ThinkingLiberal

It Begins

A month or so ago, the President signed into law a bill that made it illegal to provide ‘material comfort’ to terrorists. Those accused would be thrown in jail, denied access to a lawyer, and have no right to Habeas Corpus. (Wikipedia defines habeas corpus as “a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody. The writ of habeas corpus in common law countries is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.”)

Note that last sentence, and remember it well. Because now, our government has given itself the power to ignore the conventions of a free society, and can lock you up without evidence, in a secret prison where nobody will find you. In other words, Bush has usurped the authority to imprison anyone – from an unfortunate Arab with the wrong colored skin, to a political opponent – without fear of retribution.

Of course, that could never happen… right?

Actually, it could.

Steve Howards was walking around Beaver Creek, Colorado, with his eight-year-old son when he saw Dick Cheney shaking hands with some people over the street. He crossed over, and said to Cheney “Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.”

Then Howards walked away.

Ten minutes later, he was accosted by the Secret Service, who accused him of assaulting the Vice President. He was handcuffed, and his boy was threatened with being taken into protective care. Luckily Howards’ wife returned in time to take his son away, by which time Howards was being driven to jail.

At the jail, the charge against him was reduced to harassment and he was released on $500 bond. The Eagle County DA’s office eventually dropped the charge, and Howards is suing for being deprived of his First Amendment right of free speech and his Fourth Amendment right to be protected from illegal seizure.

Howards was lucky. He was arrested before the new law came into effect, and his rights, while violated, still existed. Otherwise we might never have seen him again.

Will you be so lucky, next time you tell our leaders how you feel?

Fear, Toyota Corollas, And Flipping The Bird

Driving to work this morning I got stuck behind a beaten-up '84 Toyota Corolla. It was in pretty bad shape - smoke belched from the exhaust pipe every time the poor sucker driving it changed gear, and it was covered in dents and dings.

That's not what I noticed.

What I spent a lot of time thinking about, was the Bush campaign sticker on the back.

Ken Lay voting Republican, I can understand. Corruption is, after all, very much a Republican issue. People who take home hefty paychecks voting Republican, this I can also understand. After all, wealthy people get richer under Republican governments. People whose friends and families are employed in the defense industry voting Republican, this makes sense to me because there are more defense jobs under Bush than there have ever been before.

But people who drive crappy mid-eighties Corollas? What was this guy getting out of a Bush government? Economically, the person he helped elect is basically screwing him. Regressive taxes such as the price of gas and heating oil, cuts in social programs, education, healthcare - every way you look, this poor bastard in his $600 car is getting the shaft.

But then I remembered. Fear. The Republicans' only real weapon against the middle class and those living near or below the poverty line. Fear.

The Republicans are masters at manipulating fear, at striking terror into the hearts of those who would otherwise not dream of voting for them. They stoke the flames of fear with stories of how we're going to be attacked again any minute, of how Islam poses a threat to us all, of how the Democrats will ask Osama bin Laden to ride on a VP ticket with Hillary Clinton as the lead. They prey on the under-educated, the everyday folk who believe the 'news' they see on Fox and whose sons and daughters are being killed in Iraq.

Fear is stronger than almost any motivation when the voter gets to the polls. So what if Bush has presided over the most appalling economic years since the late 'twenties? So what if our civil liberties have been snatched from us by an ever-expanding government? So what if our leaders recklessly took us into a war that was unjust to begin with, and unwinnable now?

This poor Joe Schmoe in his tatty car voted for George Bush out of fear. Economically, socially, environmentally, there was no gain to be had in voting Republican. His job security was lower than it was five years ago. His salary had probably remained almost frozen. His family had less access to healthcare than at any time in the recent past.

But when he went to the polls, he was scared. And that's all the Republicans need to do to win again.

It's the ultimate irony - the family that can least afford to vote Republican, has been terrorized into doing exactly that. What skilful, crafty people these really are. What dangerous, sly individuals.

I flipped the guy in the Toyota the bird, anyway.

Why Do Republicans Divorce More Often Than Democrats?

Republicans are the party of family values.

They’re the party that protects the sanctity of marriage. Their morality is stronger than their opposition.

So say the Republicans. But the statistics say differently.

Of the top 15 states for divorce rates in 2005, all 15 voted for Bush in 2004. All fifteen.

Of the 12 lowest states for divorce rates, 10 voted for Kerry.

Massachusetts, where gay marriage is allowed (and where, according to Republicans, civilization would fall apart), has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

This cannot be a coincidence. So what are the reasons behind the fact that Republicans are significantly more likely to divorce than Democrats? And why do the former claim the high ground on marriage, when it is patently clear that their marriages don’t last as long as their political opponents?

Well, Republicans will answer that married couples are more likely to vote for them – and they’re right about that. Republicans control 49 of the 50 [congressional] districts with the highest rates of married people, while Democrats represent all 50 districts that have the highest rates of adults who have never married.

But that doesn’t explain the RATE of divorce, only the actual numbers. Why is it that in Massachusetts the rate of divorce is a third of the Arkansas figure?

I’m no sociologist, so the following is pure speculation. But… what if Republicans are simple greedier? In their economic policies, they tend to favor their own wealth over any kind of taxation that benefits society. In their foreign policy, they prefer protectionism and unilateralism. In their social policy, they cut education and welfare and pass the savings on to big business.

Is it so far-fetched to think that the reason that Republicans divorce more often, is that they’re more selfish – that they’re not generous partners, that they have more affairs that lead to divorce, that they abandon their spouses for younger models?

Other theories gladly entertained…

In case you want to check the statistics for yourself, along with other demographic data, please download the Excel file below. By default it is sorted by divorce rate (scroll all the way to the right), with a few unavailable states at the top. But you can also sort it by education, per capita income, obesity rate, property crime etc. Go to 'Data' at the top, then 'Sort By' and choose a category. Interesting to note that the top 19 states for obesity are also all Republican!

If you use this data, please do link back to this blog. Thanks!

Download 2004_election_demographics_v2.xls

Goddamned Liars – Rice, Ashcroft And Rumsfeld ALL Knew 9/11 Was Coming

“I don’t remember,” said Rice. “I don’t recall,” said Rumsfeld. “My client has no recollection,” said Ashcroft’s spokesperson.

But today, Condoleezza Rice was proved a liar. As were the other two.

Rice's spokesman Sean McCormack issued a statement on Monday confirming that she'd received a CIA briefing "on or around July 10" on a forthcoming attack and had asked that it be given to Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.

"The information presented in this meeting was not new, rather it was a good summary from the threat reporting from the previous several weeks," McCormack said. "After this meeting, Dr. Rice asked that this same information be briefed to Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General Ashcroft. That briefing took place by July 17."

What information?

That on a scale of 1-10, the likelihood of an imminent attack by al-Qaeda against the United States was 10.

Who gave this briefing? The head of the CIA, George Tenet. It was delivered at a White House meeting by Tenet, Cofer Black, then the agency's chief of top counterterrorism, and a third CIA official whose identity remains protected.

In the briefing, Tenet warned in very strong terms that intelligence from a variety of sources indicated that bin Laden's terrorist network was planning an attack on a U.S. target in the near future, said one of the officials. "The briefing was intended to `connect the dots' contained in other intelligence reports and paint a very clear picture of the threat posed by bin Laden," said the official, who described the tone of the report as "scary."

Rice “doesn’t remember”. Nor do Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.

But they are liars. You see, “I don’t remember…” is just a politician’s way of saying “Someone out there can prove this, and I just hope they don’t. So I’m not going to let them catch me in a blatant lie… I’ll just pretend I can’t recall.”

Our government knew that an attack was coming. They were told in no uncertain terms by the CIA that bin Laden was going to attack us. And they did absolutely nothing.

And of course, they lied afterwards.

One word: impeachment.

(Extensive quotes from the San Jose Mercury News used in this posting

Mark Foley: The Republican Hypocrisy Continues

You might not have heard of Congressman – sorry, ex-Congressman – Mark Foley, a Florida Republican.

But the good news is, that while you may not have heard of his sterling work, he has been quietly protecting your children from Internet predators. You see, Foley had the distinction of being chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.

Not particularly glamorous, certainly – but Foley was making the best of it, having introduced legislation to protect children from exploitation by adults over the Internet. He also sponsored other legislation designed to protect minors from abuse and neglect.

But…

Trouble is, while the left-hand was introducing all this noble legislation, the right-hand was whirring away under the desk while Mr. Foley wrote pornographic emails to 16 year-old boys.
"Do I make you a little horny?" asked Representative Foley in one IM to the young lad. And in another message, Foley wrote, "You in your boxers, too? ... Well, strip down and get relaxed."

If this was a Democrat, you can bet your ass it would be the biggest news since the invasion of Iraq. And a Democrat in charge of protecting your children??? Think Kennedy assassination.

But it’s not – it’s a Florida Republican. His seat will go to another evil-minded pervert, or corrupt, bribe-taking scumbag, or bigoted right-wing thug.

Because that’s what the Republican leadership in this country has become. Please, think before you vote.

Soaring Costs, Plummeting Enrollment: Healthcare Under Bush

The ranks of the uninsured in America ‘only’ jumped by 1.5 million last year, perpetuating a trend that began with Bush’s first term in 2000.

The reason is simple: since 2000, the cost of healthcare insurance has risen by 78%. Wages, on the other hand, have only risen by 20%. And just as importantly, the percentage of companies offering health insurance has dropped from 69% to 61%.

Under Clinton, there were 39.8 million uninsured Americans (a disgrace in itself) but under Bush, that number has swollen to 46.6 million in 2006. The cost to the country… unimaginable. (A 2001 study by HealthAffairs.org revealed that healthcare for the uninsured cost over $98 billion – although unable to locate more recent figures, I assume that number to have ballooned as the cost of healthcare and the number of uninsured have soared.)

The total cost of health insurance for individuals now averages $4,242 a year. For families, the costs average a staggering $11,480. (Bear in mind that the poverty line for a family of four is $20,000, gross, and that 37 million people in the United States live below that poverty threshold.)

Meanwhile, Bush and his gang of crooks made it harder to file for bankruptcy, under heavy pressure from the credit card companies. The fact that unexpected and exorbitant medical bills are the number one reason for filing bankruptcy didn’t manage to persuade Bush that this was just a tad unfair. Naturally, bankruptcy filings are now at an all-time high. (And remember, every time one of those victims files for bankruptcy, premiums go up for the rest of us.)

The fact that 1 in 6 Americans has no health insurance is nothing short of a national disaster. To take just one example of how unfair the system is, one study found that among Americans diagnosed with colorectal cancer, those without insurance were 70 percent more likely than those with insurance to die over the next three years. (Source – NY Review of Books.) So if you're uninsured... tough luck.

Are we, as a people, so married to the concept of the free market economy that we would have it continue to ruin our healthcare system?

Bomb Your Enemies, Threaten Your Friends: Bush Diplomacy 101

The President of Pakistan today published a memoir in which he describes in some detail the threats he claims were made against his country by the US Government following the September 11th attacks.

According to Pervez Musharraf, both Colin Powell and Richard Armitage spoke with him by phone. He claims that Powell said “You are either with us or against us,” and Armitage said that if Musharraf didn’t start cooperating, he could “Prepare to be bombed back to the Stone Age”.

The White House, of course, is already denying this, so I think it’s worth exploring what Musharraf has to gain by revealing this information (or disinformation).

First of all, Musharraf’s allegiance with the USA over the last few years has not been popular at home. A recent poll by the International Republican Institute (not affiliated with the Republican Party, but boasting several of its senior members) found that 85% of Pakistanis disapprove of the American government, and 83% disapprove of Americans generally. Describing his decision to support the American position on the ‘War on Terror’ as ‘coerced’ could be a way to make himself more popular domestically.

Secondly, it should be noted that General Musharraf rose to power through a coup d’etat in 1999, and that most international observers have declared the electoral college which legitimized his rule in 2004 as corrupt. He will seek re-election in October 2007, so he has a limited amount of time to distance himself from the unpopular American stance.

President Bush, wheeling out Osama bin Laden for the November elections as expected, recently went on the record to say that if bin Laden were to be found somewhere in Pakistan, American troops would be deployed on the ground to eliminate him. Musharraf later portrayed such a move as a ‘joint effort’ but seemed caught off-guard by the President’s words. Of course, deploying American troops on Pakistani soil without that country’s assent could be viewed as an extremely inflammatory act.

So Musharraf certainly has the motive to lie – both the timing and the content of his statements could well be motivated by the reasons detailed above.

However, when we look back to 2001 we see that in fact Musharraf leveled this same allegation, albeit not backed up by details, way back on September 19th 2001, just a week after the attacks on the WTC. At that time, he said in an address to the people that while he supported the Taliban, unless Pakistan reversed its support, the country risked being endangered by an alliance of India and the USA. He spoke at length about having to do the pragmatic thing to save his country. (Read that speech here.)

Now I don’t know whether Musharraf is telling the truth or not. He evidently hasn’t provided corroborating testimony or exhibits to prove his claims. However…

One of the biggest questions I’ve always had about this phoney war is – why did Tony Blair support it?

Blair is a rational, left-of-center politician who had, prior to the war, always commanded the utmost respect in Britain – even his political enemies were in awe of his ability to empathize with the public.

His decision to involve the UK in Iraq wasn’t just surprising – it was utterly stunning. And his steadfast support for Bush, a natural political enemy, has been nothing less than incomprehensible, particularly given the overwhelming opposition to the Iraq war within his own party and political base.

Unless of course Blair found himself in the same boat as Musharraf. Now, I don’t think for one minute that one of Bush’s cronies would have threatened Britain with bombing. But I have hypothesized in the past that the reason Blair supported Bush could well be economic. After all, Britain’s #1 export is – (can you guess?) – North Sea oil. And their biggest customer is – (can you guess?) – America. Total trade between the two countries was $74 billion in 2005 – the sixth most valuable trading relationship to America, and the second most valuable to the UK.

With Bush and his gang bombing our perceived enemies and threatening our potential allies, is it really so far-fetched to assume that the Bush administration threatened to bankrupt Britain by imposing economic sanctions or restrictions on trade between the two countries?

It is the only logical reason I can see that Blair would join Bush on his quest to wage illegitimate war. Just like Musharraf, he might have been putting his country’s needs above his own.

Thoughts?

The Shameful Result Of Our President's Lies

Here's something you don't see every day... even though it happens every day.

The reason? The Bush administration wants you to forget that our troops are being killed by the hundreds out in Iraq. They want you to believe that we are winning that war. They want you to believe that we're doing some good.

But the truth is, this week the number of American casualties of the war finally overtook the number of people killed in the attacks of September 11th 2001.

There is no end in sight - in fact, troop numbers are up yet again this month. There is no way we can, in Bush's words, 'complete the mission'. There is no winning solution any more, only a wide variety of losing scenarios.

We have created a nightmare of violence, torture and fear in Iraq. The U.N.'s top specialist on the subject of torture estimates that it is worse now than it ever was under Saddam Hussein.

And thanks to the Bush administration's focus on legalizing torture and ignoring the Geneva Conventions, you can be assured that any of our troops captured by the enemy will suffer long, painful deaths as retribution for our own decision to stand alone in the civilized world in allowing torture.

Each of these coffins represents a life extinguished for no good reason; a brave soldier who laid down their life for a series of lies told by their draft-dodging President.

Marilyn Musgrave - An 'F' Grade Politician And A Cancer In Congress

There are bad people, and there are bad people, and there is Marilyn Musgrave.

Congresswoman Musgrave is best known outside Colorado as the sponsor of the ‘Federal Marriage Amendment’, a particularly vitriolic and hateful piece of legislation designed to deny basic human rights to a substantial portion of the American populace.

She is one of two members of Congress to secure a 100% Conservative rating with the ultra right-wing American Conservative Union, due in large part to her support for the restriction of reproductive rights to women – she even opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest (interestingly, on her own website she claims that the government ‘intrudes too much’ in family affairs – though that doesn’t seem to stop her from wanting government control over the bodies of 50% of the population).

While her politics may be abhorrent, her corruption is intolerable.

Recently named as ‘one of the thirteen most corrupt members of Congress’ by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Musgrave accepted $30,000 from Tom DeLay’s ARMPAC and despite the fact that this turned out to be tainted money, she refused to hand it back or turn it over to charity. She is under investigation for using taxpayers’ money to send out campaign literature, for using her congressional office as a campaign office (highly illegal) and for taking $120,000 from donors who are either convicted or indicted felons, or under investigation for felony corruption.

Musgrave’s attack ads against her opponent this fall, Angie Paccione, have already begun to hit our screens. Interestingly, she has chosen to hit Paccione on illegal immigration – even though Musgrave herself voted with big business, and against a crackdown on illegals, when she voted against an amendment to HR 4437 that would have increased the fines on businesses for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, and later voted to protect big corporations that hire illegal immigrants. Marilyn voted for an amendment to HR 4437 that set caps on the monetary penalties imposed on businesses for hiring or employing illegal immigrants.

Marilyn Musgrave was beaten in large parts of her constituency by a weak Democratic challenger in 2004; in 2006, she faces an evangelical Christian in Paccione, who has a strong reputation and a much bigger budget.

In the event that there’s anything you can do to prevent this evil, corrupt, hateful woman from achieving re-election, I urge you to visit www.angie2006.com to volunteer.

Real American values depend on removing tumors like Musgrave from the political system.

George Bush Postures On Literacy - The Irony Is Almost Too Much

George ‘Nukular’ Bush is obviously misunderestimating things again.

At a speech today in New York for the White House Conference on Global Literacy, our semi-literate President told the world that "The simple act of teaching a child to read or an adult to read has the capacity to transform nations and yield the peace we all want. You can't realize the blessings of liberty if you can't read a ballot."

That’s rich, coming from a President who is proposing a 3.8% cut in education funding for the 2007 budget. (Source - Committee for Education Funding) It’s a sad fact that Bush’s administration continues to cut education funding, especially when compared to the continuing rise in federal spending on other priorities (read: toys for the army).

This could be why the United States lags behind in literacy rates. Behind which countries, I hear you ask, scornfully. Sweden? Denmark? All those semi-socialist welfare states where you pay 60% tax? Well, obviously!

Actually, yes. We do trail Sweden. And Denmark. In fact, all developed European countries. But we also trail Estonia, Barbados, Latvia, Slovenia, Belarus, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Tonga, Kyrgyzstan, Samoa, Mongolia, Uruguay, South Korea, Argentina and many, many other countries. (Source – Wikipedia.)

It’s a national disgrace.

As is the man posturing at the podium, whose sole contribution to literature appears to have been to publicize The Pet Goat.