bustardblog

W.T.F.????

Yesterday afternoon I double clicked on Sitemeter button.  I was hoping to see an increase in the pathetic level of traffic I get. The average tends to be around 25/day. For no apparent reason I clicked on location, and then clicked on one of the visitors from a mid-Atlantic location. It was from Washington,DC. The domain name was pentagon.mil. The isp was "Army Information Systems Command - Pentagon." The referring url was http://google.co...Bunnadine+Greenhouse. 
It seeems that just mentioning her name gets you a visit from the Army. W.T.F????

The Racist Republican Party

This past Monday, the day on which we celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr., I spoke of some who did him harm. I wrote: “’Conservatives’ like J. Edgar Hoover, George Wallace and Bull Connor have long been denounced, and are now only mentioned with disgust.”

I received a lot of enthusiastic commentary to my post. Queer Conservative was vociferous. He listed Democrats who had said or done racist things, and pointed out the racism of Cynthia McKinney's father and of a lieutenant of Al Sharpton's, as well as listing Democrats who had voted against the civil rights act 40 years ago.

His point seems to be that there have been, and undoubtedly still are, racists in the Democratic party. He is right.

The Republican party also has had, and still has racists amongst its supporters. But there is a  big distinction to be made - the Republican party is a racist institution. The Democratic party is not.

I know that it is not "politically correct" to call the right racist,  but in fact they gain and maintain power by being racist. I just hope people like the queer conservative still have a mind open enough to read on, and to try to find objective sources to confirm, or repudiate what follows.

Shortly after the War Between the States, the Democratic party was the one devoted to oppressing black people.  Lincoln had been a Republican, and the wounded white South flocked to the Democrats.  Since then, things have changed.

In 1948, that happy warrior, Hubert Humphrey  managed to get a civil rights plank into the Democratic platform.  Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, stormed out of the convention and left the party. He was one of the first in a long line of racist Democrats who ran to the GOP.

(First he ran for President as a rabid segregationist "Dixiecrat", and Trent Lott is still suffering for it.)

After LBJ finally pushed the civil rights bill through Congress in 1964, Nixon saw an opportunity. He developed his "Southern Strategy" to lure racist Democrats to the GOP. It was wildly successful, and the deep South has voted pretty solidly for the GOP in presidential campaigns ever since. Racist Democrats became racist Republicans.

The strategy has become more subtle over the years, but it is still very much alive. In 1981, the famed Republican strategist (as well as friend and teacher of Rove and W.), Lee Atwater explained it: "You start out in 1954 by saying 'Nigger, nigger,nigger.'By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites."

"States' Rights" was the theme of one of the first speeches Reagan gave after winning the Presidential nomination.  He spoke in Philadelphia, Mississippi, whose only claim to fame was the murders of three civil rights workers in 1964. He wanted to be sure that his meaning wasn't too "abstract."

With G.H.W. Bush's candidacy Willie Horton was the vehicle chosen to make the racist message clear. As Roger Ailes, now with Fox but then a Republican media consultant, put it: their only question was "whether to depict Willie Horton with a knife or without it." Atwater promised that "by the time this election is over, Willie Horton will be a household name."

Like father like son. After W's poor performance in New Hampshire, he was a little desperate heading into the South Carolina primary. Fearing that his refusal to condemn the flying of the Confederate Flag over the state capital was too "abstract," W notched it up a level. He gave a speech about those values he shared with his audience at Bob Jones University; a school with a long history of racism and a ban on interracial dating. Kathleen* Katharine Harris's suppression of the black vote in 2000, as well as the intentionally long waits African Americans had to endure in order to vote in 2004 in Ohio, are indications of how vital racism remains to GOP strategy.

Please note that I am not saying that W is a racist. Nor am I saying that all Republicans are racist. I have no way of looking into the heart of W or of any party member. But their inner feelings matter little.  After all, Strom Thurmond, fervent segregationist, believed in 'integration' when it came to his own maid - he fathered a daughter with her. It is their actions that count.

In their last two conventions, the Republicans have tried to act like a party of inclusion. It seemed that there were more African-Americans on the stage, than there were black delegates. If in fact the GOP is changing and is serious about trying to attract black voters, they will need to be honest about their recent past, and to stop broadcasting racist messages that appeal to the least amongst us.

*Queer Conservative pointed out my error as to the woman's first name.

The Grover Pees on The Bush

The always essential Eschaton tipped me off to yesterday's report from U.S. Newswire about the organization entitled Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB).  This is a group that believes the President has violated the law by wiretapping without following FISA requirements.

In the last few years, Bob Barr, former GA Congressman and  floor manager for Clinton's impeachment, has been quite active in the field of civil liberties. So his participation is not a big surprise.

What I, as well as a lot of other Atriots, found amazing was Grover Norquist's jumping on this particular bandwagon.

He's the President of Americans for Tax Reform, a close friend of Karl Rove's and the host of the famed Wednesday morning meetings that have been invaluable in pushing Bush's agenda forward. So it is a bit of a shock when he said "Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping."

There was a lot of speculation at Eschaton as to why he would have done this. My simple explanation is that Grover Norquist is fighting to save Grover Norquist.

The strategy he has chosen in order to pursue this goal demonstrates the perfidy that is this administration, and suggests that it might be in more trouble than we suspect.

Norquist  and Abramoff and Reed have worked together for over 25 years.  When Jack wants to get some money to Ralph, he sends it through Grover's washing machine.  Abramoff's plea bargaining deal spelled the probable demise of Norquist as well. Fearing that his end is near, Grover wants to appear to take the high road and calls for investigations.

But the investigations he wants are into the wiretapping scandal.  Grover does not have a lot of chips left, so he decides to bluff.  His bet? That investigations into national security, crimes committed by Bush, and possible impeachment, will make his "little" scandal seem insignificant.

There is a lot about Bush to denigrate; and although I thought it frequently misplaced, I did have respect for his loyalty. Now we'll see about the loyalty of his lieutenants.

Is John Tierney Only Stupid, or Also a Liar?

I continue to have a hard time deciding whether John Tierney is merely sloppy and inaccurate, or intentionally deceptive.

His Op-Ed  in today's Times, entitled "Not in the Kennedy's Backyard" is typical.

The piece proposes that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr and Senator Ted Kennedy are opposed to the building of a wind farm on Nantucket Sound because they hypocritically don't want the views from their home in Hyannisport spoiled.

Tierney first goes after Bobby Jr, refers to an Op-Ed  he wrote, and distorts it. He writes that  Bobby Jr, "warned in an Op-Ed  article that the wind farm "would damage the views from 16 historic sites."  Tierney then states that the damage would be very minimal.  Perhaps he's right about this. It's definitely not right to imply that this is Bobby's only argument, who in fact made several more.

Next he attacks Teddy.  Here he runs into some difficulty because he has absolutely no evidence. That has never slowed Tierney down. (remember Chile's wonderful pension plan?) Although Teddy has denied being part of a maneuver to stop the project in Congress, Tierney knows that he really is a part of it. How? Because "a committee source tells [him] that the Massachusetts delegation lobbied" for it.  What delegation does Tierney think would be interested in a project off Nantucket?  Idaho's?

Then it's back to Bobby: "To be fair, there are good arguments against the wind farm." But he isn't fair in his description of what those arguments are. Instead he distorts Bobby's comments about the cost of wind-power, and then generalizes from wind-power to all forms of renewable energy.

When Michelle Malkin's husband is not available to write her blog, Tierney could certainly stand in.  He, too, intentionally distorts and deceives his readers.

Reflections

Please double click on the image to enlarge.

January 16/2006 about 9:30 A.M.

This shot is taken from the southern end of the park, looking south-east across Broadway and 14th St. The hieroglyphics on the building are reflections.

I am hopeful that today a lot of people reflected on Martin Luther King, Jr - his wisdom, courage and his willingness to fight the greed and dishonesty of the conservatives of his day. I was lucky enough to hear his "I Have A Dream" speech on the Mall in Washington, and I have not forgotten.  He is still speaking to me.  "Conservatives" like J. Edgar Hoover, George Wallace and Bull Connor have long been denounced, and are now only mentioned with disgust.

Five Bucks A Block

Please Double Click Images to Enlarge

January 11, 2006

On the West side of Union Square stands the Union Square Wine & Liquor Store.

Inside, you could buy that wondrous elixir, Jack Daniels, for $27.99 a fifth.

As you stand in the doorway of the store and look across the square, you can see the columned building that was once Tammany Hall.  To the left is the "W Union Square Hotel"  - they have a winter weekend special where breakfast is included at the rack rate of $390.00 per night.

Political Bosses having moved elsewhere, Tammany Hall now hosts a theatre and  a Film School. It also rents out space to a liquor store - Mikes, where you can buy a fifth of Jack Daniels for $22.99.

If there were no buses or trucks in the way, it would be easier to see from one liquor store to the other -  there is only one block, and five dollars a fifth, between them.

Malicious Malkin

Is the right congenitally unable to admit mistakes?

Of course not - but their frequent failure to do so proves their intent is not to inform, but to deceive.

Glenn Greenwald is guest blogging today at Crooks and Liars. He points out a post from Michelle Malkin regarding leaks and cell phones of January 13 that is in fact not true. (we are all Homeland Security Agents of 1/13 11:06 am) Her article concerned two large purchases of disposable cell phones that occurred soon after Risen's piece in theTimes. Treason and the incalculable damage to our national security was thus proven, according to Michelle. But it was based on error. After reading Glenn's piece, I was curious to see how Michelle, and the bloggers who shared her outrage and anger, corrected their error.

Not Michelle. Michelle had quoted extensively from a report about an incident in Crawford, * TX. where several Arab looking men bought a lot of disposable cell phones and "it was discovered that members of the group were linked to suspected terrorist cells stationed within the Metroplex." Now there had been a report to this effect, but when Michelle wrote about it, she knew that the report was not true. Later on in her post she mentions that the Midland Reporter Telegram "has more details on the ...incident." 

The details are that the head of the Midland, FBI office said "There is no known link or demonstrated link or any other kind of link" ... with this incident "and any terror cell. He issued this statement on the 12th.

She knowingly is misleading her readers. And so do many of the right wing pundits to whom she linked.

One of the bloggers she linked to, Chris Christner, spewed outrage "Now that terrorists appear to be buying traceless telephones as a result of that article...how is Bush "supposed to fight" the war on terror.  No corrections from Chris today.  And he too is trying to mislead - what does an appearance have to do with the ability to really win or lose a war? (Unless it only appears to be a real war?)

Needless to say The Anchoress fails to correct the error.  Instead she wants to remind us of the horrors of 9/11. It was horrible. But she mentions the "stench of death" lingering for weeks afterwords. (I seem to remeber that Christie Todd Whitman thought the air quality was just peachy.)

The ever logical Junkyardblog headlines his piece: "Did the NSA Leak lead to a Surge in Disposable Phone Sales?" and continues "That's what the Feds would like to know.  Law enforcement officials say the phones were used to detonate the bombs terrorists used in the Madrid train attacks in March 2004."  Be careful here. This is a trick used by many of the right wing bloggers on this issue. They are trying to conflate the use of cell phones as detonators with the wire-tapping of U.S. citizens. . The Madrid attacks occurrred long before the leak; the terrorists clearly knew how they could use the phones before the leak;, and what in the world does the wiretap have to do with detonating weapons? In other words "what the Feds want to know" (assuming even this is true) has nothing to do with  the "NSA leak."  And no, he has issued no correction for the error in the original report.

Macsmind does not correct the mistake either. He is furious - talks about treason, and the desire of liberals "to get us all killed."

Quite a few bloggers relied not only on the (debunked) report linking Crawford Texas cell purchasers to terror cells, but also referred to a report from Hemet, California. This time it was supposedly a Target store, where 150 phones were purchased on New Year's Eve, and the FBI summoned. But aside from the one report, I cannot find any evidence that it ever happened.  The Ugly American lives right near Hemet, and was particularly upset. Yet he mentions no corroborating source. It may be my limited search skills but I can find nothing anywhere. Not in the LA Times, nor in the paper of record in Hemet - the Valley Chronicle.

But even if the Hemet report is accurate - no one has reported a tie it to any terrorist cell.

Many right wing bloggers are fond of this kind of deception. Bush did the same to lead us into war in Iraq.  All you have to do is to manufacture some outrage; base it on reports which you know are untrue, and conflate causes - blaming one enemy for the crime of another. It is how they keep their angry, fearful followers in line.

(My mistake was noted by thatgayconservative)

Swallowing Jonah

Unclaimed Territory posted the definitive piece on Jonah and his ilk today.  It's really worth it.

Reading it led me to read another of Jonah's works. It too almost turned my stomach. But it didn't. The world would be a far far better place if everyone would simply swallow and then keep it down. 

Jonah, of course, is aptly named after the pissy, cowardly weasel from the bible. When the first Jonah was called to duty, he ran the other way.  That's why God put him into the belly of the whale. After crying and begging to be forgiven, God had the whale vomit him up. Then Jonah did God's bidding, until he got mad at God for not doing his bidding. God pardoned sinners who had been condemned to death, and this outraged Jonah.

Lucianne knew her boy.

In today's heroic effort, which the modern Jonah feels is more important than doing his duty,he concludes that Bush's illegal wiretapping is no big thing. This is hardly a surprise. Since his mother's and his prominence are due to illegal wiretapping, it would be unseemly for Jonah not to reach this conclusion.

To come to such a finding, he basically makes 5 arguments:

1. Bush only wiretaps guilty, evil people.
2. Only about 500 Americans have been wiretapped.
3. Any suggestion that illegal wiretapping could lead to, or be indicative of other illegal acts is simply a ridiculous "slippery slope" argument. The Patriot Act proves this.
4. Bush is only complying with the 9/11 commissions "chief complaint" - to be more imaginative.
5. The FISA law was just too inflexible to handle the problem.

His first argument is difficult to argue with. Bush is in fact infallible. And he is just not a vindictive guy. It's not like Bunnadine Greenhouse, General Shinseki, Larry Lindsey were fired for telling the truth.  Cheney's never been a vengeful "fuck you" kind of guy, either.

The second point must be true too - Bush has said it was a very, very small number. Q.E.D.

The third point is harder for me. Sometimes Jonah likes slippery slope arguments (The N.R.A.'s right to bear machine guns, Rick Santorum's gay=polygamy=man/on/dog) Sometimes he hates them. (" ludicrous Abortion argument") He seems to base his assessment of this type of argument on whether or not he likes the outcome.  But in this case there is reason to believe in the possibility of other illegal acts - because the outrage expressed by Bush does not match what he describes as the damage done. As Atrios, and I, have pointed out: no one has explained what possible difference it would make to al Qaeda if we wiretapped them with a legal warrant, or we wiretapped them without one.  Especially since the secret decision about a secret warrant is issued by a secret court. 

To help this hobbling third argument, Jonah says "The Patriot Act was called a banana peel on the path to hell, and yet it has turned out to be very difficult even to keep it alive." So because the Republican controlled legislature is loathe to renew this act proves something about Bush's wiretapping? I don't get it.

The fourth argument he makes simply does not jibe with my memory. At the last news conference of the 9/11 commission, I remember them giving Bush failing grades on doing the basic obvious things required to secure our Homeland. I never remember anyone expecting Bush to be imaginative.

Lastly, Jonah throws up the FISA flexibility canard.  We all know that FISA allows the Feds to wiretap first, and seek a warrant later. So I guess what Jonah is talking about is the supposedly onerous time consuming paperwork involved. Others on the right, including the President himself,  have mentioned this. But we're talking about 500 warrants in over four years. So Jonah's final justification is that the Bush administration, with all the vast resources of the Federal Government, cannot manage to file 2 or 3 requests for a warrant in a week. The Department of Justice alone has about 130,000 employees.

The real insult in all of this is that they just throw these untenable arguments into the air. So what if they are inconsistent, so what if they make no sense?

If only the original Whale had not vomited, if only Monica had swallowed - the Goldbergs, mere et fils, would already be motes on the dust pile of history. They will be soon.

Media Swallows More Right-Wing Swill. Burps Happily

The Right is doing it's usual shell game, and, as usual. the media is being snookered.  Rupert Murdoch's and Sun Mung Moon's varied propaganda squads are out there with their fog machines.  They are screaming that the Abramoff scandal is a bipartisan scandal. (This is certainly a case where Grover Norquist's definition of bipartisanship as a synonym for date rape is apt.) Anything they can do to blur reality is essential at this time.

That former inmate of Danbury Federal Prison,the Rev Moon owns the Washington TimesThis esteemed member of the media reported today that Senator Reid is in the top tier of suspected criminals being investigated by Patrick Fitzgerald. No evidence is offered. Reid denies any contact from the prosecutor's office. No doubt, the story is totally fabricated.  Nothing new here, but we do have to think of why.

The WaTimes' piece gives them the opportunity to once again headline the fact that there are Democrats who received money from Indian tribes.  They imply that this alone is sufficient to make them equal scoundrels in the scandal. No indication of involvement by Abramoff in the donation required.

But please note that  Bush is only giving moneyto charity that had been given to him directly by Abramoff. He has no problem keeping the 100+ thousand that was raised by Abramoff personally. But Democrats are suspect if they have received money from any Indian tribe that Abramoff worked with at any time. Similarly, Romney of the Republican Governors Assn is going to return, at his leisure, money he received from a P.R. firm completely owned by Abramoff's confessed partner in crime, Scanlon. He will not return all the money at once, a he plans to use some in the 2006 election. This is seen as commendable ethical behavior for Republicans.

But if the press has been so fooled as to buy this argument that any lawmaker who ever received money from someone who was a client of Abramoff is suspect, then they have to look at all Abramoff's and Scanlon's clients. This could get interesting.

You remember corruption ridden TYCO. Abramoff was their guy in DC. He was hired to protect their status as a Bermuda based corporation, and thus not responsible for many millions in U.S. taxes. He did a good job.  TYCO has an in-house PAC that is called Mallinckrodt, Inc. In the 2004 election cycle, 80% of it's donations went to Republicans. Another of Abramoff's clients, UNISYS, gave at least $12,000 to Republicans.  As you are no doubt aware, Jack has a longstanding lobbying deal with Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association. I'm going to make you guess whether they donated to Bush or Kerry in '04.  Abramoff's assistant, Scanlon, was part of these schemes.  Amongst other companies whose interests he promoted on the Hill is Brown-Forman Inc. In 2004 their PAC gave $123,861 to Republicans.*

Some of the dollar amounts are small; some are huge. A lot of Abramoff's clients also gave money to Democrats.  But there is no question that their clients gave millions to the Republicans in 2004.  If the bar that defines a suspect has been lowered to a level that only requires having been represented by Abramoff, and not his direct involvement, then the least that the press can do is examine all contributions to both parties given by anyone these Republican crooks ever shilled for.

( A partial list of Scanlon/Abramoff Clients: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana  Islands, Pitney Bowes, Microsoft, BNSF Railway Co., National Association of Homebuilders, ELottery Inc., Omeros Corp,  Primedia,  Guam International Airport Authority,  General Council for Islamic Banks,  Flight Int'l, and of course several Indian tribes.)

(*All figures here come from examining client lists, at the US Lobby Registration & Reporting Disclosure Page {http://sopr.senate.gov/) and information at Open Secrets.)

Two Classy Guys:Bush & Alito

Don't Be Frightened of all that Orange.

Pls Double Click on Images to Enlarge

The brilliant Tena was writing today on Eschaton - commenting on the Alito hearings:

"That's it. That's what it is about Alito that I couldn't put my finger on - he is openly dying to be somebody.  I don't hold that against him, exactly, except he's shown such a willingness to adopt anyone's principles if it will further him."

She is completely right.  She also got me thinking a little more about my post of yesterday, "Alito, Not Funny." (Scroll down if interested.)

Yesterday Bruce Shapiro posted on the Nation's site a piece entitled "Alito Almanac: Biography as Destiny". He got the title right, but the story wrong.

He was right that Alito was born to a comfortable, middle class family. But Alito was certainly telling the truth in his opening remarks by saying that when he entered college, he "went a full 12 miles down the road, but really to a different world when [he] entered Princeton University."

In the picture at top left you can see Sarah Cammerzell chatting with George Peper in her home. She and her husband hosted the 2005 Princeton Reunion for the class of 1972. (Alito's year) Her husband is Frederick (Fritz) Cammerzell III, a lawyer in Princeton who enjoys going to Tiger football games, having been a Tiger letter winner himself in his Junior year.  After graduating from Princeton, Mr. Peper devoted himself to writing about Golf. He is now semi-retired but continues to write articles from his homes in Long Beach Island, New Jersey, and St. Andrews, Scotland. In the second photo, the man at the far right is Andy Dayton. Next to him is Jim Robinson. Jim can be contacted at the New York Banking firm of Lehman Brothers. Andy is a member of the Society of Cincinnati, and his great-great-great grandfather gave the eulogy for Lafayette in 1834. They had served together in the Revolutionary War. (I am not sure I'm right about the number of "great"s)

These pictures were selected at random (more are here), and it did not take a lot of googling to find these few biographies.

Alito's classmates did not have public school teachers for parents. If one of their grandparents spoke any foreign language, it was French. Their mothers did not work. (definitely not outside the home, and probably not much inside either)  Alito was going to a college that was slowly changing from essentially a private men's club to a modern University.  He wouldn't have been alone at Princeton - in his day, there were a few like him - but he would have been plenty lonely. He was not running into his classmates at Deb parties in New York or Philadelphia, nor on ski vacations. But, naturally, Alito wanted to be "comfortable" there. The way he chose to accomplish this seems to have been to do whatever was necessary in order to fit in.

The guy has probably spent his whole life "dying to fit in." The first physical sign of his being admitted into the WASP elite was his Princeton diploma.  He joined the Concerned Alumni of Princeton in order to stop that passport from being devalued.  He emphasized his membership in that group when he applied for a job at the WASPy, very conservative Reagan Justice Dep't. He's smart. He knew what would help land the job. To help establish his right wing credentials, his praise of Bork could not be strong enough. He did what he thought he had to do to get where he wanted to go.

As I tried to argue yesterday, he has a lot of similarities to Clarence Thomas.  They both came a long way in this world, and they did not let any principles get in the way of their burning their bridges behind them.