CommonPrejudice

Not Me....Them!!!!

The Rude Pundit challenges Americans - the ones that belong to the radical right anyway - to put up or shut up.

"I (the undersigned) believe President George W. Bush when he says that the United States of America is fighting a 'new kind of enemy' that requires 'new thinking' about how to wage war. Therefore, as a loyal citizen of President Bush’s United States, my signature below indicates my agreement to the following:

"1. I believe wholeheartedly in the Patriot Act as initially passed by Congress in 2001, as well as the provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act. Therefore, I grant the FBI access to:

"a. my library records, so it may determine if I am reading material that might designate me an enemy of the nation;

"b. my financial records, including credit reports, so it may determine if I am contributing monetarily to any governmentally proscribed activities or organizations;

"c. my medical records, so it may determine if my prescriptions, injuries, or other conditions are indicative of terrorist activity on my part;

"d. any and all other personal records including, but not limited to, my store purchases, my school records, my web browsing history, and anything else determined as a 'tangible thing' necessary to engage in a secret investigation of me.

"I agree that I do not need to be notified if my records have come under scrutiny by the FBI, and, furthermore, I agree that no warrant is needed for the FBI to engage in this examination of my personal records. Additionally, I agree that the FBI should be allowed to monitor any groups it believes may be linked to what it determines to be terrorist activity.

"2. I believe that the President of the United States has the power to mitigate any and all laws passed by the Congress and that he has such power granted to him by his status as Commander-in-Chief in the Constitution as well as the 2001 Authorization of Military Force, passed by the Congress, which states that the President can use 'all necessary and appropriate force' in prosecution of the war. Therefore, I grant the United States government the following powers:

"a. that the National Security Agency, under the direction of the President, may tap my phone lines and intercept my e-mail without warrant or FISA oversight;

"b. that the President may hold me or other detainees without access to the legal system for a period of time determined by the President or his agents;

"c. that the President may authorize physical force against me or other individual detainees in order to gain intelligence and that he may define whether such physical force may be called 'torture':

"d. that the President may set aside any and all laws he sees as hindering the gathering of intelligence and prevention of terrorist acts for a period as time determined by the President, including, but not limited to, rights to political protest.

"I agree that the Judicial and Legislative branch should be allowed no oversight of these activities, and that such oversight merely emboldens the terrorists. I also agree that virtually all of these activities may be conducted in complete secrecy and that revelation of these activities amount to treasonous behavior on the part of those who reveal these activities to the press and the citizenry.

"3. Finally, this document is my statement that I believe the President of the United States and the entire executive branch, as well as all departments and agencies involved, as well as all of its personnel, will treat these powers I have granted them with utmost respect. I believe that these powers will not be abused, nor will any of the information I have given them permission to examine be misinterpreted. However, should such abuse or misinterpretation occur, I agree that such actions are mere errors and no one should be subject to investigation, arrest, or employment action as a result.

"My consent freely given,
"(Your signature)"

9/11 Really Did Change Everything

Another spot on observation by Digby:

9/11 changed everything. Suddenly the he-men of WalMart and the NRA leaped into Big Brother's arms and shrieked "save me, save me! Do what ever you have to do, they're trying to kill us all!" They now look to Daddy Government not to discipline the children, but to check under the bed for them every night, reassure them that the boogeyman won't hurt them and then read them a nice bedtime story about spreading freedom and democracy. It turns out that underneath all this swaggering bravado, the Republicans aren't the Daddy party --- they're the baby party.

Foward to the Past

While Bush argues that mandatory emissions cuts would damage the US economy, seven US states agree on a plan to invoke such cuts, including New York Republican governor George Pataki. As commendable as this is, it seems to me that a country without a national plan for developing alternative energy sources - and the necessary resources a federal government possesses -  is indeed in danger of facing economic problems. So while Bush leads the United States back to the 19th century, China once again demonstrates why it will be a very formidable power in the years to come. In an approach directly contrary to Bush's, they are introducing a measure which will calculate the economic damage to the nation's economy by virtue of the poor utilization of natural resources and pollutant discharge:

China will work out its first assessment on pollution-based economic losses for 31 provinces, cities and regions in 2006, said Wang Jinnan, chief engineer of Chinese Academy of Environment Planning, State Environmental Protection Agency.

The survey, known as "green GDP" in China, is launched in December this year. Wang illustrated the gap in "green competitiveness" between China and developed nations. The economic growth is still based on high resource consumption, heavy pollution and poor output. The cost of development and environment is very high. And the "green competitiveness" varies geographically in China.

Research has shown that pollution per GDP has to be reduced by four to five times if China wishes to have its economic scale doubled in 2020 on the basis of the current level.

While certainly the Plame affair has very little international significance, nor does Bush spying on Americans, anything that can be used to impeach his ass and get these madmen and women out of office as soon as possible would be a blessing for everyone who breathes the air on this planet.

Christmas Gift Suggestion

Looking for that special gift for that special someone in your life?

How about a tattooed pig?

Imagine the delight on a child's face as they roll around the muck with their new favorite toy. And not only is it a great gift idea, it can break down cultural boundaries. The creator of this exciting concept, Belgian artist Wim Delvoye, explains why he brought his idea to China:

"I decided to do something in China first, and I realized tattooing pigs would be a good introduction to the country..."

Mission Accomplished!

Quote of the Day
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post:

An election driven by religion. A deeply polarized electorate. Disputed voting results, where the only question is whether the fraud was small-scale or massive. Yes, we have succeeded in exporting American-style democracy to Iraq.

Chavez Protects Drug Traffickers? The Hell If I Know

This past Saturday an article about drug traffickers appeared on the front page of the Miami Herald. In my mind it was a disgraceful, yet typical, piece of work. It is because it is so typical that I am blogging about it.

This was Herald's reporter Steven Dudley Do Wrong's lead.

Venezuela is becoming a refuge for Colombian drug traffickers seeking to avoid capture in their neighboring homeland, according to several Venezuelan and foreign counter-drug officials.

Now as someone who is very interested in the situation in Venezuela but has conflicting notions regarding the exact nature of the Chavez government, this article immediately caught my eye. Is Chavez protecting drug traffickers? Certainly this lead seems to indicate that this is the case. As does the title "Fugitive traffickers from Colombia find safety in Venezuela." Of course, though, I need to see some solid evidence of the claim. And this story is perfect example of how not to provide any.

Let's go through the article so as we may learn how not to be journalist.

After clearly implying that somehow Venezuela is sympathetic to the Columbian drug traffickers Do Wrong supplies the following quotation.

''They're coming here to avoid extradition, to avoid law enforcement in their own country because it's more stringent,'' said one foreign counter-drug official who asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

It requires very little knowledge of the situation in Venezuela to understand that there is no country in South America that is more polemical than this one, with all the accompanying biases that this entails. So to quote a "foreign counter-drug official" without offering anything else to ascertain exactly who this person represents can only result in a wholly unsubstantiated charge. And if the reader is expecting Do Wrong to back the drug official's claim in the next paragraph with some real evidence, they will be sorely disappointed. Dudley:

Venezuela has long been a transit point for illegal drugs leaving Colombia. But the government's own statistics on seizures show a massive increase under Chávez -- from 12,151 kilograms in 1999 to 31,222 in 2004 and 44,571 this year through mid-September.

While certainly the increased seizures could indicate an increase in the use of Venezuela as a transit point, it equally, if not more obviously, could lead one to conclude the exact opposite of the information provided in the preceding paragraph, i.e. Venezuela is becoming more, not less, stringent in stopping drug shipments and providing safe havens for drug traffickers. I mean, seizures are up!

Do Wrong then mentions some prominent Colombian suspected traffickers who are on the FBI's most wanted list as seeking refuge in Venezuela - again, though, strongly implying that Chavez is sympathetic to the traffickers' desires. Do Wrong continues:

One former senior Venezuelan counter-drug official cited credible reports that the country's immigration officials had sold Venezuelan passports to drug traffickers for up to $1 million apiece. The official requested anonymity out of fear of reprisals.

This is probably the lamest statement in the entire article. To quote a "former senior Venezuelan counter-drug official" without mentioning whether he came from Chavez's administration or previous Venezuelan governments makes whatever the official says absolutely irrelevant. Has Do-Wrong heard that there is some very powerful wealthy interests lined up against Chavez and who have said or done pretty much anything in order to contribute to his removal? Does he understand there was an attempted coup, a general strike organized by these elements and a recall election (that failed miserably)?Does he at least offer up some independent evidence of this dramatic claim? Of course not. If you can believe it, this is the next line

There is no evidence the Chávez administration approves of the presence of these drug lords, who also spend time in Colombia and other countries.

Shouldn't this have been presented a little higher up instead of the 9th paragraph (and now off the front page)? And then Dudley finally notes what the Chavez government obviously claims in relation to the increase in the seizure of drugs as well as evidence to indicate that maybe the government does take the subject of drug trafficking very seriously.

Venezuelan authorities have insisted that the increased seizures illustrate their resolve in fighting drugs. And this week, a Venezuelan judge ordered the arrest of 14 police officers here for trafficking three tons of cocaine.

Do Wrong continues with some statements regarding the current hostile nature of the US/Venezuelan government, which in itself is an issue to consider. However presented like this, buried under dubious claims of Chavez's sympathy toward Colombian drug traffickers, it loses its significance. Then, close to the end of the article, Do Wrong notes the following, which appears to make the whole story completely bogus.

Some analysts caution that drug seizures have been rising throughout the hemisphere -- speculating that the complaints of drug lords living in Venezuela may be the result of the Chávez-Bush political clash.

Properly, he offers up a quotation, this time supplying a name and for the only time in the article, supplying a label. Can you guess what that label is?

''The increase [in trafficking through Venezuela] doesn't seem unique,'' said John Walsh, an analyst at the liberal Washington Office on Latin America. ``It's a continued adaptation of the industry to get products to market.

I have a suggestion. Instead of typing "liberal," why not get off your ass and supply us with the statistics regarding continental wide drug seizures? Further, what complaints? I thought the whole point of the article was to portray Venezuelan as a safer place for drug traffickers. I simply don't understand what he means.

Dudley continues with some comments from a professor at the University of Miami, claiming Chavez is playing a dangerous game in not cooperating with the DEA (Venezuela expulsed DEA officials) or allowing the US to conduct flights over Venezuela searching for drug operations.

Yeah, well, how can you argue with the success of the U.S. government's war on drugs? And regarding the flights (and Chavez's claims that the DEA were spying on his government) - it's not like the US supported and probably was involved to some degree in a coup against his government or they have publicly clamored for his downfall ...oh wait they have.

Finally, in the last two paragraphs Dudley cuts and pastes from an AP article that cites a Mexican anti-drug prosecutor claiming that "corrupt airport officials in Venezuela were allowing heroin shipments on airplanes bound for Mexico." Maybe this is angle that could have been pursued. But alas no, this is all we get

By the end we get extremely little information regarding who these "several Venezuelan and foreign counter-drug officials" mentioned in the lead were. Best I could I tell, the very few referred to supplied little, if nothing, in terms of real evidence.

I am not, in any way, saying that Chavez has not protected drug traffickers or been tolerant of the drug trade. I don't have the foggiest idea.

But equally, in no way does this article demonstrate anything to this effect and is not worthy of appearing in a university paper, never mind the front page of an important U.S. daily.

With drivel like this, it is no wonder that is difficult to gain a full appreciation of the reality in Venezuela through the mainstream media.

Shoddy reporting, disorganized thoughts, and a clearly agenda driven story is what this mess amounts to. Is  this what they teach at j-school?

Vindication? - That Ship Has Sailed

Two quick points on Iraq.

The childish right moronically believe that those who are vehemently anti-Bush are necessarily anti-Iraqi and hope things go bad. There is obviously no logic to this and I have stated more than once how I believe that many Iraqis are both optimistic and courageous. 

And to those who support the occupation, I would love to see just a little more sympathy for the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have been killed. You can clearly see how much concern the wingers have for the ordinary Iraqi by how they react to the fatality numbers - do or say anything to disprove the figures. no compassion, no nothing...just that they are all lies. And we're not on the people's side? Yeah right.

And, secondly, the idea that Bush has been - could be - vindicated is utterly ridiculous. My friends, that ship has sailed, that plane has taken off, that train has pulled out ...

Some figures (from the Independent via Kos)

•    $204.4 billion: The cost to the U.S of the war so far.
•     2,339: Allied troops killed
•     15,955: US troops wounded in action
•     98: U.K troops killed
•     30,000 : Estimated Iraqi civilian deaths
•     0: Number of WMDs found
•     66: Journalists killed in Iraq.
•     63: Journalists killed during Vietnam war
•     8: per cent of Iraqi children suffering acute malnutrition
•     53,470: Iraqi insurgents killed
•     67: per cent Iraqis who feel less secure because of occupation
•     $343: Average monthly salary for an Iraqi soldier. Average monthly salary for an American soldier in Iraq: $4,160.75
•     5: foreign civilians kidnapped per month
•     47: per cent Iraqis who never have enough electricity
•     20: casualties per month from unexploded mines
•     25-40: per cent Estimated unemployment rate, Nov 2005
•     251: Foreigners kidnapped
•     70: per cent of Iraqi's whose sewage system rarely works
•     183,000: British and American troops are still in action in Iraq.
•     13,000: from other nations
•     90: Daily attacks by insurgents in Nov '05. In Jun '03: 8
•     60-80: per cent Iraqis who are "strongly opposed" to presence of coalition troops

Hopefully an election post along with a reaction to the Iraqi survey will be coming soon, along with a return to regular blogging.

Iraq: A Contradiction and A Plan (not mine)

War supporters argue that the American presence in Iraq in itself is not a major contributor to the violence in Iraq and if they were to leave, increased chaos would ensue (which indeed may be the case). However an underlying assumption that in fact the occupation is a major contributor to the violence necessarily accompanies the administration's stated policy of not abandoning Iraq until local forces can manage the security.

It would be pure nonsense to claim that the security situation is under control now even after 2 plus years with an occupation of >100,000 troops. What exactly is their argument then? That the U.S. will train Iraqi forces to a level vastly superior to their own level in order to accomplish something that they themselves can not come close to achieving? When currently Iraqi forces have but a scintilla of the capacity of the Americans'?

Yeah, maybe sometime this millennium.

Obviously hawks and their fighting keyboard brethren believe that a significant withdrawal (not total. no one should kid themselves - the bases were built permanent for a reason) will reduce the violence. Further, an additional source of increased "security" will not come from a Iraqi military infinitely more capable than the current occupiers, but more Abu Ghraibs and death squads - all under "Iraqi" control - along with the "management" of the media and political opposition combined with a small, yet very public, semblance of marginally democratic institutions.

The Haliburton administration is waiting for these particular chips to fall into place some time before the U.S. congressional elections next year. In fact they will do everything possible to ensure some kind of "withdrawal" is done sometime by next spring or summer. And then get ready for an onslaught of "mission accomplished!" rants by the wingnut faction of the blogoshere. (Not again...sigh)

Then Bush and his buddies will do what they always do;  lie, cover-up, and deny. Finally, before the ink is dry on the newspapers, they will culminate their public relations campaign with the ludicrous claim that anyone who disagrees with their version of events is guilty of "revisionism," despite the four or five enormous elephants standing in the room.

Then, magically, a satellite regime that crushes the violence any way it can establishes itself, presented as a democracy complete with elections regardless how obviously and extremely flawed the elections turn out to be. Meanwhile the Haliburtonese get American military bases in the heart of the Middle East (rumor has it that there is some kind of highly coveted natural resource in the region), and the majority of the U.S. soldiers return home while America turns its attention to whether two dudes can marry.

That is, for lack of a better word, their plan, anyway. I wouldn't bet on it working.