reserves — which makes Cheney and Halliburton salivate and rich — there is something even more fundamental at play here: The ability to “project power” in that vital region — or anywhere, for that matter — allows you to take whatever you want, whenever you want it, for whatever reason you want it.
The NeoCons — “imperialists”, to be studious about it; bullies, to be blunt — have finally gotten their way…at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and limbs and hundreds of billions of dollars, all paid by someone else.
Just as the Right has insidiously “starved the beast” — given us precious few options for public spending on vital public programs, such as Social Security, by amassing huge public debt — the Right has now “created a beast” — predictably drawn so many terrorists to Iraq that we now must maintain a massive military presence in that country indefinitely.
And isn’t that exactly what the NeoCons wanted all along?
Remember that all this started — and was promoted — with lies.
Take note, all prevaricators-to-be: To make a (baldfaced) lie the (accepted) “truth”, first throw it out there as an aside, a “given”, in another discussion — don’t make a big deal out of it and, chances are, no one else will either. Discreetly plant the seed of a lie, nurture it by repetition, and it will grow into a great tree of “truth” called the “conventional wisdom”.
In this instance, as I first noted last month in GordonTalk, a senior US military official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said almost off-handedly:
“If we fail [in Iraq], the different groups would be at each other’s throats and warfare would continue for some time…If we take our foot off their throats, this country could be back into civil war and chaos.”
To which your humble rabble-rouser replied:
WHOA!!! “Back into civil war and chaos”?
Say what you will about ol’ Saddam; but like Marshall Tito, whose “iron fist” suppressed ethnic and religious warfare in Yugoslavia for decades, Saddam Hussein ruthlessly, yet effectively suppressed ethnic and religious warfare in Iraq…
Sorry, kids; if Iraq continues to descend into civil war and chaos — happily helped along by the likes of that murderous bastard al-Zarqawi — it’s not a return to the “good ol’ bad ol’ days” of Saddam.
Nope.
It’ll be George Dubya’s little gift to the Middle East. Tied up in a ribbon as red as all the blood that’s been shed.
No matter how the story is written, or re-written.
And now that the newest reason for war, first thrown out there by an unnamed source, has become the official policy pronounced by the President in his latest speech, it becomes even more evident that in re-writing history — in order to manipulate history — the Bush Administration would put Big Brother to shame.
And that puts all of us to shame.
The World Of Commander McBragg
On this weeks show, we have The World of Commander-in-Chief McBragg. Next week, tune in as Phineas J. Whoopie uses his magical 3DBB to solve the problems in Iraq!
“he fights terrorists galore,
and then asks for more,
or so says the brag of McBragg.
When in Iraq the Marines plant a flag,
they may be led by Commander McBragg,
with depleted uranium in hand
he can beat Saddam and his band,
or so says the brag of McBragg at Ft Bragg…”
The Online Coalition - Letter to the FEC
If you are a blogger or care about the rights of individuals to express their opinions openly then you should quickly head over the The Online Coalition and add your name to their letter to the FEC.
Hat tip to Dean.
I am Somebody
Hehe, one of the funnier lines from the old Steve Martin classic The Jerk seems appropriate for me this morning. Looks as though the Pittsburgh Tribune Review has published a wholly unflattering picture of me in today’s paper. Oh well, head over to the link above then click on the photo on the right.
For more info on the community activism work we have been doing head over to PABucketBrigade.org.
Sorry for Being So Worthless…
I have decided to make a little change to the blogroll this morning. You see, over the past year and a half I have tried numerous times to contact Atrios for one reason or another but he has apparently never found my communications worth a reply. The last email I sent over was in regard to the Pennsylvania Young Democrats. Basically, seeing that his bio says he is 30 years old and we all know he is from Philly, I was trying to engage him in a discussion about the merits of the Young Dems with the goal of hopefully bringing him on board. I thought the organization would benefit greatly from someone of his reach, but alas this message, like the many others I sent over, remains unanswered.
Therefore, I have decided that he obviously does not need the little insignificant link I have provided to him since this blogs inception. Really, I mean why waste good link real estate on someone who so obviously could not give a shit. So, as of this morning the space in my “Left Field” blogroll that used to be reserved for Mr. Black has now been replaced with a good friend and one that should have been there all along, TAS from Loaded Mouth.
Wanna Make a Bet?
One of my favorite drinking games in college was Bob, the game where everyone had to take a drink whenever the name Bob was mentioned on the Bob Newhart show. Along those lines I would like to make a bet, how many times do you think Bush will mention 9/11 in his Iraq speech tonight? The person closest without going over wins. Place your wagers in the comments section.
My guess…45 minute speech…15 times.
By the way, Newshog is having a similar contest only there it is how many times Dubbya says “evil.”
P.S. Feel free to take a drink each time either is spoken.
UPDATE. Here are the numbers by my count:
9/11 (September 11, 2001) = 5
Evil = 1
Hard Work (Difficult Work) = 5
Freedom = 20
Democracy = 5
Therefore, the winner with a bet of 5 is…Cernig. Congratulations! too bad he only said evil once 
PBS on the Ropes
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) were founded in 1967 with the passage of The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. Since then, PBS has provided a valuable public service, broadcasting news and public affairs programming that remains nearly absent from the rest of the broadcast spectrum. This is amazing considering that today most Americans have access to hundreds of channels via cable and satellite providers.
Now I don’t claim to know exactly when PBS became the target of the right wings efforts to ferret out liberal bias in the media but it is obvious that it has effectively assumed that mantle as of today. Nearly a decade ago the house, led by Newt Gingrich, attempted to completely cut funding for PBS. This effort was ultimately unsuccessful but it did succeed in forcing PBS to take more corporate funding in the form of commercials from corporations. The idea was that the more corporate money PBS was forced to take the less likely it would be that they would do programming critical of corporations. This effort has taken on new momentum as of late with the House last week proposing to:
“eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — which passes federal funds to public broadcasters — starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB’s budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million.”
Fortunately cooler heads prevailed and the House ended up voting 284-140 against the proposed budget cuts, but the shot across the bow came a little too close for comfort. The current head of the CPB, a man by the name of Ken Tomlinson, has made it perfectly clear that he feel PBS is “too liberal” and as such has begun to try and use his power to effectively neuter the organization. The program that drew the wrath of Tomlinson was NOW, which until recently was hosted by Bill Moyers.
Like him or not, Moyers and his program, now cut from one hour to one half hour and hosted by David Brancaccio, represents one the last true investigative journalism programs on the air. The other in my opinion is also a PBS original, Frontline. Both of these programs provide a critical public service, digging up the dirt on corporate and government wrongdoing, left and right equally. Most recently, NOW dedicated their entire half hour (really a paltry 22 minutes) to the recent Kelo v. New London SCOTUS ruling and guess what? they were highly critical of the liberal majority ruling. You see, the purpose of programs like NOW and Frontline are not, as some would have you believe, to further a liberal agenda. They are to serve the public interest of the citizens of this country.
I am not saying that Bill Moyers is not a liberal, he most certainly is, but the reality is that he is a journalist first, and a damned good one I might add. But don’t listen to me, I am also a liberal, look at the numbers. In a recent Roper Public Opinion Poll on PBS Americans spoke loud and clear:
- PBS is again #1 in public trust, with 49% trusting PBS a great deal. This is a drop of only 1% from last year. Second in trust are “courts of law,” which are trusted a great deal by 26%, which is also a decrease from last year (28%).
- PBS again ranks second in tax value among 20 federally funded services and institutions, with 23% stating it an excellent value for their tax dollars. Military defense is again #1 in excellent value, but its percentage dropped from 34% last year to 25% this year. PBS, conversely, gained, from 20% to 23%. Moreover, when the “excellent” and “good” scores are combined, PBS tops the list at 76%, tying with police/law enforcement and edging out military defense (74%). Last year PBS was third in this measure, behind military defense (84%) and police/law enforcement (75%).
- Once again, Americans have stated that they are more satisfied with programs on PBS compared to cable and commercial broadcast. Thirty-eight percent stated they were “very satisfied” with PBS programs, up from 34% last year. Cable dropped in this measure, with 21% answering very satisfied this year, compared to 21% last year. Commercial broadcast was unchanged, with 16% stating they were very satisfied with its programs both years.
- The majority of Americans think it’s very important to have public television. The response to this question was up this year, from 59% to 62%. Two out of five Americans think the same about commercial broadcast television (42% very important in 2005, up from 40% in 2004). Just over a third thinks it’s very important that we have cable television (35% in 2005 and 36% in 2004).
- PBS remains the network with the most trusted news and public affairs programs, with 41% trusting its programs a great deal. Only PBS and NPR gained in this measure, both by 1 percentage point (40% to 41% for PBS, 23% to 24% for NPR). All of the other news networks were down, and three were down significantly: CNN (33% to 28%), MSNBC (21% to 17%) and CBS (20% to 16%).
In a speech in front of the National Conference on Media Reform Bill Moyers I think said it best when, talking about the founding of the NOW program in the wake of the 9/11 attacks he said,
This, too, was on my mind when we assembled the team for NOW. It was just after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. We agreed on two priorities. First, we wanted to do our part to keep the conversation of democracy going. That meant talking to a wide range of people across the spectrum - left, right and center.It meant poets, philosophers, politicians, scientists, sages and scribblers. It meant Isabel AlIende, the novelist, and Amity Shlaes, the columnist for the Financial Times. It meant the former nun and best-selling author Karen Armstrong, and it meant the right-wing evangelical columnist Cal Thomas. It meant Arundhati Roy from India, Doris Lessing from London, David Suzuki from Canada, and Bernard Henry-Levi from Paris. It also meant two successive editors of the Wall Street Journal, Robert Bartley and Paul Gigot, the editor of The Economist, Bill Emmott, The Nation‘?s Katrina vanden Heuvel and the L.A. Weekly’s John Powers.
It means liberals like Frank Wu, Ossie Davis and Gregory Nava, and conservatives like Frank Gaffney, Grover Norquist, and Richard Viguerie. It meant Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Bishop Wilton Gregory of the Catholic Bishops conference in this country. It meant the conservative Christian activist and lobbyist, Ralph Reed, and the dissident Catholic Sister Joan Chittister. We threw the conversation of democracy open to all comers.
That is right, the conversation of democracy, at least on PBS, has been held open to ALL voices. Regardless of your political leanings you must recognize that the destruction of PBS, while it might make some on the right feel good, will utlimately take a massive chunk our of what is already a battered and beleaguered body of public discourse.
Downing St Memos and Bush’s speech
Big Brass Alliance for more stories.
Milhous Fillmore and The Downing St Memos
Big Brass Alliance for updated posts.
General Admits to Secret War In Iraq
Fort Wayne News Sentinel Editorial
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Corsi
While perusing the shelves of my local Borders bookstore last week I ran across a copy of the latest work by swifty outcast Jerome Corsi entitled “Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians.” My first reaction to seeing this piece on the shelf was “what is this guy up to now?” You may recall that Corsi played the role of Mr. Hyde to John O’Neill’s Dr. Jekyll during the past election cycle with their book Unfit for Command. Corsi was quickly blackballed by O’Neill after it was revealed that he made some utterly ridiculous comments on the FreeRepublic website. Well it would appear Corsi is up to his old tricks again as revealed by this insightful PG piece by Dennis Roddy. Bottom line, Corsi’s new book, which I profess that I have not and will not read, trys to blame Iran’s nuclear program on none other than American Democrats. Go figure.
Now it should be clear to anyone paying a lick of attention that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are indeed a real “grave and gathering threat” to not only the security and balance of power in the Middle East, but also to the national security of the U.S. Unfortunately, having someone like Corsi as the point man in pushing for Iranian Democratization does more damage than good. I am not quite sure how having someone who believes that…
“Islam is a peaceful religion as long as the women are beaten, the boys buggered and the infidels killed.”
“Ragheads are boy-bumpers as clearly as they are women-haters _ it all goes together.”
“Let’s see exactly why it isn’t the case that Islam is a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion? Where’s the proof to the contrary?”
…will carry any credibility with the people actually fighting for Democracy in Iran.
Time to Pull Back From the Brink
For many Americans Sunday is a day of reflection, a day to sit back, relax, and take account of the past week while planning for the next. Looking back on this past week has me feeling a little uneasy. This unease started with the comment from Dick Durbin that compared U.S. actions to those of the Nazi’s. It quickly escalated with the insulting comments by Karl Rove impugning the integrity of Democrats and their actions after 9/11. All of this was wrapped up with the ridiculously opportunistic passing by the House of a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration, something that I challenge anyone to show me a single instance of since the Vietnam era.
In my opinion the rhetoric is simply too hot and is doing absolutely nothing to further the goals or address the needs of America. Now I recognize that I have been just as guilty as the next guy when it comes to ratcheting up the rhetoric on these virtual pages, but enough is enough. It reminds me of a couple that gets into a heated argument. Things are said in the heat of the moment that should not be and often times they are way out of line. I can tell you from experience that it is only reasoned restraint that stops these arguments from going over the line. How many times in your life have your said something in an argument to your significant other that you have regretted afterward? I am sure you can think of some and worse of all, those are usually the cause of a breakup.
I see our national dialogue in a similar situation. The rhetoric is out of hand and at some point, which we may have already reached, it will be too much to pull back from. If we wish to keep this country together, to be the great nation we constantly profess to be, then it is time to dial it down a few notches and take account of where we are. Hopefully then we will be able to recognize the damage that has been done and begin the work of healing that is so necessary.
Bush Al-Jaafari Observations
I have two initial observations about today’s press conference between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Jaafari. First, I wish I could see the back of the room because someone on Bush’s team has to be coaching him to stretch out his answers. Even Bill Clinton did not ramble on like this man.
Second and more important, Bush was asked by a member of the Iraqi press for a response to the following request by Iraqi MP’s:
Eighty two Iraqi lawmakers from across the political spectrum have pressed for the withdrawal of the US-led occupation troops from their country.The Shiite, Kurdish, Sunni Arab, Christian and communist legislators made the call in a letter sent by Falah Hassan Shanshal of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), the largest bloc in parliament, to speaker Hajem Al-Hassani, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).
“We have asked in several sessions for occupation troops to withdraw. Our request was ignored,” read the latter(sic), made public on Sunday, June 19.
In a bizarre response President Bush came back with the following:
“there are not going to be any timetables” for withdrawal of American forces and vowed victory over insurgents attempting to prevent establishment of a democratic government under a new constitution.
Timetables? Who said anything about timetables? The question was what are you going to do about the fact that the Iraqi government has asked you to leave? If I recall on May 14, 2004 then Secretary of State Colin Powell said:
“We’re there to support the Iraqi people and protect them and the new government,” Powell said at a news conference with his counterparts from other Group of Eight nations preparing for an economic summit next month. “I have no doubt the new government will welcome our presence and am losing no sleep over whether they will ask us to stay.”But were the new government to say it could handle security, “then we would leave,” Powell said.
Then on June 30, 2004 L. Paul Bremer, the top administrator in Iraq at the time said:
“If the provisional government asks us to leave, we will leave,” Bremer said, referring to an interim Iraqi administration due to take power June 30. “I don’t think that will happen, but obviously we don’t stay in countries where we’re not welcome.”
Not to be undone, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said:
“But were the government that takes over to ask us to leave, we would leave.”
So, since no one else in that room full of stenographers today had the balls to reiterate I will do it for them. Mr. President, considering that the people of Iraq have asked for a full withdrawal of U.S. Forces from their country, and given that your administration and our largest coalition partner have said on the record we would acquiesce if asked, when will we be removing our troops from Iraq?
The New War-ld Order Continues…
Biden Frist Deal-non-Deal Over Bolton?
Doing the rounds I came upon this tantilizing piece by Steve Clemens of The Washington Note that is a must read. Here is a small snippit, click on the link below for the full story.
Biden Says If NO DEAL by Close of Business Today, Then “It’s Over”
Reuters reports a comment by Senator Biden that indicates the Senator’s assessment that the Bolton confirmation battle is quickly coming to a close.
Joanne Kenan writes:
“If they don’t have (the documents) by the end of the day, it’s finished,” the Delaware Democrat said of the bitter dispute over President Bush’s choice to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
TWN has done some digging into whether this was Biden drawing a firm line and what drove this comment yesterday evening.
Biden’s declaration that all document requests must be satisfied by close of business today — or all deals are off — is more the Senator’s “assessment that the window for confirming Bolton is closing fast,” according to an official familiar with Biden’s stance.
But TWN has learned that Biden’s comment fits in a context of interactions with Senator Frist these past several days about potential deals on the document requests.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist approached Biden on Tuesday asking that if Frist could, in fact, secure access for the Senators to the requested NSA documents and names of U.S. officials redacted from these documents, what mechanisms could Biden’s side propose that would be satisfactory to the Democrats given the sensitivity of the material.
There was no indication whether the White House was supporting Frist’s initiative or whether Frist was on his own — attempting to demonstrate to the administration and to Bolton supporters that he was doing all he could to try and secure an up-or-down vote on Bolton.
Nonetheless, Biden’s side took Frist’s proposal seriously.
UPC - Gravitational Pullup
Today marks a momentus occasion, this would be the first time I have contributed my two cents to the UPC’s weekly Gravitational Pullup exercise. This weeks question is:
At what age do you think you’ll retire at, and where do you plan to retire to?
The question of at what age do I plan on retiring is a bit tricky. The wife and I have been saving via my 401K and various other investments for quite some time now but in reality I am not The Great Karnac and therefore can not account for what will happen to my nest-egg. We do have a small business that we are running in addition to my work so as that ramps up it will continue to accelerate our plans. As such I will say that I am playing it by ear when it comes to the “at what age” question.
With regard to where I would like to retire to this one is a no brainer. In 1997 I took my ASA Keelboat certification for the explicit purpose of spending my golden years sailing the high seas. Since certification I have logged 200 plus hours of sail time but I would like to keep adding to that. Now, Vicky is not as keen on the idea of living on a boat so the plan will likely require a land based home somewhere along coastal waters. We both like St. Thomas but would certainly settle for Annapolis, MD. By the way, I am thinking the Broadblue 38 would fit nicely into my plans.
Photo Friday - "Orange"
“Orange Glow”