Bush Ready to Assist With Katrina Damage
Oh, I’m sure he is.
Morning in Gary
This morning, we overslept, and I had to drive Mr. Shakes to the train station in Gary. Yes, that Gary—of Michael Jackson birthplace, The Music Man, and murder capital of the world fame. Gary is also the “blackest” 100,000+ resident city in America, with 84% of its population being black, which is why this little corner of NW Indiana in which I live is the only blue part of the state.
Starting with the 1960s trend of urban centers falling into disfavor, as suburbs began to expand, and exacerbated by the near-total collapse of NW Indiana’s steel industry, and then by crack, Gary fell slowly into a state of such bleak and crime-riddled disrepair that by the 1990s, it looked like a war zone. For many years, residents of Gary did not even have a grocery store within their city’s limits. No one, white, black, or otherwise, from my town, just a ten-minute drive away, ever went to Gary, and no one from Gary came to my town. Today, 37.9% of those under the age of 18 and 14.1% of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line.
As we were driving down Broadway, neither of us could help but look at the decay of what were once beautiful buildings, now boarded up, half-burned, crumbling. Mr. S commented that the city looked as though it had had its heart ripped out.
In the past few years, Gary’s tried to come back from the brink. They built a new convention center, and a great new ballpark for the triple-A Gary Railcats. We’ve been to a game there before, and we’re going again tomorrow night. The Railcats totally stink to high heaven, but it’s fun. The immediate area has begun to get some other business in as well, and I keep hoping that the trend will continue. The parking for the stadium is quite a distance away, and as you walk or hitch a ride on old-fashioned streetcars on wheels back to the park, you can't help but have a long, sad look at the vacant buildings bordering this new area of development. They are beyond saving, which it pains me to say, but they were lost long ago; they’re not just ugly, they’re unsafe, many of their frames weakened by small- and medium-sized fires started by drug users, or homeless trying to stay warm.
After I dropped Mr. S at the train station, I went back down Broadway in the other direction, and I stayed on it right from one end of town to the other. On Broadway, the buildings are different. They are dilapidated, but don’t appear structurally unsound. I saw a movie theater with a crumbling and crooked marquee, but below it was an amazing mural of jazz musicians. I saw an old brownstone that was in desperate need of tuck-pointing, and probably could have used a new roof and stoop, formerly home to Playboy’s Barbershop, the painted sign told me; its old-time barbershop pole on the outside was still in good condition, and the painted sign just needed some refreshing. There were a lot of buildings like this—a cool old diner, a department store, a launderette—and it was like looking at the shadow of a town that had once been grand. Gary just needs some love and attention, and it could be grand again.
But from where does that love and attention come, with such a high poverty rate? The average income per capita in Gary is under $15,000 a year. That’s not enough to live on, no less invest in refurbishing an old building and starting a business. Meanwhile, as long as it looks like a Town That Was, I fear few businesses will bring in more money and better jobs to help make it the Town It Can Be. A baseball park and a Bennigan’s aren’t remotely the definitive answer to Gary’s problems, nor even a big convention center. The answer is, of course, complex and difficult and has thus far been almost exclusively incumbent upon the people of Gary’s collective willingness to sort it out, unfair as that may be, because there just isn’t much goodwill toward the town, for reasons both legitimate and not.
So what’s going to become of Gary? I don’t know. I need to find out more about plans for development, state and federal grants received, and talk to other people who are interested in seeing Gary become grand again.
Sliding a little deeper into the muck
Shredding any ounce of respectability he may have left, John McCain has endorsed intelligent design.
Toe that line, Presidential hopeful. Toe that line.
(Energy dome tip to Oliver. I get by with a little help from my cross-posts.)
Le Mew
Just remember, I never claimed to be an artist.
Scott’s got the continuing link to Yglesias on the Psycho salon.
Buh-bye, Dumbo
Kenya is having to relocate a herd of 400 wild elephants because they’re stealing crops, destroying property, and generally wreaking havoc:
"Since I planted my fields I haven't tasted a single banana, because the elephants have eaten them all," said Mohammed Gaphunze, 25. "They can strip a mango tree of all its fruit in one night. These wild animals will make people turn to stealing because we can't get anything to eat."I'd feel pretty bad.
[…]
On Saturday night, Mr Gaphunze was roused by fellow villagers' cries to discover seven elephants crashing towards his vegetable plots. Lighting a fire of palm fronds, he grabbed a sling of plaited grass and started firing stones into the air to scare them off. His fields were spared, but his neighbour's grove of coconut palms was uprooted.
"The elephants are coming out of the forest because there are many of them now," said Mr Gaphunze, a father of three. "If you planted a crop, weeded it many times, then came back to find everything gone , how would you feel?"
As far as I can tell, Kenya isn’t having any problems with their donkeys.
American Legion Goes Berserk
And, then, so do I.
So, apparently the American Legion, a group with nearly 3 million members, doesn’t believe in the Constitution and will soon be preparing a coronation ceremony for President Bush:
Speaking at its national convention in Honolulu, the group's national commander called for an end to all “public protests” and “media events” against the war, even though they are protected by the Bill of Rights.What the fuck, exactly, is that even supposed to mean—using whatever means necessary to ensure unified support of the Iraq War? Go ahead, hold a fucking gun to my head, you anti-democratic knobs, and see what happens. Even at the end of a gun I’m not going to support this shit-rife war, and I don’t think I’m alone, so I guess you’d better pull out your liberal hunting licenses and set to work.
"The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples," Thomas Cadmus, national commander, told delegates at the group's national convention in Honolulu.
The delegates voted to use whatever means necessary to "ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism."
In his speech, Cadmus declared: "It would be tragic if the freedoms our veterans fought so valiantly to protect would be used against their successors today as they battle terrorists bent on our destruction.”Blink. Blink. Apparently it has completely escaped his notice that there are plenty of veterans (including veterans of the very war that’s being protested!) included among the protesters. I’m not sure how this frigging genius reconciles that notion—fought to protect one’s own freedom to protest, but not allowed to practice it? And how about you other veterans out there? Did you fight to protect freedoms so that they may be applied however the president and the American Legion sees fit? I bet not.
Resolution 3, which was passed unanimously by 4,000 delegates to the annual event, states: "The American Legion fully supports the president of the United States, the United States Congress and the men, women and leadership of our armed forces as they are engaged in the global war on terrorism and the troops who are engaged in protecting our values and way of life."Our values and way of life include freedom of speech and freedom to organize, you unbelievable dickheads! And even though you’ve resolved to use whatever means necessary to forcibly ensure unity in support of the GWOT, there are members of the Congress in addition to members of the armed forces who don’t agree with the Bush administration’s tactics, so I wonder—how do you plan to force them to march in lockstep with your infallible leader with his impressive 40% approval rating?
Cadmus advised: "Let's not repeat the mistakes of our past. I urge all Americans to rally around our armed forces and remember our fellow Americans who were viciously murdered on Sept. 11, 2001."Oh just shut up.
We all remember 9/11. That doesn’t mean we all honor the memory in the same way. Some of us are actually interested in trying to make sure it doesn't happen again, for real, not by marching all over the globe pretending its remotely possible to kill all the baddies who hate us "for our freedom."
Salon-a-Thon
Mannion does some serious damage in a three-part retort to Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!, which I mentioned here on Monday.
Part One: Liberals Under the Bed
Part Two: Eat your broccoli!
Part Three: The Coming End of the Black Velvet Jesus
Take that, plonkers!
Question of the Day Part Two: Overrated Actors
Topping my list is Val Kilmer, who I most recently thoroughly loathed in Alexander. I actually find him a good comedic actor, and if he'd stuck to things like Real Genius, I probably wouldn't want to punch him in the head. At least he's not in that much stuff, although he's in an upcoming movie with Robert Downey, Jr., which is too bad for RDJ, because that means it's sure to be a flop.
Who's on your list? Who could never make another movie again and you wouldn't miss them at all?
Question of the Day Part One: Underrated Actors
We've done this one before, but it was fun, and Oddjob just mentioned Schindler's List in a thread, and so I was thinking about Liam Neeson, who is my current obsession. Not, like, a crush kind of thing, but just wanting to watch every Liam Neeson movie ever made (and yes, I actually watched Satisfaction, though I've left Darkman for now). I don't think he's underrated in terms of his talent being recognized, but I wish he had bigger roles in more films. More Kinsey, less Qui-Gon Jinn.
I've also been Catherine Keener fixated for awhile now, too. I could watch Walking and Talking 3,000 times in a row.
So, who's on your list? Who would you like to see more of, but don't, to your dismay?
Why Not Domination By Men?
Kim at Alas, a Blog poses the question on behalf of a male correspondent who isn’t convinced that there’s a compelling reason to subvert male domination:
My question:There are (currently) 57 comments offered in response, from both women and men, which are, in large part, very thoughtful and well-reasoned (Feminism means gender equality. Limiting the ways that it is acceptable to be female also limits the ways it is acceptable to be male. Feminism means more freedom for him as well as for women… Because peaceful, stable societies are linked to higher status of females… Because a society simply does better when all the potentials of all it’s members are tapped to their utmost, allowing them freedom to do what they are best at… Feminism attempt[s] to create equality, while the inverse, male model is for privilege and dominance…), and the one thing I can say for certain about nearly everyone who offered their answers to the question is that they are a hell of a lot nicer than I am.
Why not domination by men?
It's true that not all societies have had this kind of domination, but in almost every society I have read about, including primitive hunter-gatherer ones, ones allegedly "egalitarian," there tends to be greater access of men for power positions and the like. I've had feminist friends point this out. They despair of this. One friend said something like, "It's like it's human for men to dominate. It really makes me depressed."
So why not domination? Why is feminism right in putting forth its agenda?
THAT is what I would like to understand…
Because my answer would have been, “Fuck off.”
(Okay, maybe not that rude, but that’s definitely what I would have been thinking.)
Undoubtedly, there are some who think that’s a bit harsh for someone who wanted an answer to a legitimate question, but I don’t believe it’s a legitimate question to begin with. Kim quite graciously turns it into a legitimate question by rephrasing it, “Why Feminism?” but the actual question that’s posed is “Why not domination by men?” And that’s a bullshit question in the context of discussing feminism, because the world isn’t dominated by men as an all-encompassing term; it’s dominated by a very specific kind of men—white, heterosexual, rich, power-seeking men. And obediently relinquishing control to those men isn’t just bad for women; it’s bad for non-white men, gay men, poor men, and egalitarian-minded men, too.
The reasons that feminism is “right in putting forth its agenda” are the same reasons that any civil rights movement is right—because to grant equality necessitates yielding some of the power held by the dominant class. Allowing women to vote, granting blacks the right to hold land, desegregating schools, decriminalizing homosexuality, secularizing public spaces—all of these were an encroachment upon the existing power structure, which is why each of them continues to be met with social pressures favoring the preexisting status quo: politicians giving little more than lip-service to women’s issues to ensure women feel alienated by and disinterested in politics, redlining, property tax-funded school systems, anti-gay marriage legislation, a steady attack on reason (respectively). In spite of legal victories, many of these things haven’t significantly changed.
Constant pressure must be applied to crack the cycle. It’s only through the consistency provided by ongoing movements like feminism, gay rights, civil rights, workers’ rights, etc. that we’re all given a chance—including the men who don’t find themselves on the top of heap.
Backpedaling
And no, I'm not talking about President "You Better Not Fucking Pass Me."
Your friend and mine, Pat Robertson, is dealing with the flak over his call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez in the usual way:
By denying he ever said it!
Hooray! I would just lose faith (no pun intended) in these scumbags if they didn't blatantly lie right after doing something incredibly stupid!
(Tip 'o the Energy Dome to Mustang Bobby. Goodness, gracious, great balls of cross-posts)
The Price of Satisfaction
The Village Voice (via Political Wire) has an interesting article about Robert Novak’s very own little lemonade stand. For the bargain basement price of $595, you can sign up to have a “100% off the record” meeting with Novak himself and unnamed members of Washington’s Power Elite. And there are no reporters, so those powerful and elite speakers can give 100% candid answers to the attendees’ questions. Now, frankly, I don’t have a whole lot of interest in hearing whatever nonsense the ragtag group of miscreants Novak manages to patch together have to say, but I’m thinking that $595 isn’t really that much to pay for the opportunity to give Novak a piece of mind, especially in front of an audience of people who pretend to like him so they can use him to promulgate their propaganda and eke a meager cut of each $595 collected in exchange for the dubious privilege of listening to their drivel without the safety net provided by an easily accessible barfbag. And get this: for an additional $395, I could bring a guest! You know what that means…? For $990, not only could I let loose on Novak with a stream of denigrating profanity the likes of which have not been heard since the unfortunate Snaggletooth Incident during one of Jeff Gannon’s Tuesday afternoon oral service sessions with Karl Rove, but…a trusty sidekick could also capture it on film. Oh, the glorious, glorious beauty of capturing for posterity an unrelenting and unapologetic verbal assault on this most odious, repugnant, putrid corpse doubling as a media hack. And then to be able to share it with you, my friends, looping the video over and over as I tear into Novak with the full force of my impertinent ire and he slowly collapses into a blubbering, pants-wetting heap onto the floor at my feet—why it would just be a dream come true! Apparently, seats are filling up fast, so I’d better hurry, since it’s less than a month away…
I Hate Hummers
But I hate Hummer drivers more.
One of those mofo gas-guzzling steel behemoth substitute penis captains nearly killed me this morning, passing me on a country road, which has a posted speed limit of 30mph, but is traveled at 50mph by everyone on it (even the cops). That wasn’t fast enough for Mr. Big Time, though. The road is barely wide enough for two vehicles as it is, no less if one of them is a Hummer. The driver of the bright yellow, flag-emblazoned turdmobile cut around me so tightly, that his passenger sideview mirror looked to come crashing through my window. I swerved over into the six inches of road I had left before my wheels fell into a ditch, and he cut over closer, pushing me off the road. There was a two second period where I wasn't sure if I was going to veer off into a cornfield or cut back in and crash into the Hummer. I just kept on driving, because of course having two wheels in a ditch and leaning at a 45-degree angle is perfectly normal for a seasoned stunt driver like me. Once he passed, I sorted myself out. Absolutely bloody madness.
I’m buying a horse.
Our Chickenshit Press is Terrified of a Failure.
And I don't mean they're afraid to fail. I mean they are afraid of a living Failure.
A presidential Failure.
A president who, not even halfway through his second term, has taken nearly a year off.
A president who lied his country into an illegal war, causing the slaughter of tens of thousands.
He couldn't get his Social Security plan to work. Even with a PR whistlestop tour that cost taxpayers between $22,000 and $59,000 per event.
His fuzzily-named "No Child Left Behind" act harms more children than it helps.
He's taken our country's largest surplus ever and turned it into a staggering deficit.
He's terrified of a mother that lost her son in his war, and has had to rely on smear tactics by his few remaining followers to save himself.
He needed help from his handlers to make it through a debate, which he still managed to lose.
His only response to dissent, rather than to face his critics or fix his mistakes, is to silence dissenters by force. (And by his right-wing smear lapdogs, when necessary.)
He loses every current poll.
He's less popular than Nixon during Watergate, for Chrissake.
I could continue, but really, I think that's enough.
There is one thought, one nagging thought that drives this blog, and which jabs at me daily.
With all these failures, with one of the lowest popularity ratings in American history, why is the American Media still terrified of him?
Are they afraid of his revenge tactics? Are they scared of being labeled the "liberal media?"
George Bush is effectively destroying this Country, and it looks as if he wants to take the rest of the world with it.
Why is the media not going after him with both barrels?
He is an easy target. He is a miserable failure. He is an unpopular president. America is not behind George W. Bush.
Why, oh why, is the media so afraid of this man?
Update: List your own Bush failures in comments!
(99 cross-postings...)
GOP Congressman Supports Downing Street Inquiry
Not blockquoted due to length:
Congressman Jim Leach (R, Iowa) has informed Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D, California) that he will co-sponsor her Resolution of Inquiry into Bush Administration communications with the U.K. about Iraq at the time of the Downing Street Memos. Leach is the first Republican member of Congress to publicly support a demand for an inquiry into the Bush Administration's pre-war claims. The 131 congress members who have signed Congressman John Conyers' letter to the President about the Downing Street Memo are all Democrats. The 11 Senators who have asked the Senate Intelligence Committee to do the investigation it committed to in February 2004 but never did are all Democrats.
The Resolution, H. Res. 375, is a privileged resolution which must be brought to a vote in the House International Relations Committee by September 16th, or Lee is permitted to demand a vote of the full House. Fifty-two Democrats, including Lee, have co-sponsored the Resolution. Leach is the first Republican to join them, and he is a member of the International Relations Committee..
The International Relations Committee has 27 Republican members and 23 Democratic members. Thus far 10 of the Democrats have co-sponsored the Resolution. If the other 13 vote for it as well, then along with Leach, one more Republican vote will be needed for a tie, or two more for passage.
Leach has questioned Bush's war policies for years and was one of five Republicans in May to vote for Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey's amendment requiring an exit strategy. Another of those five, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, also serves on the International Relations Committee.
"Congressman Leach has broken the silence of the Republican Party on the Downing Street Minutes," said John Bonifaz, Co-Founder of the After Downing Street Coalition. "His willingness to co-sponsor Congresswoman Barbara Lee's Resolution of Inquiry is bound to make the White House nervous. It is not possible for the President to paint this demand for documents as coming solely from his opponents. This is a demand for the truth. Did the president deliberately deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq? We as a people -- from Crawford to Des Moines to Washington, DC, regardless of our political persuasion, deserve to know the answer to that basic question."
"Congress returns to Washington from its summer break on September 6," said David Swanson, Co-Founder of the After Downing Street Coalition. "The first 10 days will test the Democrats' ability to stand together and challenge the Bush Administration, as well as Republicans' willingness to break ranks on an issue where public opinion has diverged widely from White House policy."
The text of the Resolution, H. Res. 375, a list of current co-sponsors, and what you can do to help here.
The Useful Idiot Overstepped His Bounds This Time
After hearing about Pat Robertson’s idiotic assassination threats against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s government is—surprise—not especially happy about it.
Pat Robertson's call for American agents to assassinate President Hugo Chavez is a “terrorist” statement that needs to be investigated by U.S. authorities, Venezuela said Tuesday. The Bush administration quickly distanced itself from the religious broadcaster.And he should have no problem with that, since China is industrializing at a rate of something like 15% a year.
Robertson's suggestion Monday that the United States ”take out” Chavez to stop Venezuela from becoming a ”launching pad for communist influence and Muslim extremism” appeared likely to aggravate tensions between the United States and the world's fifth-largest oil exporting country.
[…]
The United States is the top buyer of Venezuelan oil, but Chavez has made it clear he wants to decrease the country's dependence on the U.S. market by finding other buyers.
By the way, I love how the Bush administration has decided to “quickly” distance itself from Robertson, now that his bullshit might cause an international incident that affects them personally—in their damn pocketbooks. Meanwhile, for years, when he’s been spewing bullshit about Muslims, Hindus, Jews, atheists, liberal Christians, socialists, gays, women, non-whites, etc., they’ve had no problem whatsoever with him. And the sad part is that if he’d said the exact same thing about Jacques Chirac, I don’t think anyone in the White House would be too concerned about it.
Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said the U.S. response to Robertson would be a test of its anti-terrorist policy and that Venezuela was studying its legal options.Heh heh. Mr. Rangel, when you reach the point where such hypocrisies have driven you to the edge of not being able to take it anymore, do what we do in America: start a blog. Just a little tip from me to you, to preserve your sanity.
“It's a huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those,” Rangel said.
Winding up a visit to Cuba, Chavez said in response to questions from reporters about Roberston's [sic] remarks that such comments did not matter to him and that he would prefer to “talk about life.”Slam! Good one, Hugo.
“I don't even know who that person is,” said Chavez, standing next to Cuban leader Fidel Castro at Havana's airport.
Of course, he probably really doesn’t know who that vile imbecile is. Imagine a life never having to know who Pat Robertson is. Or Jerry Falwell. Where “the 700 Club” might mean a collection of 700 model airplane aficionados, for all you know. Oh, bless. I’m moving to Venezuela.
Second Verse, Same as the First!
No Proof Found of Iran Arms ProgramOf course, as recently as August 2, the WaPo had a story which noted that a US intelligence review expected Iran was at least a decade away from producing the components necessary for a nuclear weapon. Funny thing, though—that story also pointed out the White House continued to make “forceful public statements” to the contrary.
This sounds eerily familiar. Better invade them just to be sure, if it does turn out they don't have an arms program (or if they smuggle it all out to Syria, sneaky bastards), we can just pretend we are there to fight the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th, and then if someone points out that most of those guys came from Saudi Arabia and were part of an organization based in Afghanistan, and that none of them had any ties to Iran, then we can just say we're there to liberate the Iranian people. Then if the Iranian people get mad at us for sticking around even after they've been liberated (ungrateful bastards), we can just talk about how spreading democracy and freedom is hard work, and we have to stay there until they are ready to take care of things themselves. Of course, if anything goes wrong, we can just blame it on those Iranians, so really everybody wins!*
* Except the people that get killed (Of course, they are heroes**, and it's perfectly acceptable to die a hero, even if you're just a kid).
** Well, the Americans are, anyway. All the innocent Iranians that will get killed (if they are mentioned at all) will be referred to as an unfortunate consequence of war.
The problem here, as it has been consistently with this administration, is that all the contradictory evidence in the world cannot seem to dissuade them or dislodge them from their decided position, and, perhaps even worse, they don’t have to have a shred of proof to convince a majority of the American people to go along with them.
I really, truly hope at this point, however, that enough people have wised up enough to not be fooled by exactly the same story, but I wouldn’t bet a dime on it. Especially if, fates spare us, there’s another terrorist attack on American soil
