Students at the University of Sheffield have donated four tonnes of goods to city charities. As...
Why Recent Graduates Should Join Code for America
Sympathy for the dodgy salesmen of Australian politics
Babel Rising
T.C. Boyle: Incorporating Environmentalism in Art
The Stone Roses confirm all planned shows to go ahead after Ian Brown calls Reni a 'c**t' onstage
Lies, Campaigns & Timelines - From Robert Fantina

Does Bush believe that ‘victory,’ which to him is apparently an Iraq with a western-style democracy, forced upon it against the will of the people, has been achieved? That is too much of a stretch even for the intellectually-challenged Mr. Bush to believe. But using Hitler’s ‘Big Lie’ theory, perhaps he hopes that U.S. citizens will buy it.

The ‘Big Lie’ theory comes from Mein Kampf, Hitler’s autobiography, and is this: "in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation… more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” So if Mr. Bush would have us believe that a new democratic Iraq is dawning, he is telling ‘the big lie.’

But perhaps neither of these explains the president’s apparent willingness to accept a troop withdrawal timeline (he calls it a time ‘horizon,’ apparently believing that the U.S. citizenry is too stupid to know he means timeline). The youthful, dynamic Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is ahead in the polls; his Republican opponent, the awkward, elderly and decrepit John McCain, has not been able to spark any excitement on the campaign trail. McCain is a stalwart supporter of war, any war it seems, and foresees the U.S. occupation in Iraq lasting for generations. Perhaps it has finally dawned on Bush that this is not what the American people want; perhaps someone has finally gotten through to him; perhaps someone has penetrated his inner circle of yes-men and women, and has made him realize that a campaign platform of more of the same death, blood and destruction, is not selling too well even in middle America. [More]


blog comments powered by Disqus
 
How Bush is Wiping Out McCain - From Alexander Cockburn
29 jul  |  Amid these very bad weeks for Republican John McCain’s hopes for victory in November, the cruelest blow of all is surely that President George Bush has decided to let McCain sink, without even pretending to toss a life belt to his fellow Republican. Two mean-spirited men by nature, Bush and McCain have never liked each other much and this natural animosity was fanned by the vicious nomination fights of 2000, when Bush routed McCain with salvoes of slurs, including one about a black “love child” supposedly disfiguring the senator’s escutcheon.

Both are now in poor political shape, with contradictory strategies for rehabbing their fortunes. The president is saddled with an approval rating bumping along in the 20s. Each day he is served another platter of contemptuous stories about “the worst presidency of modern times”, the lack of any enduring “legacy”, the approaching Democratic landslide that will put the Republicans in the wilderness for at least two terms...

The White House made no serious attempt to upend Obama’s trip to Iraq or excessively ridicule the harmonies from the Democratic candidate and Iraqi prime minister Maliki on schedules for U.S. withdrawal. Indeed noises that could be construed as acceptance of an accelerated schedule emanated from the White House... As final testimony to the huge disaster for the McCain campaign of Obama’s trip to Iraq, the floundering Republican candidate managed to shoehorn himself into talk about a rate of withdrawal from Iraq a good deal brisker than the 100 years of occupation he was talking about, or even the 2013 deadline he subsequently settled on. [More] . . read more

The pointless battle against binge drinking
5 may  |  By Stephen Myles

Since the days of Alexander the Great, binge drinking has been a very popular past time - leading to him apparently killing a friend and burning down Persepolis while drunk.

Those are some Great shoes to fill.

Yet, governments, schools and the media have repeatedly tried to teach us of binge drinking's dangers. 

Dartmouth University has taken the lead, instigating a new nationwide policy to curb heavy drinking by their students.

Pour me another glass.

Binge drinking is defined as "the consumption of five or more drinks in a row by men — or four or more drinks in a row by women — at least once in the previous 2 weeks. Heavy binge drinking includes three or more such episodes in 2 weeks."

Seems I don't know anyone who isn't a heavy binge drinker.

Do you think this definition should be changed or should we change people's attitudes? Or should you follow HPD's no fools guide to drinking a lot but not dying?  . . read more

Obama Takes On Bush and McCain
17 may  |  The U.S. presidential election seems to be off and running with President Bush taking a pre-emptive strike at 'appeasers' who want to negotiate with other countries leaders. Presumptive Democrat candidate Barack Obama ain't having none of it. . . read more
Manchurian Candidate: Obama or Bush? - From Dave Lindorff
1 mar  |  With a viral campaign underway via email, right-wing radio, and on the street suggesting that Barack Obama is a black "Manchurian Candidate," secretly trained as a Muslim fanatic who will insinuate himself into the White House... perhaps it is time to look at the Manchurian Candidate we already have in the White House...

George Bush came to office in 2001 promising a new era of integrity, civility and "compassionate conservatism," an era of humble American foreign policy, and a bi-partisan approach to government. What did we actually get? Once in office, this chameleon president almost immediately set out to embroil the country in a major war in the Middle East against the nation of Iraq. The game plan was laid out at the president's first National Security Council meeting... It's hard to escape the conclusion that the Bush/Cheney administration, at a minimum, wanted an attack on American soil, and a national disaster that would put the country on a war footing.

Surveying at the appalling wreckage left after eight years of the Bush administration, it is hard to recognize the country that he started out with in 2001. A once proud nation-one that only a few years ago was admired around the world and that now is viewed as a pariah and a rogue state-today trembles before a handful of turbaned fanatics holed up in caves in the Hindu Kush, its trillion-dollar high-tech military colossus fought to a standstill in Iraq and Afghanistan by a few thousand brave men and women armed with RPGs, antique AK-47s and home-made roadside bombs...

Forget all the nonsense about Barack Obama being a closet Muslim. We already have our Manchurian Candidate in the White House, and he has largely accomplished what he was programmed to do: destroy the country. [More] . . read more

Why McCain is Wrong on Iraq - From William S. Lind
31 jul  |  Senator John McCain's position on the situation in Iraq is wrong on two counts, which means his criticism of Senator Obama is also wrong. The twin pillars of McCain's assessment of the war are a) the surge worked and b) because the surge worked we are now winning. Neither of those views is based in fact.

The first represents the long-recognized logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, i.e., because one event occurred after another, it was a consequence of the first event. Because the cock crows before sunrise, he thinks he makes the sun come up. Because violence in Iraq dropped after the surge, McCain claims the surge caused the reduction in violence. He is quick to add that he supported the surge at the time, which Obama did not. In the real world, neither rooster nor Senator has quite so much reason to strut upon his dunghill...

In his first assertion, Senator McCain is claiming credit where credit is not due. In his second, that we are winning in Iraq, he fails to understand what “winning” means in a Fourth Generation conflict. The current reduction in violence in Iraq does not mean we are winning. Nor does al Qaeda’s incipient defeat mean we are winning. We win only if a state re-emerges, the state we destroyed by our invasion. A reduction in violence and the defeat of al Qaeda are necessary preconditions for the re-emergence of a state, but they are not sufficient to ensure it...

So McCain is wrong on both counts. The fact that a Presidential candidate is fundamentally wrong on so important a subject as the war in Iraq is disturbing. More disturbing is the nature of the errors. Both represent carryovers of Bush administration practices. [More] . . read more

Lessons From Iraq - From Barack Obama
1 nov  |  So many Americans ask me: how did we go so wrong in Iraq? And they're not just asking because they want to understand the past - they're asking because they don't want their leaders to make the same mistakes again in the future. They don't want leaders who will bog us down in unnecessary wars; they don't want leaders who allow America to lose its standing; and they don't want leaders who tell the American people anything less than the full truth about where they stand and what they'll do.

We need to learn the painful lessons of the Iraq War if we're going to secure this country and renew America's leadership. The first thing we have to understand is what happened in Iraq. Because there are two ways to look at this. The first way is to say that Iraq is a disaster because of George Bush's mismanagement. Or because of the arrogance and incompetence of Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld in prosecuting the war. Or because Iraq's Prime Minister just hasn't been up to the job.

But I take a different view. I think the problem isn't just how we've fought the war - it's that we fought the war in the first place. Because the truth is, the war in Iraq should never have been authorized, and it should never have been waged. The Iraq War had nothing to do with al Qaeda or 9/11. It was based on exaggerated fears and unconvincing intelligence. And it has left America less safe, and less respected around the world.  . . read more

Could Bush Face Death Row? - From John F. Miglio
3 jun  |  Vincent Bugliosi, the L.A. district attorney who became famous for successfully trying Charles Manson for murder and subsequently writing the best-seller, Helter Skelter, has written an explosive new book that not only lights a fuse under our criminal justice system but challenges the next attorney general of the U.S. to blow the Bush administration to smithereens... Bugliosi - who has never been accused of mincing his words (or being an advocate for liberal causes) - makes a thorough and compelling case against Bush and his inner circle of advisors, who helped him sell the war in Iraq to the American public.

The major premise of Bugliosi's case against Bush is that the former Texas governor, who unapologetically executed more death row inmates than any other governor in the country (and joked about killing one of them), intentionally lied and deceived the American public while he was president about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, which has caused the deaths of over 4,000 U.S. service men and women and over a 100,000 Iraqis.

But how can Bush be prosecuted and convicted of murder if he personally did not kill anyone? Bugliosi asks, and then answers his own question: "...it is not necessary for a criminal defendant to have physically committed a murder to be guilty of it. For example, I convicted Charles Manson of the seven Tate-La Bianca murders even though he himself did not participate in any of the killings, nor was he present at the time."

Interesting comparison. Bush and Manson - two twisted sociopaths who revel in death and destruction. But Bugliosi goes further: "I was able to obtain this conviction because of the vicarious liability rule of conspiracy, which provides that each member of a conspiracy is criminally responsible for all crimes committed by his coconspirators... Necessarily, (Bush) conspired with certain members of his inner circle, co-conspirators like Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice." [More]

Related: Will John Howard be tried for war crimes? . . read more

Cold Comfort From The Outsider
11 dec  |  Deputy Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has backed pro-war comments made by US President Barack Obama during his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. She says she is comfortable with his argument that there are times when it is right to fight.

I cannot think of one ‘legitimate war’ which does not involve the personification of evil in its protagonist – think Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Chiang Kai-shek, Hirohito, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein. Equally, I cannot think of one war without an evil leader which is justified.

Think Vietnam, Iraq (post Hussein), Afghanistan, Tibet and Suez. The increase in US troops in Afghanistan is a huge tactical and moral error. There is no visible enemy, no evil figurehead. A

nd for its perpetrator to get a Nobel Peace Prize must be a satirical use of the word ‘peace.’

I am uncomfortable with what Ms Gillard has to say.  . . read more

What If...? - From the Outsider
1 may  |  What if none of the U.S. presidential candidates can win the next election? Obama because he is black and has an 'unAmerican' sounding name, Clinton because she is a woman and part of a tiring dynasty. And McCain because he is a Republican and... McCain. What happens then?

Do we have the second American civil war? Will some states want to secede from the Unitedness of it all? Will Bush hang in there for an extended second term 'in the national interest'? Will Mugabe ask for asylum?

Add to these nice concerns the impact of the recession-which-isnt-really-here-yet but will bite in the fall and the inevitable global tensions of a turbulent Beijing Olympics and you'd reckon on the message for 2009 being a right royal state of disunion. Get into gold or cash. Soonest. . . read more

Blonde Ambition: Hillary's Beserker Campaign - From Jeffrey St Clair
25 mar  |  Hillary Clinton can not win the Democratic nomination for president. The numbers tell the story. Even with robust victories in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky, Hillary will trail Obama in popular votes and pledged delegates as they enter the convention hall in Denver. Any other candidate would have been shamed into dropping out long ago. But these are the Clintons and they have no shame.

So why does Hillary persist? Because she hasn't abandoned her aspiration for the White House. Not in 2008, but for 2012. Here's the perverse logic at work. If Obama defeats McCain in November, it will take an act of treachery beyond anything even the Clintons have ever conjured from their grimoire of political demonology for Hillary to challenge him in 2012. She will be 69 in 2016, almost ready to move into one of the Beverly Nursing Homes, owned by a company she once represented as a corporate lawyer, aggressively protecting the bottom line against such extravagances as healthy meals, clean sheets and proper medical care for the elderly.

Hillary Clinton is the prisoner of an unimpeachable mathematics. So she makes the most of a remorseless situation by doing what the Clintons do best: commit political fratricide. Quite literally, in this case, by knocking off a brother. In order to realize her vaulting ambition, Hillary must mortally wound Obama as candidate in the fall race against John McCain so that she can run against McCain in 2012. [More] . . read more

blogs   100words
 
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -- Ronald Reagan (1986)