Augusta Rosemont mine looking really stupid

The Arizona Daily Star published this article about a recent acid spill at a nearby copper mine, and had the audacity to point out that the same kind of thing could happen at the Rosemont mine, if it is dug. Well, The Star, in its long article actually said more like opponents said this could happen. Weenie words. They don't report the fact that things like acid spills and other environmental devastation do happen at mines, they have to say Well critics say this kind of thing could happen. However, Kudos to the Star for at least having the guts to report the two ideas side by side in the same story- the acid spill, and the disgusting, greedy, destructive bad idea that is the Rosemont mine.

This is the headline the Star tacked onto the story:

Morenci acid spill riles Rosemont foes-
But company says proposed mine's plan has safeguards

... Well, it's just those damn foes that are riled, that's all. No sir, the Daily Star is not going to stand in the way of progress. Might rile the Tucson Chamber of Commerce. Wouldn't want to the local Republicans wetting their pants over things like facts being reported now, would we? Nope, legitimate concerns about environmental destruction and public safety don't belong in the paper unless preceded by "Critics say..."

I'm guessing some editor somewhere said "oh, all right you can report the spill and bring up the Rosemont issue, but you have to be sure to point out that it's the oppenents who are saying..."

Yes, the acid spill in Morenci really is the kind of thing we'll be seeing down Sonoita way, off the Eastern flanks of the 9300 ft. Santa Rita range. Things like always happen around mines. The Star could have published statistics, but didn't.

If...

But word is it's a done deal. Rosemont is advertising on public radio station KUAT-FM, leaving a poisonous taste in the mouths of Tucson area classical music fans, Rosemont Copper offered to pipe C.A.P. water for free to retirement city Green Valley- "hey, it's free-" if they support the mine, Rosemont Copper goes on and on about safe they will be, yadda yadda.

The Star reports the words of Lanie Levick, who is a senior research specialist in Watershed Management at the UA, at the end of the article, after veering off into a discussion of the fact that the copper company is planning a mine able withstand a 100-year flood, although we've seen far worse storms and floods frequently in the Tucson area in recent years. They end the story with the mindless words of a slick-ass automaton Rosemont Copper spokesperson.

"They can't be designing to 100-year standards for Rosemont in such a sensitive area," said Lainie Levick, a board member for Friends of the Scenic Santa Ritas, which opposes Rosemont. Levick, who was stranded in her far Northeast Side neighborhood for a day during the 2006 flooding, said she's concerned that a larger-than-100-year flood at Rosemont could cause its tailings dam to fail. Levick is a senior research specialist in watershed management at the University of Arizona.

Augusta's Howard replied: "We're trying to build to as high a standard as is appropriate at this time. We don't want to speculate from a climate change standpoint about what the standard might be. That's something that the federal government is looking at.

"It seems to be a valid goal to build towards the 100-year storm."

What a fucking dumb ass.

Karl Rove consulted in Arizona congressional race

I got a creepy feeling when I heard Republican AZ State Senate president Tim Bee was planning to run for the very fine young Gabrielle Giffords' seat in the U.S. Congress. Giffords, a democrat, won Jim Kolbe's seat, and has been busy doing great things for Arizona and the U.S. ever since. Naturally, Arizona Republican morons, like Tim Bee, apparently, are not happy with such positive events. It was with further distress that I read in this article that Karl "Mr. Dethroned Neocon Asshole" Rove was in Tucson the other day. The scourge of scourges, the worst of the worst, except of course Lord Cheney. Two more things added to my unhappy feeling: One, Bee ran straight to Rove for advice in the upcoming campaign. Rove's advice in such matters would no doubt be some kind of dirty trick, smear campaign, or other form of widespread lying. Two, Arizona Democrats did not like the fact that the scumbag Rove was in Arizona at all, and protested about it. The problem was the Star's gutless way of reporting what happened, using standard Rush Limbaugh/Fox News code words:

Democrats, meanwhile, became completely obsessed with Rove's trip to the Old Pueblo, devoting an ample amount of their week to drumming up all their hatred for him and allowing the brief visit to get them all down-in-the-dumps.

Right, it's just hatred, those bad Liberal commies just like to hate. Forget how pissed most people in the country are about the things Rove and his ilk have done to the wonderful place we call home. It's just hate. No reason. Nope.

So, you can bet Rove was up to no good here in Arizona, something much more insidious than the fundraising dinner reported in the Star. So today, this story in the Star reports that Bee, the very man who ran to consult Rove for advice, is proposing something: a change to the State constitution that would divide the people of Arizona, and support discrimination against gay people. A constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage will show up on the November ballot- If Arizona Republicans get their way. Who's hating now? Kolbe was gay, you morons.

Now where do you think that divisive idea came from? People like Rove are adept at polarizing people, causing fights and disagreements, problems, trouble, destruction everywhere they go. And Arizona's right-wing morons in the State government are eager to jump on the bandwagon, in denial about the fact that people like Giffords, who work to undo some of the damage caused by the Bush Administration, are getting elected.

Rosemont mine PR hatchet-job reported as fact in the Arizona Daily Star

The photograph is a beloved natural area south of Tucson. Rosemont Ranch is at the edge of the area's highest mountain range, the 9200 ft. Santa Rita range. A copper company has claimed the right to create an open pit copper mine to remove Rosemont Ranch, swallow the area whole, and leave a giant pit behind. Copper mines typically release tons of airborne contaminants, and let tons of chemical pollution seep into the aquifer. Opposition to the mine has been widespread in the area. The only voice in favor not obviously associated with the mining company itself has been the Tucson Chamber of commerce which has made such inane statements as this:

"They've got to mine there, because that's where the copper is," [Jack] Camper said. "You can't lock up everything. If you do, you lose your tax base, and we can't afford to live here."

In this article, which is not quite a pro-mining puff-piece, and which does present a watered-down version of opposing arguments in the body of the story, the Arizona Daily Star presents as fact ridiculous arguments created in a "report" authored by a company obviously on the payroll of the mining interest. The journalist does not present much information about the author of the report or his employer. Instead a quote is given from one the many Pima County officials opposed to the blatant environmental destruction:

"It's not an objective report," said county Supervisor Ray Carroll, whose district includes the area where the mine would be developed.
"It's a glowing, rosy report that promotes their interests," he said. "It's almost as if the analysis was put together by the sales department of Augusta Resource."

Ok, so wouldn't it be normal for a journalist to do a little background on "Western Economic Analysis Center?" Well that's not what you get in the Star. What you do get is the following headline:

Long-term impact debated
Proposed Rosemont copper mine would add jobs, revenue, economist reports

For more balanced coverage, and to get a much more realistic picture of what is going on and what kind of company we are dealing with here, please see coverage by Tim Hull and Tim Vanderpool in the Tucson Weekly:

Glass Half-Empty - The company that wants to mine in the Rosemont Valley is promoting water plans that may be all wet By TIM HULL. (08-09-2007)

Fierce Opposition - The controversy over a proposed Pima County mine proves copper is no longer king By TIM VANDERPOOL. (06-14-2007)

Rosemont Rising - Can this mine fight turn a national tide? By TIM VANDERPOOL. (03-08-2007)

Dreams and Duds - Dapper miners with their eyes on Rosemont Valley get thumped by Pima County By TIM VANDERPOOL. (01-25-2007)

BushCo Lexicography hit-list

"information"
"in·for·ma·tion /ˌɪnfərˈmeɪʃən/ [in-fer-mey-shuhn] –noun
1. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news."

"knowledge"
"knowl·edge /ˈnɒlɪdʒ/ [nol-ij] –noun
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things."

"blogger"
"blog (blŏg) n. A weblog.

intr.v. blogged, blog·ging, blogs
To write entries in, add material to, or maintain a weblog ... blog·ger n. ... Part of Speech: n ... Definition: a person who keeps a Web log (blog)."

Sample usage: "Well I heard the bloggers are using information to create knowledge on their blogs..."

Rush L: "OH MY GOD-- BLOGGERS HAVE BEEN INFORMING PEOPLE!! THEY ARE CAUSING KNOWLEDGE!! THE BLOG-O-NAZIS ARE DETERMINED TO STOP THE SPREAD OF FREEDOM!!"

Next week on Hannity: "Do you want the world of the bloggers or do you want the world of America? America must choose now!!"

Headlines and pacification

"Dems foiled in bid to bash Bush on Iraq"

-Arizona Daily Star headline. Yes, we are just trying to bash Bush. A convenient buzzword that portrays bipartisan efforts to end an invasion begun on false premises as something more akin to a baseless temper tantrum on the part of Democrats. The headline tacked onto this AP story published in the AZ Daily Star backs up Benjamin Whorf's theory that language affects thought.

BushCo replacing U.S. Attorneys

Getting fired for doing a good job is exactly what happened to a high up Washington state U.S. Attorney. Jon McKay was damn near famous for his job performance. He was highly thought of by judges and everyone else. He was ordered to quit 2 months ago by the Bush Administration. McKay was in line to become a federal circuit court judge but apparently was not a BushCo automatic right wing zealot drone. It's well know BushCo has been packing federal circuit courts across the nation with right wing radicals, and diverting attention by growing a huge crop of rhetorical bullshit about "activist judges" (= any judge who does not tow the tyrannical BushCo party line).

McKay's firing is detailed, to some extent, in this story by AP writer Gene Johnson here in the Seattle Post Intelligencer. The story is deeper, though, as U.S. Attorneys of similar stature across the nation are being dumped by BushCo under a secretive provision slipped into the renewal of the Patriot Act 2 years ago. A notable example is that of Carol Lam, the San Diego U.S. Attorney who was prosecuting the spectacularly corrupt Republican House Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Hm, go figure. How'd that happen?

This article in Salon.com by Joe Conason details the other firings.

The House of Representatives has taken notice of this typical BushCo boodoggle thought. The chairwoman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, Linda Sanchez, is beginning hearings on BushCo's attempt to end Congress' role in appointment of federal Attorneys.

"No presidential administration - now or in the future - should be allowed to dismantle the important constitutional set of checks and balances to achieve a political agenda."

Go Representative Sanchez!

Also, according the same Raw Story article by Mike Sheehan quoted above, a bill is under consideration that would nullify the slimy Patriot Act provision that allowed BushCo to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate oversight.

Jail4Judges & politcal strategy

I call it bull-shit. Want to be nice? Call it "cleverly crafted argumentative rhetoric"

The term "activist judge" just means a judge who does not work to uphold radical right-wing policy- social oppressiveness, throwing more people in jail for no reason, the loss of civil rights, and racist, homophobic, xenophobic or misogynist policy.

Strangely enough the true activist judges are the right wing zealots BushCo has worked to pack the U.S. Circuit Courts with.

This story in the Houston Chronicle talks about a crucial issue in the right wing takeover attempt, what Sandra Day O'Connor refers to as the loss of judicial independence.

There were ballot measures, they all failed thank goodness, that would have done things like send judges to jail or have them fired when they don't what people want- what right wing morons want, actually.

"Such proposals reflect a political strategy," said University of Pennsylvania law professor Stephen B. Burbank. "If voters are persuaded to see judges as representing constituents or policies rather than simply interpreting the law, it will be easier to pass laws limiting their independence," he said.

I like the professor's analysis here. The key word is persuade.

The so-called conservatives, the manipulators among them anyway, the ones with loudest mouths, always come up with worrisome-sounding arguments- hippies, weirdos, gays, liberals, are taking over the world, etc. People who don't go to your church are taking over somehow. Then, as the supposed agent of this vague danger, the "conservatives" conveniently point their finger at whoever's not towing the ultraright party line. It often involves misleading terminology, or a term whose meaning is used in a new, manufactured, purposeful sense, for example liberal, secular humanst, activist judge, etc.

America getting sick of "Conservative" morons

This is a quote from a recent email to a friend out of state:

There's a governor's debate on the tube tonight. The repub. challenger started right off talking about family and that same code crap. I don't think those morons know that shit is getting old with the rest of us. I thing the radical right repressive minority makes up about 2% of us. Since they are repressive, they seek to cover up the dealings and the statements of the rest of us. That's what Bush gets for getting into bed with those fools, but it was perfect for them, and his neocon thinktanks approved it cuz it's another perfect subterfuge, ala Reagan. As scared as we are of neo-fascism, what we see is nothing but the impotent attempt of the same assholes from the Reagan age to fuck us over. Sooner or later, all of us will be about as serious about Bush as we were about Reagan.

Welcome to politics in Arizona. The conservative moron running for governor is behind a big anti-gay marriage deal here in Arizona. He started his intro statement to the debate with "I love everyone in Arizona." Well, unless you're gay, or unless you support gay people. That equals about 98% of the population around here. So the guy does not really love much of anybody, only those who go to his church or who do not like gay people. So the only way this guy can win an election is with the help of Diebold and their slimy vote manipulating computer hacks. Welcome to outsourcing in the post Reagan age. If they can't fuck over the people they're supposed to represent using our own government, then they'll hire an outside company to do, and pay them using your tax dollars. Brilliant. This is why we have business masterminds like Rumsfeld running important areas like defense. Way to go. Thanks.

Fear Greed and Infotainment vs. The Press

See this piece in the Arizona Daily Star, by a David Cuillier, a former newspaper reporter and editor, and current vice chairman of the national Society of Professional Journalists' Freedom of Information Committee.

Some details and comments about BushCo paying journalists to spread propaganda are mentioned. Also, some details about the Press' duty to speak out, and newspaper companies gradually sliding away from the press' function as a check on government and industry misdeeds.

I think what caught my eye about this op-ed piece is the tendency of some people to believe assertions that basically anyone who questions the current administration is somehow helping "the terrorists" or actually on the side of religious fundamentalists who wish to harm our country. Of course what shows such assertions to be utter bullshit is that there is no motivation for anyone questioning BushCo to side with destructive religious psychos from foreign nations. We have enough destructive religious psychos here, not quite as militant as the overseas version, calling themselves Christians, and doing a big insult to Christianity in the process, anyway. Anybody who's not a few bricks short of a load, for example those that are fed up with the lying and cheating of the Bush Administration, would never be on the same side as the morons of the ultraconservative religious right of any nationality.

But my point is that people can act like they believe whatever Cheney says, and whatever the so-called Conservatives have been saying since the Reagan days, when the Conservatives started wishing to get in control, and devote the government to serving large corporations and a handful of rich business leaders, rather than our own country, its own people, its environment and its infrastructure.

The writer of the article points to fear as motivation for folks to rally around something, anything, blindly. So no wonder the Vice President and other hired mouthpieces like O'Reilly, and, I guess, the President, keep having to dredge up new demons for people to fear. Outlining threat after threat, they keep picking more and more on people right here at home, usually their political opponents, often those of diverse social backgrounds who don't attend the correct church.

You can read the comments section of about any story in the Star, and see the few people whose duty is to hammer away at the actually very conservative paper, calling it again and again "The Red Star." Usually comments are tinted with xenophobia, racism, hatred, and form an amalgam of whatever kind of drivel you can hear well-paid conservative mouthpieces spout on just about any "news" show. You can't really call anything about that section of current events info "press." You can't really call it info because most of it is lies, the rest of it is twisted truth, and the overall function is to divide and conquer by covering up the truth, and to intimidate with the threat of playground-style name-calling into unquestioning silence.

Right wing slimeballs trying to influence election

So what else is new? Business as usual with the right wing religious nuts and power-mad robber barons trying to fuck over our country and every man woman and child in it.

Read about it here in the Huffiningtonpost blog.

Or watch it yourself. I wouldn't. I just think it's another example of why TV is bad. And I think this type of thing happens daily on the TV news.

A snip from the story:

"The Path to 9/11" is produced and promoted by a well-honed propaganda operation consisting of a network of little-known right-wingers working from within Hollywood to counter its supposedly liberal bias. This is the network within the ABC network. Its godfather is far right activist David Horowitz, who has worked for more than a decade to establish a right-wing presence in Hollywood and to discredit mainstream film and TV production. On this project, he is working with a secretive evangelical religious right group founded by The Path to 9/11's director David Cunningham that proclaims its goal to "transform Hollywood" in line with its messianic vision.

Before The Path to 9/11 entered the production stage, Disney/ABC contracted David Cunningham as the film's director. Cunningham is no ordinary Hollywood journeyman. He is in fact the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of the right-wing evangelical group Youth With A Mission (YWAM). The young Cunningham helped found an auxiliary of his father's group called The Film Institute (TFI), which, according to its mission statement, is "dedicated to a Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Televisionindustry." As part of TFI's long-term strategy, Cunningham helped place interns from Youth With A Mission's in film industry jobs "so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out," according to a YWAM report.

The "Cheneysphere," "crying wolf," and deterioration of our infrastructure

Two articles I read recently on Raw Story.com jibed nicely with and articulated a couple topics that have been on my mind lately.

One is Cheney. More and more, he seems like the real criminal behind what is apparently, and sadly, a fascist takeover of our government. He's been around since the Reagan days, when all this crap started happening, and increasingly seems like the man pulling the strings of the respective puppets. Now that the right wing radicals are on shaky footing and their massive unpopularity is public knowledge and receiving media coverage, Cheney's bile-spewing is starting to seem desperate and is becoming more and more negative and insane-sounding. They call Gore crazy every time he gives a speech but that's just a cheap effort to smear him. Cheney and the rest of the right wing radicals don't need a smear campaign to lose support- people can just listen to the things they are saying.

The Raw Story article I'm talking about is where the boy who cried wolf comes up. The writer, a Hannah Selinger, points out that anytime anyone, in this case Connecticut senatorial candidate Ned Lamont, starts talking about failed Bush policies or the fact that the so-called war in Iraq was a grave mistake and was justified with lies, Cheney starts saying that that person is actually helping Middle Eastern morons who would bomb and kill us, that that person is in line with religious fundamentalists who want to fuck over anyone that doesn't believe their fundamentalist bullshit. So Cheney here is crying wolf again and again these days.

Out of his mouth comes some of most negative, bile-infused, twisted lies and smears you'll hear these days. He never has anything good to say about anything. This is our Vice President, the most powerful vice president ever. But to what effect?

The other article, this one in the Seattle Post by a Chuck McCutcheon, deals with something that's on my mind a lot lately. We all pay a lot of tax dollars, but the Bush Administration is squandering all of it on some truly moronic things, while the country suffers. We are left in the lurch while the Bush Administration slowly destroys the economy and puts the nation in debt. I'm talking about infrastructure, one of those things a government is responsible for, one of the reasons we pay taxes. Roads, power grids, protection and assistance in emergencies and natural disasters, prevention of natural disasters, protection from outside aggression and home grown crazies (yes BushCo does a horrible job protecting us from threats- they've weakened a strong military, exported our National Guard, and used a false war on terrorism to override laws, democracy and the constitution) are some of the things we pay for. But when a government stops respresenting us, stops protecting us, avoids its role as a helper and supporter of the people, then what kind of government is that?

New Orleans was the first thing that got me thinking about it- the wasteland it became and the apparent utter failure of government assistance after the hurricane of nearly a year ago. Why did that all happen? Would it have happened under Kerry? Global warming has made weather much more dangerous. BushCo has famously done nothing to reverse it, and is instead denying that global warming exists. BushCo is also famously involved in denying a lot of scientific evidence, even covering it up, scientific evidence of anything that blows the whistle on BushCo's tendency to destroy the environment.

Power failures are getting worse. Mental health services are a disaster, and ever since the Reagan days people who should be in a home somewhere are walking the streets and often end up in jail. The Seattle Post article points out a few other key points and makes the obvious point that we are less, secure, less safe under Bush and Company than we would be under an administration that wasn't burning our tax dollars in a war that is destructive, unnecessary, and toxic.

So my point is, when Cheney tells us Democrats are going to make us less safe, he's lying.

"...the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution."

Thank you, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Detroit for ruling on the OBVIOUS unconstituional power grab and wild stab at indimidation by the Bush Administration's warrentless spying program.

In the dark of night they operate, with the ability to do whatever they want without regard for your freedom, the very freedom they claim to be fighting for. That whole spying program had NOTHING to do with preventing attacks against the United States, it has EVERYTHING to do with supressing oppostion to Bush and attempts to get BushCo to abide by the law, and our right to speak out against such obvious abuses of power, and countless others. They call it a chilling effect. They call it being made an example of.

Preventing the pychos and their bombs and their violence resulting from crazy fundamentalist beliefs has EVERYTHING to do with good intellegence and not frittering away our military resources on a meaningless and tragic war. It has everything to dow with retaining the best and the brightest for careers in keeping the U.S. safe, and not sending them off to get poisoned by spent uranium, and cutting their benefits when they come home. It has everything to with listening to the professionals who keep their eyes on the tragic, crazy psychos of this world, not with surveiling the millions and millions of people who are fed up with BuchCo and its malign ways and have the courage to speak out. It has everything to do with not alienating various branches of the government with crazy budget cuts and insane rules about speaking the truth about threats, both paramilitary and environmental.

In other words, get a warrant.

Judge Diggs will no doubt be labeled an "activist judge" by the right wing radical BushCo mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh and Vice President Dick Cheney. They will say national security is at stake, but that's a lie. How can anyone believe anything they say anyway? Public opposition to them is massive but they will launch a massive PR campaign. They will fight the ruling and no doubt try take away even more of our rights, and that'll be because that's what BushCo and the NeoCons are all about: taking away your rights, the rights that allow you to send mail, check out library books, talk on the phone, walk down the street WITHOUT BEING SEARCHED BY THE POLICE, SECRET POLICE OR OTHER SHADOWY GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE POLICE FORCES FOR NO REASON AT ALL OR FOR SIMPLY HAVEN SPOKEN OUT AGAINST THE FOOLISH MORON AND HIS POWER-MAD HYENAS WHO ARE CURRENTLY MAKING A SHAMBLES OF GOVERNMENT AND OUR COUNTRY AND OUR CONSTITUION. All in the name of freedom. The supreme lie, there, we are crushing the constituion this country was founded on, as well as checks and balances, in the name of freedom. I say they are doing all that in a mindless power grab which will benefit the few, and not the many.

Don't let's forget they are there to represent us, not a handful of the very rich.

Read about it here.

And you better believe they are pissed, and they are going to be more pissed the more people speak about against abuses of power like warrentless spying, investigations and searches.

Taking back our meanings

"As far as I'm concerned nobody can be too liberal. Liberal means educated. Liberal means a tempered view. I do not accept the Republican view of the term liberal."

Marge Swien
Retiree who supported Howard Dean for president in 2004

Twisting the meanings of words is a way of miscasting, smearing, others. Are you a liberal? Well there's nothing wrong with it. Rush Limbaugh and other paid rightwing mouthpieces have tried to redefine words and make you, in the eyes of anyone who believes what Rush and those other fucking idiots say, into something that you're not. Simple playground name calling, society's oldest preoccupation.

What a huge, long list of words they use to try to shape what others feel and think. It's just lying.

It's nice to see people taking back their meanings.

The quote above comes from a story in the 6/30/06 AZ Daily Star regarding yesterday's visit by Howard Dean.

Arizona Republican congress-people don't like protests

Republican morons in Phoenix are struggling to mis-characterize the subtance of recent protests, saying the protests are made up of "illegals" and comparing the people who exercised their right to peaceable assemble and redress grievances to, you guessed, terrorists.

Here is the story, GOP lawmakers assail assault on 'rule of law'.

The Star does breifly mention a Democrat's response to the Republican whining, a warm and fuzzy story of an 84 year WWII vet who attended the marches- this is an accurate representation of local Hispanic folk, i.e. a U.S. citizen who's been in the military, etc. Of course the Star does not go into detail about further Democratic congresspeople's arguments against the Republican stance. It's amazing how they boil it all down to a spunky 84 year old man, going up against wealthy Republican congressmen in Phoenix, who promptly respond that "it has nothing to do with race."

John Dean on censure

The Arizona Daily Star didn't even mention that hearings are going on right now in the Senate Judiciary Committee on whether to censure President Bush over the domestic spying scandal. The Star's headline just says "Dean tells Senate panel Bush should be censured" (Howard Dean, the popular scapegoat of the right wing cause, or John Dean, the Republican?) then the story just says Dean "told the Senate Judiciary Committee..." i.e. no specific mention of subject of the Judiciary Committee meeting. The story then refers to the censure issue prominently as "Feingold's measure," just isolating the whole issue as some pipedream of a disgruntled democrat, rather than focusing on the substance of the event. The standard "dems want to score political points" crap, which tends to show whenever Democrats make a substantive argument against BushCo, is also inserted.

I'm guessing a few specific things were edited out of the AP copy, as is the practice in Arizona, to soften the impact and avoid the seriousness of the issue. Plainly stating at the beginning of the article that the Sentate is still actively looking at a censure of Bush over domestic spying might undermine Bush's support among the 30% of people in U.S. who still believe he's worth a damn.

I will give the Star credit for admitting that John Dean said impeachment might be appropriate in Bush's case, but once again the Star seems kind of slick.

My theory is that the Star, and a lot of other papers, want to keep readership at the maximum by drawing both conservative and liberal readers. The Star throws out a few key points, for example a major Nixon-era figure talking about censure and impeachment of Bush, so the liberals can feel something is being done about Bush, and the "conservatives" can still whine about the "liberal media bias." At the same time, the Star leaves a lot out of the story, for example the fact that the Senate is presently considering cesure of Bush, to avoid publishing evidence of just how poorly the Bush administration is doing, just how much trouble these people are getting themselves into.

Dean, who worked for Nixon, obviously a Republican and a conservative, made remarks that echo the feelings of many of us "left wing fringe radicals" (this term, in popular debate these days really just means "anyone who opposes Bush and states publically that something should be done to take our country back from BushCo").

Dean's remarks, which I found published here in Rolling Stone, resonate truly with me, and demonstrate that opposition to Bush and Bush policy and corporate cronies like Cheney, is actually not limited to a couple outspoken Democrats, but is in reality widespread and bipartisan. Dean's remarks also echo a growing feeling among the populace that the Bush administration is power-mad, corrupt, and is doing a lot of harm to the values it claims to support.

Excerpts from Rolling Stone:

No presidency that I can find in history has adopted a policy of expanding presidential powers merely for the sake of expanding presidential powers.... It has been the announced policy of the Bush/Cheney presidency, however, from its outset, to expand presidential power for its own sake, and it continually searched for avenues to do just that, while constantly testing to see how far it can push the limits. I must add that never before have I felt the slightest reason to fear our government. Nor do I frighten easily. But I do fear the Bush/Cheney government (and the precedents they are creating) because this administration is caught up in the rectitude of its own self-righteousness, and for all practical purposes this presidency has remained largely unchecked by its constitutional coequals....

Congress is now confronted with executive branch attorneys who take the most aggressive reading possible in all situations that favor executive power.... If this committee does not believe this Administration is hell bent on expanding its powers ... you have been looking the other way for some five years of this presidency.... That is why censure might be the only way for the Senate to avoid acquiescing in what is clearly a blatant violation of the 1978 FISA stature, not to mention the Fourth Amendment.

I implore the Senate to undertake not a partisan action, but a strong institutional action. I recall a morning -- March 21, 1973 -- that I tried to warn a president of the consequences of staying his course. I failed to convince President Nixon that morning, and the rest, as they say, is history. I certainly do not claim to be prescient. Then or now. But actions have consequences, and to ignore them is merely denial. Today, it is very obvious that history is repeating itself.... I hope that the collective wisdom of this committee will prevail, and you will not place the president above the law by inaction.... Hopefully the Senate will not sit by while even more serious abuses unfold before it.

Text of Dean's entire statment, is published at rawstory.com.

This is Phoenix Friday 3/24, as thousands protested against Republican senator John Kyl's attempts at border policy. There was a protest in Tucson too, and protests across the nation too, according to this story in the Arizona Daily Star.

What's interesting to me is the massive opposition to Republicans and republican policy in general right now, which this photo demonstrates (pun acknowledged).

I've always hated Kyl, he's been around since the Reagan/Bush the 1st days. Kyl was immediately identified as the kind of Republican that doesn't acknowledge constituents that are not right wing fundamentalist morons. For example, when I argued against cutting overtime pay, since this move pretty much makes slaves out of us- and treating people like slaves should never be tolerated- Kyl's office sent a letter back that was loaded with the most moronic business-speak drivel I've ever seen. Kyl doesn't really serve the rest of us or represent us in Washington- although he supposed to. Kyl serves people like Dick Cheney and represents the kind of idiotic policy that is ruining our country.

Another thing interesting about this story and photo is the contrast with another story published in the Star Friday morning. The headline?

Cheney: Keep Kyl in Senate
Vice president's visit raises $500,000 for re-election bid and Arizona GOP

Great.

Cheney's motorcade came right up the main boulevard in my neighborhood. Riding home from work Thursday there were police positioned up and and down the street- I wondered what that was all about. I figured it was a VIP since they looked so bored.
Anyway the story was basically the Star pissing all over itself giving a pep talk about old Dick. A strong contrast to the massive public opposition to the Bush administration.

To quote Cheney:

"As democracy advances, ideologies that stir anger and hostility lose their appeal," he said.

BushCo and Consequences and Mark Danner

When there are never any consequences, the scandals cease to exist

From the intro to this Salon.com article by Tom Englehardt about journalist Mark Danner, entitled When Facts Fail.

Taking-the-wind-out-of-your-sails primo argument: No consequences.

Other quote, by the author of the article:

If you can torture, you can do anything.

Other quote credited to a senior administration official and originally reported by Ron Suskind:

"We're an empire now and when we act we create our own reality."

Heads up- Salon.com will want a registration to read the whole article- I was able to read 2 out of 4 pages before getting bumped.

21 U.S. ports will now be taken over by United Arab Emirates

I can't even believe this. Now BuschCo wants to let 21 U.S. ports be controlled by and Arab country, not 6 as previously reported.

In this United Press International article written by Pamela Hess the details of the situation are articulated. The major points, as far as I can tell, are:

Bush did't bother to tell Congress.

A company based in the United Arab Emirates is taking over operations at 21 U.S. ports on the east-and-gulf coasts.

An employee from the company was appointed by Bush on the same day to an administrative position in the maritime arm of U.S. Dept. of Transportation.

The United Arab Emirates, although seen as a U.S. ally now, had definite links to Al Queda a few years ago.

The companies in charge of port terminal operations are intimately involved in maintaining security there.

7 million cargo containers come through 361 U.S. ports. 37% are screened for radiation, and few are searched.

Congresspeople from both parties are up in arms, as are state governors and a noted conservative "think tank."

And, there is such strong rhetoric (I hesitate to call their rhetoric "strong," lets say "constant" instead) coming from the "right" about how democrats, and anyone else who opposed the destructive doings of BushCo, are weak on defense. Who is weak on defense? Who sent a big chunk of our talented, brave, and important armed forces overseas on a wild goose chase? Hunting a threat directed at us here at home in the U.S?

I get so sick of that "you're a pussy" argument coming from the right wing mouthpieces- they always direct it anyone who doesn't like the invasion of Iraq and subseqeunt waste of resources and lives, not to mention that fact that the reasons given for going over there were false. They like to say we are weak, weak on defence, and weak in general, which is of course bullshit. It's more accurate to say we think our country should not conduct national defence in a stupid manner.

The affair with the ports is a good example of the Bush Administration's stupidity, secrecy, and back room deal making between corporation and government resulting an increased threat of attacks on the U.S.

The irony is that BushCo loudly cries "NATIONAL SECURITY" any time anyone asks such troubling issues as the systematic dimantling of the Bill or Rights, the destruction of the environment, or the erosion of checks and balances.

The affair with the ports kind of demonstrates who we are dealing with here. We are seeing in action a group of people here that behave like a private corporation, showing little respect for the U.S. Congress, U.S. citizens, or U.S. national security. Constantly two-faced, lying, speaking out of the other side of their mouths, getting away with it, being proud of getting away with and training their followers to laugh snidely at those of us who give a damn about this country.

Major news in the torture saga

This is huge. Remember this next time you hear Rush Limbaugh or his clones dissing the ACLU.

According to this Knight Ridder article published in the 2/24/06 Arizona Daily Star,

Military interrogators posing as FBI agents at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, wrapped terrorism suspects in an Israeli flag and forced them to watch homosexual pornography under strobe lights during interrogation sessions that lasted as long as 18 hours, according to one of a batch of FBI memos released Thursday.

Wow. Not only were "military interrogators" impersonating FBI at the Guantanamo prison, the article goes on to say, but real FBI agents complained to supervisors about the torture for 2 years.

So this means torture, at Guantanamo anyway, was part of official policy, not the work of privates and corporals who were not right in the head at the time. Also, there's now evidence that high-ups, Wolfowitz is cited as an example, knew about and approved the torture.

Let's, see, I believe the current "conservative" (I'll put that in quotes, as these morons are certainly not real conservatives), rhetoric against anyone speaking out against torture is a variety of the "you're a pussy" argument, and will take the form of "aw, well maybe the Democrats and Lubberuls and Lefties wanna get the poor witto terrorists a glass of warm milk instead." The neocon rhetoric more and more these days seems to be taking the form of vague inside jokes, added to the usual obliteration of facts, voluminous but inaccurate details, and false premises.

I guess the neocons paid mouthpieces and half-witted PR volunteers argue that way cuz they don't really have any solid arguments to condone some of the bad things Bush and Company are responsible for. So in this case, expect accusations of unpatrioticness and weakness on national defense to be directed at the ACLU, and anyone else who doesn't like Bush and the bad things he is responsible for allowing to happen.

People who oppose Bush include plenty of Republicans, and many, many Democrats. So, you'll also see the Democrats- any Democrats, portrayed as or associated with dangerous or stupid-sounding elements. "Radical," "fringe," etc. are terms that are commonly used in neocon rhetoric's sound-bite-able, inaccurate, attempts at automated persuasion.

Article doesn't mention corrupt AZ Treasurer's political party

This article in the AZ Daily, by Capitol Media Services' Howard Fischer, contains a very nice, articulate, clearly written story of an investigation of the AZ State Treasurer. The article tells why he's being investigated- some really creepy, corrupt-sounding stuff, mind you, and gives specific examples of the Treasurer's doings. The accusations center around this guy, the Treasurer of Arizona, and his complete waste of taxpayer dollars in promoting a business he's got financial ties to. Where it gets creepy is that the business has something to with "character education," and people in the Treasurer's office were required to attend "character education programs" weekly, with the State paying the Treasurer's own character education business for the classes. It gets thicker, with the Treasurer trying to get his program installed in Arizona schools, and on and on. I won't put the guy's picture in this post, as he looks like a disgusting, poofy-haired, businessman PR-bullshit expert. God, what slime.

My point here, is, however, that the article makes no mention of the Treasurer's political party. Gee, I wonder what party? The Greens? I don't know, the article certainly does not mention it.