Archive for 11/07
I saw this earlier this morning, and I practically fell off my chair. If anyone has ever wondered what Wikipedia would taste like, now we know.
Brought to you by Jeph Jacques. Please check out his brilliant webcomic, Questionable Content.
In a speech yesterday at the University of Colorado, former AG John Ashcroft defended the use of waterboarding to interrogate Muslims suspected terrorists. His reason? No surprise here: 9/11 changed everything.™
Not only that, but Ashcroft was so certain that waterboarding should be used that he even offered to be waterboarded himself!
Let’s waterboard John Ashcroft. Why? Because it is in the best interest of the United States of America.
According to the Rocky Mountain News:
Ashcroft also responded to questions from the audience. The first question came from a woman who asked if Ashcroft would be willing to be subjected to waterboarding.
“The things that I can survive, if it were necessary to do them to me, I would do,” he said.
You can survive waterboarding–the point of waterboarding is for the person being tortured to only think they’re drowning. Still, you must be wondering, what good could come from waterboarding John Ashcroft?
Ashcroft wouldn’t be the first American to be waterboarded. Homeland Security advisor Malcom Nance volunteered to be waterboarded. Current TV’s Kaj Larsen agreed to be videotaped as he was being waterboarded.
And both men unquestioningly agreed that waterboarding is torture.
Perhaps if John Ashcroft experienced waterboarding, something he claims is necessary to protect America, he too might have a change of heart.
(Cross-posted at DailyKos)
Update: To clarify, I am 100% against torture, but if you look at the reports from the two people (linked above) who agreed to be waterboared, the experience convinced them that waterboarding is torture. I would expect Ashcroft to have the same epiphany.
I certainly wouldn’t kidnap him, extraordinarily rendition him to Guantanamo Bay and torture him, but I would suggest taking him up on his offer.
A few days ago, a crew of scientists testing Michigan’s Saginaw River encountered a high concentration of the chemical dioxin. Upon further study, they confirmed that this find is the highest concentration of dioxin ever recorded in the EPA’s archives. State law requires cleanup of chemical finds if the concentration is greater than 1000 parts of chemical per trillion of water. This sample of dioxin measured 1.6 million parts per trillion–1600 times greater than the state’s standard. The polluter, Dow Chemical Co., has promised to add this spill to its ongoing cleanup efforts in the Saginaw River. I think that’s great, since it should be their responsibility to clean up their mess, but something in the company’s response shocked me:
“We don’t believe there’s any imminent or significant human health or environmental threat,” [Dow spokesman John C.] Musser said.
No significant health threat? Great! I, an average Joe, don’t have any idea what dioxin is, but the fine folks at Dow have reassured me (and their stockholders and my fellow voters) that there is no risk to me, my friends, or my family.
If we rely on Musser’s assessment of the public health risk, I think that’s a response that the average person might have. Unfortunately, the experts at Michigan Department of Community Health have a slightly different opinion:
Dioxins are a group of chemicals that have similar structures and chemical properties, and are usually found together in the environment. The health effects associated with dioxins may include cancer, reproductive or developmental effects, and effects on the immune system.
New information about dioxin concentrations in fish samples taken from the Saginaw River will be available in the next few weeks. Until then, the MDCH recommends that people follow these advisories for eating fish caught in the Saginaw River:
- No one should eat carp, catfish, or white bass.
- Women of childbearing age and children under the age of 15 should not eat smallmouth bass.
- All other people are advised to eat no more than one meal of smallmouth bass per week.
- Women of childbearing age and children under the age of 15 should eat no more than one meal per month of walleye less than 22 inches in length and 6 meals per year of larger walleye.
- All other people are advised that walleye smaller than 22 inches may be eaten in unlimited quantities, but larger walleye should be eaten no more often than once per week.
- For all other species of fish caught in the Saginaw River, women of childbearing age and children under the age of 15 should eat no more than one meal per month and all other people may eat these fish as often as they wish.
Cancer, reproductive and developmental issues, damage to the immune system, and a list of food not to eat. This is the Dow Chemical Company’s idea of “no significant health risk?” Cleaning up their mess is the right thing to do–that’s something we’ve all known since preschool–but how can they get away with lying to people about the effects of their mess? True corporate responsibility demands not just an admission of guilt, but a sense of responsibility towards one’s fellow human beings.
If you’d like to ask Dow to show some real corporate responsibility, you can contact their Office of Global Ethics and Compliance at 1-800-803-6862 or via email at Ethics@Dow.com.
It’s the time of year to be thankful, and I’m sure one of the things that George Bush is thankful for this weekend is our allies in Iraq–a number that continues to dwindle as mighty Poland removes its troops from the “coalition of the willing.” Unfortunately for Bush, even our allies might not be so friendly to us anymore. In fact, it is increasingly likely that our soldiers in Iraq are fighting insurgents who come from our allies:
In all, 305, or 41%, of the fighters listed were from Saudi Arabia. Another 137, or 18%, came from Libya. Both countries are officially US allies in anti-terrorism efforts.
In contrast, 56 Syrians were listed and no Lebanese. Previously, US officials estimated that around a fifth of all foreign fighters in Iraq came from these two countries.
US officials have also long complained about Iranian interference in the affairs of its neighbour, accusing Tehran of shipping weapons for militants over the border. However, any assistance does not appear to extend to people, the paper said, reporting that, of around 25,000 suspected militants in US custody in Iraq, 11 were Iranian. No Iranians were listed among the fighters whose details were found.
After all of the Bush Administration’s bluster about Iran this and Syria that, the terrorists are really coming from Saudi Arabia and Libya. Of course, this shouldn’t surprise anyone who has successfully completed a connect-the-dots puzzle, since 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and Libya was considered a “state sponsor of terrorism” from 1979 up until they conveniently agreed to “cooperate in the fight against international terrorism.”
Personally, I don’t think it’s possible to successfully wage a “war on terror” any more than a war on nationalism or a war on faith or a war on any other intangible ideological belief. But for those in the Bush Administration and the 24% of America who still think we can “win” this war, explain to me: how are we supposed to win a war when we’re coddling the source of our enemies?
According to George W. Bush, this is what “democracy” means.
President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general “hasn’t crossed the line” and “truly is somebody who believes in democracy.”
Bush spoke nearly three weeks after Musharraf declared emergency rule, sacked members of the Supreme Court and began a roundup of journalists, lawyers and human rights activists. Musharraf’s government yesterday released about 3,000 political prisoners, although 2,000 remain in custody, according to the Interior Ministry.
Anyone who’s still surprised hasn’t been paying attention.
Have a great day, everyone.
As much as it sucks for some TV shows to be canceled because of the Writers’ Strike, I’m willing to put up with reruns of The Office to support the writers. For those of you who don’t know, the Writers Guild of America is on strike against the six major media conglomerates (GE, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, CBS, and News Corp.) because the corporations are refusing to pay writers when they reproduce their work on the internet, including in the form of full-length streaming episodes. United Hollywood, the unofficial blog of the writers’ strike, explains a little better:
Why are you on strike?
Because the conglomerates won’t make a fair deal on the internet.Well, what do you mean by a fair deal?
We’re asking for 2.5 cents per dollar they make when they re-use our work on the internet (payment for reuse is called residuals). It’s simple – if they get paid, we get paid. If they don’t get paid, then neither do we. We also want any new work we create specifically for the internet to be covered by the WGA, so we get our health and pension benefits when we work.What are the conglomerates offering to pay?
Zero percent — as in nothing — for streaming. .3 percent, or a third of a penny per dollar, for downloads.
Damn. I’ve watched The Office and other shows online before, and I never realized that the people who wrote it weren’t receiving a penny for their work. I’ve since decided to stop watching full-length online episodes of TV shows. I figure it’s the least I can do, but I’ve been trying to find something else I can do to show my solidarity, especially since the three top Democratic presidential candidates are doing their part by refusing to cross the picket line for a CBS debate scheduled for December 10.
Fortunately, there’s an easy way that all of us can help out.
Here’s what’s being done by fans for the WGA strike: “Now is the time to save ALL our shows. MAIL PENCILS pencils to the AMPTP and to any studios whose shows you enjoy… Maybe we can help the studios see just how much support the WGA has. And maybe, just maybe, we can give them a graceful way out (not because they’re buckling under the writers’ demands, but because they care so much about their audience. Us. And isn’t that supposed to be their job?”
I’ve already supported the writers by sending a box of pencils to the six media moguls. Will you chip in your dollar and buy a box of pencils too? If you’re not sure, maybe SNL’ s Will Forte and Kristen Wiig can convince you.
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is a man. No, he’s more than a man. A man’s man. The manliest man in all of hu-MAN-ity. He’s so manly, in fact, that he can stop bullets with his chest alone and kill a man with his left thumb. That’s why, if elected, President John McCain will eliminate… his Secret Service protection?
“It’s my intention, if we win this nomination, to reject Secret Service,” he said during one of his many conversations with reporters on his Straight Talk Express this weekend. “Why do I need it?”
He adds: “The day that the Secret Service can assure me that if we’re driving in the motorcade and there’s a guy in a rooftop with a rifle, that they can stop that guy, then I’ll say fine. But the day they tell me, ‘well, we can’t guarantee it,’ then fine, I’ll take my chances.”
That’s right, he’ll take his chances. Secret Service protection is for wimps. Come on, nobody could hold a grudge against the President of the United States! It’s not like any previous president has ever been assassinated or had any attempts made on their lives. Americans need a strong, manly leader, not someone whose going to hide behind a bunch of dark suits. Hell, Obama and Clinton already have Secret Service protection, and nobody ever liked those pussies.
Of course, McCain’s a very pragmatic man, so he has plenty of other reasons to want to get rid of the Secret Service. It does cost a lot of taxpayer money to guard the president, and then, of course, there are Congressional benefits:
“You got a problem up on Capitol Hill? It’s 12 blocks away, right?” McCain asked. “Alright. You hop in a car with tinted glass, and maybe one secret service guy with you. And you drive up. Okay? And you get out of the car, you walk into Sen. Harry Reid’s office and you say, Harry…”
Yeah, if Congress doesn’t do what the president wants–because, after all, that is the reason Congress exists, right?–then President John McCain will march down Pennsylvania Avenue and show those sons of bitches who’s boss. When President McCain says “jump,” Congressional Democrats better say “how high?”
In all seriousness, I wish the senator the best of luck with his new campaign tactic of wooing the oh-so-underrepresented white male demographic because, quite frankly, this presidential race isn’t already enough of a circus.
Did you hear? Disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has decided to use his newfound free time to take part in a time-honored tradition among criminals: making a profit. Yes, Gonzo is taking his long career of public service to George W. Bush on the road as part of a new speaking tour! And guess where his first stop will be:
Earlier this week, the [Washington University in St. Louis] Student Union Treasury approved funds to bring beleaguered former attorney general Alberto Gonzales to speak on campus [well, technically he's (conveniently for the administration) speaking at a building off-campus next semester, but that's beside the point].
College Republicans, the primary sponsor of the event, appealed for $10,000 to augment funding of $25,000 from the SU speaker series budget.
…
According to SU President Neil Patel, Washington University will be one of Gonzales’ first speaking appearances since he stepped down as attorney general.
Now, I take issue with pretty much everything that Alberto Gonzales did during his tenure as Attorney General–and I interned in his Justice Department–but just because I disagree with him doesn’t mean he doesn’t have his Constitutional rights. And yes, yes, you could make a very compelling argument that Gonzales may have waived those rights after having spent much of his career pissing on or providing justification for others to piss on the Constitution, but you undermine your credibility if you do the same thing to him (trampling on his rights) that you’re criticizing him for doing to us (trampling on, well, all of our rights).
So Alberto Gonzales gets his right to free speech, and so should the people who will be there protesting him. And it’s no secret that there will be protesters.
Because Gonzales is such a controversial speaker, there will be additional security to ensure that any demonstrators do not interfere with the speech; almost $5,000 of the total money allocated for the program will go towards security and other expenses unrelated to Gonzales’ honorarium.
“There’s a tendency to be demonstrators when there’s such a big name,” said Patel. “That’s fine, but I wouldn’t want his speech to get disrupted.”
According to Patel, while it is still unclear what additional security measures would be implemented, there may be an additional police presence.
“There’s a tendency to be demonstrators when there’s such a big name…” That understatement-of-the-century shouldn’t surprise anyone, but there’s something about all this that isn’t quite adding up. Actually, to be more accurate, it’s something that is adding up. $35k from Student Union , $5k for security… that means, for the mathematically challenged among us:
The majority of the $35,000 budget for the event will go towards Gonzales’ $30,000 honorarium.
Holy shit! Thirty grand for one 50-minute speech! And we don’t even know what he’s going to talk about. To be perfectly frank, I don’t think he even knows what he’s going to talk about. There isn’t very much he can say about being in charge of the Department of Justice without incriminating himself, and, even if there were, he probably couldn’t recall what happened anyway.
WashU is, according to StudLife, one of many stops on Alberto Gonzales’ “I Can’t Recall” Express. If we figure that he makes three speeches a month, at $30,000 a pop, that means he’s making $90,000 in very easy income every month and bringing in a cool 7-figure salary every year. Pretty safe to say that the man isn’t exactly living from paycheck to paycheck. Of course, this begs the question: why exactly does he need a legal defense fund?
Supporters of former attorney general Alberto R. Gonzales have created a trust fund to help pay for his legal expenses, which are mounting in the face of an ongoing Justice Department investigation into whether Gonzales committed perjury or improperly tampered with a congressional witness.
The establishment of a legal defense fund for the nation’s former chief law enforcement officer underscores the potential peril confronting Gonzales, who is one of a handful of attorneys general to face potential criminal charges for actions taken in office.
David G. Leitch, a Gonzales friend and general counsel at the Ford Motor Co., wrote in an e-mail solicitation to potential contributors last month that Gonzales is “innocent of any wrongdoing” but does not have the means to pay for his legal defense after a career spent mostly in public service.
“In the hyper-politicized atmosphere that has descended on Washington, an innocent man cannot simply trust that the truth will out,” Leitch wrote. “He must engage highly competent legal counsel to represent him. That costs money, money that Al Gonzales doesn’t have.”
Alberto Gonzales is being investigated, but he hasn’t been indicted yet. Hell, I don’t think there’s anyone left in Washington who is far enough removed from Gonzales’ corruption of the Justice Department to even bring charges, and even if he is convicted he’ll certainly get the deluxe version of the Scooter Libby package. Nevertheless, he’s already raising money by the hundreds and thousands because, ironically, he needs to pay for highly competent lawyers.
David G. Leitch, I am calling your bullshit. Alberto Gonzales does have the means to pay for the highly competent legal counsel that he couldn’t get by representing himself. He’s getting the means to pay in the form of a $30,000 gift from the student body of Washington University. He’s getting the means to pay to the tune of $30,000 every time he gets up in front of a big enough crowd and talks–and I’m sure he’ll find that task much easier while he isn’t under oath. Don’t you dare try and tell us that Alberto Gonzales is just a poor, innocent man who’s been maligned by the liberal press and can’t make it on his own. If you really give a damn about justice for all, take that legal defense fund and donate it to help the people who really can’t afford legal counsel. But if you keep raising money for this sham of a charity, if you keep raising money to defend the man who had to resign in shame from the nation’s top law enforcement job because he lied when he said he upheld the law… well, sir, you’re no better than Alberto Gonzales.
You know, there used to be a time when we were surprised, maybe even shocked, that the Bush administration, in our name, was violating international law. Nowadays, it’s just assumed that the United States is exempt from international law and George W. Bush is free to do whatever he damn well pleases. Hell, did most of you even know about the Bush administration’s latest crime?
A confidential 2003 manual for operating the Guantánamo detention center shows that military officials had a policy of denying detainees access to independent monitors from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The manual said one goal was to “exploit the disorientation and disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee,” by denying access to the Koran and by preventing visits with Red Cross representatives, who have a long history of monitoring the conditions under which prisoners in international conflicts are held. The document said that even after their initial weeks at Guantánamo, some detainees would not be permitted to see representatives of the International Red Cross, known as the I.C.R.C.
It was permissible, the document said, for some long-term detainees to have “No access. No contact of any kind with the I.C.R.C.”
Some legal experts and advocates for detainees said yesterday that the policy might have violated international law, which provides for such monitoring to assure humanitarian treatment and to limit the ability of governments to hold detainees secretly.
…
In response to critics’ assertions that the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, may have violated international law, a spokesman, Lt. Col. Edward M. Bush III, said, “I am in no position to speculate about what happened in 2003.”
Once again, the United States–the supposed bastion of liberty, freedom, and democracy–demonstrates that international law only applies when it helps us put Muslims terrorists in prison in definitely, deprive them of their rights, and torture them.
And do you know what the worst part of this is? We, the American people, are becoming complacent. We’ve accepted that our government is going to ignore whatever treaties and laws are inconvenient to it and do whatever it wants, so we’ve stopped caring and, in doing so, we’re letting it trample the rights of the rest of humanity. As proof, let’s play a little game of hide-and-seek. Head over to the NYT homepage and see if you can find this article. Here’s a hint: it’s not anywhere near the fold.
As long as Bush & Co. know that they can get away with these kinds of things without the American people caring, they’re never going to stop. It’s time to let the administration know that we’re watching what they do. Call the White House (202-456-1111) and tell President Bush: “I know you’re breaking international law, and I want you to respect human rights.”
RSS Feed