Kobe "Very Surprised?" I wonder why?

The Associated Press reports that Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers was suspended for two games without pay for elbowing in the throat Mike Miller of the Memphis Grizzlies. Bryant had taken three stiches earlier in the game to close a cut caused when Miller elbowed him. However Miller was not called for a flagrant foul, which would lead a disinterested observer to believe Miller didn't injure Bryant intentionally.

Bryant was called for a flagrant foul late in the game, and afterwards made comments both he and Lakers Coach Phil Jackson believe may have been a factor in Bryant's punishment. Bryant was quoted as saying "somebody comes down the lane, you've got to hit him. You can't let them come down the lane and just finger roll and get easy baskets."

As always, Bryant blamed everyone but himself. "Very surprised. Shocked, actually. Very, very surprised," Bryant said after practice Friday. "Angry and frustrated. I've been hit with a couple of flagrant fouls already this year. I've been hit with a clothesline and no suspensions come of that. and I get two games for this?"

I figure that maybe Kobe thinks that since he got away with breaking the law once, he should be able to ignore the rules whenever they don't suit him.

Man, I HATE Hypocrites!

Meet State Senator Jeff Miller of Tennessee. he's the Chairman of the Senate's Republican Caucus. He's also a lawyer in Cleveland, Tennessee. According to his official biography, Miller is a member of Wesley Memorial United Methodist Church. Miller was also the sponsor of Tennessee’s Marriage Protection Act, which he describes as a means of preserving the sanctity of marriage, defined as a union between one man and one woman. But Miller opposed an amendment to this act, an amendment that stated that “adultery is deemed to be a threat to the institution of marriage and contrary to public policy in Tennessee.”

Jeff Miller is a hypocrite. Here's why: According to this story, Miller, who has protrayed himself as "pro-family values," which presumably means remaining faithful to his spouse, is getting divorced from his wife of 15 years, with whom he has three children. Mrs. Miller says the reason for the divorce is that Senator Miller has been having an affair with a Senate staff member.

There's more: According to this story, Miller is threatening to retaliate against local businesses who advertise in the Bradley Weekly, a weekly newspaper that's has reported on his marital woes and has been critical of his conduct. The owners of the paper say that many local citizens who don't normally advertise are buying ads as a statement against Miller's high-handedness.

This should come as no surprise, since the top Republican office holder sees no problem with planting fake stories that appear to be real, lying to the press and the people, and paying for favorable media reports.

We shouldn't be surprised anymore that allegedly "pro-family" Republicans who insist that civil unions and same sex marriages will end the world, and who insist that extra-marital personal relationships are grounds for impeachment while breaking the law and lying to Congress are not, have so many hypocrites in their ranks. Maybe we can all agree that there are honorable and dishonorable Democrats, just as there are honorable and dishonorable Republicans. Neither party can reasonably claim to exclusively own the moral high ground. And the conduct of office holders of both parties should be judged individually, we should not assume that one party is more moral or more righteous or more religious or more patriotic or more honorable.

Bill O'Reilly, Compulsive Liar

Bill O'Reilly lies. He lies often. He lies about things that are easily verifiable. He lies so much that I can't believe anyone takes him seriously. From his nonexistent Peabody Awards to his false descriptions of how he slandered and bullied Jeremy Glick, a young man who lost his father in the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, to his fake depiction of a liberal "war on Christmas" O'Reilly lies so often that serious observers have to wonder if he ever tells the truth about anything.

Happily for me, several people who recognize Bill O'Reilly for the liar that he is have written about his falsehoods and have catalogued some of the most egregious examples.

Avery Walker of The Raw Story, weighs in with this excellent column.

Media Matters has detailed many of O'Reilly's lies here.

Another of my favorite web sites, Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly, International, does a great job of tracking his many falsehoods.

Wikipedia has information on the sexual harassment suit Bill O'Reilly settled for millions of dollars before it went to trial, an action he took because the woman who was suing him had actually taped some of their conversations.

And of course, Al Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them also puts O'Reilly's falsehoods in perspective.

You can also check out the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) web site for more details about O'Reilly's prevarication.

In short I'd say that everyone is entitled to his or her personal opinion, but no one should be entitled to his or her personal facts.

What we're witnessing is fascism

Think about it -- what other word will describe the Bush administration's actions? Maybe Nazism, because the same dictionary I used to find the definition of fascism gives an alternate definition for Nazism as "an adherent or advocate of policies characteristic of Nazism; a fascist." But I think fascism fits better, because Nazism is usually specific to the National Socialist German Workers Party, while fascism is a more general term. Here's the definitition I found in The Free Dictionary:

1.

a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

If the word fascism doesn't describe what's gone in America since January 21, 2001, I don't know what else does.

For starters, this administration wasn't elected democratically. In 2000 Gore got more votes nationwide and he certainly won what was ultimately the pivotal state of Florida -- only Bush's courtroom machinations in front of friendly judges including the conservatives on the Supreme Court enabled him to overturn the results and (I believe illegally) take office in the first place.

In addition, there's plenty of reason to believe that the Republican party has rigged several elections for Governor and Senator since 2000. On top of that, the GOP likely did the same thing with the 2004 presidential election.

Governmental officials taking office through rigged elections is one hallmark of fascism.

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration attacked Saddam Hussein, someone who had nothing to do with the events. Worse, they insisted that saddam was linked to the mastermind of 9-11, Osama bin Laden, and they continue to alternate between making this false connection and denying that they've done it. Lying to the public and using subterfuge to hide the real reasons for engaging in executive actions is another hallmark of fascism.

The Bush administration continues to cut taxes for the most wealthy while also increasing government spending and paying for ongoing military actions. This has resulted in an explosion of the national debt and the annual budget deficits that make up that debt. Making wealthy supporters more rich at the expense of the middle class and the poor is another hallmark of fascism.

The Bush administration has manipulated the media by paying for stories, leaking (sometimes illegally) to journalists, exacting retribution on journalists who criticize them, rewarding journalists who agree with them, and employing fake journalists in the guise of real reporters (including a gay male prostitute who visited the White House regularly -- what's up with that?) as a way to spread their propaganda without filters. Manipulation of the media and silencing of critics is another hallmark of fascism.

The Bush administration illegally revealed the identity of a covert CIA operative out of spite because her husband dared to criticize them. (He was correct in his criticism, by the way.) We now know that they have engaged in spying on people within the United States, an act that violates the US Constitution.

Here's the funny part about the spying -- the Bush administration, as always, is illogical in its explanation. Attorney General Gonzalez says spying without warrants was legal because the authority for the president to do so was "implicit" in the resolution authorizing force against Afghanistan. Bullshit. The law is explicit -- something is either contained in the law or it isn't. And if it isn't, it isn't. You can have a discussion about what is meant by the words of a law but you can't argue that something is there when it isn't.

Here's the illogic -- isn't it alleged conservatives like Bush who claim to despise judicial "activism?" In other words, they say they don't like judges who find more in the law than the simple written letter -- a judge who does that is an "activist" and so to be criticized until he changes his views or leaves the bench. As always, this administration goes with the approach that will enable them to get what they want -- if activism works, fine. If not, then they're against it. They have no consistent ideology because all they're interested in is getting their way and maintaining their grip on power. That's fascism.

I'm now convinced that President Bush has committed acts for which he can be impeached. Now that someone in Congress has grown enough backbone to say so, can we start a real investigation?

There he goes again...

Check out the picture of Jack Abramoff. If he doesn't look like a guy bound for prison, I don't know who does.

In his recent interview with Brian Williams President Bush was asked about the scandal involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his payoffs to Republican members of Congress. Bush responded by claiming this matter is part of a "culture of corruption in Washington," implying that somehow members of both parties are involved. In fact Bush said Abramoff was "an equal money dispenser."

That's just a flat out lie. In fact Abramoff gave no money to Democrats. It is true that Abramoff suggested that some of his clients give money to members of Congress from both parties, but he personally gave none to Democrats. In addition, the overwhelming majority of the donations from Abramoff and people associated with him went to Republicans. In fact, the few Democrats who received money tainted by Abramoff have started returning it, as Senator Byron Dorgan did earlier this week.

For anyone who doesn't know, Jack Abramoff is the focus of an ever-widening series of high-profile investigations into scandals linked to Republican officeholders. Abramoff is under investigation by federal grand juries for his involvement in a scam to defraud several Native American tribes. Here's how the scam worked: Abramoff took money from gambling interests to lobby against Native Americans who wanted to keep open a competing casino. He denied working for anyone connected with gambling, insisting he was working with conservative religious leaders who opposed all gambling on principle. After successsfully closing the Native America casino, Abramoff then took money from the tribes to lobby FOR them. This scandal also involves Michael Scanlon, a lobbyist who used to work for Tom DeLay, and lobbyist Ralph Reed, late of the Christian Coalition, as well as former Chairman of the Georgia GOP and now a candidate for Lieutenant Governor. Scanlon plead guilty federal conspiracy charges and has been ordered to return more than $19 million to the defrauded Native American tribes. This scandal involves Senator John Cornyn of Texas.

Abramoff is also under investigation by a grand jury in Guam over his efforts to allow sweatshops to continue exploiting workers. This scandals involves House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

In addition, He has been indicted for bank fraud by a third grand jury in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This case also involves the murder of the man with whom Abramoff and his partners had a business dispute. This one involves Republican Congressman Bob Ney of Ohio.

Abramoff is also linked to a scandal involving a multibillion-dollar Homeland Security contract.

In fact, Abramoff was a 2004 Bush Pioneer, which means he contributed at least $100,000 to Bush reelection effort.

On top of all that, another Abramoff Associate, David Safavian, was arrested in October. Safavian was a Bush administration official, working as the top procurement administrator at the General Services Adminstration. Safavian was charged with hindering prosecution and with concealing his efforts to aid Abramoff in acquiring control of two federal properties under Safavian's management.

So President Bush lies by saying Abramoff's dealings are a scandal that touches both parties.

But we shouldn't be surprised that Bush would blame Democrats or claim "both sides are doing it." When the Ken Lay (another Bush Pioneer) and Enron scandal came to light, Bush lied when he said he barely knew Lay and that lay was closer to Ann Richards, Bush's predecessor as Texas Governor, then he was to Bush.

Remember that President Bush ran as an opponent of corruption and as a proponent of "changing the tone in Washington." To me it looks like Republican corruption is running rampant, while Bush blames Democrats and refuses to accept responsibility. That's hardly "changing the tone," or "uniting, not dividing."

How long before we all say "enough is enough?"

Sean Hannity, Major League Wanker

Last night Fox News's Sean Hannity and his guest Richard Miniter attacked Harvard and Georgetown Universities for accepting money from Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal. Hannity put on his best "damn those liberal elites" act as he said "...now, you may remember this Saudi prince from the days after September 11, when Rudy Giuliani turned down his so-called gift of $10 million, because he said that the U.S. needed to, quote, “reexamine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause..." "...well, Harvard and Georgetown universities are now accepting $20 million each from Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal for their Islamic studies programs..." "This is a bad guy. Rudy was right to decline the money. Why would these universities take money from him?"

Miniter responded "because these universities already believe this message. They already believe that America is the problem, that our support for Israel and our arguments against terrorism are the problem. And some professors on these campuses. Churchill doesn’t teach there, but they still do teach at Harvard and at Georgetown in many cases they believe his message..." "...so it's not as if this Saudi prince is changing their views. He is rewarding them financially for views they already have..."

What did Hannity forget to mention? That the Saudi prince he so loudly condemned, owns 5.5 percent of...wait, here it somes...yes, FOX NEWS. In addition, to turn Miniter's quote back on him, not only is the Prince rewarding Fox News financially "for views they already have, he's also claiming credit for changing Fox's views.

Sean Hannity. He "reports," you decide. Sean Hannity. "Fair" and "Balanced."

I call bullshit.

Quit Using Service Members As Props

Slate has a story today explaining how the Republican National Committee produced a new web ad that distorts the Iraq war position of several prominent Democrats. But even worse than that in my mind is the trickery the RNC used to produce the pictures. The producers of this ad used a two year old photo of a soldier watching "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" to make it appear that the soldier was watching Democratic "defeatists" give aid and comfort to the enemy.

I'm tired of members of the military being used as props for partisan purposes. President Bush wants to visit military bases, thank service members for their work, and be visible among those in uniform? Great -- it's good for morale and it's part of his role as commander-in-chief. He wants to use soldiers as props for partisan attacks against his political opponents? That's wrong, because the United States military prides itself on understanding and implementing the concept of civilian control of the military. This means that service members should conduct themselves as professionally and apolitically as they can.

This isn't the first time the administration or the Republican party has faked pictures of service members, either. Recall that during the 2004 campaign President Bush's team doctored images of a Bush speech to make it appear that more soldiers were in the audience than were actually present.

I say it's time to quit playing politics with the military -- treat us as professionals with a mission to accomplish, not as props and pawns to be used as props for partisan speeches.

THIS is tax relief for the middle class?

By Jonathan Weisman in the 9 December Washington Post:

House Approves $56 Billion Tax Cut

...The Tax Policy Center, run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that the bottom 80 percent of households would receive 15.8 percent of the House tax cut's benefit. The top 20 percent would receive 84.2 percent of the benefit.

It gets worse. The 4 December New York Times indicated that according to the tax Policy Center 51.3 percent of the House bill's tax cuts would flow to the top 1 percent of filers, people with average annual incomes of $1.1 million. The Times went on to say that the Senate bill is also stacked in favor of the wealthy, but not nearly as much.

Now hold on -- isn't President Bush the guy who campaigned on middle class tax relief? And aren't the Republicans in Congress his down the line followers?

Budgets aren't balanced, deficits grow and those responsible for it LIE about the reasons. They should stop giving tax breaks to rich people. They should stop telling falsehoods that are implausible on their face.

Fuzzy Math

I'm watching a Tennessee Member of Congress named Marsha Blackburn as she takes part in a special orders speech on the floor of the House. She's arguing for an extension of "tax relief" and claiming it's the cause for what she claims is our curently robust economy.

This effort by Blackburn is part of a coordinated effort by Republicans to claim credit for what they say is an expanding economy. Yesterday President Bush made a speech in North Carolina during which he also claimed the economy is improving.

But is it? I think not. In an attempt to prove his claim, President Bush had to resort to what he calls "fuzzy math" when he's ridiculing his opponents.

Here's what he said on December 6:

"...Our unemployment rate is down to 5 percent. That's lower than the average of the 1970s, the 1980s and 1990s..."

Note what Bush did -- he broke down the unemployment numbers by decade, not by presidential administration. This is especially relevant when Bush mentions the 1990s. For anyone who's not aware, George H.W. Bush was President of the United States from 1989 to 1993. Bill Clinton was President from 1993 to 2001. And Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in 1992 in part because the US economy was in an extended recession and public perception was that the first President Bush wasn't in touch with the concerns of average Americans. In fact the mantra in the Clinton campaign headquarters was "it's the economy, stupid."

Here's how the unemployment rate looks on a year by year basis:

Year Unemployment rate President

1989 5.3% Bush
1990 5.6% Bush
1991 6.8% Bush
1992 7.5% Bush

1993 6.9% Clinton
1994 6.1% Clinton
1995 5.6% Clinton
1996 5.4% Clinton
1997 4.9% Clinton
1998 4.5% Clinton
1999 4.2% Clinton
2000 4.0% Clinton

The average unemployment rates are Bush 6.3% and Clinton 5.2%.

Let's take that to the next step. Under President George W. Bush the annual unemployment percentages were, from 2001 through 2004, 4.7, 5.8, 6.0 and 5.5. That's an average of 5.5%. In other words, neither President Bush equalled the performance of Bill Clinton when it came to putting people to work. So when President Bush spoke in North Carolina yesterday, he blurred the lines because if he'd been accurate he couldn't have portrayed himself in a favorable light.

Bush's blurring of distinctions doesn't stop with enemployment rates. Under Clinton, the budget was balanced, deficits were eliminated and we were starting to pay down the national debt that had been incurred through the irresponsible fiscal policies of President Reagan and the first President Bush. After Clinton left office, the budget went back into deficit and the national debt rose because the second President Bush is as irresponsible with his fiscal policy as were Reagan and the first Bush. Under Clinton inflation was down, welfare rolls were reduced, violent crime was down, abortions were down, teenaged pregnancy was down. By any tangible measure, he was a success.

And that's not "fuzzy math"-- it's basic addition and division, coupled with an accurate knowledge of who was in charge when.

Where's the Outrage?

The members of the presidential commission that investigated the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks have reconstituted themselves so they can continue to monitor America's preparations for another attack and progress towards making sure another one never happens. As this story shows, the members of this bipartisan group give the Bush administration largely failing grades for its response to the 9-11 attacks.

Where's the outrage? I thought Bush and Cheney were reelected because they were "tougher on terrorists" than their opponents. If America is still vulnerable to attack and unprepared to respond if there is one, where are the results of all the anti-terrorism money we're spending?

Is this our strategy? To attack where the terrorists aren't (Iraq) and ignore their possible domestic targets? Where are the priorities of the people in charge of this "war on terror?"

Which Way The Wind Blows

The leaders of this administration have claimed from its inception that they do not follow polls and that even when they are wrong, you can't count on them to be consistent. They're "authentic." They "say what they mean and mean what they say."

Bullshit.

Read this story by James Bamford, published in Rolling Stone and posted on 17 November. It turns out that the administration has been paying a consulting firm called The Rendon Group to conduct what can only be described as propaganda designed to cause the United States to start a preemptive war with Iraq. According to this story, the company has worked on every US conflict since Grenada, with the exception of Somalia. It has received contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. And its employees have access to the most highly classified US intelligence data, information it uses to "shape the story" so that public opinion goes the way of the administration.

Among other things, The Rendon Group created and named the Iraqi National Congress, and it made Ahmed Chalabi the group's leader. The Rendon Group also had a hand in pushing phony news and false Weapons of Mass Destruction "evidence" to bolster the administration's bogus claim that Saddam was an imminent threat who had to be neutralized preemptively.

Oh, there's more. When Chalabi provided "witnesses" to Saddam's WMDs and those witnesses failed CIA polygraphs, The Rendon Group peddled their stories anyway, stories that made their way into the "evidence" amassed by the administration to justify the first strike against Saddam.

Come on! Are we going to let the people who run this administration continue to lie? They always consult pollsters and public opinion experts. They always try to manipulate both the foreign and domestic media to their advantage. They never let facts get in the way of their foreordained conclusions -- they simply work with media and PR consultants to produce whatever story will allow them to take the action they've already decided on.

In a previous post I mentioned the importance of never ceding the moral high ground -- you can't allow your side to lose in the court of public opinion by taking actions that are just as bad as your enemy's. This administration sees it differently -- as long as you can lie well, so that you can plausibly claim that you're not as bad as your enemy, it doesn't matter if you really are. In this view, perception trumps reality. I say it's time well stood up and said "NO MORE!"

Administration Propaganda Mocks Army Values

The administration mocks what I taught Iraqi soldiers during my deployment -- the Army Values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage. You can read about the Seven Army Values and the reasons for formalizing them at http://www.goarmy.com/life/living_the_army_values.jsp. I explained that it's important to implement these values especially during a war because you can never cede the moral high ground to your enemy. How can you ask your enemy to treat your prisoners humanely if you abuse his? How can you ask potential friends and allies to come to your aid if they think you're just as bad as your enemy? How can you ask for the court of public opinion to comdemn your enemy if the public has the impression that there's no difference between him and you? The reason to take and hold the moral high ground is that you can't allow yourself to appear to be as bad as your enemy, and you can't allow your enemy to appear to be better than you. Ideals play a large part in the final outcome.

That's why this administration angers me. They are propagandists who stop at nothing to manipulate the press, thus making whores out of the so-called fourth estate. We know the Bush administration paid journalists to write favorable stories about its domestic agenda. These included Armstrong Williams, who received payments in exchange for favorable mention of the Bush agenda in his columns and TV appearances, and Jeff Gannon/James Guckert, a gay prostitute who posed as a real journalist while working for a partisan conservative outlet, Talon News. Gannon/Guckert's job was to ask softball questions at White House press briefings and to repeat administration press releases as his own work. Gannon/Guckert has also been found to have plagiairized the work of other journalists. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56330-2005Jan7.html, http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/02/james_guckert_t.html

Apparently the administration's willingness to manipulate the media within the US also applies to the media in other countries. Last week the Los Angeles Times broke the story that the U.S. Military had hired several companies to carry out "strategic communications." http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-infowar30nov30,1,1170868,full.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=1&cset=true.

The Defense Department has confirmed the Times's assertion. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-infowar3dec03,0,4048670.story?coll=la-home-world. This program involves paying Iraqi media outlets to run pro US propaganda. One corporation, Iraqex, is now called Lincoln Group, which received a $100 million contract to get pro US propaganda published in the Iraqi media. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraqex

When the administration got caught paying Williams, the president said "our agenda ought to b able to stand on it's own two feet." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050126-3.html.

I guess he no longer feels that way. He's also condemned Arab media outlets like al Jazeera as propagandists for terrorists. I guess he's no longer upset by the idea of propagandists, assuming he ever was upset in the first place.