Baghdad Burning Reacts to Bush's Address to the Nation
by stu piddy [Subscribe]
Thu Jun 30th, 2005 at 23:28:45 CDT
Before Democrats start plotting and 'framing' their arguments on how to elect a democrat-before they decide that the best way to get a Democrat elected is to take a 'strong position on Iraq' and 'get the job done' with 'more troop's' and 'more competent leadership', they might listen to what one Iraqi woman has to says from the Baghdad Burning website. These are excerpts of her reaction to the Presidential address by Bush on Tuesday June 28, 2005.
* Diaries ::
* stu piddy's diary :: ::
'Now 9/11 is getting old. Now, 100,000 Iraqi lives and 1700 American lives later, it's becoming difficult to summon up the same sort of sympathy as before. How does the death of 3,000 Americans and the fall of two towers somehow justify the horrors in Iraq when not one of the people involved with the attack was Iraqi?'
'He speaks of `abroad' as if it is a vague desert-land filled with heavily-bearded men and possibly camels. `Abroad' in his speech seems to indicate a land of inferior people- less deserving of peace, prosperity and even life.'
'Don't Americans know that this vast wasteland of terror and terrorists otherwise known as `Abroad' was home to the first civilizations and is home now to some of the most sophisticated, educated people in the region?'
'Don't Americans realize that `abroad' is a country full of people- men, women and children who are dying hourly? `Abroad' is home for millions of us. It's the place we were raised and the place we hope to raise our children- your field of war and terror.'
'Yes. And Bush is extremely concerned with the mosques. He might ask the occupation forces in Iraq to quit attacking mosques and detaining the worshipers inside- to stop raiding them and bombing them and using them as shelters for American snipers in places like Falluja and Samarra. And the terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul? Maybe they got their cue from the American troops who attacked the only functioning hospital in Falluja.'
'We're so free, we often find ourselves prisoners of our homes, with roads cut off indefinitely and complete areas made inaccessible. We are so free to assemble that people now fear having gatherings because a large number of friends or family members may attract too much attention and provoke a raid by American or Iraqi forces'
'The forte of the new Iraqi National Guard? Raids and mass detentions. They have been learning well from the coalition. They sweep into areas, kick down doors, steal money, valuables, harass the females in the household and detain the men. The Iraqi security forces are so effective that a few weeks ago, they managed to kill a high-ranking police major in Falluja when he ran a red light, shooting him in the head as his car drove away.'
'Why aren't the Americans setting a timetable for withdrawal? Iraqis are constantly wondering why nothing is being done to accelerate the end of the occupation.'
This is from her website Baghdad Burning. The Best site perhaps on Iraq of all sites I have found."
Daily Kos: Baghdad Burning Reacts to Bush's Address to the Nation:
When everything seems like the movies
Yeah you BLOG bleed just to know you'r alive
Baghdad Burning Reacts to Bush's Address to the Nation
European and Pacific Stars & Stripes: "Midway through fiscal year, desertions from Army approach last year's total
By Lisa Burgess, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Friday, July 1, 2005
ARLINGTON, Va. — Just six months into the government’s fiscal year, the Army was carrying almost the same number of deserters on its books as the service registered for all of 2004.
War and stop-loss policies, which prevent voluntary separations from the military, are the likely culprits for the increase, according to Army researchers.
Questions and answers about military desertion ...
Q: What is the difference between AWOL and desertion?
A: A servicemember who is not officially on leave, and fails to report to his or her training or duty station is Absent Without Leave (or UA, Unauthorized Absence, in the Navy and Marine Corps).
On the 31st day that a servicemember fails to report to his or her training or duty station, the member’s AWOL status changes to Dropped From Rolls (DFR), or desertion.
Q: Does the U.S. military go looking for deserters?
A: No, the services do not have the manpower to hunt down deserters, except in rare instances — such as members thought to possess top-secret information, or who are suspected to have committed a serious crime.
Q: How do deserters get caught?
A: The services send the names of all deserters to the National Crime Information Center, a nationwide database circulated to civilian law enforcement offices and other government agencies. Deserters can be identified by something as simple as a routine traffic stop.
Q: What happens when deserters get caught or surrender?
A: They are “returned to military control” or sent back to their parent service.
Q: How long can deserters expect to wait for their cases to be resolved?
A: It depends on the service, the unit and the circumstances. Individuals who deserted from Army basic training have reported waiting for two or three months at a Personnel Control Facility before their cases are resolved.
Q: Do deserters go to jail?
A: Very rarely. The vast majority are released with other-than-honorable discharges. In the Army, for example, 94 percent of the 12,000 soldiers who deserted between 1997 and 2001 received such a discharge. A small number of deserters (in the Army, just 6 percent between 1997-2001) may be returned to service, or reassigned.
Q: What are the possible consequences of an other-than-honorable discharge?
A: Typically, it means forfeiting federal education benefits, federal home loans, and any opportunity to obtain a job with the federal government. Some veterans with less-than-honorable discharges have also reported problems entering unions, or obtaining loans from financial institutions.
Source: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences; the G.I. Rights Hotline; Army Regulation 190-1
Current Science: Birmensdorf, Switzerland—there's a humongous fungus among the trees and shrubs of Swiss National Park, in the Engadine Valley
A honey mushroom found in Malheur National Forest in eastern Oregon spans 890 hectares (2,200 acres) and is the largest living organism ever found."
Humongous fungus a new kind of individual: "Humongous fungus a new kind of individual
This release is also available in French.
(March 25, 2003 – Ottawa, Ont.) -- The world's biggest fungus, discovered in Oregon's Blue Mountains in 2001, is challenging traditional notions of what constitutes an individual. The underground fungus--estimated to be between 2000 and 8500 years old--is also deepening our understanding of the ecosystem, with possible implications for the management of Canadian forests, according to a paper by the discoverers (B.A. Ferguson, T.A. Dreisbach, C.G. Parks, G.M. Filip, and C.L. Schmitt) published March 17 on the Web site of the Canadian Journal of Forest Research (http://cjfr.nrc.ca).
The clone of Armillaria ostoyae--the tree-killing fungus that causes Armillaria root disease--covers an area of 9.65 square kilometres, about the size of 6000 hockey rinks or 1600 football fields.
'It's one organism that began as a microscopic spore and then grew vegetatively, like a plant,' says Dr. Catherine Parks, a research plant pathologist with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and co-ordinator of the research team. 'From a broad scientific view, it challenges what we think of as an individual organism.'
In the paper, being published in the April 2003 issue of the Canadian Journal of Forest Research, researchers at the USDA Forest Service reveal their findings about the huge fungus, including how they discovered it was a single organism, and the potential implications for forest management practices.
Sure the guy was a nutcase and the books had dubious scientific claims. But burn books ? And arrest the guy for carrying a book out of state? WTF ?!? Sounds like someone had Wilhelm Reich offed... -- law
Because of Reich's failure to appear, Judge Clifford granted the injunction on March 19, 1954.  The ruling stated that all written material, including books, papers and pamphlets that mentioned 'orgone energy' had to be destroyed, and that further copies of Reich's books could not be published, including his revised classics like The Mass Psychology of Fascism, unless the words 'orgone energy' were deleted.
Imprisonment and death
In May 1956, Reich was arrested for technical violation of the injunction when an associate moved some orgone-therapy equipment across a state line, and Reich was charged with contempt of court. Once again, he refused to arrange a legal defense. He was brought in chains to the courthouse in Portland, Maine. Representing himself, he admitted to having violated the injunction and arranged for the judge to be sent copies of his books. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
Dr. Morton Herskowitz, a fellow psychiatrist and friend of Reich's wrote of the trial:
Because he viewed himself as a historical figure, he was making a historical point, and to make that point he had conducted the trial that way. If I had been in his shoes, I would have wanted to escape jail, I would have wanted to be free, etc. I would have conducted the trial on a strictly legal basis because the lawyers had said, 'We can win this case for you. Their case is so weak, so when you let us do our thing we can get you off.' But he wouldn't do it. 
On June 5, 1956, FDA officials traveled to Orgonon, Reich's 200-acre (80-hectare) estate near Rangeley, Maine, where they destroyed the accumulators, and on June 26, burned many of his books. On August 25, 1956 and again on March 17, 1960,  the remaining six tons of his books, journals and papers were burned in the 25th Street public incinerator in New York's lower east side. In March 1957, he was sent to Danbury Federal Prison, where a psychiatrist examined him, recording: 'Paranoia manifested by delusions of grandiosity and persecution and ideas of reference.' "
Reich died in his sleep of heart failure on November 3, 1957 in the federal penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, one day before he was due to apply for parole. He was buried in Orgonon. At his own instruction, his granite headstone said simply:
Born March 24, 1897
Not one psychiatric or established scientific journal carried an obituary. Time Magazine noted:
Died. Wilhelm Reich, 60, once-famed psychoanalyst, associate, and follower of Sigmund Freud, founder of the Wilhelm Reich Foundation, lately better known for unorthodox sex and energy theories; of a heart attack in Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary, Pa; where he was serving a two-year term for distributing his invention, the "orgone energy accumulator" (in violation of the Food and Drug Act), a telephone-booth-size device which supposedly gathered energy from the atmosphere, and could cure, while the patient sat inside, common colds, cancer and impotence.
Wilhelm Reich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "
President Clinton vetoed the $792 billion GOP tax cut Thursday, setting the stage for a high-stakes showdown with Republicans in Congress over tax and spending priorities -- and a ripe political issue for the coming election year.
Speaking in the White House Rose Garden as he administered his long-threatened veto, Clinton urged his GOP adversaries to “work together” with him by devoting most of the budget surplus not to a huge tax cut but to debt reduction and long-term Social Security and Medicare reform -- while settling for a more modest tax cut of about $300 billion.
“We must put first things first,” the president declared.
The White House staged Thursday’s veto ceremony with a festive air, complete with a brass band. The ambience seemed to reflect the belief among administration officials that Clinton again will get the better of his GOP critics.
In 1995-96, Clinton and Republicans were mired in such a prolonged budget impasse that it forced parts of the government to shut down, which the public blamed on GOP recalcitrance. In 1997, a year-end budget deal blew a $20 billion hole in the budget ceilings -- and was widely seen by Republican conservatives as a Clinton victory.
“Republicans feel that in past negotiations they have always come in second place,” said Rick May, former staff director of the House Budget Committee. “They perceive that they do not do a very good job in these negotiations.”
To be sure, the White House and the GOP Congress have reached significant compromises, such as the 1996 welfare reform law, minimum wage increase and expansion of medical insurance coverage.
But the GOP’s deep and visceral distrust of Clinton remains.
Clinton Vetoes Republicans’ 792 Billion Dollar Tax Cut
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess. (1.6 MB AIFF or WAV sound)sound icon
'We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue,' Clinton said during a White House news conference.
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.
One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives 'a phony issue.'"
CNN - President wants Senate to hurry with new laws - July 30, 1996:
7 Years Ago (Updated with Sources)
by Delaware Dem
Thu Jun 30th, 2005 at 08:04:28 CDT
UPDATED: The source for the shockingly anti-American quotes involving the War in Kosovo is from the following blog: http://republicofdogs.blogspot.com/2005/06/on-supporting-our-troops.html
I remember the Republican opposition to the War in Kosovo and their concerns over a clear mission and a planned in advance exit strategy. The dishonorable and traitorous Republicans also like to impugn the motives of President Clinton for the Kosovo War, saying he was wagging the dog to avoid public scruntiny of his so-called “scandals.” Indeed, when President Clinton bombed Iraq in the late fall of 1998 and early winter of 1999 in response to Saddam Hussein banishing the weapons inspectors, the Republicans were furious as their precious Impeachments proceedings were ongoing, and they complained loudly that President Clinton was only going to war then to distract the American People from the impeachment. How traitorous. How un-American. How fucking disloyal. They should be hung.
Finally, the Bush quotes concerning our oh so clear mission, or should that be missions, in Iraq are sourced here: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/6/30/9428/80215/28#28.
"You can support the troops but not the president" --Tom Delay
"[The] President...is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." -- Rick Santorum
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." -- Tom Delay
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." -- Karen Hughes
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" -- Sean Hannity
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -- Governor George W. Bush
I dare any so called journalist worth their salt to ask the hypocrites listed above what has changed since 1999. And so help me God, if their answer is "September 11th," punch them directly in the face in honor of the 3,000 dead Americans they are exploiting for political gain.
And while you are at it, and while the President is cleaning up his bloody nose, please ask him if our mission is so clear, then why have our objectives and goals constantly changed over the last three years.
"Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament."
- Bush, March 6, 2003
"In Iraq today, our military is focused and unwavering. We have an effective plan of battle and the flexibility to meet every challenge. Nothing--nothing--will divert us from our clear mission."
- Bush, March 26, 2003
"Our forces have been given a clear mission--to end a regime that threatened its neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction, and to free a people that had suffered far too long."
- Bush, April 14, 2003
"Our coalition has a clear goal, understood by all--to see the Iraqi people in charge for the first time in generations."
- Bush, May 24, 2004
"Well, as I stated earlier, the clear mission of the multinational force, and in particular, the United States military is to help the new Iraqi government stabilize a country, deal with the security threat, and help improve the lives of the Iraqi people."
- "Senior Administration Official", June 28, 2004
"The United States military and our coalition partners have made a clear, specific and continuing mission in Iraq. As we train Iraqi security forces, we'll help those forces to find and destroy the killers."
- Bush, June 28, 2004
"Some of tomorrow's veterans are in combat in Iraq at this hour. They have a clear mission: to defeat the terrorists and aid the rise of a free government that can defend itself."
- Bush, November 11, 2004
"And our mission is clear there, as well, and that is to train the Iraqis so they can do the fighting; make sure they can stand up to defend their freedoms, which they want to do."
- Bush, June 2, 2005
"Our goal is clear: a democratic and peaceful Iraq that represents all Iraqis."
- Bush, June 24, 2005
"Our military strategy is clear: We will train Iraqi security forces so they can defend their freedom and protect their people, and then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned."
- Bush, June 25, 2005
"Our mission in Iraq is clear: We're hunting down the terrorists. We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We're advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren."
- Bush, June 28, 2005
Is it clear?
Daily Kos: 7 Years Ago (Updated with Sources)
We Are Not Winning this War, Because We Cannot Win It
by Stirling Newberry
Thu Jun 30th, 2005 at 09:06:50 CDT
When the United States was preparing to invade Afgahnistan, reports were compiled based on previous involvements in that region. Of course, it had been the site of numerous brush wars between the British and the Russians - or their proxies - during what was called "The Great Game". Of course the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was looked at.
[The Document Archive is here and here. The DSM texts are here.]
There were some harsh lessons for the USSR in Afgahnistan, and an objective reading of American involvement in Iraq is that we decided to confirm everyone of them by repeating each and every one of the mistakes that the USSR made.
* Diaries ::
* Stirling Newberry's diary :: ::
What leaps out looking at the documents available from the USSR and its invasion and occupation in Afghanistan, are the eerie parallels to the Downing Street Memos. In both cases the picture emerges of an ideologically rigid hierarchy committed to particular end states, regardless of whether they had the means to achieve them. To go even farther, in both cases there was an obsession with how the action would be framed, and with managing the proxies and internal bureaucracy - instead of facing the facts on the mission.
Afghanistan is a Russian Word, it Means "Iraq".
From the date of invasion in December of 1979 until the Politburo approved a pull out of Soviet forces some 7 years later the Soviet forces in Afghanistan suffered, on average 5 fatalities per day, and some 13 wounded of all kinds. In the involvement in Iraq from the invasion until today, the United States has suffered 2.3 fatalities per day, and an average of 15 wounded. In short, the difference in intensity of combat between the Soviet invasion of Afghaninstan and the US invasion of Iraq is that, on average, 2.7 people per day who would have died before are, instead, saved by better armor and better medical facilities. An analysis of medical casualties confirms this.
It is widely held in the Sovietology community that the USSR's involvement in Afghanistan was the "straw that broke the camel's back", that it launched, or dramatically accelerated, the death spiral of that regime, because it placed a constant drain on legitimacy and resources that could not be plugged. The USSR had been seen either fought long defensive struggles (such as the "Great Patriotic War" as they call their involvement in World War II), or short and successful invasions. In fact it is notable how often the Russians had avoided placing their own troops in harms way when the United States had committed them.
And yet the Soviet Union remained in Afghanistan, because a pull out was "unthinkable". At each stage of the war, the Soviet Union denied the parallels to the American experience in Vietnam. They saw their intervention as aid to the legitimat government of Afghanistan, and an attempt to produce "national reconciliation". Where as they saw the US as engaging in a war of Imperialism.
The United States is currently fighting a war of similar intensity to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and faces the same political quagmire: pulling out is unthinkable, and yet, the US military is ill suited to the very role which it has been thrust into. As with the Soviet Ground Forces, the successor to the "Red Army", the US military is designed to enter with overwhelming force and crush the military capability of the population, and control the vital population centers.
Moreover, American foreign policy architects see their role in terms strikingly similar to the Soviet view of Afghanistan, namely that there was an overwhelming threat to the State from a relentless outside force, and the invasion was seen entirely in terms of protecting the state from that outside force. For the USSR it was the West, for Bush, it is "terrorism". This created an ideologically rigid climate where intervention would go forward...
The Tar Baby
In both cases military leadership objected to the plans put forward. In the case of the Soviet Union the Marshall of the General Staff objected to the small size of the force, labelled the "Limited Contingent", and the lack of a clear political objective. Where the forces there to protect the regime? Were they there to pacify the country, what was "National Reconciliation?" anyway?
In the United States General Tommy Franks put forward a deployment plan that involved a two prong assault and over 300,000 troops. This was rejected by Rumsfeld - a member of the American cabinet, the equivalent to the USSR's politburo. Instead an invasion with half that number went forward. Rumsfeld, like his Soviet predecessors, argued that the superiority of military hardware would make this number sufficient for the mission.
The same objections that the Soviet General Staff raised to the Afghanistan mission were raised by the British military directory - the troops were insufficient for the "total victory" endstate envisioned - that is installation of a compliant and stable regime. The British pointed out that inferior endstates might have to be accepted. It is interesting that in a 1986 meeting of the politburo, the same realization was reached by Andrei Gromyko - that total victory was outside of Soviet grasp given the resources.
This problem - that the forces involved were not large enough to force a military victory, but they were too expensive to allow a full scale reconstruction - haunted Soviet post-mortems in 1986 and 1987. These failures are already being admitted by American planners and internal critics of the war in Iraq. The conclusion of the USSR's policy elite was that invasion was a mistake, and that the invasion was a lost cause long before withdrawal was considered.
What was missing from both the Soviet and American pre-war planning was the most basic reqirement of any military action: the vital interest being defended. In both cases war was waged out of an ideological committment to installation of a regime of a particular kind. That is, it was an attempt to use tanks to garden the political landscape. There was not, in either case, a vital national interest at stake that could not have been met with other means.
This lead to the converse problem of withdrawal: after invasion and full strategic committment, the vital national interest was political victory itself. This is why, in 1986, the politburo was still worried about who would be in charge of this or that function, who would visit Moscow, who would get how much policy freedom. There was no concern about what interest was at stake, because the sunk political capital became too valuable to lose.
The Bush speech this week shows that the United States is in the same position. There was no vital interest at stake, because Bush could not state one in a sentence. The rationale was purely for political hegemony, and a view to the "justness" of the Bush executive's intentions....
Daily Kos: We Are Not Winning this War, Because We Cannot Win It
[Crossposted at BopNews, remember to subscribe to our podcast.]
DSM FOIA Conyers Goes After Records (Rawstory)
by Apian [Subscribe]
Thu Jun 30th, 2005 at 15:43:55 CDT
"52 House members file FOIA request seeking documents related to Downing Street minutes."
RAWSTORY: BREAKING JUNE 30, DSM FOIA
"Representative John Conyers, Jr., (D-MI) House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member, along with 51 other Members today submitted a broad and comprehensive FOIA request to the White House, the Department of Defense, and the Department of State seeking any and all documents and materials concerning the Downing Street Minutes and the lead up to the Iraq war, RAW STORY has learned."
"In addition, the Members also formally requested that the House Committees on Judiciary, Armed Services, International Relations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence commence hearings on the Downing Street Minutes."
* Diaries ::
* Apian's diary :: ::
Well, things are coming along nicely.
I ran two searches on diaries to see if this was covered.. so for now I'll go with it. The letter:
Mr. Brett Gerry
Office of Counsel to the President
Ms. Margaret Grafield
Information & Privacy Co-Ordinator
Mr C.Y. Talbott
Chief, Office of Freedom of Information & Security
June 30, 2005
Re: Request Submitted Under the Freedom of Information Act.
Dear Sirs and Madam:
This letter constitutes a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Recently leaked memoranda from Great Britain indicate that the US and the UK may have engaged in communications over the use of Iraqi intelligence, the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and potential military action in Iraq throughout the summer of 2002. This is allege to have occurred long before the Administration sought Congressional authority to engage in such military action. Because these memoranda raise serious questions over when these important decisions were made, we seek the release of all agency records, including but not limited o handwritten notes, formal correspondence, electronic mail messages, intelligence reports and other memoranda, as described in the numbered paragraphs below:
1. All original statements, documents, press releases, and the like,. and copies of the same, publicly issued, or available related to the lead-up to military action in Iraq, beginning with President Bush's transition into office in 2000 through the present.
2. All original documents, and copies of the same, as well as statements related to the subject matter of the Downing Street Minutes of July 23, 2002 and all similar and related memoranda.
3. All records regarding the collection and analysis of intelligence related to Iraq and to whether it possessed weapons of mass destruction, the type of weapons of mass destruction Iraq possessed, and any ties between Iraq and al Qaeda for the last ten years, i.e. January 1, 1995 to the date of issuance of the records in response to this request.
Daily Kos: DSM FOIA Conyers Goes After Records (Rawstory)
Wesley Clark Takes it to Bill O'Reilly
by Dave B
Thu Jun 30th, 2005 at 09:38:52 CDT
Last night "FOX Military Analyst" Wesley Clark made an appearance on the "No Spin Zone" with Bill O'Reilly. Mark Williams over at DEM bloggers was kind enough to post a clip of the interview. I watched the interview and it really took me back how batshit crazy O'Reilly appeared in an interview with a guy who stayed cool an on point.
Anyone interested can watch the clip here.
Two of the important points that Clark made were:
1) in response to O'Reilly's complaint about the NYT editorial page writing about Abu Graib fifty times - Clark: we should have a full investigation from top down so that we could put all that to rest.
2) in response to O'Reilly's comment that Clark was being too naive and sounded like Kerry, wanting to bring Germany and France in to help us and that O'Reilly wants to fight a war which instills fear in the terrorists -
Clark: "I want to fight a war that brings the full weight of every government in the world and all its people against the small number of people who are terrorists, not a war in which terrorists can get sympathy because of the way they are supposedly treated by the U.S. I've worked with France and Germany; I did diplomacy; I know what those countries have done if they're motivated the right way and can be led by the United States; I know they're doing a lot behind the scenes. What we need to do is put them in a position where they have got to come over to our side. It's leadership."
O'Reilly dominated a little but at one point O'Reilly kidded that Clark was going to take over the broadcast when they returned after commercial. Clark was on for two segments. I hear that the other segment is better than this one, and in the comments Mark says he's coming out with the other half of the interview later today.
I know there was a whole lot of hand wringing and consternation among many KOS readers about Clark going on FOX, but if this interview is a sign of things to come I for one am pleased to have someone on FOX speaking for our side
Is a pompus ass. 12%
Is batshit crazy. 9%
Can't get his mind off of Luffa games long enough to form a logical arguement. 4%
All of the above. 73%
None of the above. 0%
Daily Kos: Wesley Clark Takes it to Bill O'Reilly
New Zogby Poll -- Bush's Dead Cat Bounce has ended
by synuclein [Subscribe]
Thu Jun 30th, 2005 at 15:44:23 CDT
Here's a link to the new Zogby poll -- following up on the prime time speechifying by GWB.
The headline on the poll reads:
"No Bounce: Bush Job Approval Unchanged by War Speech; Question on Impeachment Shows Polarization of Nation; Americans Tired of Divisiveness in Congress--Want Bi-Partisan Solutions"
His overall approval drops 1 point (within the MOE) to 42%.
The coolest thing is that 42% of Americans are starting to express interest in the "I" word -- impeachment (if the Prez misled the nation about the reasons for war in Iraq -- If???, If??? -- this guy and the administration kept stepping forward with phrases like "grave and gathering threat" and the infamous "mushroom cloud")
Maybe this will get things moving on the DSM -- of course -- this is only the populace, not Congress.
Daily Kos: New Zogby Poll -- Bush's Dead Cat Bounce has ended
CT Passes Depleted Uranium Law for Veterans
by Patricia Taylor [Subscribe]
Wed Jun 29th, 2005 at 12:46:48 CDT
I have written in the past regarding pending legislation which would benefit Connecticut veterans and its process through the state legislature. This diary is for those voters in Connecticut who supported this legislation, and for those voters in other states who are considering similar laws:
* Diaries ::
* Patricia Taylor's diary :: ::
Last night, the Connecticut Legislature, in Special Session, voted to pass Bill No. 7502, AN ACT CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF VARIOUS BUDGETARY PROVISIONS. Within this bill, Representative Roger Michele made sure that two sections covering legislation forwarded from the CT House and Senate to provide testing for depleted uranium and a medical registry for returning CT National Guard were included for passage.
Direct credit and thanks for the passage of this legislation that will benefit Connecticut Veterans goes to Representative Roger Michele (D-77, Chair, Select Committee on Veterans Affairs). Without his stewardship through the process, these laws would never have made it to the floor of the Senate or seen inclusion in this bill.
The legislation originated with a bill sponsored by Representative Pat Dillon (D-92). Senator Gayle Slossberg (D-S14) added her efforts and language to a bill concerning a medical registry for returning veterans in the Senate.
Here is the text of the sections passed that will provide needed medical process, including testing for exposure to depleted uranium, a health study and a medical registry for returning veterans of the CT National Guard...
Daily Kos: CT Passes Depleted Uranium Law for Veterans
Bush creates a TU and Iraq's "Class of 05 problem"
by dengre [Subscribe]
Wed Jun 29th, 2005 at 11:40:48 CDT
Bush has created a Terrorism University in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of training camps (in the weekend warrior right-wing-militia model), al-Qaida now has live-action training theatres where they can hone their skills against the best America has to offer. Missing from Bush's speech was any acknowledgement that Iraq has become the world's leading training center for terrorist. He did present the "we fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" line as yet another BS reason to justify the war. Missing is what will happen when the graduates from Iraq's TU use their training to export terror across the globe. One wonders how much support the war will have once IEDs start blowing up on America roads. At least the CIA is aware of the threat. More on the jump...
* Diaries ::
* dengre's diary :: ::
They call it the "Class of 05 Problem":
The CIA produced a study this May on a topic so sensitive that even the title is classified. The paper discussed the environment in which jihadists trained at Al Qaeda's camps in Taliban-run Afghanistan, contrasting that against the environment in which Iraq's insurgents are mastering the techniques of urban warfare. For starters, not all new recruits in Afghanistan necessarily hated America before undergoing Al Qaeda indoctrination. In Iraq, on the other hand, hostility toward America is practically the only thing that all insurgents agree on-foreign infiltrators and native recruits alike. And jihadists in Iraq are getting direct, on-the-job training in a real-life insurgency, with hands-on experience in bombing, sniping and all the skills of urban warfare, unlike the essentially artificial training that was given at Al Qaeda's rural Afghan camps. One of the paper's main points is that America's Iraqi troubles will not end with the insurgency. In effect, Iraq is producing a new corps of master terrorists with an incandescent hatred for the United States-the "Class of '05 problem," as it's called in the shorthand of CIA analysts.
This needs DSM style attention from the netroots.
Daily Kos: Bush creates a TU and Iraq's "Class of 05 problem"
GOP frets over public’s economic worries
The economy hasn't been doing so hot, but Washington, D.C. doesn't really seem to have noticed...
...in Washington, the political class has been consumed with the death of a brain-damaged woman in Florida, the ethics of the House majority leader, and the fate of the Senate filibuster.
The disconnect between pocketbook concerns of ordinary Americans and the preoccupations of their politicians has helped send President Bush's approval ratings on the economy down, while breeding discontent with Congress. The problem has yet to grow into a political wave that could sweep significant numbers of lawmakers from power next year, but both parties face risks if they fail to pivot their attention to economic issues.
Few economists would say the nation is at risk of slipping back into recession, but most believe the United States is back in a "soft patch." Inflation jumped 0.6 percent in March, the Labor Department said yesterday, the biggest price surge in five months. The 115-point plunge that followed the inflation announcement brought the Dow Jones Industrial Average to its lowest level of the year, 842 points below the height it reached in late December, when Wall Street rallied after Bush's reelection. An average gallon of unleaded gasoline cost $2.22 yesterday, 27 cents higher than election week.
Perhaps most important, wages are not keeping up with prices.
"People feel vulnerable and besieged," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute, "and they don't hear anybody talking about it."
Yet the only economic bills signed into law this year have tilted against the little guy: Legislation that restricts class-action lawsuits, and a major rewrite of the nation's bankruptcy laws, signed yesterday, that will make it harder for debt-ridden Americans to wipe out their obligations...
Penndit: Political Impact of Economic Worries: GOP Starting to Pee in Pants.
and too bad our national myth... (4.00 / 8)
about American democracy being the best damn democratic system in this here world still holds so much weight.
I'm no poilitical scientist, but I don't know of other democratic countries that would be pinning all their hopes on an "impeachment" process that, at best, is 2 years away and is dependent on the (some might say unlikely) scenario of winning back the House in 2006. Democracies more functional than ours have mechanisms for voter recall or more straightforward votes of no confidence when extreme nutjobs like Chimpy and his minions overreach. Now, I live in Japan, and here it is the Prime Minister's own party that instigates a vote of no confidence when sagging popularity endangers their individual re-election prospects. But we all know that the chances of moderate rethugs getting the impeachment ball rolling are about as big as Cheney's Grinchy little ticker. What's wrong with this picture?
too bad our default response is that we have no choice but to wait before we can depose these clowns.
too bad, indeed, for our soldiers who will die before impeachment.
and too bad for the countless Iraqi citizens whom our bombs and their bombs will kill before impeachment.
Anyone who studies happiness is bound to end up leaning left -- George Loewenstein
by tsurube on Thu Jun 30th, 2005 at 02:01:19 CDT
Daily Kos :: Comments Dangerous Incompetence
Conservative Homeless Man Tells Me to Get a Life
by Tony Seybert
He tried to spout off all the talking points about illegal immigration ruining the country, but I was not in the mood. And I didn't try to debate him. I just said, "That's bullshit" and also "That's fucking bullshit" for a little variety.
Finally he said: "Listen to the flaming liberal."
And I said: "You don't have to be a liberal to know racist bullshit when you hear it and I don't listen to racist bullshit."
And he started to tell me about how hard it was for him to get work as a day laborer, how he hangs around at Home Depot, but the Mexicans get picked before him. They won't pick him because he's old and because he's white. That's what he says. (He's not that old, under 50. He's also frequently drunk. He wasn't drunk tonight though.)
Well, for a moment, I felt really sorry for him. I COULD have suggested that he had made a lot of bad choices in his life. I COULD have asked why employers have any responsibility to choose him for day work. I COULD have suggested he wasn't picked because he reeked of booze. But I didn't say any of that. I couldn't say that to a deluded, frustrated, unlucky man. I was done done talking politics with him. He needed help. I fished around in my pockets for some quarters and a Susan B. Anthony dollar I was pretty sure I still had.
But he didn't finish with his frustration about Mexicans taking jobs away from him. He said liberals don't care about the regular guy. And he told me: "Get a life!"
A homeless man, begging for change, blaming the failures of his life on the Mexicans, bagging on "liberals," told me to get a life!
I put my money back in my pocket, said "Seeya later," and walked away as he said, "Hey, you got any change?"
Dude. Go ask Governor Schwarzenegger for a hand-out. See if those whackos in the Minutemen or Save Our State will give you a job "protecting the borders."
Homeless conservatives must learn. Free speech has consequences.
Daily Kos: Conservative Homeless Man Tells Me to Get a Life
The Eigth Circle of Hell... (none / 0)
is the skybox loge for politicians:
The eigth circle is called Malebolge, which means "Evil-Pouches," because the circle is divided into ten different sections around the chasm in the middle. In the first pouch, Dante saw sinners being scourged by demons as they unsuccessfully tried to escape the whips. Dante thought he saw someone he knew, and although the shade tried to conceal himself by lowering his head, Dante did indeed recognize him to be Venedico Caccianemico. He asked him why he was being punished there, and Venedico explained that he had persuaded a girl named Ghisolabella to do what the Marquis wanted: he was a pander. Venedico also said that there were many other people from Bologna there, like him. A demon then interrupted their conversation and make Venedico go with the others. Climbing along the ridge, Dante then pointed out to Virgil another shade who looked noble even though he was being lashed. This, Virgil said, was Jason, who was being punished for his behavior towards Hypsipyle, a girl he had seduced and abandoned, and Medea. The inhabitants of the first pouch are thus panders and seducers.
Panderers and seducers...synonyms for politician.
...put your flags in the air and march them up and down you can live it up, live it up all over the town... - The Escape Club: Wild Wild West
by rgilly on Wed Jun 29th, 2005 at 13:52:53 CDT
Yes, but (none / 0)
In the ninth circle of hell we find space reserved for those "Treacherous to Country", a more accurate classification for most of the high-level neocons. Davis may get off with an easy eternity in Malebolge, but I'd guess that the ninth would be a better spot for many of his fellow party-members.
by Field Marshall Stack on Wed Jun 29th, 2005 at 20:22:43 CDT
Daily Kos :: Comments Tom Davis (R-VA)- Democrats can't own MLB teams
No Fish Tale: Thais Catch 646-Pound Fish
By DANIEL LOVERING, Associated Press Writer Thu Jun 30, 9:52 AM ET
BANGKOK, Thailand - This big one did not get away. Thai fishermen netted a 646-pound catfish believed to have been the world's largest freshwater fish ever caught in Thailand, a researcher said Thursday.
The nearly 9-foot-long Mekong giant catfish was landed May 1 by villagers in Chiang Khong, a remote district in northern Thailand, and weighed by Thai fisheries department officials, said Zeb Hogan, who leads an international project to locate and study the world's largest freshwater fish species.
He confirmed it was the heaviest fish on record since Thailand started keeping such statistics in 1981.
The Mekong giant catfish was listed as critically endangered in 2003 after research showed its numbers had fallen by at least 80 percent in the past 13 years.
Fishermen believe the catfish species has been declining largely because of dams and environmental damage along the Mekong River — home to more species of giant fish than any other river, said an earlier statement by WWF and the society.
No Fish Tale: Thais Catch 646-Pound Fish - Yahoo! News
Genesis 4th chapter, XXIst century edition: George: A hands on Jonah
Fri Mar 25th, 2005 at 20:02:57 CDT
4:6 The Lord God appointed a cadre of faithful Christians and caused them to support and serve George, to be a shield over his misdeeds, to rescue him from the misery George's opponents threw at him. Now George was very delighted about his Christian Right followers
4:7 So God sent a worm of doubt over his Christian Right followers.. the courts ordered the feeding tubes removed from Terri, a woman whose brain was in vegetative state, so that she died of dehydration.
4:8 When the sun light started to shine on Bush's team many misdeeds, God sent a hot wind of public outrage towards George's allies corrupt deeds and his seat at the WH started getting hot. But the worm of doubt had dried George's usual source of blind support. So the religious right beat down on George's head, and his support among the Christian Right started growing faint . So he and his allies despaired, and said, " We would rather destroy the US Judiciary and the US Constitution than lose our beloved Christian Right support. Terri must not die but live!
Daily Kos: Genesis 4th chapter, XXIst century edition: George: A hands on Jonah
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is, it is important not to overinterpret gaps.
Daily Kos :: Comments Law, Freedom and Recognition: From unlikely sources
Law, Freedom and Recognition: From unlikely sources
by lucid [Subscribe]
Thu Jun 30th, 2005 at 01:25:13 CDT
As I am an audio engineer & musician, I often partake of BB's [not Blogs...] that have a completely different perspective from the DKos community. In fact, many of the best are run by very conservatively religious people. When politics come up, rather than fighting with those who run the boards, you have to speak the language they know, 'The Bible'. Tonight, in one of them, a discussion arose about Matthew 5:17. This was my response to a lot of historically challenged understanding, and I'll explain on the flip side why it is relevent.
* Diaries ::
* lucid's diary :: ::
On Matthew 5:17
For one, I think that all of you are misinterpreting this verse. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I come not to abolish but to fulfill." OK, it has nothing to do with mistranslation [I know ancient Greek too], it has to do with a misunderstanding of what `the law' is. The Jews were a migrant community [who, by the way, were never enslaved by Egypt according to all historical & archaeological records - hence no Moses, no 10 Commandments, and no `Promised Land' - fables told by peoples enslaved elsewhere]. They distinguished themselves from other migrant communities in the area by their law. They were enslaved by numerous other regional players - the Babylonians, the Greeks, and eventually, the Romans.
The `law', as it was understood, was what distinguished themselves from their captors [though all of those captors themselves had a system of law]. Their `law', what they established through their trials and tribulations in the ancient world, was `their freedom'. It distinguished them. It gave them their identity in servitude - it gave them a hope for self-determination, as it differentiated them from their immediate misery. The realization of the `law' in an autonomous, self-determining community was `their freedom'. There were many prophets, starting with Daniel, who began to wield the idea of `the law' as freedom - it was specifically intended to foment revolt against the social and political orders in which they were little more than slaves. Along comes Jesus - while the Jews were basically occupied by Rome. `I am the fulfillment of the law'. `I am your freedom'. 'I will fulfill the law', while at the same time 'chastise those pahrisees who have sold us out to Rome' - they are the keepers of the `old law'.
So there are two themes going on - the `old law' as exemplified by the religious leaders of the community who had sold the Jewish people out, yet again, to an imperial power. But further, the `old law' as that which distinguished Jews from their captors & thereby represented their `freedom'.
This, in a nutshell, is what that single line of text really means [particularly in the context of Matthew, who was the greatest champion of the `revolutionary prophet' idea among the 4 gospels that were ADOPTED BY ROME in 400 CE due to the widespread rebellion against the empire that had ensued the political rabble rousing by one called Jesus.]
Believe me, don't just read `The Bible'. Read all the other `gospels' and apocrypha. What we know as `The Bible' is a collection of texts that was amenable to a bunch of Monarchs who wanted to squash a revolution.
Actually, I appreciate the Matthew reference, because he was one of the few that integrated the 'revolutionary spirit' of the ideas proffered by Jesus."
What I was trying to get at in my comment is that which we most fundamentally believe - the law is our freedom. Whether we feel our current, specific law 'is our freedom' is beside the point. We make freedom in law - a binding contract with each other as to how the rights and recognitions of all of us are understood and respected in a public world. Law, for all its foibles and inconsistencies, is the most established way in which we have recognized each other as human beings - as equals.
We should never shit on it, even when it is wrong.
Daily Kos: Law, Freedom and Recognition: From unlikely sources
When Warren Buffet warned us of a sharecropper society he wasn't kidding! Except that the new "land" to be protected by moats and castle walls will be Energy production facilities -- law
And how did you get to be king (4.00 / 2)
Perhaps a laugh to counter the outrage of this nonsense (substitute your name in your favorite part):
Arthur: Old woman!
Arthur: Man, sorry... What knight lives in that castle over there?
Dennis: I'm 37!
Dennis: I'm 37, I'm not old!
Arthur: Well I can't just call you "Man"...
Dennis: You could say "Dennis"...
Arthur: I didn't know you were called Dennis.
Dennis: Well you didn't bother to find out, did you?
Arthur: I did say sorry about the old woman, but from behind you looked...
Dennis: (interrupting) What I object to is your automatically treatin' me like an inferior!
Arthur: Well I AM king...
Dennis: Oh, King, eh? Oh, very nice... And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society! If there's ever gonna be any progress in our society...
Woman: Denny, there's some lovely filth down here! Oh! How d'you do?
Arthur: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Whose castle is that?
Woman: King of the who?
Arthur: The Britons.
Woman: Who are the Britons?
Arthur: Well we all are... We are all Britons... And I am your king.
Woman: I didn't know we had a king... I thought we were an autonomous collective.
Dennis: You're foolin' yourself. We're livin' in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes...
Woman: (interrupting) Oh there you go, bringing class into it again...
Dennis: That's what it's all about! If only people would...
Arthur: Please, please, good people, I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
Woman: No one lives there.
Arthur: Then who is your lord?
Woman: We don't have a lord.
Dennis: I told you. We're an anarcho-cynicalist commune. We take it in turns to sort of act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
Dennis: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
Arthur: Yes I see.
Dennis: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs...
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: But by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major...
Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?
Arthur: I am your king!
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you!
Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king!
Dennis: (interrupting) Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcicial aquatic ceremony!
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: Oh but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: SHUT UP!
Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bink lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Arthur: SHUT UP! WILL YOU SHUT UP!
Dennis: Ah! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: SHUT UP!
Dennis: Oh, come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Arthur: (muttering) Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressin' me? You saw it, didn't you?
"It's been headed this way since the World began, when a vicious creature made the jump from Monkey to Man."--Elvis Costello
by BigOkie on Thu Jun 30th, 2005 at 06:18:53 CDT
Daily Kos :: Comments Senate Votes to Gut the New Deal and No One Notices
It's the end of the World as we know it. And Bush feels fine
by lawnorder [Unsubscribe] [Edit Diary]
Tue Nov 30th, 2004 at 01:26:56 CDT
Someone commenting on the freaky way Neocons have been acting lately:
They just don't care anymore
I think an asteroid is about to his us, and those who know about it don't really care about anything anymore
It's not exactly what I suspect, but it is close enough: All those mad schemes and risks taken by Bush & neocons in the past 4 years can only be justified AND SUPPORTED by a large segment of America's bigwigs IF SOMETHING BIG (& BAD) is about to happen And I believe I know what it is:
Some claim PEAK OIL has hit us already. some claim it will hit us soon (between 2007 and 2030). It could derail civilization as we have known in the 20th century. It's just a matter of time.
Those who are "on top" are trying to find a way to stay there regardless of the peak oil wave of change...
Now ask yourself: From what industry Bush, Cheney and the Saudis are ? And what industry would know the true risk of Peak Oil hiting soon ?
* Diaries ::
* lawnorder's diary :: ::
The text below is from Dale Allen's article: The Background To 911 Is Oil
What will happen when the Oil ends ?
The civilization we live in today is based entirely on hydrocarbons (by which term I mean both oil and natural gas).
* The energy which runs our technology is derived from hydrocarbons.
* The energy which does our work is derived from hydrocarbons.
* The energy which powers our homes, our transportation and which generates our electricity is all largely derived from hydrocarbons.
* All of the plastics which surround us with consumer goods are derived from hydrocarbons. - Our produce is fed with hydrocarbon-based fertilizers and sprayed with hydrocarbon-based pesticides.
Every person in the US has the energy equivalent of a dozen slaves working for him or her
Why this dependency on oil? ..In short, there is no other source which can provide for the energy needs of our present civilization.
Why this dependency on oil? Simply put, there is no other energy source which holds as much energy per unit. The only exception to this is uranium, which is dangerous, difficult to work with, and far too rare an element to ever provide for more than a small percentage of our energy needs.
1 Even the highest grade of coal only holds about 50% as much energy as an equivalent quantity of hydrocarbons.
2 Renewable energy resources can provide nowhere near enough energy to meet our current needs.
3 Fusion remains, as ever, just beyond our grasp. The highly touted hydrogen fuel cells are not an energy source but a form of energy storage; the energy contained in the fuel cell must be generated from another source.
4 In short, there is no other source which can provide for the energy needs of our present civilization.
Life After the Oil Crash
Way worse than Global Warming, Peak Oil will hit US hard in the next 30 years, perhaps starting as soon as 2007
This site spells it out:
Life After the Oil Crash
Are you ready for $7 per gallon gas, $182 per barrel oil, 50 percent yearly inflation, total economic collapse, unending resource wars, and a large-scale reinstitution of the military draft?
Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky conclusion of a religious cult, but rather the result of diligent analysis sourced by hard data and the scientists who study global "Peak Oil" and related geopolitical events.
So who are these nay-sayers who claim the sky is falling? Conspiracy fanatics? Nostradamus fans? Apocalypse Bible prophecy readers? To the contrary, they are some of the most respected, highest paid geologists, physicists, petroleum engineers, and investment bankers in the world. These are logical, rational, and conservative people and they are absolutely terrified about the situation. This is why it's so scary.
The situation is so dire, even George W. Bush's Energy Adviser, Matthew Simmons, has acknowledged "The situation is desperate. This is the world's biggest serious question" In an August 2003 interview, Mr. Simmons was asked if it was time for Peak Oil to become part of the public policy debate. He responded:
"It is past time. As I have said, the experts and politicians have no Plan B to fall back on. If energy peaks, particularly while 5 of the world's 6.5 billion people have little or no use of modern energy, it will be a tremendous jolt to our economic well-being and to our heath - greater than anyone could ever imagine."
When asked if there is a solution, Simmons responded:
"I don't think there is one. The solution is to pray. Under the best of circumstances, if all prayers are answered, there will be no crisis for maybe two years. After that it's a certainty."
Simmons' message has remained consistent. At a May 2004 conference on Peak Oil, he predicted oil will be priced at $182 per barrel in the near future - over five times its current price. Keep in mind, this is Simmons' prediction for oil prices in the near future. It's anybody's guess how high they will be in 10 or 15 years
And if you haven't done so, just think about the Oil prices and their ripple effect on the economy
How bad could it be ?
There's a doom & gloom group on Yahoo who REALLY scare the sh*t out of me on Peak Oil woes: Crash of banks, crash of industry, Great depression...
Here's a smattering of posts from them
have you read joseph george caldwell (and many others, undoubtedly), on the inevitable return of slavery worldwide? those slaves are going to be damn tired powering the ham radios while the masters try to find out how bad they're killing each other in the cities.
my goal is not to end up as one of the slaves.
- doug in new york
Re: Diabetes....what medicine?
Grow artichokes. Contains a insuline substitute, similar name, don't
remember exactly though.
Not only are artichokes edible, they have nice sunflower-like flowers
(actually realated to sunflower), and are very difficult to get rid of
once you've planted them...
Will do nicely with game meat or as soup.
..The reward of oil for elites must be sufficient enough for the sacrifice of blood and money input so far. Otherwise, I believe we never would have invaded Iraq in the first place... All we posters can do is try to post-analyze and try to somehow keep up with what the elites are doing. I believe they have developed a 35 year headstart on us when the Hubbert Peak for U.S. was confirmed in 1971.
* Scoop: Scoop Feature: The Background To 911 Is Oil
* So what happens when Oil runs out ? North Korea's story
* Anything Into Oil: From Turkey to Crude Oil
* While We'll Never Run Out Of Oil, we will run out of cheap oil
* Oil prices and their ripple effect on the economy
* Is the world running out of cheap Oil ?
Daily Kos: It's the end of the World as we know it. And Bush feels fine
Someone commenting on the freaky way Neocons have been acting lately:
They just don't care anymore. I think an asteroid is about to his us, and those who know about it don't really care about anything anymore
It's not exactly what I suspect, but it is close enough: All those mad schemes and risks taken by Bush & neocons in the past 4 years can only be justified AND SUPPORTED by a large segment of America's bigwigs IF SOMETHING BIG (& BAD) is about to happen And I believe I know what it is:
Some claim PEAK OIL has hit us already. some claim it will hit us soon (between 2007 and 2030). It will be a rough ride with unemployment, recession and perhaps even a new Depression. Those who are "on top" are trying to find a way to stay there regardless of the peak oil wave of change...
Now ask yourself: From what industry Bush, Cheney and the Saudis are ? And what industry would know the true risk of Peak Oil hiting soon ?
by lawnorder on Thu Jun 30th, 2005 at 03:01:20 CDT
I've wondered that too (4.00 / 2)
So many things they've done don't make any sense. Charging blindly ahead on their chosen course even when it has become blindingly obvious to everyone that it's not working. Stubbornly hammering away at their agenda even as the polls go in the tank. Like the serial killer whose crimes become more and more outlandish until he is caught, their actions only make sense in the context of someone who knows the hammer will fall no matter what they do and it's only a matter of time.
The question is what hammer they expect to fall. I've wondered if it's peak oil. For someone whose whole life has been deeply embedded in the oil business, peak oil might seem a little like armageddon.
Another possibility I wonder about is The Emerging Democratic Majority. I wonder if they realize this may be the Neocons' last hurrah and they're trying to accomplish as much of their agenda as possible before they go back in the fringes. That could also explain the increasing shrillness of the Dominionists as they realize they're about to lose their ride too.
by ignorant bystander on Thu Jun 30th, 2005 at 06:36:21 CDT
Daily Kos :: Comments Dangerous Incompetence
"Dems Poised To Take NY, CA, OH, MA Governorships
Not to pile on about the tanking of Arnold (see R. Michael Alvarez post below) and other GOP Govs, but My DD's Chris Bowers paints a very bright picture of Democratic prospects for taking the GOP-held governorships of several of the most populous States. Do visit his website and read 'The Big Democratic Opportunity of 2006: Governors.' Here's some teasers:
Ohio. Bob Taft has the lowest approval rating of any Governor in the nation. Mike DeWine has the lowest approval rating of any Senator up for re-election in 2006. Republicans in the state are embroiled in Coin-gate, and congressman Bob Ney is even deeper in Abramoff's pocket than DeLay. Democrats can easily gain on every level here in 2006.
California. In the largest state in the Union, Schwarzenegger is circling the drain...
New York. Right now, there does not seem to be any realistic scenario under which Spitzer will not win this race in 2006. Already, he regularly leads Pataki with more than 50% of the vote, while Pataki rots in the thirties. Incumbents can't pull out of tailspins like that....
Massachusetts. Multiple polls...have shown that Romney is in a lot of trouble in the most Democratic state in the nation.
Bowers discusses the Dems improving prospects in seven states in all, and savors the implications...
The Emerging Democratic Majority WebLog - DonkeyRising:
"Even the jungle wanted him dead"
Tue Oct 19th, 2004 at 01:15:03 CDT
"and that's who he really took his orders from."
This line keeps coming to mind. It is applied to Kurtz in Apocalypse Now. He has gone rogue and set himself up as a god among the tribes. He has become powerful and corrupt and depraved. His methods, unsound.
Bush didn't really expect to be president, and I dont think he expected a 2nd term until 9/11. I sometimes think the drugged look we often catch on W, that glazed vacancy behind the bully's bravado, is the remnant of his conscience slowly grasping the horror.
The soldiers, the generals, the CIA, they all want him gone. State especially. They have bided their time, and now they emerge, in leaked reports and non-fiction bestsellers. In CDs of brazen photographs, and military memos they circle Caesar and draw daggers.
Colin Powell pre-emptively quits, remaining obedient while salvaging whatever dignity or self respect he has left by refusing to front for the junta if they stay in power.
A memo emerges showing that Gen. Sanchez had asked for more than he was given, directly contradicting a top Bush soundbite.
Someone requested a CIA study of the future if Iraq, it was leaked a couple months after Cheney et al got it, so they could continue to lie about Iraq for a while. Tenet's revenge?
Prominent republicans, from the rare rational moderates, to hardcore libertarians are publicly disclaiming Bush for having betrayed their principles one too many times in pursuit of his theocorporate version of fascism.
Rats flee the ship, from O'Reilly to Carlson, they cover their asses, refusing bush while slandering Kerry. A few gather around the limping Dan Rather and raise their cute little rat fists.
Dupes in pickup trucks intimidate canvassers or trample yard signs and the Constitution, while crooks in public buildings work to stop the voters from voting. Smell the fear?
I know I missed some, please help out!
Daily Kos: "Even the jungle wanted him dead"
The president, who is going to be in office for another three and a half years, cannot continue to obsess about self-justification and the need to color Iraq with the memory of 9/11. The nation does not want it and cannot afford it. -- law
President Bush's Speech About Iraq
President Bush told the nation last night that the war in Iraq was difficult but winnable. Only the first is clearly true. Despite buoyant cheerleading by administration officials, the military situation is at best unimproved. The Iraqi Army, despite Mr. Bush's optimistic descriptions, shows no signs of being able to control the country without American help for years to come. There are not enough American soldiers to carry out the job they have been sent to do, yet the strain of maintaining even this inadequate force is taking a terrible toll on the ability of the United States to defend its security on other fronts around the world.
Skip to next paragraph
Forum: Today's Editorials
We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks. We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal - beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion.
Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking. He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq....
Listening to Mr. Bush offer the usual emotional rhetoric about the advance of freedom and the sacrifice of American soldiers, our thoughts went back to some of the letters we received in anticipation of the speech. One was from the brother of a fallen Marine, who said he did not want Mr. Bush to say the war should continue in order to keep faith with the men and women who have died fighting it. "We do not need more justifications for the war. We need an effective strategy to win it," he wrote. Another letter came from an opponent of the invasion who urged the American left to "get over its anger over President Bush's catastrophic blunder" and start trying to figure out how to win the conflict that exists.
No one wants a disaster in Iraq, and Mr. Bush's critics can put aside, at least temporarily, their anger at the administration for its hubris, its terrible planning and its inept conduct of the war in return for a frank discussion of where to go from here. The president, who is going to be in office for another three and a half years, cannot continue to obsess about self-justification and the need to color Iraq with the memory of 9/11. The nation does not want it and cannot afford it.
President Bush's Speech About Iraq - New York Times
BUSH ACKNOWLEDGES ERRORS IN IRAQ
- Assumes Responsibility -
- Strong Bipartisan Support for New Path Forward -
...wait, what? ...he said what?
Hard Truth: BUSH ACKNOWLEDGES ERRORS IN IRAQ
News and notes (none / 0)
on NPR last night, one of the commentators stated that Bush is no longer concerned about public opinion; he's only focused on legacy.
he's sees his legacy not about success in the fight against terrorism, but rather the willingness and tenacity to pursue the terrorists. He knows that this won't die off before 2008, so he's left with a fighting nature as a legacy.
I thought that was right on. that's all he has left; no domestic success, no tax reform, no social security fix, no debt reduction.
The perception of a "Splendid little war" has left him with nothing more than a legacy of death.
The "War President" has given us perpetual war.
There is no peace plan, no benchmarks for periodic success. nothing but war and death.
by jackinthebox4 on Thu Jun 30th, 2005 at 08:34:42 CDT
Daily Kos :: Comments Dangerous Incompetence
They are what they are
The repugs and their think tanks are implementing their agenda. It is unfettered free market capitalism.. accumulation of wealth via class warfare... and control of the agenda and the government.
They have transfer enormous wealth via their tax cuts, tax loopholes, a special tax provisions for the privilidged who buy off the congress. They have restricted our civil rights by hyping a non war on terrorism and instilling fear in ordinary peole who have nothing to fear. Anyone can dream up doomsday scenarios for chemical plants in Ohio... It aint gonna happen.
There is decent evidence that they stole too elections... have abrogated international treaties such as the Geneva convention to protect them from criminal prosecution.
They have cynically used the crazy religious right who are end of timeers... dominionists and who see the militarism as biblical prophesy. They play to the fundies... b ut it is bait ans swtich... they want cash and power. Of course was is just a means to move enourmous amonts of tax dollars to the war machine.
The appeal to patriotism and divide the country and make dissent seem un american. They have lied, cheated, obfusgated and stonwalled to acheive their agenda. They are power freaks driven by lust for power and money. They have dismantled our democracy and destroyed the good will the US had around the world as an OFFICIAL US policy.
They have created the conditions for perpetual war which server their objectives... When the disenfranchised are so stirred up... we will be under attack around the world and we will be told we are in war war III against the global insurgency. The Brave New World of 1984 is happening now.
The collaborators will write columns, try to win elections and play as if this system can be reformed.. that when the (collaborators) dems get into power... the listing ship of state can be righted. Dream on. These people will have stolen so much and turned this country into a third world country... Of course their energy policy has been to keep the price high, make enormous profits for a life time and enough to ensure their heirs of the easy life... and left the rest of us to be demned...
Struggle we must.. but powerless and more powerless we are each passing day. Truth means nothing... In america it's the bottom line stupid and those with big ones are running the show and keeping it that way. They will not give it up without a bloddy fight.
by defjef on Thu Jun 30th, 2005 at 09:07:38 CDT
Daily Kos :: Comments Dangerous Incompetence
No solution and no apology as president runs out of ideas
Thursday June 30, 2005
George Bush's speech to the country from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, was an opportunity to show he knows what he is doing in Iraq. It was a chance to demonstrate that, despite past mistakes, he has a plan that will work.
Mr Bush also needed to counter the widespread perception that his administration is in a state of denial over the mounting casualties and costs that are dramatically eroding his poll ratings.
His Fort Bragg moment, if handled skillfully, might have enabled him to refute the Republican senator Chuck Hagel's widely quoted, armour-piercing jibe that the White House is "disconnected from reality [and] making it up as they go along".
But the president fluffed it.
Like a recidivist incapable of going straight, Mr Bush plunged back into the scaremongering rhetoric of last autumn's election campaign and once again deliberately conflated the Iraq war with the 9/11 terror attacks.
As before, he offered no way back and no joint, consensual path forward. Instead he ignored his critics, rewrapped himself in the flag, and gloried, from a safe distance, in the sacrifice of America's soldiers.
Oblivious to the inherent contradiction, he vowed to defeat a weakened, immoral enemy that was simultaneously ubiquitous and on the attack. "Terrorists who kill innocents on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania," he said. "There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11. For the sake of our nation's security, this will not happen on my watch."
This last phrase possibly offered the best clue to Mr Bush's second-term Iraq strategy, such as it is. He may lack new ideas, but he knows what he is not going to do.
There would be no timetable for a withdrawal, he said, despite claims that the American presence is the main problem. Nor would there be an unpopular, but arguably necessary, increase in troop numbers until Iraq's post-Saddam institutions were secured.
Off-stage, Mr Bush's chief adviser, Karl Rove, was busily drawing divisive domestic battlelines, lambasting Democrats and other "liberals" who he said wanted "to offer therapy and understanding for our attackers".
Most tellingly, Mr Bush once again refused to admit any mistakes before, during or after the 2003 invasion. There would be no raking over the past, Dan Bartlett, his communications director, insisted. In other words, Mr Bush does wars. He does freedom and he does democracy, as defined in Washington. But he does not do apologies.
What the president's "not on my watch" remark suggested instead was that as long as he occupies the White House, there would be no significant reconsideration of the present "three-war" strategy. This comprises the war to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan; the global "war on terror" (which now increasingly targets Iran); and the selective, preponderantly diplomatic war for democracy in the Middle East and beyond. This is how Mr Bush is beginning to define a legacy almost wholly lacking in domestic policy achievements.
But if the president is not for turning, the US public increasingly may be. All the indications are that Mr Bush's unionist-style no surrender, hang tough, trust-me patriotism is wearing thin.
Polls suggest that Americans just do not buy it any more. They feel they have been duped...
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | World briefing
Dumbya's legacy (4.00 / 2)
Leave it to a Brit to sum up the worry:
"Polls suggest that Americans just do not buy it any more. They feel they have been duped.
The assembled Fort Bragg troops gave Mr Bush only one spontaneous round of applause - the rank-and-file equivalent of a catcall.
Yet all would change in a moment if there were another successful al-Qaida attack on the US mainland.
Paradoxically, if any such a dreadful event were to occur, America's defender in chief would be sure to claim personal vindication.
In such a case, war without end might truly prove to be Mr Bush's lasting bequest to the American people."
The previous poster forgets: the Repukes hold the trifecta, so as far as impeachment goes, ain't no way. Plus, this would require a massive change in thought among the American sheeple, in so far as they are capable of thinking, at least the 59 million fools who voted for Dumbya. You also have to remember that there are two things that Americans don't like most of all:
1. Being told that they're wrong.
2. Admitting that they're wrong.
Somehow, though, making stupid decisions doesn't bother the majoriry of our fellow citizens. For the shoe to really drop, they would have to start their brains going and say:
"I voted for a trash-talking redneck who stupidly told our enemies to 'bring it on', when no sensible Commander-in-Chief would say such things. I was wrong to vote for him."
"I voted for a selfish super-billionaire who acts like 'one of us', an ordinary guy, who doesn't know jack about ordinary working people and whose real constituency is the have-mores. I was wrong to vote for him."
"I voted for a moral sociopath who pretends to be Christian, but who totally ignores the central tenet of Christian goodness, charity, in his crusade [note the choice of word] to destroy Social Security. I was wrong to vote for him."
You can add more examples. You get the idea. When Americans stop vote based on image, and start voting based on substance and policy, then I'll believe the turnaround. But in the meantime, that 2nd terrorist attack will come along and the American sheeple will fall for the "rally round the flag" lies again.
by chingchongchinaman on Thu Jun 30th, 2005 at 11:43:38 CDT
Daily Kos :: Comments Dangerous Incompetence
Democracy At Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio
Read DNC Chairman Gov. Howard Dean's remarks introducing the report.
After the 2004 election, there were widespread reports of serious voting problems in Ohio. The Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute made a commitment to investigate these reports and ascertain exactly what happened on November 2 in Ohio.
An exhaustive five-month investigation by the VRI's research and investigative team identified grave problems in the administration of Ohio's voting system. More than 1 in 4 voters in Ohio faced problems at the polls, including illegal requests for identification, long lines, poorly trained election officials, and more. There were also dramatic disparities in voting conditions among different races; African Americans waited nearly three times as long on average as whites to vote.
Most important, the VRI's comprehensive investigation resulted in concrete recommendations that will help protect every American's right to vote and to have that vote counted. These recommendations cover voting equipment, training for poll workers, uniform standards, and much more.
Get the facts about exactly what happened in Ohio in 2004, and learn how Democrats are fighting to protect our rights.
The Democratic Party
Call Me Bushmael: George W. Contracts Ahab-itis
by Ross Levine
.. then came September 11.
Suddenly, overnight, a mealy-mouthed leader named George Bush went from usurper to crusader. The white whale had bitten his leg off, and now our West Wing Ahab was determined to avenge his injuries. It was to be a "war against terrorism," he declared. The U.S. would be "steadfast, and patient, and persistent" as it hunted down the evil agents of the evil axis in caves, in INS files, in presidential palaces, wherever such malefactors might be lurking. It was described as a "campaign [that] may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch." We must "fight freedom's fight" against -- against evil itself, the rhetoric went, a war to make the world -- what? Evil-free? A utopia? A veritable Reich of righteousness?
The White Whale relaxes before killing a confidant. "The war against terrorism is a cloak for a bigger war, one that has now come to include 'Saddamicide' in Iraq."
Even Ahab never sounded quite so messianic. Didn't the Nazis already prove that you can't perfect humanity? That if you kill in the name of a perfect society, you're not getting off to a very good start? But we're not Nazis, we're Americans. We have a special place in the world. We're always the good guys, and when we do slip up, it's not our fault, it's -- well, the government's. They're the ones who carpet-bombed Viet Nam and poisoned Nevadans with radiation and let African Americans die of venereal disease.
But, according to the principles of democracy, are we not our government? What do we do then when our leaders begin behaving like paranoid schizophrenics? Do we run to a shrink or a voting booth, when both seem equally futile? Yes, there are terrorists afoot, and they must be stopped, and Osama Bin Laden (who is alive and well, rest unassured [deus ex machina only exists in rotten Greek plays, not here]) must be brought to justice, no argument. But you don't scrap the entire ship just because it springs a few leaks, and you don't blame the leaks on every deckhand with a foreign background until you have actual evidence to that effect.
You cannot -- repeat, cannot -- fight a finite war against terrorism. The definition of terrorism is a matter of perspective. It's like fighting a war against crime, a battle police departments wage every day with the understanding it will never end. Unless one is truly delusional, it's impossible to believe otherwise. As long as there are people, there will be crime, and as long as there are nations and political, ethnic and economic divides, there will be terrorism of one sort or another. The war against terrorism is a cloak for a bigger war, one that has now come to include "Saddamicide" in Iraq, and may very well engulf the Koreas, with the North splitting atoms while we split hairs, and then -- why stop there? -- Axis #3 perhaps, Iran (don't we owe them for helping put Reagan in power?), and after that -- surely, with all our arrogance and jingoism, there ought to be plenty of real, potential and imagined terrorism to keep our troops doing the international shuffle for a long, long time.
Yes, Monroe had his doctrine, to attack Europe if her powers put their greedy hands into our hemisphere, and Bush has his, to attack any part of the world before they attack us, even if it means justifying our assault with unsubstantiated or undiscussable evidence of an impending attack, a chutzpah Jimmy Monroe never dreamed of. Such a notion -- that we can solve all of our foreign relations problems before they even occur -- makes our illustrious, pretzel-popping leader seem more a fanatical Ayatollah than a compassionate conservative.
Now we have immigrants marched off to jail not because of links to Al Qaeda, but to certain countries, just as Japanese Americans landed in Manzanar and Tule Lake not because of links to terrorism but to a country we didn't like much at the time. If we don't want terrorists taking out their virulence on innocent Americans, why do we take out ours on innocent citizens of other nations? And didn't "regime change" used to be the purview of the CIA? OK, they botched Bay of Pigs but they got Allende pretty good, and for a fraction of what it costs to feed hundreds of thousands of troops overseas waiting to do what one well-placed bullet might accomplish. Who would complain? Not me. I get no kicks from Hussein.
Or maybe our intelligence forces only like to shoot the good guys?
Who's ever heard of a war like this anyway, discussed before it even starts in newspapers, in Congress, in the U.N., as if everyone's searching for a motive. LBJ made up Tonkin Gulf, he knew how to wag that dog, why doesn't Bush do the same? Plant some anthrax in Tariq Assiz's underpants and be done with it. Or manufacture some other excuse that steers well clear of our addiction to oil. With OPEC opening up the floodgates at this very moment to dampen all the war talk, it will have to be pretty clever. Save the Kurds? Ha, we've watched Saddam gas 'em for years. Save democracy? If that was our motive, we'd be massing our boys around the Supreme Court.
Perhaps we need to move from Melville to Ibsen. Poor syphilitic Osvald Alving, his Papa's sins returning to roast him. Little George, trying to clean up Daddy's mess. No, too psychological for a man with the depth of Dubya. It's much simpler -- this is a war against terrorism, not a war of words against terrorism, and you can' t have a real war without whammies. Dubs doesn't want to avenge George, Sr., he just doesn't want to be a peacetime president. He had nearly a year of that and couldn't take it. Peacetime prezes don't win popularity contests. Who would remember Polk if he hadn't purloined California? Lincoln if he hadn't disciplined Dixie? Truman if he hadn't atomized Japan?
nobody wants a repeat of 9/11 -- but now we're stuck with a war that cannot end. A war like they have in certain science fiction novels, where war becomes part of everyday life, an ongoing population control, an ever-present industry that keeps a defense-based economy viable, a sustained state of fear, misery and carnage meant to keep populations under the thumb of Big Brother. The American public, the Congress, we're all afraid a second band of 14 suicidal murderers may make scrap of another beloved icon of our civilization, so we're hobbling along nervously and submissively as our unelected leader embarks on part two of his Lukewarm War, insisting every day that Iraq has the power to wipe us out. No one wants Neville Chamberlain in the White House, but nor do we want Il Dubya.
You can no sooner eradicate evil than you can disgorge the apple that got us booted from Eden in the first place. Has it ever -- will it ever -- occur to us, to U.S., that lest we stop sucking up the world's resources for naught but our own edification, the imbalance we cultivate will only keep the evil headed our way? That what we need to do is cooperate with the rest of the world in making life better for all instead of keeping ourselves great by making sure our interests are always a giant greenhouse-gas bubble above everyone else's?
Do we all want to go down with this Ahab and his whitewashed whale?
Yes, call me Bush-mael. Call us all Bush-mael. And let's just hope we live to tell the tale
Morphizm.com -- Call Me Bushmael: George W. Contracts Ahab-itis
13Dec2003: Captain Ahab finally gets Moby Dick! [?]
See hand recounting Florida votes! (O! say can you see...)
Read: Bush declares America and himself trifecta winners!
Think about increasing role of socially engineered chance (lotteries, etc.) in American life.
Visit: http://www.AlGore.com/ (12May01: Site no longer exists).
But: Read Gore's thoughts on Bush (07Aug03).
Tell me about Bush's speech problem: mild dysphasia, possibly symptomatic of organic brain damage?
Read Slate e-zine's sampler of "Bushisms".
Do you agree with how the Bush administration is fighting the new global terrorism (2002)?
Q: Why was George W Bush so obsessed with invading Iraq? A: Personal blood feud.
See George W Bush as Commander in Chief striding confidently after "911" terrorist attack.
Learn about Bush's fraidy-cat Thanksgiving 2003 stealth visit to the troops he sent to Iraq!
See America's first Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) base (1975)! George W Bush longs for more of this Pyramid scheme....
George W. Bush :: Smirking arrogance. Hubris? (More...)
Historical Issues -
(Click on the icons)
Racial Hierarchy -Greg Shell Manifest Destiny/Missionary Movement - Dan Tobin
Industrial Revolution/Urbanization - Danielle Sansone Whaling Industry - er!N King
Slavery by Danielle Sansone
Literary Issues -
Typee-The Spoiled Paradise- Dan Tobin Humanism in Typee- Greg Shell
Moby-Dick;Call Me Ishmael- er!N King The Epilogue- Lillian Cromey
Cetology-Charlotte Baldwin The Doubloon-Christine Woodams
"Saving The Pequod"...Dan Tobin Gray.. Benito Cereno By er!N King
Racism and the Two Drowning Scenes- Greg Shell C
Herman Melville in Antebellum America