And Protests Are What Demoralize Them?

I'm just going to go ahead and reprint this article from yesterday's AmericaBlog in full:

I've had it with the Bush administration. Enough is enough. Now they're charging US soldiers injured in Iraq for their lost body armor. Enough is enough. We liberal folk may disagree with the Bush administration over the reasons for going to war and over how they're fighting this war, but one thing you'd expect no disagreement over would be the treatment of our soldiers. They fight for their country and they deserve some respect in return. And that means not charging them for their body armor because someone blew them up on the battlefield.

That's it.

This soldier had to pay $700 for his armor, and now is out trying to find work. He has friends who have faced the same cruel, ridiculous policy. Let's finally raise some cash for these guys and show the Bush administration how compassion really works.

I'm serious. I've set up a special PayPal donation fund. If you click the button below and donate, it will be earmarked with a special code so I'll know it's for the body armor fund. All the money collected, ALL OF IT, will go the soldier who was forced to pay for his armor, and if we get more than $700, I'll give him that as well to help him get back on his feet (he's now unemployed, and he says he knows other soldiers who have faced the same problem, if he wants, he can reimburse his pals who also had to pay for their armor).

I'm pissed. Please help.

From the Charleston Gazette-News:

The last time 1st Lt. William Eddie Rebrook IV saw his body armor, he was lying on a stretcher in Iraq, his arm shattered and covered in blood.

A field medic tied a tourniquet around Rebrook's right arm to stanch the bleeding from shrapnel wounds. Soldiers yanked off his blood-soaked body armor. He never saw it again.

But last week, Rebrook was forced to pay $700 for that body armor, blown up by a roadside bomb more than a year ago.

He was leaving the Army for good because of his injuries. He turned in his gear at his base in Fort Hood, Texas. He was informed there was no record that the body armor had been stripped from him in battle.

He was told to pay nearly $700 or face not being discharged for weeks, perhaps months.

Rebrook, 25, scrounged up the cash from his Army buddies and returned home to Charleston last Friday.

"I last saw the [body armor] when it was pulled off my bleeding body while I was being evacuated in a helicopter," Rebrook said. "They took it off me and burned it."

....Rebrook, who graduated with honors from the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., spent more than four years on active duty. He served six months in Iraq.

Now, Rebrook is sending out résumés, trying to find a job. He plans to return to college to take a couple of pre-med classes and apply to medical school. He wants to be a doctor someday.

“From being an infantryman, I know what it’s like to hurt people,” Rebrook said. “But now I’d like to help people.”

The good news is that between when this was posted and when I next looked at the site (a couple of hours) they'd raised more than $5000 for the guy. The bad news is that he needed it. I think I said this in a post before, but there's a bumpersticker before Bush that said, "It will be a great day when the schools have all the money they need and the army holds a bake sale to buy another bomber." But you know, we meant that it would be great if education were more important than war. Not that we wanted soldiers to be as screwed by the government as teachers.

I Am Blasphemy

Since I keep telling people about this, I figured I'd post it. AIM has a new marketing slogan, as you may have seen. I AM text, I AM video, I AM voice chatting, etc. Just a little play on words. Now some people have their panties in a bunch, because they're saying that it's blasphemy. Blasphemy! Because God is I AM, and they are taking His very name in vain. And not only will they lose customers, but locusts will come and eat their flesh.

You must immediately change the name of your program," [Ian Miller] told Jonathan Miller, the chief executive officer of America Online, and John Buckley, corporate communications officer for the company, in a pointed letter. I can assure you that you will lose business over this marketing tactic from people who worship the Almighty. But worse, you have offended Him by your actions; whether they are deliberate or ignorant. To treat as common the name of God is wicked. God is patient, but mankind is today making an error of epic proportions by the deliberate actions of mocking the Almighty; particularly in the technologically advanced society. His patience with the mockery of mankind will come to an end."

No word yet on whether or not Ian Miller is aware of Iams pet food.

Breed, for the Future of Whites Everywhere

Boy, do I feel guilty about getting my brother Being and Nothingness for Christmas. I'd hate to limit the amount of white people there are in the future. Why didn't Pat Robertson speak up earlier? You see, what I didn't realize is that Sartre's philosophy makes people not breed. And since the Europeans read Sartre all the time, it's what's lead to their declining birth rate and the ongoing racial suicide.

ROBERTSON: Studies that I have read indicate that having babies is a sign of a faith in the future. You know, unless you believe in the future, you're not going to take the trouble of raising a child, educating a child, doing something. If there is no future, why do it? Well, unless you believe in God, there's really no future. And when you go back to the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, the whole idea of this desperate nightmare we are in -- you know, that we are in this prison, and it has no hope, no exit. That kind of philosophy has permeated the intellectual thinking of Europe, and hopefully it doesn't come here. But nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is right now in the midst of racial suicide because of the declining birth rate. And they just can't get it together. Why? There's no hope.

Now, I'm not particularly surprised that Robertson thinks the Europeans are committing racial suicide, and that there is no hope for Europe once Whitey is gone. After all, this has been a favored refrain of racists for quite some time. Robertson said abortions were a sign racial suicide in the West about 20 years ago. Heck, in 1891 thePresident of MIT said that the falling birth rates in the upper classes, along with the influx of immigrants with larger families, was leading to racial suicide. This was more than a decade before Sartre was even born, I'd like to point out. There are several racist articles/ramblings written on this 'racial suicide,' as well as literature in the history of eugenics. (My favorite article is the one that talks about how Ted Kennedy and the Jews collaborated to let in immigrants that would lead to the White 'Gentile' Suicide.) And considering that Robertson has called for the assassination of foreign leaders and said Sharon and Rabin were both struck down by God, this is pretty much par for the course.

No, what I'm surprised at is that Robertson seems to have read one of Sartre's plays, No Exit, or at least the Cliff's Notes version of it. Who knew he had time for philosophy?

File Under "Waaah?"

So, yesterday Gonazales got in front of congress to answer questions about the electronic surveillance programs. It was quite odd. Among other things, he repeated the standard line that we have to listen to al Qaeda. We're at war, dammit! Although he neglected to mention which judge would ever refuse a warrant to listen to al Qaeda. But, that was just standard talking points. There were better statements if you browse the transcript. Runner up for best statement:

BIDEN: General, how has this revelation damaged the program?

I'm almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls.

I mean, I'm a little confused. How did it damage this?
GONZALES: ...I think, based on my experience, it is true -- you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.

But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.

As Biden replied, I hope he's right. Let's all hope they're that stupid.

But there was something better. The Number One best line from Gonzales can be seen at Crooks and Liars:

GONZALES: I gave in my opening statement, Senator, examples where President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance of the enemy on a far broader scale -- far broader -- without any kind of probable cause standard, all communications in and out of the country.

Wow. President Washington and President Lincoln. Damn these revisionist history books, leaving out Washington's electronic surveillance programs!

Balancing the Interests

The House voted to approve the ironically named "Budget Reconciliation Bill" yesterday, and of course it passed. Although it was shockingly close- 216-214. Around $40 billion of cuts to various programs were included in it, including cuts to the administration end of federal student loans and grants (we all know how well those are managed with their current budgets), more general cuts to student loan funding, cuts to medicaid, cuts to welfare, cuts to basically everything. Interestingly, the bill both raises the work requirements in order to qualify for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, without an exemption for single parents without daycare, and cuts money to enforce child support payments. So much for being pro-family. Well, I guess if you can't kill the Violence Against Women Act, this is next best way of ensuring a woman stays with her abusive husband, eh?

The thing about this bill, though... it'd upset me no matter what was in it. I dislike a policy of first looking to cut money from those who need it most, and I'd imagine several people feel the same way. But, what makes this even worse is that on the very same day they start negotiating on a bunch of tax cuts that are actually more than what they're saving by cutting these programs. It almost makes one feel that the effort here isn't as much to save money in the budget, but just a malevolent urge to kick people when they're down and use a hundred dollar bill to light a Cuban cigar in front of them. The Republicans are trying to sell this as some sort of necessary step towards fiscal responsibility, but it's more like cutting down on your church tithe 'cause you need to make payments on that new 42" plasma you bought.

[W]ith the federal budget deficit expected to rise again this year, to around $360 billion, Republicans implored their members to take what Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) called "this first step toward long-term, fiscal discipline and fiscal health for our government."

The impact of the bill on the deficit is likely to be negligible, slicing less than one-half of 1 percent from the estimated $14.3 trillion in federal spending over the next five years. As the House debated the budget-cutting measure, the Senate moved to begin final negotiations with the House on a package of tax cuts and extension of expiring tax cuts that could cost up to $60 billion over five years, more than negating the savings from the budget bill.

"I do not know how anyone can say with a straight face that when we voted to cut spending in December to help achieve deficit reductions, we can now turn around a short while later to provide tax cuts that exceed or cancel out the reduction in spending," Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) said yesterday, as the Senate took up a procedural motion that would allow tax-cut negotiations to begin. "We cannot afford these tax cuts."

It is my natural tendency to disagree with Republicans, but I have to say, Voinovich hit the nail on the head.

High-larious

From RollCall:

House Republicans are taking a mulligan on the first ballot for Majority Leader. The first count showed more votes cast than Republicans present at the Conference meeting.

I guess rigging elections is just habit at this point.

Incompetent or Just Plain Evil?

Ah, that is the eternal question about the Bush administration, isn't it?

According to the right wingers, we just don't hear about all the good things in Iraq, like the new schools and libraries and other civilian projects that were being used to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. Well, partly those good deeds have been overshadowed by the torture and the insurgency. But partly, there just haven't been all the good deeds we'd expected and paid for. In fact, with the small amount of money and troops we did have, we probably could have had more success in Iraq if we'd run it with a bit more accountability than a post-Soviet Union kleptocracy.

According to a recent US government audit, the occupation authorities wasted millions of dollars in 'undocumented spending and outright fraud.' It seems to be so bad that the audit suggests that we actually press charges.

This corruption isn't just confined to Haliburton. According to the article,

Dryly written audit reports describe the Coalition Provisional Authority's offices in the south-central city of Hillah being awash in bricks of $100 bills taken from a central vault without documentation.

It describes one agent who kept almost $700,000 in cash in an unlocked footlocker and mentions a U.S. soldier who gambled away as much as $60,000 in reconstruction funds in the Philippines.

"Tens of millions of dollars in cash had gone in and out of the South-Central Region vault without any tracking of who deposited or withdrew the money, and why it was taken out," says a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which is in the midst of a series of audits for the Pentagon and State Department.

Much of the first audit reports deal with contracting in south-central Iraq, one of the country's least-hostile regions. Audits have yet to be released for the occupation authority's spending in the rest of Iraq.

The audits offer a window into the chaotic U.S.-led occupation of Iraq of 2003-04, when inexperienced American officials — including workers from President Bush's election campaign — organized a cash-intensive "hearts and minds" mission to rebuild Iraq's devastated economy.

Examples include:

[T]he auditors [spoke] of U.S. officials in Hillah being unable to account for $97 million of the $120 million in Iraqi oil revenues earmarked for rebuilding projects.

An October 2005 audit found documentation for the spending of just $8 million of that money.

Negligence proved deadly in at least one case. Three Iraqis plummeted to their deaths in an elevator in the Hillah General Hospital that was certified to have been replaced by a contractor who received $662,800.

Also in Hillah, occupation officials spent $108,140 to replace pumps and fix the city's Olympic swimming pool. But the contractor merely polished the old plumbing to make it look new and collected his money.

When the pool was filled, the water came out a murky brown and the pool's reopening had to be canceled. The reports did not identify the contractors involved. ...

Two occupation authority field agents responsible for paying contractors left Iraq without accounting for more than $700,000 each. When auditors confronted their manager and asked where the money was, the manger tried to clear one of the agents through false paperwork.

There's a lot more. And this is only on one section of Iraq. The part that had the least conflict. Can you even imagine how the rest of Iraq must look? Here we are coming in, the great conquerors, the great leaders. And all we're doing is stealing money, failing at our projects, and pissing off the citizens. Not only are we not winning the hearts and minds-we're actually turning them against us. And one asks again, is it just horrible, mindboggling incompetence? Or from the start was their never any intention of rebuilding Iraq?

Either way, the sad thing is, you know next year we'll be reading an article like this about New Orleans.

White Boys Don't Have to Follow Rules

So, via Pandagon, I see that a boy in Boston is suing his school because he says that they favor girls and discriminate about boys. Apparently, there are more girls in the honors' classes and the AP classes, which means that the school discriminates. Now, the school might, I'm not there. How do I know? And, I'm totally about programs to ensure equality in schools. (Although I'd like to point out that in places where there are more men than women, evolutionary psychology and Lawrence Summers tell us it's 'cause girls just aren't any good at math and science. Shouldn't we be having an honest discussion about whether women are just far smarter than men? What, it's not discriminatory. Just what we have to ask as rational people.)

On a serious note, the fact that men are underperforming at schools is something that needs to be examined. But, seriously, this lawsuit... do you want to know how he says that the school discriminates? And how they can fix it?

Among Anglin's allegations: Girls face fewer restrictions from teachers, like being able to wander the hallways without passes, and girls are rewarded for abiding by the rules, while boys' more rebellious ways are punished. ...

'The system is designed to the disadvantage of males," Anglin said. ''From the elementary level, they establish a philosophy that if you sit down, follow orders, and listen to what they say, you'll do well and get good grades. Men naturally rebel against this." ....

For example, he proposes that the high school give students credit for playing sports, not just for art and drama courses. He also urges that students be allowed to take classes on a pass/fail basis to encourage more boys to enroll in advanced classes without risking their grade point average. He also wants the school to abolish its community service requirement, saying it's another burden that will just set off resistance from boys, who may skip it and fail to graduate as a result.

Excuse me? Girls are rewarded for following the rules, while when boys break the rules they're punished? Damn, that's some serious discrimination right there. And yes, 'they' do say that if you sit down, follow orders and listen to what they say, you'll do well and get good grades. However, given that this is a system that's been in schools for, well, ever, even when only men were in schools, and given that schools used to be much, much, much more highly regimented than they are now, I'm going to have to ask how that's something that discriminates against men. Not necessarily a huge fan of the way our schools work, but I hardly think it's something that advantages women. I mean, come on, there are more men in prisons than women. Is this because women are rewarded for following the law, while mens' more rebellious ways are punished?

And then... okay. The sports/arts thing might be a point. I wonder how many p.e. courses the school offers. But the rest.... dude. Suck it up. Are you saying that boys are underachieving because it's in their nature to be wimps, afraid of hard work or earning a slightly lower grade? Because if so, you seem to have a dim view of men and I wonder if we want them in all these positions of authority they have. And the community service requirement? Okay, how on earth is that discriminatory? Hey, maybe attendance is burdensome, too. And homework. Heck, just give these their diplomas free of work! 'Cause we all know a work ethic goes against the male nature.

Clearly there are some problems in education, and we need to see why boys aren't achieving as well as girls. Maybe it has to do with the fact that if you're smart or care about facts you're looked at as an elitist. Maybe it's because our culture more strongly encourages women to respond to and please authority than it does for men. Maybe it's because after years of hearing that we have to work twice as hard as men to be seen as being half as good, we're working harder and people aren't naturally seeing men as better. But it's not because boys are just physically incapable of following the rules. And if it is, I expect we'll have an all-female army soon.

Do They Just Like Losing?

Yeah, I've got to agree with Nancy Goldstein here:

Effective immediately, the Democrats will be known as the lyin'-ass boyfriend party - the perfect date for progressive voters looking to be stood up, bullshitted blind, or left holding the tab.

For five years now it's been "Please baby, baby, baby, please! I'm sorry I was a no-show last time, but hey, that was because I was working overtime to save up to do something extra special for next time, which is the really big event - right, baby?"

Last April, when the Democrats backed away from filibustering extremist appeals court nominees, it was, "Don't you fret, baby. We're not going to go to the mat over small fry like Owen, Pryor, and Brown because we're saving the filibuster for the big one - you know, the Supreme Court, baby." Months later, Democrats folded rather than fight John Roberts,the young-ish yes man with a penchant for executive privilege and a wife who used to head an anti-choice organization. After all, they said, they needed to save their energy, and the filibuster, for the next Supreme Court nominee, who would undoubtedly be worse.

Well, baby, the moment of truth has arrived. It's Alito-time, and the lyin'-ass boyfriends are backpedaling again. Why aren't they going to raise a ruckus this time? Aw, baby... the filibuster is just so darned hard to use with only 45 senators! And what's the point of trying to do anything until we've recaptured the Senate or the White House?

Now I see a big headline on CNN, Democrats Decline to Block Alito Nomination. Well then why the hell are you there?

And why do they decline to block it? Why don't they want to use the filibuster? Because they think they have better things to do. "Because we have such a full plate of pressing issues before Congress, a filibuster at this time would be, in my view, very counterproductive," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, who wants the Senate to concentrate on Hurricane Katrina rebuilding programs. "We simply cannot afford to bring the Senate to a halt at a time when we need its action the most."

Yes, Sen. Landrieu. The Senate has so much before it these days! I'd hate for it to waste time blocking the lifetime appointment of someone who wants to kill anti-discrimination laws and would be the swing vote against Roe v. Wade and in favor of an all-powerful presidency to the most powerful judiciary in the land. What the hell good would that do? It shouldn't be at the top of your list or anything. And don't you worry. I'm sure the Republican controlled congress will appreciate what you've done and get right on helping out New Orleans.

But don't worry progressives! According to the article, there won't be a filibuster but "that doesn't mean that liberals aren't working to get the largest vote against Alito possible." Now if that's what they're working for, that's a waste of time. He's still going to be appointed, and you won't have done a damn thing about it. So your no vote won't mean a whole lot to your constiuency. But hey, enjoy being the minority party for a lot longer.

Man, a Democratic vote these days is a bigger waste than one for a third-party.

On a more depressing note...

Via AmericaBlog, there comes this depressing story:

It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning.

Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes.

In a quarter-century of aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline before 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service said they typically spotted a lone polar bear swimming in the ocean far from ice about once every two years. Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys.

But in September 2004, when the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska, researchers counted 10 polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore. Polar bears can swim long distances but have evolved to mainly swim between sheets of ice, scientists say.
The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. "Extrapolation of survey data suggests that on the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds," the researchers say in a report set to be released today.

..................................................................................................................................

In addition to documenting polar-bear deaths, the Minerals Management Service researchers, Chuck Monnett, Jeffrey Gleason and Lisa Rotterman, also found a striking shift in the bears' habits. From 1979 to 1991, 87% of the bears spotted were found mostly on sea ice. From 1992 to 2004, the percentage dropped to 33%. Most of the remaining bears have been found either in the ocean or on beaches, congregating around carcasses of whales butchered by hunters. In the past, polar bears were rarely seen at such kill sites, because they spent their time hunting their favorite meal -- seals -- on sea ice.

I remember a few years ago, 3 or 4, in one of my environmental studies classes, a biologist who specialized in polar bears came and talked to our class. Among other things that she said, she mentioned that most polar bear researchers were very concerned that if global warming continued to melt the sea ice, polar bears wouldn't be able to find it when they set out in the sea, and would end up drowning, or possibly starving because they couldn't hunt for seals, and the land didn't really hold much for them. And this was something they'd been talking about for quite some time.

One day I want to write a book documenting how often environmental 'doomsayers' have been correct, and why we should actually listen to them.

What a Happy Holiday Gift

Ah, Sen. Feingold... you have a special place in my heart. You have worked hard to undo the bad you did when you allowed Ashcroft to be approved.

Today, the Senate blocked a vote on the Patriot Act, meaning so far it hasn't been extended. The provisions extend on Dec. 31st if they're not voted into lasting longer. Feingold has been threatening a filibuster, and, of course, he got some help from the recent report stating that Bush authorized the NSA to spy on Americans. I guess some people felt that was a betrayal of trust.

In other happy news, Bush has backed down and agreed to allow the McCain ammendment banning torture to pass.

Of course, these are both those happy-depressing things that seem to be so common in our country today. Happy, upon first glance. Patriot Act blocked, at least for now! We're banning torture! Then you consider that we just had a dialogue in this country, and are still having some disagreement, on whether or not torture is acceptable, and that the Patriot Act passed in the first place, and that at least 47 senators want to extend it.

Mmm... Old School

I want-no, need-this t-shirt: http://www.bustedtees.com/shirts/dysentery

That is easily the best computer game ever made. Man, they just don't make 'em like they used to.

Abramoff's Money Tree

Washington Post has a nifty graphic up outlining where Abramoff got his money, and to whom the money went. There are 6 Democrats there, and who they are might surprise you a bit- I know they did me. Harry Reid got some money from his PAC, although any powerful Western senator is worth courting to them.

Anyway, it's a helpful little spreadsheet, if for no other reason than to show you just how powerful Abramoff was, and how much reach he had, especially if you're not obsessive about keeping tabs on Abramoff and just want a quickie understanding. However, it would be nice if they had something else on the sheet. The legal donations aren't what are too concerning, although they can probably give a rough approximation of who he was in bed with. What we really want to know is how many times Abramoff met with these people, who he invited to his skybox, and who had staff members who previously worked for Abramoff, or went on to a lucrative job with him. Also, who has done favors for Abramoff.

After all, Ney (definitely a part of their scandal) is only No. 8 on the list. DeLay, who Scanlon worked for before his indictment, is No. 6. The top five are probably all worth looking at (there's been a lot of talk about Burns and Doolittle, in particular), but there are others, further down the list (Brownback and Pombo) who have also had some speculation swirling about them. So far I haven't heard any rumored quid pro quo from the Democrats, but if they're involved, they'd better resign and make their deal now. I'm gonna be pissed if they were in bed with these people, and if they drag us down in '06. In fact, I'm all about the Democrats trying to set up an independent investigation into the corruption in the Senate.

Anyway, that's all for now. Just thought the graph was helpful. Like I said, it shows how powerful one person with deep pockets can be, if nothing else. But if you're bored one day, just google news articles about Abramoff. You'll be amazed.