The House of Stone

John Gibson and the "abandoned kids store"

2005-03-19T09:21:00.000-08:00

John Gibson, of Fox News, on why gays cannot marry :

"Why? Because marriage is something men and women do. They don't always do it well — you only have to look at the divorce rate, or the number of pregnant women killed by their spouse to realize that. But, nonetheless, for all its imperfections, for all the gory fun of divorce court, it is something that men and women do.....

Gays can't have kids — other than going to the abandoned kids store and getting one or two, or borrowing sperm from someone with more sperm than brains — so by definition they're out of the marriage game."

Wow, glad I'm not adotped. He's gonna be eating this, I hope, and quick. Also, I wonder what he would say of barren women, sterile men and couples who marry on the provision that they not have kids (because neither wants them). No marriage for them either ? The only possible justification I see here is a "go forth and multiply" religious one. Other than that, in the secular world, marriage is about joining two lives and protecting that joining -- I see no reason, within that framework, to restrict it from gays, etc.
-->merc

life span down by 2 to 5 years, scott peterson death penalty

2005-03-16T17:59:00.000-08:00

"CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- U.S. life expectancy will fall dramatically in coming years because of obesity, a startling shift in a long-running trend toward longer lives, researchers contend in a report published Thursday.

By their calculations -- disputed by skeptics as shaky and overly dire -- within 50 years obesity likely will shorten the average life span of 77.6 years by at least two to five years. That's more than the impact of cancer or heart disease, said lead author S. Jay Olshansky, a longevity researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago."

Also, Scott Peterson gets the death penalty.
-->merc

Well, say goodbye to Alaska, it is now officially fucked

2005-03-16T16:46:00.000-08:00

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush.

The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster -- a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies."

There goes one of the last untouched lands in this country, and with it, a vast number of habitats, species and a great deal of natural beauty, all because we want a little more oil -- oil that will not last very long or be very useful. If congress simply enacted some conservation policies, this drilling would be far, FAR from necessary -- the fact that they refust to enact such policies while claiming that our desperate need for oil justifies destroying Alaska can only mean that the motivation for the drilling is not actually a need for oil -- if such a need was so strong then conservation policies would be in effect in addition to the drilling policies; if this is not about need for oil, then what is it about ? -- answer : Big Oil -- conservation policies would hurt the oil industry, so they will never be enacted, and drilling helps them, so now that congress belongs to the republicans, drilling, and whatever else Oil wants, will be granted. I wish I could convey to you in words the beauty that we are about to lose -- but you have to see it for yourself, if not firsthand, then at least google some pictures. I ask you now -- where is the Justice in this (I might point out that the wholesale lack of concern for the animals who already inhabit this space is alarming and unjustifiable -- human beings possess no divine right to dominion -- we are simply higher animals, and if you believe that that qualifies us to take whatever we want, then you believe that might makes right. If you believe that, then I have little hope of convincing you to anything -- all I can do is to appeal to your desires for you children, to your sense of long term planning and ask if it is not true that more enjoyment is not to be had by leaving ANWAR untouched) ? Where are the priorities ? Is the destruction of an untouched wilderness, the wholesale destruction of species and habitats (as a result of the inevitable spills, etc.) really worth less than driving your car a little less, maybe foregoing the hummer or SUV, being a little more careful with gas ? Is a tiny % of greater convenience worth such a tremendous, terrible and irreversible loss ? It will be a sad day when everyone looks around to find that they have all the conveniences they can imagine, but no world in which to enjoy them. The world ahead is a desolate wasteland -- is that really worth it to you ? I pity the future and I spit on the people who force me to. My only consolation is that someday, everything will be reset -- the universe works by Eternal Return, everything built up will eventually succumb -- universal entropy alone is true -- one day, everything will be destroyed, and in the destruction, building will begin anew. I find this consoling not because it offers punishment for our actions, but because it offers the chance to start over, to avoid the mistakes of the past, though I doubt that anyone will every learn anything; the Eternal Return fills me with hope, the hope that after we find that our ceaseless drive towards unfullfilling goals, like oil, leads only to suffering, to pain, to misery -- to barren wastelands and unhappiness, and after we have experienced that squalor for so endlessly long, we will pursue a different course, different goals, to truly make happy the limited time that we have. Sadly, my realism fills me with dread that the opportunities will be squandered. Everything returns to point 0, but we do not always have to move backwards from there into the negative numbers.
-->merc

Replacing strict environmental standards with weaker ones, and claiming you're saving the world

2005-03-16T16:13:00.000-08:00

"A newly announced federal order to reduce mercury pollution from coal-burning power plants will require weakening more stringent state controls that were enacted in Wisconsin only last year, a state official says.

"It's a little frustrating," said Lloyd Eagan, bureau director for the air management program at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

The Bush administration ordered Tuesday that power plants cut mercury pollution from smokestacks by nearly half within 15 years, but the worst polluters will be able to buy pollution "credits" from plants that give off less mercury than allowed.

By contrast, the state rule, effective last Oct. 1, required the state's four major power plants to cut mercury emissions in two phases - by 40 percent by 2010 and by 75 percent by 2015."

I GUARANTEE you that despite the fact that they have actually set up standards that allow pollution to become worse than it would have been, the ADMINISTRATION will spin this as proving their concern for the environment. DON'T LET THEM DO IT. In other environmental news, Kilamonjaro's (sp?) snowy peak has basically melted, 15 years before scientists predicted that global warming would destroy it -- the situation is even worse than in our most dire predictions. But hey, Clean Skies.
-->merc

In light of California's step forward -- the marriage ruling

2005-03-15T12:30:00.000-08:00

A california judge has ruled that gays must be allowed to marry. I applaud this decision -- anti-liberty bigots will always pop up in history, as they have in this issue, and eventually they will always lose -- liberty always and eventually triumphs, it is too strong to be kept down, the ideal is too powerful to be blotted out by hatred, fundamentalist traditionalism, misplaced self-hatred and other such weights, even if they are always pulling somewhere on the human race. I would also like to point out, in RESPONSE TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT MARRIAGE IS THE BEDROCK OF CIVILIZATION AND THAT EVERY GREAT CIVILIZATION HAS RESTRICTED MARRIAGE TO A MAN AND A WOMAN, I SAY, LOOK TO SPARTA. Sparta was one of the toughest, most militarist, most "manly" nations ever -- the virtues it favored were at the extreme end away from the way we today stereotype gay people. Further, Sparta was not only a great nation, but a superpower nation -- along with Athens, it reigned supreme in its part of the world for a long time. And guess what, Sparta was built on anything but family. From the age of 12 boys who had survived the Agoge (basically a long training gauntlet/education, which they reached if they were not killed as infants for being too weak) were put into state mandated homosexual relationships with older men (between 20 and 30 years old) to mature them. These relationships often lasted throughout life and were the primary relationships for men -- marriage was a far second, and often a man and his wife met only infrequently, and to have sex, she would dress as a man -- once the deed was done, they would separate again, since men lived in communal dining halls with their fellow soldiers (there was no concept of family -- the man and his "family" lived apart 24/7 365). Despite all this, Sparta was a superpower and what anyone would call "manly". Obviously, marriage is not the bedrock of civlization.
-->merc

if we went for freedom, why did no one ever say so

2005-03-14T15:25:00.000-08:00

The following was pointed out on another blog, and it is true :

"It's been said too often, but on a day when I'm wrought up, I'll inflict it on you again: "Freedom" and "democracy" were not the reasons we started this war. They're the fourth or fifth fallback reason--you'll look in vain in Bush, Cheney and Powell's pre-war speeches for any hint of this high-minded goal. They lied their way into the war, and when their lies were exposed, they reached into the Abstraction Jar for a reason no one could disagree with. Clever. But liars so often are...."

There were NO mentions of freedom, etc. in the pre-war speeches; ALL of those were about WMDs -- freedom was tacked on later -- it was NOT the reason; the fact that they would tack it on and call it the reason when it was demonstrably not can only mean that they are lying, that they know they are lying and that they are willing to lie about freedom, to use our values to rile us up to lied-for causes -- freedom was not at all the reason for this war, and to say it was it to cheapen the concept, to use it like a shield or like a congressman using some $2 whore.
-->merc

We laid down cluster bombs -- WE KILLED EVERYONE

2005-03-14T15:20:00.000-08:00

From an interview with U.S. Marine Jimmy Massey,

"Near my base in the south of Baghdad, our whole platoon attacked a group of civilians engaged in a peaceful demonstration. Why? Because we heard gunshots. It was a blood bath. The pretense that those civilians were engaged in 'terrorist activities' didn't work for me. That’s what our military intelligence wanted us to believe....We killed more than 30 people. That was the first time that I had to face up to the horror that my hands were soiled with the blood of civilians. We laid down cluster bombs on them. The people fled, and when they arrived at the control points we had set up with armed convoys, I was supposed to shoot the ones that looked like they belonged to 'terrorist groups.' Those were the directions military intelligence gave us."

Note that the commands from military intelligence were to kill anyone who LOOKED LIKE a terrorist -- how is some kid fresh off the farm supposed to know what a terrorist look like, when that kid has been plunged into a foreign country full of people who don't look like him, talk like him, dress like him, act like him, etc. To such a kid, the order could only have meant to kill anyone and everyone -- and I think that is what the order meant, what it was meant to sanction, since military intelligence would have known how useless such an order was for actually eliminating ONLY the terrorists.
-->merc

George Bush loves the little guy ? MY ASS ! Sideshow Bob was right.

2005-03-14T15:05:00.000-08:00

If George Bush loves the little guy so much, why did he and his party take away Bankruptcy protection -- one of the most important safety nets for the middle class ? What's worse, Democrats have become so desperate to win and, thus, to become more Republican, that a good chunk of them voted to gut Bankruptcy protection also. This country is a disgrace, not because the leaders are lying crooks, but because the people, so willing to give into hatred, fear, scapegoat-ism, ultra-nationalism, etc. (your standard conservative values), that they swallow the crap those crooks sell, and force the other leaders (ie, the Democrats) to sell it too. The people want this shit ! The love it ! THAT is the disgrace, because there will always be shit and shit shovellers but there should never voices crying for more of both. This country has no liberty left in it; Dostoevsky was right -- there is no gift more horrible, more terrible, more burdensome to man than his own freedom. I think the Sideshow Bob said it best, "Deep down inside, you secretly long for a cold hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king!".
-->merc

DISTRUST THE STATE MEDIA !

2005-03-14T12:39:00.000-08:00

"Bush TV

At least 20 federal agencies have produced and distributed hundreds of promotional news clips during the past four years, many of which have aired on the news programs of local TV stations with no disclosure of the government's role in their production, the New York Times disclosed Sunday. They include a State Department-produced clip filmed in Kansas City purportedly showing reaction of Iraqi-Americans to the fall of Baghdad, with one man appearing on camera saying, "Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A." Another report showed a public relations worker for the Transportation Security Administration appearing on camera as a "reporter" describing the administration's launch of a security program as "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." The "reporter," the newspaper revealed, also "used a false name." Although recent articles have suggested that a handful of columnists and commentators had been paid by the Bush administration to air positive reports about its programs and policies, the Times said, "the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known." The article also accused television stations of "widespread complicity or negligence" and violating ethics standards by airing the clips without attribution"

Liberal media my ass. This is like living in a communist state. Orwell's here and he's living large.
-->merc

More on Felons; Voting Rights, Scholarship, etc.

2005-03-08T19:05:00.000-08:00

VOTING :
The fact is that felons CANNOT disenfranchise themselves of the right to vote -- it is impossible for as long as they are citizens. If you take the vote, you take the citizenship (which no one wants to do, I hope). The disenfranchisement at issue entails a further disenfranchisement which is itself not possible; this impossibility then carries backwards. Some might object that minors are restricted from voting. Minors cannot vote because they are not yet full citizens, because they are not independent -- to be a full citizen, you must be independent (this is my understanding, and it may be idiosyncratic, perhaps even wrong. One might note however, that minors lack full liberty; they are not independent, but under the control of their parents -- until they are adults/old enough to vote/become full fledged individual citizens -- voting and full liberty come as a packaged deal. You could go another route, though, and say that minors cannot vote because it can be demonstrated that they lack sufficient maturity; I personally would not be opposed to lowering the voting age by a couple years. EITHER WAY, the example is not relevant, since minors are not denied the right PERMANENTLY but only contingent upon either full independence or demonstration of the ability to compmrehend the process;the right can be regained by demonstrating fitness for citizenship -- my argument may waver somewhat here,but it has not gone off course.). Also, there is no liberty without the right to vote -- it is fundamental, at least on the American system. Voting is a privilege ? Wow, that is not true at all (well, if you mean it is enjoyable and wonderful then yes, it is true). Voting is a right; that is foundational in America. Also, your example about Brits is just ... weird -- why is that relevant at all. Of course voting is not relevant in systems unlike those in America -- voting is fundamental in America because America is based on a system which defines voting as such (I think most systems should follow our example, but in those that do not, of course voting is not a right). We have established voting as a criterion of (full) citizenship; if you deny it to felons, you are in a very, VERY sticky situation. It nearly escapes my comprehension how anyone who valued the foundations on which America has been built could argue for the removal of the right to vote.

SCHOLARSHIPS :
As for scholarships, consider the issue merely from a pragmatic point of view. Those applying for college and education scholarships and actually qualifying academically for them will only be those who have determined to move on from their past and straighten out their lives. These are the people who wil become productive if allowed to be; denying them access to the necessary tools will only force them, who have given up crime, back into a life or crime. It is simply not socially practical to deny shcolarships to those who have demonstrated a desire to become productive (as all those who do the work and qualify have demonstrated). If you truly want a better society and are not simply being selfish with your money, then it is wise to support scholarships for reformed criminals.
-->merc

Why FELONS MUST BE ALLOWED TO VOTE !

2005-03-07T15:18:00.000-08:00

Every citizen in the United States is guaranteed the right to vote -- it is part of the contract (re : constitution) that holds this country together; you cannot be subjet to the law of the land, you cannot be held accountable to the system in power (which, I assume you want felons to be; you do not want them, by their actions, to also be placed outside the authority of the law) unless you have a voice in it, unless it is something into which you have input also (it controls you but you also control it) -- if you have no voice, you are not acccountable (this is what motivated the founding fathers, or at least justified them). Any "citizen" who cannot vote, is not a citizen -- if they are not a citizen, you cannot hold them under the law under which citizens are held. So make up your mind; either they can vote, or they have no responsibility to the law.
-->merc

Why "Liberal" needs to become "Progressive"

2005-03-07T14:56:00.000-08:00

Conservatives have shown themselves to be masters of an art called framing, that is, placing their ideology in a context such that it comes across completely unlike what it actually is. Liberals have been, if you'll excuse the play on words, framed by conservatives, and now need to re-frame themselves -- not to make their ideology seem other than it is, but to put themselves back in their own frame, to reclaim their ideology, to present it accureately as what it is. The first step in this process must be the scrapping of the word "liberal" -- the word has become too tainted with bad connotations (as have the words : "elite", "educated" and "intellectual"). A better word, a word that not only lacks all the bad connotation of "liberal", but also in itself carries a number of good connotations, is the word "progressive" (PROGRESSive) -- a term that connotes movement forward into a bright and higher future. Let the re-framing begin !
-->merc

BUSH CALLS FOR MORE TERROR ATTACKS ON US !

2005-03-03T14:30:00.000-08:00

Ok, the title was a bit of an exaggeration -- but only a bit. I quote this story from the NY TImes :

"After a trial that lasted for several months, an Indonesian court today acquitted the radical Islamic cleric Abu Bakar Bashir of the most serious terrorism charges in connection with the bombings in Bali and of the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, and convicted him of only one count of criminal conspiracy.

The United States and Australia, which had pressured Indonesia to prosecute Mr. Bashir for more than two years, expressed disappointment with the sentence.

But the prosecution's case against Mr. Bashir was hampered because the Bush Administration has refused to make available to the Indonesians two key Al Qaeda members who are in American custody, Riudan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, and Omar al-Faruq.

Both men, who are Indonesian nationals, have given their American interrogators strong evidence directly linking Mr. Bashir and Jemaah Islamiyah to terrorist activities, American and Australian officials have said. But the Americans will not allow Indonesian officials to interrogate either man."

So a major terrorist who we say belongs in jail, gets off because we refuse to provide the evidence that would convict him ? No other administration in the world could get away with this. THE ADMINISTRATION NEEDS TO BE CALLED ON THIS !!!! THEY HAVE LET A TERRORIST GO FREE FOR NO REASON AT ALL !!! Though, I suppose letting out brutalized, mangled, tortured people whom you have held without counsel and whom you have stripped of every right might not be the best PR move.
-->merc

why does no one care

2005-01-29T01:09:00.001-08:00

why is there not more of a screaming fit over the payments to media men from the Administration ? this is a clear VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW (no taxpayer money used for propoganda). Someone get some balls and go after these people.
-->merc

and yet again...the conservative owned liberal media

2005-01-29T01:07:00.000-08:00

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Department of Health and Human Services said Friday that a third conservative columnist was paid to assist in promoting a Bush administration policy.

Columnist Mike McManus received $10,000 to train marriage counselors as part of the agency's initiative promoting marriage to build strong families, said Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families."

-->merc

killing condoms vs saving lives, you decide

2005-01-28T22:42:00.000-08:00

most Christians, and I will for right now assume you as well, oppose birth control vigorously. Yet you also oppose abortion. I think right now you must admit that birth control would prevenbt more pregnancy and thus greatly reduce the number of abortions. So you must ask yourselves this : which do I value more, opposing condoms or saving (what you consider to be) lives ? If you answered the former, then advocate for abstinence but make birth control available (ie, solve the problem immediately and then work for a better (abstinence) solution). If you answered the latter then, well, you're insane and I have nothing to say to you.
-->merc

it seems that the conservatives own the liberal media

2005-01-28T09:31:00.000-08:00

liberal media my ass. Unless by liberal you mean "owned by conservatives". Now, in addition to Armstrong Williams, we have this :

"Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher admitted Wednesday that she had signed a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the $300-million "Bush marriage initiative," the Washington Post disclosed today (Thursday). She also received an additional $20,000 from the Bush administration for writing a report titled "Can Government Strengthen Marriage?" for a private organization called the National Fatherhood Initiative, the newspaper said, adding that at the same time Gallagher appeared on TV and was interviewed in print to defend the administration's proposal for a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage. Contacted by the Post, Gallagher commented: "Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing [the payments]? ... I don't know. You tell me." Later, the newspaper observed, Gallagher filed a column in which she apologized to readers and said, "I should have disclosed a government contract when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative.""

-->merc

family values

2005-01-25T23:34:00.000-08:00

In yet another post about republicans and BRILLIANT propaganda , consider the term "family values". This term has become synonymous with everything that the conservative right believes a family should be, such that everything the left thinks a family should be counts as "anti-family/family destroying values" -- the left needs to start playing the linguistic spin game and recapturing some terms (ie, "moral values") that truly belong to it. For example, family values seems to me to mean valuing the family a great deal -- this does not mean valuing one particular construct of the family. The left seems to truly value the family, and thus to truly embody family values, since it values family as family (ie, it values any family construct -- single parent, two same sex parents, etc.) --> it values the family, it has family values. The right, on the other hands, has discriminatory, bigoted narrow love for two parent heterosexual families -- they do NOT value family qua family, but family qua their own ideology --> they, then, do NOT, have true family values, or, at least they don't have family values anywhere near the quality of those held by democrats.
-->merc

dems need to diffuse a bomb, fast

2005-01-16T17:53:00.000-08:00

Democrats need quickly to diffuse an impending bomb -- Osama bin Laden. Democrats need to get out in the newspapers, on TV, they need to flood America with statements clearly stating their support for the capture of Osama bin Laden, saying they support Bush's search for bin Laden, that they want him captured, that they think we are doing the right thing going after him, that we should keep going after him, etc. THIS POINT NEEDS TO BE FLOODED TO THE POINT OF DROWNING PEOPLE WITH IT -- people need to associate democrats with the capture of bin Laden, because right now, America does not -- right now Americans think that the opposition to Iraq is an opposition to bin Laden, that condemning our operations against the former is the same as condeming our operations against the latter, so that the MOMENT he is captured, EVERYONE in this country who is not a democrat will come screaming and taunting, declaring that the democrats have been shown as wrong -- everyone will be saying "see, we told you so; Bush was right, the republicans were right. You criticized us but we got bin Laden" -- and then, the democrats lose, and will keep losing for a long time. Democrats need to separate the Osama bin Laden issue from Bush and from Iraq, they need to drive a wedge between them or else they are sunk.
-->merc

Bush & the Guard, plus, why democrats need to stop being so goddamned weak

2005-01-12T13:46:00.000-08:00

SEE BELOW FOR LIST OF ASSOCIATED PRESS INFORMATION SUBSTANTIATING BUSH'S DUCKING OUT OF HIS RESERVE COMMITTMENT

Notes : 1) NONE OF THE LIST BELOW COMES, IN ANY WAY FROM THE CBS MEMOS, 2) All this information was gathered by the Associated Press through Freedom of Information requests, and so is completely reliable (you yourself could back it up, assuming you have the time and resources that the AP has), 3) The republicans are BRILLIANT -- they could sell sugar to diabetics, ketchup to a woman in white gloves, george bush to most of America ---> by attacking the CBS memos and associating those memos with the entirity of the story about Bush's guard service, the Republicans have discredited the entire story and will always have something to fall back on (anyone who brings it up can be said to be relying on a thoroughly discredited story -- if history is any indication, if the republicans say it loud and long enough then people will simply believe them); the democrats are pussies -- they need to get ruthless.

But, I must sorrowfully admit that they should not get ruthless with this story; in the minds of most Americans this story is dead and the water and democrats could yell till they turn blue in the face and no one, not anyone will listen. They need to find something that the republicans have not really started attacking or defedning yet, beat them to the punch, frame it their way and pound it home.

Anyone have any suggestions ? The subject will have to be simple, clear and something that many Americans can be convinced to get behind; in short it needs to be close to home, it needs to be something of psychological weight, something the populace can care about (ie, not torture; most Americans just don't give a damn -- Iraq is too far away, its people too different from us -- we are too psychologically weak to care about them (that is, the "we" being non-liberals (some conservatives are an exception, but not many)).

I'm thinking Social Security might be the issue (NOT for retirement benefits but for the disability and survivor benefits it pays out, benefits which the Greedy Obtuse Phonies (G.O.P) have not addressed and which need to be defended; this is territory from which to attack, if not only to protect something that MUST be protected by any moral, compassionate human being (this is the other thing -- we need moral issues, we need to show that we are the moral side; the republicans may have religion but religion is simply the thug side of morality). Paint the GOP as wanting to step on the poor, cheat widows out of their money, throw children into poverty and crime, discrimate against the poor -- say they hate the little man, it's true.

Another big one that we must LATCH ON TO FOR DEAR LIFE is the fact that the weapons inspectors have OFFICIALLY given up searching for WMDs -- Bush has completely and utterly mislead this country and now it has been substantiated, even proven, that he has done so; this point needs to be hammered, hard. Cast the republicans as what they are; liars, people who don't care if Jane Doe's son is tortured and killed in Iraq, cronies, bigots, etc. Really hit hard, hit relentlessly and hit mean. No more of this limp rag B.S.
--> merc

P.S. : Everyone outratged about the CBS memo scandal (re Hannity on Hannity and Colmes, who called it the worst betrayal of trust ever perpetrated on (by ?) the news media) -- where is your outrage over Bush's blatant lies about Saddam, WMDs, etc. ? Those lies also were substantiated with documents that have been proven to be false -- where is your outrage ? What's worse, those documents were not forged depictions of the truth (Bush did duck out of his service -- see below) -- they were forged depictions of lies.

P.P.S. : the below list comes from Daily Kos

---Upon being accepted for pilot training, Bush promised to serve with his parent (Texas) Guard unit for five years once he completed his pilot training.

But Bush served as a pilot with his parent unit for just two years.

---In May 1972 Bush left the Houston Guard base for Alabama. According to Air Force regulations, Bush was supposed to obtain prior authorization before leaving Texas to join a new Guard unit in Alabama.

But Bush failed to get the authorization.

---In requesting a permanent transfer to a nonflying unit in Alabama in 1972, Bush was supposed to sign an acknowledgment that he received relocation counseling.

But no such document exists.

---He was supposed to receive a certification of satisfactory participation from his unit.

But Bush did not.

---He was supposed to sign and give a letter of resignation to his Texas unit commander.

But Bush did not.

---He was supposed to receive discharge orders from the Texas Air National Guard adjutant general.

But Bush did not.

---He was supposed to receive new assignment orders for the Air Force Reserves.

But Bush did not.

---On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his "permanent address."

But he wrote down a post office box number for the campaign he was working for on a temporary basis.

---On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his Air Force specialty code.

But Bush, an F-102 pilot, erroneously wrote the code for an F-89 or F-94 pilot. Both planes had been retired from service at the time. Bush, an officer, made this mistake more than once on the same form.

---On May 26, 1972, Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, commander of the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, informed Bush that a transfer to his nonflying unit would be unsuitable for a fully trained pilot such as he was, and that Bush would not be able to fulfill any of his remaining two years of flight obligation.

But Bush pressed on with his transfer request nonetheless.

---Bush's transfer request to the 9921st was eventually denied by the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, which meant he was still obligated to attend training sessions one weekend a month with his Texas unit in Houston.

But Bush failed to attend weekend drills in May, June, July, August and September. He also failed to request permission to make up those days at the time.

--According to Air Force regulations, "[a] member whose attendance record is poor must be closely monitored. When the unexcused absences reach one less than the maximum permitted [sic] he must be counseled and a record made of the counseling. If the member is unavailable he must be advised by personal letter."

But there is no record that Bush ever received such counseling, despite the fact that he missed drills for months on end.

---Bush's unit was obligated to report in writing to the Personnel Center at Randolph Air Force Base whenever a monthly review of records showed unsatisfactory participation for an officer.

But his unit never reported Bush's absenteeism to Randolph Air Force Base.

---In July 1972 Bush failed to take a mandatory Guard physical exam, which is a serious offense for a Guard pilot. The move should have prompted the formation of a Flying Evaluation Board to investigation the circumstances surrounding Bush's failure.

But no such FEB was convened.

---Once Bush was grounded for failing to take a physical, his commanders could have filed a report on why the suspension should be lifted.

But Bush's commanders made no such request.

---On Sept. 15, 1972, Bush was ordered to report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, the deputy commander of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, Ala., to participate in training on the weekends of Oct. 7-8 and Nov. 4-5, 1972.

But there's no evidence Bush ever showed up on those dates. In 2000, Turnipseed told the Boston Globe that Bush did not report for duty. (A self-professed Bush supporter, Turnipseed has since backed off from his categorical claim.)

---However, according to the White House-released pay records, which are unsigned, Bush was credited for serving in Montgomery on Oct. 28-29 and Nov. 11-14, 1972. Those makeup dates should have produced a paper trail, including Bush's formal request as well as authorization and supervision documents.

But no such documents exist, and the dates he was credited for do not match the dates when the Montgomery unit assembled for drills.

---When Guardsmen miss monthly drills, or "unit training assemblies" (UTAs), they are allowed to make them up through substitute service and earn crucial points toward their service record. Drills are worth one point on a weekday and two points on each weekend day. For Bush's substitute service on Nov. 13-14, 1972, he was awarded four points, two for each day.

But Nov. 13 and 14 were both weekdays. He should have been awarded two points.

---Bush earned six points for service on Jan. 4-6, 1973 -- a Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

But he should have earned four points, one each for Thursday and Friday, two for Saturday.

---Weekday training was the exception in the Guard. For example, from May 1968 to May 1972, when Bush was in good standing, he was not credited with attending a single weekday UTA.

But after 1972, when Bush's absenteeism accelerated, nearly half of his credited UTAs were for weekdays.

---To maintain unit cohesiveness, the parameters for substitute service are tightly controlled; drills must be made up within 15 days immediately before, or 30 days immediately after, the originally scheduled drill, according to Guard regulations at the time.

But more than half of the substitute service credits Bush received fell outside that clear time frame. In one case, he made up a drill nine weeks in advance.

---On Sept. 29, 1972, Bush was formally grounded for failing to take a flight physical. The letter, written by Maj. Gen. Francis Greenlief, chief of the National Guard Bureau, ordered Bush to acknowledge in writing that he had received word of his grounding.

But no such written acknowledgment exists. In 2000, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Boston Globe that Bush couldn't remember if he'd ever been grounded.

---Bartlett also told the Boston Globe that Bush didn't undergo a physical while in Alabama because his family doctor was in Houston.

But only Air Force flight surgeons can give flight physicals to pilots.

---Guard members are required to take a physical exam every 12 months.

But Bush's last Guard physical was in May 1971. Bush was formally discharged from the service in November 1974, which means he went without a required physical for 42 months.

---Bush's unsatisfactory participation in the fall of 1972 should have prompted the Texas Air National Guard to write to his local draft board and inform the board that Bush had become eligible for the draft. Guard units across the country contacted draft boards every Sept. 15 to update them on the status of local Guard members. Bush's absenteeism should have prompted what's known as a DD Form 44, "Record of Military Status of Registrant."

But there is no record of any such document having been sent to Bush's draft board in Houston.

---Records released by the White House note that Bush received a military dental exam in Alabama on Jan. 6, 1973.

But Bush's request to serve in Alabama covered only September, October and November 1972. Why he would still be serving in Alabama months after that remains unclear.

---Each of Bush's numerous substitute service requests should have formed a lengthy paper trail consisting of AF Form 40a's, with the name of the officer who authorized the training in advance, the signature of the officer who supervised the training and Bush's own signature.

But no such documents exist.

---During his last year with the Texas Air National Guard, Bush missed nearly two-thirds of his mandatory UTAs and made up some of them with substitute service. Guard regulations allowed substitute service only in circumstances that are "beyond the control" of the Guard member.

But neither Bush nor the Texas Air National Guard has ever explained what the uncontrollable circumstances were that forced him to miss the majority of his assigned drills in his last year.

---Bush supposedly returned to his Houston unit in April 1973 and served two days.

But at the end of April, when Bush's Texas commanders had to rate him for their annual report, they wrote that they could not do so: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report."

---On June 29, 1973, the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver instructed Bush's commanders to get additional information from his Alabama unit, where he had supposedly been training, in order to better evaluate Bush's duty. The ARPC gave Texas a deadline of Aug. 6 to get the information.

But Bush's commanders ignored the request.

---Bush was credited for attending four days of UTAs with his Texas unit July 16-19, 1973. That was good for eight crucial points.

But that's not possible. Guard units hold only two UTAs each month -- one on a Saturday and one on a Sunday. Although Bush may well have made up four days, they should not all have been counted as UTAs, since they occur just twice a month. The other days are known as "Appropriate Duty," or APDY.

---On July 30, 1973, Bush, preparing to attend Harvard Business School, signed a statement acknowledging it was his responsibility to find another unit in which to serve out the remaining nine months of his commitment.

But Bush never contacted another unit in Massachusetts in which to fulfill his obligation.

oil for food vs haliburton

2005-01-10T22:19:00.000-08:00

I am very confused. I see pundits and republicans everywhere calling for Kofi Annan's head on a plate, calling for UN blood, etc. because they find the mismanagement outrageous, stunning, etc. Where was this outrage about haliburton ? From what I can tell, Haliburton was just as bad an offender (though it may have cost less) but the pundits and republicans : 1) don't seem to care, 2) don't see haliburton as deserving to be fired (HALIBURTON IS STILL IN IRAQ; WHY AREN'T THEY FIRED -- WHY IS THEIR BLOOD NOT BEING CALLED FOR ?). I say go after both Haliburton and the UN; there needs to be accountability, firings, etc. -- you can't pick and chose between them --> both of them have to be shit kicked and then fixed. SO SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE REPUBLICANS CAN BE OUTRAGED ABOUT THE UN (WHICH, YOU KNOW, THEY HATE ANYWAY) BUT NOT GIVE A GOOD GOD DAMN ABOUT HALIBURTON ?
-->merc

Why I Don't Understand Religious Strife

2005-01-10T01:23:00.000-08:00

I simply do not understand why religions slaughter each other, at least insofar as they are truly religions and are practiced as such. I have always found that my religious faith only deepens and becomes more profound in the face of skeptics and people who believe differently -- they ask questions that I would not ever have thought to bring up and which cause me to come to a better (or new) understanding. I suspect that strife does not come from religious belief but from a primal, animal need for power and self-defense -- religion becomes constitutive of identity, such that any opposition to one's religion is a threat to one's identity, and a threat which must be dealt with swiftly and brutally in order to restore security. The only way out of this is to seek truth, not religion, but I don't see this happening any time soon (and not to knock religions based on fatih, but I especially don't see it happening with them).
-->merc

what are republican moral values exactly ?

2005-01-01T16:48:00.000-08:00

I hear a lot of talk about "moral values", and "character, character, character", but I really have no idea what republicans mean by this. Look at the classical moral theories, theories like consequentialism (particularly, utilitarianism), deontology, kantianism (my liste here is not particularly well grouped, but you get the idea), etc. Not ONE of these fits the kind of ideals that republicans embody. Social betterment projects, aide through welfare, compassion, tolerance for ALL, etc. are all ideals embodied by the democrats and shared, by and large, with the traditional, great moral theories. Republicans are completely cut off from these theories -- their values (fanatical devotion to one's country to the exclusion of all others, the poor pulling themselves up without help from anyone else, etc.) simply do not match. So I am left to ask -- what are the "moral values" of the "values voter". I can come to only one conclusion. The "values voters" do not represent a love of MORAL values -- rather they represent a love of RELIGIOUS values, which values almost inevitably lead to exclusion, etc. (religion, in my opinion, grew up to enforce morality, and so is by nature rigid, fanatical, strong-arm based, etc.). So I think the republicans need to be clear -- they are about religious values. And I think the Democrats need to be even more clear, and need to push hard to recover this ground, by making everyone know that they are about MORAL values -- I know which side I favor.
-->merc

P.S. : I think the fact that republicans are now passing legislation specifically aimed to make ethics investigations into congressmen nearly impossible to initiate should be proof enough of their blatantly NON-MORAL value base.

some advice from bodhidharma

2004-06-23T11:49:00.000-07:00

Through endless kaplas [ie, world cycles] without begining, whatever you do, wherever you are, that's your real mind, that's your real buddha. "This mind is the buddha" says the same thing. Beyond this mind you'll never find another buddha. To search for enlightenment or nirvana beyond this mind is impossible. The reality of your own self-nature, the absence of cause and effect, is what's meant by mind. Your mind is nirvana. You might think you can find a buddha or enlightenment somewhere beyond the mind, but such a place does not exist.

-bodhidharma's "bloodstream sermon", in "The Zen teachings of Bodhidharma", trans. by Red Pine