cyberpols

104 Degrees

2006-08-14T23:55:00.000-04:00

[Another letter from my friend writing from Khartoum in Sudan]

It was 104 degrees Fahrenheit around midnight tonight in Khartoum, and the hot air in the courtyard behind my hotel was filled with the sweet smell of fruit-flavored tobacco. In the nighttime heat, an audience of a hundred men and women, some dark black, some Arab, were sitting still and quiet at tables set up on the grass. Clouds of mist were falling gently over them, giving some relief from the heat, spraying out from pipes that had been suspended high above their heads by the hotel staff.

Through the dark, and the mist, and the thick fragrance, I could see dozens of hookas in their hands and on the tables. Wisps of sweetened smoke curled out of the hookas to meet the falling mist. Many of the men wore long flowing white robes and Muslim skullcaps. Others wore regular pants and long-sleeved shirts. The women all wore burkas and veils, their veils pushed back, far up, past their foreheads and behind their ears, showing their necks and their hair and earrings, and their faces painted with mascara and lipstick; some mocha faces with skulpted eyebrows; some dark black faces with bright white eyes.

All eyes were on the stage, a raised platform at one side of the dark courtyard. Pulsing loud synthesizer music, played by two keyboardists and a drum machine, filled the space around the audience with an undulating beat so rapid, and with the voice of a male vocalist so energized -- singing a Middle Eastern melody so joyously but whiningly -- that it struck a strange contrast with the slow, calm swirls of mist, and the quiet, unmoving audience.

No one moved, because everyone was entranced. It wasn't the tobacco, the music, the heat or the mist. It was the young dancers: five young women and two young men. You couldn't take your eyes off them. Dressed from head to toe in white, flowing, traditional Ethiopian clothes, with bright multi-colored hems and sashes and jewelry and headdresses -- only their faces and hands exposed. The powerful sexuality that came pulsing out from the stage didn't depend on anyone showing any skin. There were no mini-skirts, no thighs showing, no men's muscular chests or women's low-cut blouses. But the audience was transfixed by the dancers' sexiness. The girls, maybe eighteen years old, maybe twenty-two or twenty-six, all had large, beautiful breasts the size of large grapefruits, or small coconuts, covered behind the thick white material of their traditional dresses but bouncing wildly like there was no tomorrow. Their lips were painted dark, blood red. Their faces were light brown, Arabic or maybe light-skinned Indian, and they were all smiling, smiling with their mouths open, breathing heavily, almost laughing, because they were moving so fast, almost hyperactively, rhythmically, jumping, again and again and again and again, swinging their arms and twirling their hands and fingers, with such joyous abandon, it seemed childish, innocent.

But not innocent. Not those blood-red lips, not their breasts, bouncing so hard because they were pumping their chests on purpose with just the right rhythm and speed to maximize each bounce. It looked like it might be painful for them. The frenetic movement of the two boys, eighteen years old, maybe twenty, was something like a cross between turbo-charged break-dancing and an epileptic fit. Chests pumping in and out so rapidly they rivaled the girls’ bouncing breasts in speed, right shoulder in, left shoulder in, right shoulder back, left shoulder back, faster and faster, two, three shoulder thrusts per second ..... also with such joyous, childish abandon that it seemed maybe, maybe it wasn't quite sexual -- but it was. At times seeming masculine, at other times joyously effeminate, the boys were a foil to the women, mimicking one another, smirking, smiling, pushing their heads forward and back like chickens. The women and young men all did the jerky chicken move, the neck snapping back with the chin tucked down, then forward again, over and over, at exactly the same time, in unison. Face forward then sharply back, forward then sharply back, all in rhythm to the fast-paced, whining vocalist and synthesizer sound. It seemed comical, the chicken theme, a bit absurd, awkward, almost violent in its jerkiness -- but blended in with the bouncing breasts, the jumps and squats in unison, the smirking and winking, the colored lips, the break-dancing chests and shoulders, it became part of a whole orgiastic sexual drama. Both the male and female dancers were doing it, but as my eyes settled on one of the women, it was impossible not to imagine her in the throes of orgasm, moving violently like an out-of-control chicken. It sounds crazy, I know, but don't people sometimes do strange things, in those moments of passionate abandon? (“Baaahhhhhhkkk, bok bok bok bok bok baaaahhhhkkk!”)

(So maybe I was a bit high on heat, mist, tobacco.)

The Coolidge Effect

2006-06-29T00:08:00.000-04:00

Apologies because its been awhile. A recent trip to Vietnam has resulted in a hiatus. Hiatuses are lame. So I thought now might be a good time to discuss something I learned about recently -- called the "Coolidge Effect."

When female rats are in estrous (in a lab) then
the experimenter can keep giving her new partners, one after the other, and
she will not tire from copulating with each. It is the male who tires,
and so must be removed and followed by a new male if the copulation is
to continue. On the other hand, when the male copulates till exhaustion
with a female, removing her and providing an new partner keeps restoring
his interest.

This effect (on the male) has gotten the name of the Coolidge Effect
from a joke about US President Calvin Coolidge. He and his wife are
visiting a chicken farm and are being shown around separately by their
hosts. Upon seeing a rooster, Mrs. Coolidge asks: "How often does the
rooster mate?" The reply is "Nine or ten times a day, Ma'am." So Mrs.
Coolidge asks: "Would you mind going to tell that to the President?"

When the President is given the message from Mrs. Coolidge he asks:
"And with whom does the rooster mate 9-10 times a day?" "With a
different hen each time, Mr. President." "Would you mind going to tell
that to Mrs. Coolidge?"

Fog of Whore

2006-05-12T20:54:00.000-04:00

It was a bleak San Francisco night, 1993, about 50 degrees and drizzling lightly. I had been waiting at the stop for about 20 minutes, on the grimy sidewalk.

There was myself, a bum, and a bored whore. The bum was stooped in drunkenness, wearing an oil-stained raincoat hiding layers of unwashed sweaters. His face was a craggy mess. He had sidled up to the whore like a supplicant, and a scabby bottom lip murmured words I could barely make out: "cmon gimme piece of something something canya gimme piece I like it yea cmon.. what I want yea"

As he mumbled, he slowly continued to crowd the whore, but she gave no acknowledgement.

His feet staggered towards her as he continued his patter. Down the street I could see the bus approaching.

As the bus drew up to the curb and passed by me, she reached into her purse and briskly took out a small canister and squeezed the top, enshrouding the bum in a cloud of gas. A sharp rattling noise emerged from within the cloud. I watched, transfixed, as the bum's arms and legs trembled. AAACKKK HHHRRCCCHHHTH GAAAAAAAHH

Then the wind shifted and the cloud pounced on me. My eyes burst into flame as long hatpins were inserted up through the roof of my mouth, into my brain. I doubled over, gagging, and then sank to the pavement.

The whore got on. The doors snapped shut and the bus pulled away.

When my eyes cleared, I looked for the bum, but he was gone.

"You Want It When, Bitch?"

2006-04-26T12:24:00.000-04:00

A few weeks ago, I detached my grip from the withered corporate lingam to which I had been clinging. For 7 inertial years, I had gorged my abdomen like a tick upon the saccharine sap that coursed down its necrotic shaft. But a messenger's breeze carried nature's aroma to my nostrils; the notes of her fragrance relaxed my anxious arms, and slowly, and then with gathering speed, I slid down to *PLOP* on the warm earth. Here I find that I ambulate well enough. A forest of opportunity awaits; between the trees, open space & beyond, distant mountains.

One of the thrills of this separation was giving away my collection of chotchkies I've accumulated over the years. I also had to decide who would be the recipient of the totemic Xena doll, which was bequeathed to me by a dear friend who worked in another area of our phallus (on the underside of the ball-sac, Vas Deferens divison). For many months Xena had kept watch over my shoulder, her broadsword raised in her mighty clenched plastic fist, her projectile bosoms bursting manfully beneath her moulded breastplate. She'd been a strong companion, a familiar to keep me calm as the pointless busywork piled up and people rushed in to trouble me with random unnecessary urgencies.

How strange that androgyny should be more empowering than cock, under such circumstances? But on another level, it made sense - had there been a G.I. Joe in her place, or a bare-chested Wrestlemania doll, the telepathic voice I would hear would be not Xena's: "Function with pride and know that this unreality does not rate your noblest attentions" but "Do it NOW punk! Drop and give me 20!" and "Be a man, bitch!"

Every employee deserves to be the alpha dog of their own workstation fantasies. So Xena was the ideal wingwoman.

Of course, what I really wanted was to glue a floppy dildo on my PC with my name and title hung about its neck, and have a ceremony in which all execs would process by and minister to it with fragrant oils and chrism. Come to think of it, this is rather tame.. Now that I'm liberated from the evil Dick, I could imagine more inspiring tableauxs, roaming the forest floor with my own Cock in tow.

Sweet Charity

2006-04-13T10:41:00.000-04:00

Last Thursday, I was riding into work on a crowded subway car. A ragged man entered from the door at the end of the car, tapping a thick wooden cane, his head tilted back, sunglasses on his face. He wore a puffy, ripped leather jacket, a grimy white shirt, and stained black trousers.

He shouted his pitch: "Good Morning Everybody! I'm blind and homeless and need a place to stay tonight! Anything you can spare, even a penny, will be appreciated! God bless you!" He shook a paper cup, in which a few coins rattled.

As he made his way down the aisle, tapping his cane ahead of him, passengers moved out of their way but did not otherwise respond. He came closer to where I was seated, in the middle of the car. I was relaxed, my legs crossed, extending into the aisle, blocking his way. As he approached I braced for the smell, but there was none. He had washed recently.

Of course, I felt an urge to move my legs and let him pass, like everyone else, but I also felt an instinct not to move. So I didn't. His cane thumped my leg and then, as he made an effort to step over my feet, he tripped, stumbling.

He reached out with a hand to grab a pole, caught it in the crook of his elbow, and spun to his right. His foot lunged forward and he found his balance after stepping on a woman's shoe. Other passengers were jostled. He turned his blind face to me and said: "Excuse ME SIR!" and proferred me his cup. I demurred, and after a tense pause, he continued to shuffle his way down the aisle.

But now men's hands reached inside pockets, and women opened their purses. The jingle of his shaking cup grew noisier as people reached out to give. After each donation, he bowed slightly and said, "God Bless You".

The question I'm wondering now is, did I deserve a cut? I would have taken a "God Bless You" at least.

Ample Annie's Treasure Chest

2006-04-06T11:10:00.000-04:00

For two decades leading up to yesterday, when I finally Googled her, I had mistakenly remembered Miss Annie Ample as “Ample Annie.” As in Ample Annie's Treasure Chest, a saddle-stitched booklet of esoteric objects so bizarre and intriguing to my eleven-year-old mind that I can still recall the nervous tingle of surveying its well-thumbed pages back in the eighties.

Implements and contraptions, pouches and slings, tubes and spheres, potions and lotions, powders and pills, ointments and oils, creams, masks, boots, gloves, diagrams and detailed depictions of startling things. Plus the incredible Pocket Pussy Pal. Strangest single item I'd ever seen.

Turns out that the Treasure Chest was merely a mail-order sex catalog that my boyhood friend had lifted, presumably from his folks, and squirreled away in his bedroom for quiet study. The product selection was probably rather pedestrian and low-tech by today's standards. In fact, a friend sitting with me now would like us all to know that the Pussy Pal of yor has yielded to a novel crotch-emulator called The Flesh Light. She hasn't seen one up close so I'll leave it to you people to investigate further as you like.

The boy who introduced me to Ample Annie's Treasure Chest was the same precocious youngster who tempted us with the naked Hades-harlot in Suckle Me, Succubus. And it was on his television that I saw Angie Dickinson's mystical, magical soap-lathered breasts in Dressed to Kill, a psycho-sexual thriller that provided the first TV sex content I ever watched. I vaguely remember a taxicab scene in which a guy rips off Angie's undies and I thought, Geez, do we get to do that?

So this neighborhood kid -- who eventually became an attorney and married a New Orleans stripper -- was the first source of sexually-explicit material in my youth. Did you all have someone specific who opened your eyes to these things? Not your first sexual experience, per se, but your first experience of erotic media. Was it a sibling? Was it the neighborhood troublemaker? Was there a girl who led the pack? Was it YOU who discovered and spread the gospel to your peers? Also I was wondering if you have lucid visual memories of the content...

P.S. I couldn't find an image of the Treasure Chest, just this 1984 cover photo of Her Highness the Queen Mam(s).

A Stitch In Time

2006-04-04T10:22:00.000-04:00

Last month, I bought two pairs of stylin' pinstripe trousers at the H & M on 5th Avenue. Because I'm dieting, and anticipating a slimmer future self, I went with the 32" waists, instead of the 34" which is a more accurate specification of my present girth.

I've always had a bit of a complex about my physical proportions. Once, in 3rd grade, before I grasped the concept of "circumference", the wise-ass behind me espied my label and told me that if my waist was 32" and my leg length was 26", that meant that I was wider than I was long. I fumed for a day or so until my less math-challenged friend clued me in to the geometric reality.

One enjoyable reality of my present employment is that the Man affords us an in-house tailor. Cosimo, an old-school Italian gentleman, hearkens back to a different era, the age of the one-hour barbershop haircut, the social club, the doctor who makes housecalls. Kneeling as he marks my new hemlines, he pauses for several minutes, gesturing with his chalk, to give me updates on his 92-year old father who lives in Maspeth, alone in his 6-bedroom house they have owned since they emigrated. "I could never put him in a 'Home'", he scoffs. "He has, what, only a few years left, let him live and die as he wants, in his own house, like a man." I nod. True words. Its the way I'd want to go.

My door, which was slightly ajar, swings open as a colleague barges in. He believes, perhaps, that he has given me sufficient notice because he has simultaneously, offhandedly barked the words "Knock, Knock!" before invading. He looks down at Cosimo kneeling at my feet, his face betraying a flicker of annoyance, and launches into a work-related question.

I consider his words, and say nothing. There's an awkward pause while my colleague regards me, with a "Well?" on his face. "What are you up to here, anyway?" he finally says.

I am moved to defend my time, Cosimo's time, to defend TIME ITSELF. "What does it look like? We're IN A VERY IMPORTANT MEETING!"

Moments later, Cosimo and I, now alone, regard each other briefly. Yes we are, we say to each other silently. In an important meeting.

Man's Best Friend?

2006-04-01T09:25:00.000-05:00

Gentlemen (or Brutes as the case may be), let us speak to each other frankly. Yes, even you shy ones in the back, I address you especially.

Who is with you in your darkest hour? Who consoles you when the competition of world conquest proves too frustrating? When your work loses its lustre, when the once-vibrant colors of your imagination bleach and run down the pages of your memory?

Friend, the name of thy solace is.. Pornography!

How long can we meditate at its altar, our minds free of concerns, empty of thought, with all the beauty of the medium teasing our flagging identity to attention.

I submit to you - pornography is a form of worship as joyful and rewarding as any religious pursuit, its icons equal to any edifying text.

But Women, I turn to you now, why should you be left out of the dance? Many females revolt at what male porn has to offer, but is there an aesthetic of porn that would satisfy both sexes?

I went looking for one the other day, and found these three compelling images, geared for women, that I also thought were sexy. So lets celebrate this democracy thing and vote! If you're not sure which you like best, click on the images to enlarge for a closer view.

"Massage"	"The Diver"	"Nip"

What is it about the images themselves that inspire? I've heard that females tend to prefer images that suggest an erotic narrative. So with apologies to the Bard, I ask: tell me where is Fancy bred, in the eye or in the head?

What is it with the double standard?

2006-03-31T16:32:00.000-05:00

So today I went out for lunch with a couple of male colleagues. They assured me that a big greasy burger was the best cure for a raging hangover*. But that's another story.

One colleague has grown up children, and one has a 8 year old son. My kids are younger yet, at 7 and 5. So, somehow we got on the topic of older female teachers having sex with teenaged boys. We discussed our own reactions to this as parents and how we'd talk about this stuff with our kids. The general consensus was that a 16 year old male would be happy as heck to be introduced to carnal delights by an older woman and how can that be so wrong. But then, the clincher came; why does it seem so wrong for a older man to introduce 16 year old girl to carnal delights? How big a deal is it if the older person is a teacher or not associated in any way? These were deep questions we batted around over lunch.

Care to share your thoughts?

*I'm feeling much better now thank you very much :-) The hamburger cure worked.

Lets Discuss Attittudes behind Sexual Harrassment

2006-03-29T10:51:00.000-05:00

I often read the blog of a woman who recently moved from the US to Canada. The posts are varied, insightful, relevant and really make you think. Last night, she posted a interesting article about an important sexual harrassment case. She poses a question about why some men think and behave badly like in this famous case (Jensen vs Eveleth Mines).

Anyway, I know that a lot of liberal, insightful, talkative men hang around here, so I thought I'd post a link to L-girl's blog and hopefully you'll go over there and share your thoughts. I'm interested! (Of course, women's thoughts are welcome too!)

Suckle Me, Succubus.

2006-03-26T15:56:00.000-05:00

I was a mere acolyte, treading gingerly through my first fortnight in the blogosphere, when I was accosted by a menacing presence. I froze at the sight of its inscrutable hulking mass.

You were Cyberpolsters, clerics of the blog, a literate if unruly band with massive experience points and a flare for sexually-charged dialog. Clearly you had encountered trolls before, because you dispatched the slimy beast with aplomb.

The last time I'd heard any mention of trolls was ages ago in my prepubescence, long nights sifting through the Dungeons and Dragons Monster Manual. Therein one finds trolls described as "horrid carnivores" that "know no fear and attack unceasingly." The loathsome, ahem, "members of a troll have the ability to fight on even if severed from the body." Next time we see one we're supposed to burn it or immerse it in acid.

Among the hundreds of creatures "malevolent and benign" catalogued by the Monster Manual, Fiend Folio, and other D&D compendia, one was permanently emblazoned in my memory. She was the succubus.

My neighborhood Dungeon Master, a slightly older kid with an assertive creativity, would initiate the encounter. We wizards and fighters only had to hear the first few words – "naked, beautiful, woman" – and we suspected a succubus. We went giddy with both fear and desire. What young man could resist? Who could avert his gaze? A breast! Two! An imagined teardrop ass and shadows down below. Long locks, full lips, arched contours and … wings! Fucking wings! Do you understand the amorous implications of wings? Would they mean something medieval, something raw, some good hard fucking? Or would she just flutter and levitate, inches above your expectations? Lord help us.

She was compelling, but I wasn't old enough to know exactly how her parts and mine were supposed to work together. I certainly didn't understand the promise and the fraud. After all she was a devil, a hell-denizen, and when we found her in a game I think we just ran away scared.

Guys, I know I wasn't the only one who lingered too long on the succubus page while searching for data on shriekers and hell hounds. Girls, did you each have your incubus?

How best to be laid to rest?

2006-03-24T04:53:00.000-05:00

Recently, I had the interesting experience of visiting the National Museum of Funeral History in Houston. The picture I've shown here is the section of the museum devoted to 'embalming'.

This leads me to the area where I'm seeking you opinions and discussion. One thing that the embalmer used to do (in the 'old days' the embalmer was your funeral director or undertaker) was come to the home of the deceased and prepare the body for the 'viewing'. After embalming the person and preparing them, the family would keep the body at home for some period of time so people could come and visit and pay their respects.

I don't think we really do this anymore. Death and the tidying up after death has been moved to a more impersonal place in our lives. A person can practically avoid it altogether. The think I like about the old way is that the living don't sanitize it to the point where you could forget the person died. It was 'in your face' and I think that ultimately it helped for everyone to deal with it.

I came to this conclusion in a round about way. Years ago one of my dogs, Torin, was run over, right in front of me. It was winter, nighttime, and we were having a snowstorm. I took my dog's body home and laid it in the garage. Because of the time and conditions I really couldn't do anything with it right then so I sat in the garage, and cried, and petted his body, and cried some more. I spent hours thinking about our time together. My boyfriend came over and did the same, as well as another girlfriend who was close to me and my dogs. The next day, it was still -20 and the ground was covered in snow, but my boyfriend* and I took Torin's body to his house and buried him in the back yard. While I mourned Torin for a long time, the whole process of saying goodbye was really helpful to me in being a peace with his passing, even though he died a violent and untimely death.

Today, when someone I know passes away, I make a point to go to the funeral and any kind of gathering/celebration of their life that might be offered. It is really important to me and find its one of the few times that people let their social masks slip. Emotions are usually running high and people are 'real'.

What do you know of rituals today that we use to help deal with death. Do you think we go too far in modern society to keep it out of view? Do you personally let yourself get engaged in the funeral ritual when someone passes away?

* he's now my husband. Earned a lot of brownie points for digging a grave in the frozen ground in the middle of winter for my beloved friend! :-)

A Trip to the Head

2006-03-22T07:52:00.000-05:00

I was reading the Marquis de Sade's "Philosophy in the Boudoir" this morning while taking a crap. Its a very thought-provoking book that reminds me why I love French culture so much. For those who haven't had the pleasure of being exposed to it, the text is comprised of seven dialogues in which philosophy and carnality are intermixed with glee.

In the heat of the fifth dialogue, I came across a line that fascinated me.

It is spoken by the character Dolmancé, in the midst of their planning a new sequence of debaucheries. He is gently refuting the ingenue Eugenie's objection that homosexuality is "unnatural".

The line is this: "Nature does not have two voices, one forever condemning what the other commands."

Sexual desire, by its very existence, can never be unnatural.

This quote hit me hard, because it gets to the centrality of nature's power to rupture the boundaries of culture. Culture and morality are continually establishing oppositions that Nature so violently overwhelms when its magma floods the town, wiping out high and low equally.

Just wanted to share that.

Betty & Veronica

2006-03-18T10:41:00.000-05:00

Over at Cocks & Dolls, Dolly has decided to prioritize her "Betty" side, after enjoying her "Veronica" nature. And it got me thinking about women, something I do a lot in my spare time these days.

I'm not sure if the Archie comix were as popular in Canada as they were in the U.S. but, to summarize their differences for the purpose of discussion, Veronica is the whore and Betty is the nice girl. Oh, and they're both hot, in their own way.

I posted the following as a comment to Dolly's post but I'm going to copy it here because I thought you guys might be interested as well. Its been edited slightly for clarity.

My thinking is: all females are both Betty and Veronica. She'll be Betty for awhile, and she will seek Veronica. She'll be Veronica for awhile, and Betty is on deck. And all of this is as it should be.

If you want to keep a female around you, never stop seducing her. Seduction is a lifelong project - don't think once you marry a female the courtship stops. Or, put another way, if you do stop the courtship after you're married, don't be surprised when she finds something better.

I think the #1 reason marriages fail is because couples "take each other for granted" - which means to me that at least one party falsely assumes that seduction is no longer a necessary component of the relationship.

I also suspect that the belief in some abstract concept called "love" is basically laziness. A slovenly and disrespectful approach to the Other, because it places faith in an imaginary force that will allow both parties to simply "be" and be happy.

Guess what? There's no such thing.

Personally, I feel the same way about "Love" that I do about many conceptions of "God". Afraid of death? Here, have a beautiful afterlife. Afraid of your own dark impulses? Here, have an imaginary Hell to keep you in line. Feeling unloved? Here, have a phony idol that will love you no matter how many times you fuck up.

Here's a thought, with apologies to Heidegger: Being is death; only Becoming is life. Where there is no struggle between the sexes, there is no dynamic, and the erotic loses its ability to manifest. Desire in action is the only means available by which we get the girl, seduce the man, change our lives, or change the world. This eternal, Natural project is the one for which we were designed - so my plan is to enjoy it in the little time we all have left.

Edmonton teens beat man to death

2006-03-17T12:30:00.000-05:00

This is the headliner story we've been hearing a lot about for the last two weeks around my neck of the woods.

Apparently a group of teens was being rowdy and obnoxious on a bus, one of the passengers asked them to be quiet, and they beat him....to death.

The link above is to an editorial in one of the local papers, commenting on the general outrage expressed by the fact that these 'kids' are out on bail. First they split the scene then turned themselves in later.

Under our Criminal Justice system people under the age of 18 are protected as 'youth' and their names are not released. So, these 16-17 year olds are out, no one knows who they are, and chances are good they are going to get very light sentences if convicted of manslaughter.

What you don't see in the online news is all the sound bytes we get constanly on the local news of the progess of the case. One thing that stands out in my mind, is how the friends and family of the accused, are often openly moaning about how these teens are actually 'good' kids.

Pardon? This baffles me.

In my mind, I'm thinking that a 'good' kid, would have not participated in the beating, and in fact, tried to get his buddies to desist.

As a parent, I'm thinking that 16 and 17 year old kids are very nearly adults. In fact, during many times in history, they would be off on their own already, functioning as adults. How can it be that people can reach this age and not have the moral boundaries and self control that tell them when their actions are wrong?

Do you think our society would be better served by having harsher punishments for adults and for 'youths'. It seems to me that there is little accountability in western culture and people literally get away with murder.

What do you think?

Angels In America?

2006-03-14T10:04:00.000-05:00

I've been really fascinated by this whole Imette St. Guillen story. For those of you not from New York (or Boston, Imette's hometown), Imette St. Guillen was the 24 year old criminal justice grad student who was brutally raped, tortured and murdered last week. She was last seen at The Falls, which is a bar in Soho, which is an area that I avoid like the plague for reasons completely unrelated to this murder case. (Narrow, packed sidewalks and $9 beers, anyone?)

This case, and more specifically-- the MEDIA COVERAGE of this case has stirred up quite a bit in me, and I've already carefully decided not to share my opinions with my co-workers (I work on the Upper East Side, after all). Imette's face has been plastered across the cover of every shitty New York newspaper for the past week and a half with headlines like "Imette St. Guillen-- Fallen Angel, Always."

I know I'm being a bit extreme, but I have a real problem with the whole reverence thing. Apparently this girl was not as brilliant as the media has let on. She was at the bar, became drunk and belligerent, got in an argument with her friends, and then insisted on staying behind when they all left. For a criminal justice student, this girl seemed to lack basic street smarts. At closing time the bouncer (who is the number 1 suspect in the case) tried to escort her out the door and she became aggressive and argumentative with him. She was last seen getting into a van with the bouncer, who was overheard saying "I'll take you home." Less then 24 hours later she was found in a secluded area off the highway-- nude, wrapped in a blanket, severely beaten and mutilated. Murdered.

It's a horrible and tragic story, but the worst part is that this sort of thing happens quite often, and this particular case has morphed into a sick Lifetime Movie. What about other rape victims? What about other women who mysteriously disappear? Why haven't we heard their stories? What does a woman have to do to become an "angel"?

To Shave, to Wax, to Tweeze or not?

2006-03-10T00:01:00.000-05:00

Recently, I've stumbled across several stories, posts, and comments that have got me thinking about body hair. The hows and why of removing or not removing, and the different cultural attitudes towards body hair on men and women.

Yesterday, Ms L. referred to a competition in the Yukon where they judge who has the longest, coarsest, thickest leg hair. The ladies around Whitehorse grow their hair all winter in anticipation!

Also, yesterday, we were imagining some fun hair removal experiences for pawlr at the spa in L.A.

I started looking around to find out a bit more about attitudes toward body hair. I used to just think that it was women that feel they should have hairless pits and legs but I came across info leading me to believe there a lot more men out there doing hair removal. Whether its waxing/shaving their backs or doing their bikini lines!

One interesting pseudo-history article talked about the fact that hair removal has been something people have indulged in through all recorded history. Read about it here. At one time, people would shave or pluck all the hair on their head then wear wigs and draw on eyebrows!
Another article I came across was a research project in Australia, trying to determine why over 81% of women surveyed felt they had to remove their excess body hair.

I read quite a few articles and some of the theories included things like:
- women in particular have been convinced by the marketers that body hair is ugly and unfeminine so it should be removed
- more and more men are falling into this mindset
- body hair on women is a sign of sexual maturity and power and it should be removed so they will appear younger, pre-pubescent, less powerful
-men should remove the hair from their butts and groin area if they are planning to wear a thong type bathing suit to the beach

In my own history, I, like most girls, started shaving as teenager. I went through a phase in my twenties where I stopped. This was partly because I often got a rash, especially under my arms, and also because I was rebelling against 'societal norms'. Well, I guess I question my own socialization because I didn't like the way I looked 'au naturelle' and have removed hair ever since. I'm quite a fan of waxing and am even seriously considering permanent hair removal with laser treatment. Does that make me a woman who is overly concerned with being attactive to men, or of low self esteem? I don't think so.

My attitudes to body hair on men are more lenient. It doesn't bother me to see hairy pits or a hairy back. I don't look at a guy and think 'eew, he should wax that!'. Looking around the net though I discovered quite a few guys and gals who don't like excess hair on men. In fact, quite a few salons advertise waxing for men and I found this article on getting Brazilian wax for men. I knew women went in for this but never thought men would. So interesting. And yeah...ouch. Read this article. In between cringing I was laughing. A short excerpt from the first one gives you the idea:

Brazilian Nuts; The Brazilian Wax treatment was introduced to North America in the late 1980s by J. Sisters International, a Manhattan salon that is owned and operated by seven clearly insane sisters from Brazil. The Brazilian is an all-over body hair removal treatment that chiefly involves the buttocks, pubic area, and dark crevasses in a ritual of pain so spectacular there are few words to describe it.
Most charitable estheticians will provide a tongue depressor to sink your teeth into during treatment. Some will turn up the salon's sound system so you can scream 'til you burst a blood vessel.

So, Cyberpolers, what do you think? Are we succumbing to unrealistic ideas of beauty and tidyness by doing all this hair removal? Are women being victimized by the marketers? Are men? Lets hear your thoughts!

Out in L. A.

2006-03-06T12:57:00.000-05:00

I just got here Saturday from New York. I'm staying with my older brother, his wife, and their three happy cats. Last night they invited friends over and we all watched the Academy Awards. We ate pizza, drank red wine, and sampled homemade fruit pie. Good people, good times. There was universal disappointment that "Crash" won Best Picture - most of the crowd felt it was too sentimental and poorly written. I didn't see it myself, did any of you guys?

Los Angeles is a wonderful place, really. Many New Yorkers tend to mistake Los Angelinos' approachability for superficiality. I did myself the first time I came to visit.

Here's a gross generalization: whereas New York is about the ambitious individual struggling to overcome, L. A. is about creative vision and collaboration. The critical "no" is rarely heard, of course, more typical is the "yes" that never calls back. But I guess I prefer the latter scenario because at least (I imagine) you get more time and support to develop an idea, whether you're a screenwriter, doing a treatment for a show or a film, or rehearsing a role.

My brother has set up a futon for me in his office, and sleeping there last night I was visited by Sabrina, a silver longhaired beauty. She crept up to me in the gloom, then stepped onto the comforter. She got closer, and as I lay as still as possible, she began to lick my face. I let her, then slowly turned around and presented the back of my head, which she started licking. The roughness of her tongue was such that I was worried I would lose some hair so I pushed her off gently. She kneaded, annoyed, then assumed an Egyptian pose In the darkness next to me. This has been a cool trip so far.

"You're too brittle!" "Well you're obsessed!"

2006-03-03T14:00:00.000-05:00

A couple days back there was a cute exchange between Karl Rove ("Bush's Brain") and Hillary Clinton ("The Candidate"). Made me chuckle because they sounded like they really were locked in more of a lover's spat than a political dogfight. Check this link for a news report.

This got me thinking about what Rove meant by "brittle" and how damaging it is to describe a woman as such, especially a woman planning to assume a leadership role. It means so many things in different contexts: "prone to break down", "liable to let her nervousness get the best of her", "unable to cope".

Other sources offer the opinion that Clinton's retort was a classic jujitsu move - and I agree - because with one word she characterized him as "dogged" and "stalkerish". Every female voter knows obsessed when they see it and hates it when a guy starts acting that way.

In a way, men can be "brittle" too. They get nervous and overreact when their egos are damaged, or when they get challenged by alpha males above them - myself included! In my corporate day job, these struggles for dominance are palpable in the subtexts of lots of male-to-male conversations. Often it occurs just with body language or eye contact. Or gettin pee-shy at the urinal :)

Got me thinking some more. Could Hillary out-alpha Rove in a debate? Make him her bitch after disarming him first with erotic banter? I think this would be interesting to watch. The one advantage Rove has is that as the man behind the throne, he never has to show up. What a pussy.

Who's The House Spouse Now?

2006-03-03T00:36:00.000-05:00

You walk through Manhattan, you look around, and everywhere you see waiters feeding Yuppies, serving them martinis and cleaning up after them; laundry workers delivering snazzy dry-cleaned clothes back to Yuppies' sterile lodgings; paid dog-walkers pulling Yuppies' expensive pure-bred dogs along; and babysitters busy ignoring Yuppies' spoiled babies - not to mention hordes of masseurs, therapists and other purveyors of the kind of support and comfort that, once upon a time, spouses got from each other. Well, at least a few did. Surely some still do.

But did any of these fast-lane male and female metrosexuals remember to take over the traditional, fulltime, housewifely roles that women have left behind? Do Manhattan men and women find any time to make their rented apartments cozy and nourishing? Or are they too busy earning double salaries so they can afford to outsource the chores of good homemaking to dry cleaners, gourmet bistros and childcare dilettantes?

Babes in Warland

2006-03-02T08:15:00.000-05:00

Just surfing the web and this image caught my eye. My first thought: "Man, she's really servicing that missle!".

My second thought was this. Opportunities that became available for women during WWII became a social angle that allowed them to participate in public life and "do a man's work". But were they really? Since the entire mahood of the nation was projected overseas, in one sense they were still "taking care of the men" by doing what was necessary to enable the troops.

They filled a necessary vacuum, and in the process, helped the U.S. Military topple the Axis powers.

To what extent did this assist the women's movement in the 60's? I imagine a lot, but obviously, I don't know the details.

The C-Word

2006-02-28T13:32:00.000-05:00

Palmer's last quip in the previous thread reminds me of something that happened recently. I was out on the town with Demo and B-Spot, as well as a comely female friend of ours (who shall remain nameless). We were just drinking away and laughing at some joke and then the C-word popped out, not sure who said it (ok it might have been me). Oops. It caused a little awkwardness, nothing we didn't all work out cause we're great friends and have known each other for years.

Anyway, it got me thinking, Shakespeare asked "what's in a name?" but I'm wondering now, "what's in a word?" I know that women seem to see it as the ultimate insult if a male uses it, but I have heard women use that word to describe each other. I also realize that the social meanings of words depend to a large extent on which gender utters it; maybe it shouldn't be that way, but c'est la vie.

Do any of you have any interesting "C-word" stories to share? Please, everyone - lets all treat this as a challenge to see how much social sensitivity we can maintain.

INTERESTING FACT: Here's an interesting fact from the Wikipedia entry for the C-word: "In British English c**t is considered a foul and insulting word used more often by a man about (or towards) another man, implying that the named person is extremely obnoxious and malicious."

Is Condaleeza Rice Sexy?

2006-02-27T12:04:00.000-05:00

If so, in what way? If not, why not? Is she trying too hard? The French actually like her, which is interesting.

What do the females have to say?

Deprioritizing Politics

2006-02-27T01:57:00.000-05:00

Lately the 3 remaining archmagi of Cyberpols have been considering making the blog more social in the effort to raise the anemic traffic since, say, its inception. This will mean making it, first and foremost, a place for freinds, and second, a place for fun discussion, and lastly a place for boring stuff like Politics. As always sex is open season on all 3 fronts.

I'd like to know how the community (all 8 of you) feels about this. I for one, am all for it. Who's with me?

Quantum Computing

2006-02-24T09:13:00.000-05:00

Since bspot posted a link to an Onion story that seemed real at first, I'm posting a link to a story that seems like an Onion but is apparently real.

"Quantum computer solves problem without running"

If anyone can explain this to me, I will shine their shoes with my raggedy-ass underwear.

"All out civil war, could it be a good thing?"

2006-02-24T01:12:00.000-05:00

Fox New's "Your World with Cavuto" is running a segment titled "All-out Civil War in Iraq: Could it Be a Good Thing?"

Isn't that scary?

Confirmation of the "dragnet" nature of domestic surveillance

2006-02-23T04:12:00.000-05:00

When the history of this administration is written in some future far off enough to appear objective, I am increasingly convinced what will stand out is its repeated willingness--nay compulsion--to spin to outright lies any negative criticism.

To wit: the nature of the domestic surveillance, as to whether it is specifically targeted towards individuals with "probable cause" (although not probable enough to go before the FISA court to ask for a warrant) or is more of a dragnet effort, scooping vast amounts of information to look for keywords and patterns. When the existence of the program was first made public at the end of 2005, several technology savvy commentators speculated that the main reason that the Bush administration had avoided applying for FISA warrants is that as it was dragnet style espionage, there was no possibility to apply for warrants. This coupled with the disappearance of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) initiative as an official program with the high probablity that it had gone "black" as its key technical elements and personel were still in place made the "dragnet" nature all the more likely.

But then in an orchestrated attempt to rally support, McClellan, Cheney, Bush, and the former NSA director Hayden all hit the media circuit, denying that the program was anything more than targeted espionage of "probable" targets. James Risen's new book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration begins to document the "dragnet" nature of the warrantless spying.

Hamas Calls For "Giant Summit" With All Israelis

2006-02-22T17:29:00.000-05:00

There's been far too little discussion on this blog about the conflict in the Middle East. Luckily, it appears there will soon be no conflict left to discuss.

Click here.

.

Treasury Secretary Once Headed Firm from Dubai Deal

2006-02-22T17:19:00.000-05:00

From Yahoo

"Treasury Secretary John Snow said he had no knowledge that the company he once headed, London-based CSX Corp., had sold its global port assets to Dubai Ports World for $1.15 billion in 2004 -- the year after Snow left to join the administration."

Shi'ite, Meet Fan

2006-02-22T16:13:00.000-05:00

Temple of the Mahdi gets blown up in Samarra. Its pretty much the holiest shrine for the Shi'ites.

NYT reports Baghdad overrun with militants and dozens of Sunni mosques have been attacked.

More analysis of this apocalyptic day from Juan Cole.

Earmarking - Get out the Q-Tips

2006-02-21T08:03:00.000-05:00

Republicans like to talk small government while they spend big, bigger than the Dems under Clinton ever did. Bush and his congress have been squandering $$$ at Lyndon Johnson levels - but for guns and favors, not guns and butter. His latest $2.77 trillion fantasy is no exception.

On the legislative side, Cunningham's "rate card" for bribes, Rove's $1 million pimping of the President, and Alaska's $223 million bridge to nowhere are the latest examples of a giveaway Congress out of control. Since 1998, both the number of earmarks and the number D.C. lobbying firms have tripled.

Arianna's article reviews how sane Democrats and sane Republicans (at least on this issue) are working together to try and stop the practice of earmarks without resorting to the draconian line-item veto.

Intelligence fixed around the policy

2006-02-20T15:46:00.000-05:00

Go to OutragedModerates.org and read up on the materials they received from their FIOA request. Notes from Stephen Cambone's meeting with Rumsfeld on 9/11 confirm the assertions of both the Downing Street Memos and Richard Clarke's book that 9/11 was used as a pretext to implement the radical foreign policy agenda of the neocons.

I'm Not Racist Because I Don't Like BBQ Ribs

2006-02-18T16:13:00.000-05:00

Not too long ago black Americans and people of color in general, were subject to tremendous hardship and enormous stigma as a result of segregation. Avoiding the evils of segregation is simple. People should never be treated differently because of their race. Sadly this simple rule remains beyond the understanding of many people.

Let’s look at a simple example. Imagine a segregated BBQ rib joint in the old south. Imagine a black family that tries to have lunch at such a “white” restaurant. As was often the case in those days, the poor family is arrested and thrown out of the restaurant or into prison.

Now, a southern racist is talking trash with some of his friends and says, “I am one hundred percent white, I haven’t got any black blood in me, and thank God I can eat at that lunch counter.” He then states that, “it would be impractical if blacks were allowed to eat with whites.” However, says the good ‘ol boy, “I am not racist because I don’t like BBQ and I would never eat at that place anyway.”

Would we believe him? Somehow I don’t think so. I think that a reasonable person would say that his belief in superior rights based on racial heritage is racism per se. However, this argument is exactly analogous to Doug’s racist views of the “right of return” and the de facto apartheid that exists in Israel. Doug brags that his racial purity grants him an unconditional right to immigrate to Israel. He is strongly supportive of this racial preference because it benefits him. However, he would deny the right of return to people who’s right is not grounded on racial purity, but rather on their historical and familial connection with the land. In his self-delusion, he argues that his support for what is on its face a racist policy is not racist because, “I would never want to go live there.” In effect, Doug behaves just as the racist who supports a segregated restaurant but claims that he is not racist because he doesn’t like BBQ ribs and would never go to that restaurant anyway.

Racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and the other social evils which eat away at society are caused by a germ or arrogance. Those who fall prey to these evils lack vigilance and fail to keep asking themselves, “Am I asking for more than I deserve?” For example, Doug is perfectly happy to criticize interest groups other than his own, or to use racial or ethnic slurs and innuendo for rhetorical effect. However, he strongly believes that his racial group should be able to play by different rules. He can make reference to another’s religious or racial background and intimate that their beliefs are somehow the simple outgrowth of racial factors, but clearly he rejects the same argument going the other direction. He can refer to a Christian who disagrees with him as a “Paladin,” to at once signal to other racists that this person is “the other” and should be spurned, and to intimate that the person’s views are the outgrowth of their religious or cultural background and not the product of rational thought. However, were his opponent to refer to Doug as a “Talmud scholar,” he would cry “anti-Semitism.” This is the basic problem; Doug’s profound sense of racial superiority affects his very ability to reason. He is incapable of putting himself in another’s shoes. For example, he has yet to apologize for the straw-man in black-face posting he made earlier this week. He apparently doesn’t understand why intimating that Arabs or Islamic peoples in general speak in pigeon-English, spout racial hatred and reason like animals is offensive. I hope for the sake of our country and of the world in general that bigots like Doug are the exception rather than the rule.

New Abu Ghraib images broadcast

2006-02-15T15:54:00.000-05:00

You can only see a few of the less offensive photos here on the BBC website. They should all be in the public domain. There must have been a FOIA request, what's takin' so long?

How to Hunt

2006-02-15T14:45:00.000-05:00

OK, that's John Kerry on the left, holding his gun safely, not pointed at anyone in particular. Note his friend on the right, substantially unharmed with no gunshot wounds evident on face or chest. Also the dead game bird being held indicates that a successful hunt has occurred, apparently without mishap.

I'm just sayin'.

Happy Valentine's!

2006-02-14T17:41:00.000-05:00

Sometimes you just gotta put aside all the hatin' and say, "Won't you be my Valentine?"

Thanks to all our readers for a great 2006 so far!

--- JEW HATRED & WHITE SUPREMACY ON CYBERPOLS --- Debate on Jews and Israel shouldn't crowd other topics out.

2006-02-14T01:18:00.000-05:00

======= BUT ONE COMMENT ON THIS SITE MUST BE SEEN. =======

It is worth calling attention to a comment by "Anonymous" regarding our Feb. 5 posting. It's much better first to read what's written here, to understand the context in advance. But if you want to go straight to the comment itself without knowing its context, first click this link, and then scroll all the way down until you reach the comment by "Anonymous".

This blog's Feb. 5 posting below, about which "Anonymous" made his comment, was entitled "Anti-Semitic Words by a Cyber Columnist? NO." It argued that a view expressed in an earlier posting had its roots in anti-semitism, but that the author of that earlier posting was almost certainly not anti-semitic himself. This distinction is of more wide-ranging importance than one might think (i.e., not just a point about this particular view and its author). The distinction, made in this Feb. 5 posting, is one that is central to virtually all debate about Israel, as discussed below. But first, why is the subsequent comment by "Anonymous" also so important?

As is so often the case, it may be necessary to clarify that "Anonymous" is not being branded a Jew hater or White Supremacist here. But he makes his point by citing journal articles by a highly intelligent, intellectual author, Kevin MacDonald, who is indeed an extremely Jew-hating White Supremacist man, one who probably does not actually froth at the mouth and stomp around with a shaved head and combat boots, but couches his poisonous thinking in academic, fancy-sounding prose. It is extremely useful to skim his articles, which are published in a journal called The Occidental Quarterly; and perhaps also look over the other kinds of articles by which The Occidental Quarterly has made a name for itself in ultra-rightist, racist circles. It essentially publishes intellectual fodder for neofascism. Click here for background on the OQ.

"Anonymous" offers these journal articles as supposed evidence that it is reasonable, and well warranted, to oppose many of the goals and actions taken throughout history by Jews, who are a people united by aggressive tendencies. In fact, an unintelligent reading of the articles may convince a gullible reader of exactly that. The articles are steeped in highly intellectual analysis. They mix in plenty of truths with their poison. Only careful readers, ones who know some history, who are capable of thinking critically about what they read and who can see between the lines, will recognize the speciousness of the reasoning and ultimately the deadly evil, Jew-hating conclusions it supports.

If you wish, you can review the relevant Feb. 5 and Feb. 1 postings below, or you can go straight to the comment by "Anonymous," which is the fourth comment down on the page you will reach by clicking here. Once you're there, you'll find in "Anonymous"'s comment the links to The Occidental Quarterly's poisonous articles, which, luckily (since the articles are so lengthy), have summary abstracts at the top.

In conclusion ... back to the reasons it's actually so important to distinguish between an anti-semitic person, an anti-semitic view, a view that is not anti-semitic inherently but has its roots in anti-semitism, and, finally, a view that has nothing to do with anti-semitism but is based on opposition to the policies of Israel, or of Britain, the U.N., the United States, etc...

The distinction is so critical precisely because it is so difficult to see clearly and it confounds virtually all debate on Israel. So many leftists feel vehemently that their anti-Israel views are unfairly attacked by Jews as being anti-semitic. "This is a tyranny of Political Correctness," they say. "We stand accused of hating Jews merely because we disagree with Israeli policy." Meanwhile, their accusers, usually Jewish, may be rhetorically frustrated: the leftist views they've branded anti-semitic are sometimes, indeed, merely critiques of Israeli policy, but more often that is far from the full truth. (Many Jews share highly critical views of Israeli policy. There are some who support all Israeli policies blindly, but may still recognize that opponents of these policies are not necessarily anti-semitic. When the charge of anti-semitism is, in fact, leveled, it can well be by non-extremist Jews who only consider particular types of views to be anti-semitic.)

Looked at very narrowly, without historical or global context, these views seem debatable, but "reasonably debatable" That is, they seem based reasonably on current events, as seen from a certain vantage point, but devoid of any actual Jew hatred. However, anyone with a more global, historical perspective, can recognize as anti-semitic these views' over-arching misdirection, their arbitrary focus, their underlying assumptions and their origins in longstanding, Jew-hating rhetoric; not just against Israeli policy or even against Israel itself as a state, but against Jewish people because they are inherently despicable. Thus, a non-anti-semitic person who does not know the many sides to the story of the history of Palestine and Arab-Jew antagonism, may hear these views, and convey them onward, not realizing their anti-semitic roots, context, assumptions and implications.

These issues are explored somewhat in the Feb. 5 and Feb. 1 postings below, but much more thoroughly in two other places. The first is the posting on Jan. 23 (viewed by scrolling down to the Jan. 23 posting on the page you'll reach by clicking here). The second is not so much a Jan. 26 posting itself or the first few comments on it, which focus on the recent electoral victory by Hamas, but in the subsequent comments, as you scroll down. (To view these comments, scroll past the Hamas-related ones after you've clicked here.)

Now Cheney is Actually Shooting People

2006-02-13T02:00:00.000-05:00

No, really. This doctored photo aside, he really did just shoot a guy. Click on the headline.

Hysterical.

But it's sad he missed Scalia when the two went hunting together in 2004. In addition to confirming that our V.P. is a premature shooter, this incident has to make you wonder whether the guy he shot "just knew too much." We have to hope the guy recovers and then spills the beans. Maybe he'll reveal what we've all been suspecting: that Cheney is a cyborg, sent back in time by his evil masters to annihilate all humankind.

Kristof on Darfur; and on journalism by example

2006-02-12T22:33:00.000-05:00

Today's NYT column by Nicholas Kristof about Darfur, which includes photojournalism by Darfur genocide survivors themselves, is another example of the kind of reporting that far more reporters ought to be doing, or at least aspiring to do.

This space is not about to become a mere alert service regarding good New York Times columns. But today's Kristof column, and even more so the other one by him that was posted here on Tues., Feb. 7 (see three posts below this one), are not just worth viewing because of the particular topic they cover -- though that would be enough, given their focus on US inaction in the face of the ongoing genocide in Sudan. NOTE:The Tues. Feb. 7 posting below, singing Kristof's praises, was apparently seen by the praise-ee himself; it elicited a nice thank you note.

These columns are also striking because they show so clearly what is lacking in reports by most journalists. It isn't just the descriptions of tragedy in Darfur that could and should be treated as Kristof treats them: personalizing them, humanizing them, making them more powerful and effective by weaving in the names and stories of individuals profoundly affected by the articles' topics.

That kind of journalism takes more work, and it's more expensive because it can't be done from one's desk, or through a taxi trip to a nearby press conference -- but it can and should be done far more often when it comes to any number of topics, ranging from trade policy to education reform, from Muslim anger to Mexican politics. We see plenty of vapid, one-liner quotes, but not enough real interviews, real profiles, woven into larger stories. As the Feb. 7 column below points out, it takes guts and drive for a journalist to risk life and limb, traveling into rural areas where humanitarian crises are occurring, to talk directly with the women and children themselves who survived the violence so far.

Many of the reporters who have traveled to Iraq are motivated, in part, by the fact that war coverage is a major boost to one's career (and rightly so: it boosts people's careers for good reason because it's so dangerous but valuable). Many of those reporters are also passionately motivated to help cover a war that desperately needs better coverage. Both the reporters in Iraq and the ones like Kristof who go to other dangerous areas are courageous; what's admirable about Kristof's choice to go to Darfur is that it's just not a hot-button topic in newsrooms right now. He's trying to make it so.

Again, since many Cyberpols blog followers don't have subscriptions to the New York Times and therefore can't view its Op-Ed columns, either in hard copy or online, today's Kristof column is copied for our readers' benefit, via the headline-link above or viewable in the first comment on this posting.

Soon to be Screwed Economically, or Not? WHY Not?

2006-02-10T16:17:00.000-05:00

This article in today's Times describes the enormous leap just taken by the U.S. trade deficit. Also in the Times today is an editorial by Krugman (the dude pictured here on the left), describing the leaps and bounds by which the federal budget deficit is growing. The rapid bloating of both is due, of course, to the Administration we so love to hate and deplore.

So here's my question:

Why are things still okay?

Many economists warn that growing trade deficits eventually drag an economy downward - and many warn the same thing about growing budget deficits. And stock markets tend to reflect, among other things, the average view of an economy's prospects among its analysts, bankers, traders and economists. So why isn't the stock market being pulled down by the unprecedented growth in our deficits? In fact why isn't it being pulled down by the outlook for even more, accelerated deficit growth, for many years to come?

Another confusing situation: I think, though I may be wrong, that not only would one expect stock prices to go down, in anticipation of the waning fortunes of most companies when the economy slows; but one would also expect the companies themselves, even if their stock were doing fine, to begin slowing their investment in their own production, since they would be anticipating a slowdown in demand for their products as the economy loses steam. This slowing of business investment would itself help drag the economy down.

But that's not happening either.

Why are business investment and stock prices humming along fine? Is it unwarranted to worry that our friends and families and selves are heading into tough times, financially? Maybe we are. Or maybe we aren't. Someone tell me.

Well . . . We're All Fucked Now

2006-02-09T16:38:00.000-05:00

The spread of Bird Flu to Turkey last month was the first indication that the bug was out of the bag, so to speak. Now that it has been found in Nigeria, one of the world's biggest petri dishes, there's nothing stopping a human to human transmission mutation from coming to the fore. I'll ask my friend who's an expert in AIDs in Africa and ask him how long it will take . . . maybe a year . . . I guess.

The Finest Work A Journalist Can Do: Kristof Does It. Times Columnist Shames Fox's Blowhard Bill O'Reilly

2006-02-07T02:55:00.000-05:00

Nicholas D. Kristof, the New York Times columnist, is the real deal.

Bill O'Reilly, blowhard of Fox News, is a real deal too.

Good . . . and Evil.

Here on the left: A champion, activist journalist, who turns readers' attention away from our hollow, consumerist addictions to focus, for just a few moments, on things that really matter.

In the other corner: A powerful force for inanity, in an increasingly brain-dead culture (...whose view of blogs as a threat suggests we're doing something right here.)

Today's column by Kristof repeats his suggestion that O'Reilly go to Darfur and try to make himself useful for a change. It is like a stroke of jujitsu, the art of self-defense that channels an opponent's strength and weight to work against him. In this, the column is not just poking fun: O'Reilly the Ranter, whose "O'Reilly Factor" show commands a viewership in the millions, is goaded for good reason: when he reacts, which he has, his own idiotic bluster effectively has been used to help put a spotlight on the genocide unfolding every day in Darfur.

{Since Times Op-Ed columns are now subscription-based online, no longer free, Kristof's piece is copied for Cyberpols readers in the second comment below this posting, along with the earlier columns by Kristof that first got the O'Reilly-riling roiling.}

For any unfamiliar with the columnist, it's important to know his work is typically far above this kind of partisan wrestling. He regularly offers high-quality reporting on serious issues. His columns combine important factual information with calls to action, which often turn out to have had tangible impact; he is a reporter who revisits his interviewees. The tone, even while sometimes describing terrible suffering, is still one of optimism and hope. He is a writer who can convey the personal stories of survivors of tragedy - and leave his readers inspired.

His gift is the ability to mix shame and hope, two of humankind's most powerful motivators. He belongs to a shrinking minority of genuine reporters, who still rent jeeps, hire interpreters and go

[Continued in 1st comment...]

Bungling Rulers and Pathetic Opposition, oh my.

2006-02-06T05:36:00.000-05:00

Says Krugman in this NYT article, "We are ruled by bunglers .... Democratic electoral victories should be a sure thing. But they aren't. Why?"

Unfortunately, other than giving examples to support the "bunglers" assertion, and citing polls to support the "Democratic victories should be sure" assertion, he gets no more specific in answering the "Why?" question than to say: the Democrats' disunity, plus the media's focus on horse-race stories rather than policy issues, makes the public think Democrats are ineffective. So, therefore, he says, the Democrats should get more unified.

Anyway, the overall gist of his editorial is exactly what Pawlr said in a comment regarding one of the Alito-related postings below. It's good that Krugman is reading Pawlr's points and helping broadcast them on the NYT Op-Ed page (though that page tends to be as much a preaching-to-the-choir location as our own blog here).

If any of you readers know some enthusaistic conservatives or even radical right-wingers who you think would enjoy debating with us here, please invite them.

Anti-Semitic Words by a Cyber Columnist? NO.

2006-02-05T04:00:00.000-05:00

ANTI-SEMITISM CREATED FERTILE GROUND FOR SUCH VIEWS?

YES.

Apparently, last year, Demotiki was accused of being anti-semitic for saying the protection of Israel was one motive for invading Iraq. (See Feb. 1 post below, "US Will Protect Israel from Iran)

Having that view is not necessarily anti-semitic. To be a person who holds to that view is not, necessarily, to be an anti-semitic person. In fact, the view itself, by itself, is not necessarily anti-semitic. Perhaps there are rationalizations about it that a reasonable, non-Jew-hating person could believe in. But the origins of that view, that the protection of Israeli citizens from violence is a bad thing, a view espoused by many thousands of people other than Demotiki; and the fact that its bizarre assumptions and logic have met with a broadly receptive audience across huge regions, in general, is due to a world view that has anti-semitic roots.

There is a subtle but critical distinction that has to be made here. The issue here is not the suspicion, possibly well-founded, that Israel's protection was a motive for invading Iraq. At issue is the very idea that making this point matters.

[...Continued as first comment...]

Jimmy Carter's Farsightedness

2006-02-03T22:35:00.000-05:00

This is the transcript of a speech delivered by Jimmy Carter on television on July 15, 1979. He is trying to get Americans to understand the problem with their energy consumption. It's pretty crazy how ahead of the curve that guy was. No wonder the AMerican public got sick of him. Nothing is more irritating than someone who's right all of the time. He's a bore.

More Corruption

2006-02-01T21:12:00.000-05:00

From the NY Times:

"A former American occupation official in Iraq is expected to plead guilty to bribery, conspiracy, money laundering and other charges in federal court on Thursday for his actions in a scheme to use sexual favors, jewelry and millions of dollars in cash to steer reconstruction work to a corrupt contractor, according to papers filed with the court."

US Will Protect Israel from Iran

2006-02-01T17:09:00.000-05:00

There was a whole lot of hot air on this blogg last year about how protecting Israel had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq and that saying so was "anti-semetic." Needless to say the evidence was, and is, quite strong that Israel's security interests were a contributing factor to the decision to oust Sadam. As if there were any doubt about why the US is so anxious to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, the president lays it out in plain English in this article.

We are giving them $2.3 billion in military aid this year, wouldn't that allow them to defend themselves?

Tell Senators What We Think of Their Alito Votes

2006-02-01T07:02:00.000-05:00

Want to call the Dem Senators who failed to support a filibuster? The effective way that right-wing grassroots groups lobby their representatives is not just by calling in to say "Please vote on this or that" but by threatening to abandon the politician at the next election.

Since news orgs have reported that 25 Dems voted to filibuster, I assume that means 23 or 24 Dems voted against filibustering (aren't there still around 48 or 49 Dem senators in the Senate?) Of those who voted against, 13 said they were doing so even though they planned to go against Alito's nomination in the full Senate vote. This is political cowardice at its worst.

A full list of Senators, their phone numbers, and their record on both votes re Alito -- for/against a filibuster and later for/against his actual nomination Alito -- is copied into the 1st comment here. Unfortunately the Senators' party affiliations are not given in the list, but you can figure it out with some accuracy based on the given Senator's vote re Alito's nomination, since (correct me if I'm wrong ... I may be) that vote was mostly along party lines.

Cindy Sheehan Arrested at State of Union Address Anti-War T-Shirt Not Allowed

2006-02-01T04:08:00.000-05:00

Cindy Sheehan was invited by a member of Congress and therefore allowed to attend Bush's State of the Union address, but, as this article reports, she had the gall to wear an anti-war t-shirt.

Arriving moments before the speech began, Sheehan, whose son was a soldier killed in Iraq and who is now renowned for her vigil outside the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, was spotted by cops just a moment before Bush stepped to the podium. They ordered her to cover her t-shirt and then arrested her when she refused.She was reportedly hand-cuffed, although in the photos, it appears the cuffs may have been removed before she exited the building.

One may experience conflicting reactions as one digests this news. First, it appears such a blatantly unconstitutional trampling of free speech that it can seem amazing the police would dare do it. Is it the latest, outrageous example of our civil rights' disappearing before our eyes? However, the police in this case [...Continued as first comment...]

Choosing Battles ... and Battlegrounds

2006-01-31T02:05:00.000-05:00

Here's a thought on the Democrats' selling out. Are we perhaps mistaken to bemoan the hypocrisy and weakness of these individual politicians? Should we really be tearing our hair out in frustration that these leaders aren't standing up for what's right, the way we hoped they would? Maybe this is the wrong reaction.

We saw them propose massive tax cuts for the rich, only slightly smaller than what Bush proposed. We saw them authorize Bush to go to war. Now we've seen them effectively confirm Alito. But these individual leaders should not be the objects of our anger or frustration. They are just pulse-takers. Their job is to reflect what their constituents want, or be fired. To say, "Those damn Democratic politicians; they're selling out ...," is, perhaps, missing the point.

As observers, we should accept that there is a massive, demographic shift at work, and reversing it will take time. It will take strategic thinking and strategic effort, in areas that are not the focus of the daily news.

There is no need to greet each latest news headline with dismay. We already know the system is rotten. Neither the latest headlines nor our senators' individual characters matter. Feeling bad about the latest day's news is like being disappointed every morning, in December, to find that cold weather is forecast.

To start, we have to shift our focus away from the noisiest, most immediate

[Continued in first comment...]

Democrats sell out? Quel fucking shock.

2006-01-31T01:42:00.000-05:00

If this isn't enough to make us give up on the fucking Democrats, I don't know what is. Read this excerpt and weep. These 13 Dems say they're against Alito and will vote against him in the final vote, though everyone knows the majority in that vote will confirm him, but they don't have the guts to join the politically risky filibuster, which had a chance of blocking him. Traitors. Full article at link above.

=================

Alito's supporters needed 60 votes to block the filibuster, and they were joined by 13 Democrats who have announced they will vote against confirming his nomination.

"I believe that Judge Alito's nomination, if approved by the Senate, would tilt that court in a direction that will restrict personal freedoms, strengthen the role of government and corporations in our lives, and allow the expansion of power of the presidency," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who announced he would oppose Alito after voting to end debate.
=================

I can come up with rationalizations for these 13 Democrats' decision to undermine the filibuster and let debate be ended, even though they plan to vote against Alito's confirmation when it comes to a full vote. But the rationalizations, both political (it gives them political cover) and theoretical (the dramatic step of a filibuster isn't warranted even though I myself am against Alito; or, the people deserve to have Alito's confirmation determined by the majority will as expressed through a full vote wherein 51 can prevail, ... even though I myself am against Alito; etc...); but these rationalizations are just, simply, cop-out bullshit, given what's at stake. These Democrats make me want to stop reading the paper, I swear. Good effort by pawlr in previous post. Alas, but a grain of sand thrown against the wind.

What? Record Profits Again?

2006-01-30T08:51:00.000-05:00

Yeah, I know you are all surprised, but Exxon-Mobile posted record profits again. Who would have thunk it?

Couric, Lauer, Russert: All perpetuate GOP Lies

2006-01-28T15:13:00.000-05:00

It is difficult to explain how, other than via a conspiracy, these media bobbleheads can act so clearly in concert to obfuscate what is at essence a very simple story.

Republican activist and admitted felon Abramoff operated a pay-to-play scheme that bilked his clients out of millions that he directed to GOP senators.

Donations from these tribes to Democrats dropped after they became Abramoff clients. And yet we are supposed to believe that Abramoff directed his clients to give more to Democrats?

Not only does it not add up, not a shred of proof has been given. And yet we hear this nonsense daily from the 'liberal' press.

Alito, No!

2006-01-28T15:08:00.000-05:00

Over the last few days, a groundswell is forming to support a filibuster of Alito on Monday. If 41 Senators can be convinced to vote 'no' on cloture, the filibuster will be on.

In the comments, I've listed the numbers of swing Democrats who can still be urged to vote 'no'. Call or fax these swing vote Senators, asking for a simple YES or NO and urging them to SUPPORT THE FILIBUSTER.

Bernard-Henri Lévy's American Vertigo

2006-01-27T23:12:00.000-05:00

Bernard-Henri Lévy's was just on Charlie Rose. He echoes a great number of the views we have expressed here. His analysis of the painful effects of capitalistically driven social-homogenization was particularly trenchant. He talked about how the Mall of America was designed as a building where you could spend your entire life. It is supposed to be one building where you could get your first baby photos, celebrate your 16th birthday, marry, die and be processed for planting. Oddly enough, he finds that disturbing.

Survey of Fellow Americans' Views

2006-01-27T03:55:00.000-05:00

Interesting new poll data on dis/approval of Bush, of America on/not on right track; and re what percentages of Americans are worring about this or that. Somewhere within the document are also numbers on how many people are pissed about govt surveillance. Frustratingly few are worried about it.

Thing is, the percentages of people saying topmost priorities are defense, Osama/Iraq, or terrorism seem surprisingly low. Is it me, or is it also interesting that the NY Times pollsters grouped Osama and Iraq together?

Also interesting to note that concerns about the economy plummeted right after the '04 election. Shows how much election campaigns A. freak people out unduly about problems they otherwise wouldn't be worried about, or B. help focus people on real problems that they otherwise neglect.

Homeland Security Keeps Vegans At Bay

2006-01-27T03:30:00.000-05:00

It turns out Bush IS protecting us against terrorism after all. According to this story, which would be funny were it not true, Bush's leadership has ensured that we won't ever have to face our worst fears: of being overrun by Vegans and never seeing another honey-baked ham again.

Hysterical but spooky article and opening comment sent to me by a fellow journalist.

"At a protest outside Atlanta, a county-level "Homeland Security"
official was sent to photograph the demonstrators, and then ARRESTED two of them for writing down his license plate number.

"The thing that elevates this proto-fascist scene from the merely creepy
to the absurd is that this wasn't an anti-war rally at a military base --
it was a vegan rally outside a honey-bake ham store."

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=75151

ACLU Releases Government Photos

Caitlin Childs, shown at an ACLU news conference

==Thank God The Feds Won't Let Radicals Take Over Our Honey-Baked Ham Stores==

The ACLU of Georgia released copies of government files on Wednesday that illustrate the extent to which the FBI, the DeKalb County Division of Homeland Security and other government agencies have gone to compile information on Georgians suspected of being threats simply for expressing controversial opinions.

Two documents relating to anti-war and anti-government protests, and a vegan rally, prove the agencies have been "spying" on Georgia residents unconstitutionally, the ACLU said. (Related: ACLU Complaint -- PDF file)

[Hysterical article continues in first comment.]

Bush: Confusing himself, confusing the world.

2006-01-26T12:21:00.000-05:00

Ok, Bush, so you have your boneheaded domino-theory of spreading democracy via the lesson of invasion. And as a yardstick for the effectiveness of your policy, the theocons win 62% in Iran. And now, lo and behold Hamas wins in Palestine! I guess its worth it to give your self a pat on the back. Heck of a job, Bushie!

The Hamas victory "reminds me about the power of democracy," Bush said.

"You see, when you give people the vote, give them the chance to express themselves at the polls and they're unhappy with the status quo, they'll let you know," he said.

Of course, the fact that terrorists are now in power is not lost on him, so here's a quote to pander to that unfortunate reality...

"If your platform is the destruction of Israel, it means you're not a partner in peace, and we're interested in peace," Bush told reporters at a news conference.

So I guess democracy = good, unless bad people get elected. I mean, that's ok, because it almost never happens, right?

Might it not have been better to encourage developments like this, published last week?

Hamas has dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto for the Palestinian parliamentary election in a fortnight, a move that brings the group closer to the mainstream Palestinian position of building a state within the boundaries of the occupied territories.

The Islamist faction, responsible for a long campaign of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis, still calls for the maintenance of the armed struggle against occupation. But it steps back from Hamas's 1988 charter demanding Israel's eradication and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its place.

Of course, in Bushworld, why let reality get in the way of good rhetoric, even when it helps you?

Peter Daou on MSM

2006-01-25T15:54:00.000-05:00

Read this great essay on how MSM allows the Republican Party frame every issue in a way that paints the Democratic Party as inferior.

Let's get Canada to Join the US

2006-01-24T07:45:00.000-05:00

I have a solution to the Jesusland Blues. Add a few sane states to the mix. Fund the Bloq in Canada and try to split up the country. Show some carrots to the remaining states (I don't know, socialized medicine) so that they want to join the US. Most importantly, make sure we have a Dem in office when it happens. Jesusland would never win an election again.

Double Standards Re Israel: Many Leftists Blind

2006-01-23T17:07:00.000-05:00

During a recent regurgitation of the tired debate on who's to blame for Palestinian suffering (debated, admittedly, while stoned), it was remarkable to find the usual leftist double standards against Israel entirely alive and kicking. Presumably many leftists understand who Cheney and the Bush family represent, at least after sitting through Fahrenheit 9/11 if not before, but still don’t fully get the point.

They are so quick (and right) to blame American capitalist oligarchs for virtually all other evils around the world. But they rarely seem to wonder why the combined powers of wealthy elites in six Arab nations, along with those in Europe and the U.S., have spent half a century letting a tiny band of corrupt Palestinian thugs continue to rule over their impoverished subjects, who themselves are brainwashed by tiny thug-controlled media operations and schools.

Do these leftists really think – with oil prices* [see * at bottom of 1st comment] and weapons prices at stake – that the former Great Powers and the superpowers, and now the unipower, allow the Palestinian-Israeli farce to go on merely because they don’t care about Palestinians?! Certainly they don’t care. But they let the conflict go on, and even support those (behind the scenes) who help stoke it, for other reasons. Normally leftists would know these reasons. But when it comes to Israel, they impose double standards.

With regard to most of the Third World conflicts that occurred between World War I and the end of the Cold War, leftists have been content and right to place blame squarely on European, American and Soviet imperialism and its leftover messiness. Not so, however, when disempowered refugees, thrust into conflict with their neighbors, happen to be Jewish. Just as the socialists and communists of yore were anti-semitic in part because Jews were associated with European commerce and banking; so now knee-jerk leftists in America and Europe are anti-Israeli.

The visible facts that can lead gullible leftists to simplistic conclusions about Palestinians and Israelis. To name a few:

[Continued as 1st comment...]

Bloomberg Nails the Abramoff Scandal

2006-01-23T11:27:00.000-05:00

Finally a major news outlet tallies up the scandal dollar for dollar, and guess what? Turns out its a Republican scandal after all. So much for the "both parties" canard spun by the WH and their minions.

Two money quotes:

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats.

Turns out Howard Dean was right when he smacked down the Bearded Shill. Also:

The Saginaw Chippewas gave $500,500 to Republicans between 2001 and 2004 and $277,210 to Democrats, according to a review of data compiled by Dwight L. Morris & Associates, a Bristow, Virginia-based company that tracks campaign-finance reports. Between 1997 and 2000, the tribe gave just $158,000 to Republicans and $279,000 to Democrats.

Wow - so after Abramoff got to the clients he called "monkeys", "morons" and "troglodytes" - they contributed over $350,000 more to Republicans while keeping their contributions to Dems level.

Thanks, Mike B. for introducing facts into the mix of lies we've had to sit through on CNN, Hardball and MTP.

Army Interrogator Guilty of Negligent Homicide

2006-01-22T16:43:00.000-05:00

He covered an iraqi prisoner's head with a sleeping bag and stood on his chest until he died of suffocation.

His penalty, he "could be dishonorably discharged and sentenced to a maximum three years and three months in prison at a Monday hearing."

Geeze, I am not sure a "slap on the wrist" is the right term but that seems like a pretty light sentence for killing somone. . . even a brown person. Lindi England got more time for posing in some photos.

Current TV - Hudson valley biodiesel cooperative

2006-01-22T10:24:00.000-05:00

Cyberpol hero Al Gore launched "Current TV" not too long ago. It's up and running and has a wonderful website with some pretty cool videos that stream well. If you have cable TV in your area you might want to check out the network.

This clip shows a group of men who take spent cooking oil and make biodiesel out of it using a system they built from scratch. If I lived on a farm I might do the same. Check it out.

Never forget the wounded

2006-01-21T20:49:00.000-05:00

The Times has a nice bit on the terrible wounds our military has been suffering in Iraq. It brings home the human costs. This more than anything will melt those heretofore glacial Republican hearts that still beat somewhere in the torsos of loved ones lost to GOP mind control. If you can’t see your son or daughter living like this, how could you ever ask your fellow citizen, black or white, to accept the same?

RealClimate.org

2006-01-21T18:40:00.000-05:00

This is a really great site for some expert information on Global Warming. The founders are expert climate scientists so sometimes the content can be a little daunting. Still, it's a great site.

BBC on Israel / Iran Double Standards

2006-01-21T14:49:00.000-05:00

The BBC discusses the double standard Washington uses when talking about non-proliferation. The article points out that official criticism of nuclear powers Israel, India and Pakistan (all close allies of Washington) are muted at best.

As for the argument that Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - do any of you know when? It was signed in 1968, well before the Islamic Revolution of 1979. In other words the Western powers seek to use a treaty signed by a Washington-friendly government installed by a CIA-engineered coup in 1953. The current government of Iran is no more obligated to follow the Shah's treaties than the United States is required to follow those treaties of the United Kingdom signed prior to the Revolutionary War. The current government is in no way, shape, or form, a continuation of the same sovereign body that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Asking the UN to enforce sanctions based on the treaty is preposterous.

Once one admits that the Shah wasn’t speaking for today’s Iran and that any treaties he signed died with his government, it becomes clear that the international community has no legal right to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. With this knowledge, we have two options: the carrot or the stick. Given our leader’s preference for the latter, you had better contact your draft board.

"No one will be safe until everyone's a suspect"

2006-01-21T10:02:00.000-05:00

Connie Chung and Mr. Povich have come out strong for the abolition of the fourth Amendment. They showed clips of Cheney and Bush saying that they were not violating the fourth Amendment rights of Americans talking about their church suppers or little league baseball games. This was quickly followed by a Povich classic that normal Americans going about their daily lives, and a threatening voice over suggesting that within our seemingly most peaceful social congregations, there were terrorists. Clips included and “evil clown,” probably Gracie, and street scenes which flashed to photographic negatives with “scary” music.

Connie Chung followed this ridiculous bit with the words, “While the President’s actions might be illegal, American must ask themselves, should we give up some of our rights now to protect ourselves from losing them all in the future?” Ignoring Franklin’s obviously on-point rejoinder, why should we believe that a terrorist attack would cause us to lose our rights? Did the terrorists invade our privacy on 9/11, did they arrest our citizens and hold them Eastern European torture chambers? Did the terrorists record tens of thousands of telephone conversations? Say what you want about the very real dangers of terrorist attacks, but don’t pretend that they are taking our freedoms away. That job, today as it has always been, belongs to the Republican Party and the so-called “libertarians” who support it.

Israeli spy gets light sentence

2006-01-20T13:13:00.000-05:00

Franklin was given a very light sentence for spying for Israel, only 12 years. Why, because he was spying for our "ally" Israel, and he just wanted to make the world a better place. What horseshit! AIPAC should also be closed. Can you think of a single other instance where a spying network was allowed to continue working in the US after being caught? I can't. Double standards abound.

"ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) -- A former Pentagon analyst who gave classified information to an Israeli diplomat and two members of a pro-Israel lobbying group was sentenced Friday to more than 12 years in prison.

Lawrence A. Franklin, 59, a policy analyst whose expertise included Iraq and Iran, pleaded guilty in October to three felony counts in exchange for having three other counts dropped.

In sentencing Franklin, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said the facts of the case led him to believe that Franklin was motivated primarily by a desire to help the United States, not hurt it.

The 12-year, 7-month sentence was on the low end of federal sentencing guidelines.

Franklin said at his plea hearing in October that he did not intend to harm the United States and that he was motivated by frustration with U.S. policy in the Middle East when he gave classified information to the diplomat and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee."

Wolcott on Brokeback, Medved, Imus and Tweety

2006-01-20T13:11:00.000-05:00

Thought Cyberpollers would enjoy a hilarious new entry from James Wolcott, of Vanity Fair fame. Wolcott really knows how to dish it out, this time its hack flick "critic" Michael Medved who gets skewered.

UPDATE: Also a great take on the recent Osama surfacing and the Amuric'n media's clownish reaction.

Why is this man still alive?

2006-01-19T11:27:00.000-05:00

Can anyone explain to me why this threat to America still walks the earth, enjoys sunsets, eats meals, and continues to plot against this country?

Whatever happened to "smoking him out of his hole"?

A national fucking disgrace and yet another reminder of the utter failure that has been the Bush administration.

Video of Gore's Speech

2006-01-19T10:31:00.000-05:00

Made available by the American Constitution Society. In all three major web formats.

Unite the Bloggs and Comedy Central

2006-01-18T20:51:00.000-05:00

Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Dish was on the Colbert Report on January 17th, 2006. The thought struck me that I have never seen KOS on the daily show or elsewhere. I think it would be a great idea. Don't you?

Swiftboating Murtha

2006-01-18T19:14:00.000-05:00

The term "swift-boating" has entered the American lexicon as a term defining the absolute depths of political slander. To those of us who support the troops, no matter how terrible the war, swift-boating is a national disgrace.

This article is authored by a prominent Republican who places love of country and loyalty to the Marines above political expediency. James Webb was Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration, and a Marine platoon and company commander in Vietnam.

Lou Dobbs Really Does Suck

2006-01-17T19:07:00.000-05:00

I have posted before that Lou Dobbs has been a voice of sanity on an otherwise worthless network. Today, however, Lou and his “reporters” nearly caused me to vomit. Following a story on how the US was “failing to prevent leftist governments from taking power in Bolivia, Chile and elsewhere in Latin America,” Lou asked his correspondent if there were any bright spots in American/Latin American relations. The woman reporter said, “Sadly no, to find bright spots in our relations with Latin America you have to go back to the Reagan era.”

For those of you who don’t know, the Reagan era in Latin America was characterized by mass murder, American funded death squads and paramilitaries, and widespread torture – often conducted under the tutelage of CIA agents. Nuns were raped for teaching the poor to read and even an Arch Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church couldn’t escape Washington’s bullets.

From a website I found: “The death toll was staggering -- an estimated 70,000 or more political killings in El Salvador, possibly 20,000 slain from the contra war in Nicaragua, about 200 political "disappearances" in Honduras and some 100,000 people eliminated during a resurgence of political violence in Guatemala.”

That’s what a smug and chuckling Lou Dobbs thinks of as a bright spot. The dark spot? Oh, that’s when the people of Latin America can democratically elect their own governments. You see, that’s not good for business.

More Evidence that the NSA Spying Program Was Massive and Useless

2006-01-17T08:59:00.000-05:00

The Times started off slow, but they have been following this NSA spy story pretty well of late. Check out this bit.

An Impeachment Primer

2006-01-17T08:50:00.000-05:00

Here's a back-of-the-envelope explaination of the how, what, when, where and why of impeachment. Oddly enough, of the 16 officials impeached in history, all 7 convicted and removed from office were judges. However, elected officials like Nixon quit when they realized they were about to be sent packin'.

Al Gore's MLK Day Speech

2006-01-16T22:25:00.000-05:00

I haven't read this yet, but I hear it's great. I'll catch up this weekend.

Lynn Cheney's Racy Book

2006-01-16T21:47:00.000-05:00

This is old news, Lynn Cheney's book was not reprinted in 2004 because the publisher thought it might hurt her husband's election campaign. Strangely enough, her work follows the Scooter Libby soft-porn with twisted sex rutine that is popular with morally depraved Republicans.

NEW YORK (AP) — A publisher has canceled plans to reissue a racy novel by Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, after she said the book did not represent her "best work."

New American Library, an imprint of Penguin Group (USA), was going to reprint Sisters, a historical romance published in 1981 that includes brothels, attempted rapes and a lesbian love affair.

"We felt interest was growing because it was an election year and we decided it could be a timely book," Liz Perl, executive director of publicity at New American Library, told The Associated Press on Friday."

Chickenhawk Flash - Black Comedy

2006-01-16T21:24:00.000-05:00

You might find this interesting, a flash "movie" about the chickenhawks.

Is it Racist to Believe Non-Jews in the Middle East Can't Handle the Bomb?

2006-01-16T08:54:00.000-05:00

I certainly think so. The above bit is from Suzanne Nossel in the Huffington Post. That so liberal a blogg would entertain truly racist views is very disturbing. Her article begins with the assumption that it’s just fine for Israel to have the bomb, but any nation that Israel disapproves of shouldn’t have the same right. She makes no argument for why this should be the case, assuming that we all agree with her that Arabs and Persians can’t be trusted. Her racist views are hardly uncommon among her fellow Jewish American Zionists; however, they should give us great pause.

Her justification for “preemptive war” against Iran is based on the absolutely untenable argument that were Iran to get the bomb, that the first thing they would do is attack Israel. That a nation with one or two nuclear weapons would assault Israel and suffer a catastrophic retaliation is simply impossible to believe. The only way one could believe such rubbish is if one believed that Iranians or other people of the Middle East are intellectually inferior to Jews. Only an inferior race could reason so unsuccessfully. An Israeli strike would almost certainly destroy Iran forever and what would Iran get in exchange? They would accomplish nothing, just the destruction of their nation, the removal of the government and United States or Israeli occupation of their oil rich lands.

The real reason Israel doesn’t want Iran to get the bomb is really quit simple. A nation with the bomb doesn’t have to negotiate. It doesn’t have to treat other nations and other peoples with respect and humiliation. A nation with the bomb can be the neighborhood bully. Thanks to our unilateral acceptance of Israeli nuclear ambitions, we have allowed a neighborhood bully to motivate every other nation in the neighborhood to realize how essential the bomb is to their national independence. They want the bomb most of all because Israel has the bomb and will attack any nation that even thinks of gaining military equality with them by getting it themselves.

By the way, Iran has every right as a sovereign nation to acquire nuclear weapons if it wants to. A boycott is one thing, but invading a nation whose defense policy we don’t like is an act of war. If we attack, we can have no moral objections to Iranian funding of international terror, assassination or any other of their pathetic responses to our aggression. Those who can’t admit the simple logic of this argument are, in effect, racists.

Value Added from Israel?

2006-01-13T19:19:00.000-05:00

Christ Mathews asks, “Should we tell the Iranians that if they develop a nuclear weapon that we will have our friends in Israel attack them?”

What do you all think? Should we use Israel as our henchmen in the region, to fight the wars that our ruling class wants to fight but our average Joe is tired of fighting?

Greenwald on Spygate

2006-01-12T18:47:00.000-05:00

This question he asks of Bush apologists on Spygate:

Are there any limitations at all on what the President can do under the guise of national security and, if so, what are they? And, given this theory of the "wartime" President who can violate the laws of Congress and who can ignore the courts in areas of national security, what legal foundation could exist to argue for any such limitations?

An open invitation to any Bush supporters to share their thoughts in response. We're all interested.

Iraq Update

2006-01-12T17:58:00.000-05:00

Murtha's Latest. Must read.

Juan Cole on a British officer's criticisms of U.S. military approach.

Shiites tell Sunnis to forget about Constitutional amendments.

What happens when facts on the ground make mincemeat of rosy assessments?

Rice States that Iran's Opposition to Israel Means They Can't Have the Bomb

2006-01-12T15:06:00.000-05:00

Rice's comments beg the question, is she worried about American national security or Israeli national security.

If one backs off a bit and looks at this situation rationally, Iran's point that "if Europe felt bad for the holocausts, they should have carved the state of Israel out of Germany or the United States,” is completely valid. So too is the Iranian government’s position that there is no legal “right” for Israel to exist. As we all know, the only reason Israel exists is that the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in direct aid, and several times that amount in incidental aid, to allow Israel to continue to exist.

As for the bomb, why shouldn’t Iran have the bomb if America was fine with Israel getting it? Objectively, why should any country NOT be able to have the bomb – particularly when the current American administration has richly rewarded proliferators like Israel and Pakistan? The rationality of the Iranian position is also born out by the fact that the US and Israel are loath to attack known nuclear powers, but are more than happy to attack non-nuclear powers whenever it suits them. Israel’s unilateral attack on Iraq in the 1980s, spurred Sadam to increase his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and showed other countries in the region the danger of not having a nuclear deterrent when war-like neighbors possess them. How could one argue that Sadam was wrong to follow this path, his country was attacked by Israel without provocation and received no compensation for the damage caused by the attack (a nuclear plant was destroyed)? I am not supporting Sadam, just saying that if nuclear weapons avoid unilateral attacks like the one above, why should any country be denied them?

Of course, the Zionist neocons who now run our country’s foreign policy have adopted Israel-style “preemptive” war, as well as a number of other wonderful tactics such as assassinations, kidnappings, domestic spying, and of course, torture. What advantage has supporting Israel ever given the United States? None. It’s just that simple. Supporting Israel has made the United States numerous enemies and has destabilized a region of the utmost importance to our national security. As for the “Israel is a strong ally in the region” argument, give me a break. What’s wrong with having friends who give us stuff instead of always having a hand out? Objectively, what value has our “friendship” with Israel ever offered the United States? Give me a single example of how Israel is anything other than a massive thorn in the side of American foreign policy. Time to make friends who can carry their own weight.

A Murder in D.C., Part II

2006-01-12T14:01:00.000-05:00

More developments in the murder of a NYT reporter resulting from his assault last Friday. It appears that first responders mistook his disoriented condition for mental illness, and didn't realize he was suffering from massive head trauma. It also didn't look much like a robbery...

Police officers, who arrived quickly after the emergency call, thought Rosenbaum had suffered a medical problem, such as a seizure, officials said. They did not realize he was a crime victim, because he was wearing his watch and wedding band, and a portable radio was resting nearby. . .

. . . The problems also affected the police investigation. It was not until early Saturday that police returned to the neighborhood and searched for evidence and leads.

Something doesn't add up. Muggers take his wallet but not his wedding band, watch, or portable radio?

Conspiracy to Cry?

2006-01-12T07:32:00.000-05:00

A Conspiracy to Cry?

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has violated the confidence of his constituents and dishonored his office by acting as a coach for Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito. Never in Senate history has a senator on the Judiciary committee prepped a candidate for the Supreme Court that HIS committee would question and judge.

The truly bizarre nature of Graham’s public relations advice to Alito was on display yesterday afternoon. In a choreographed event, Graham asked Alito if he was “a bigot,” explaining after Democrats had accused him of being one. On cue, Mrs. Alito broke into tears and fled from the room. No less than ten minutes later Fox News let into Senator Schumer for their allegedly brutal grilling of the nominee. Over the next few hours the Republican spin machine played out the story in a concerted effort to make the Democrats appear insensitive and vindictive. The link above is to a Drudge report bit where he either accuses the Democrats of making Mrs. Alito cry. What a bunch of wankers!

NBC buys out MS from MSNBC

2006-01-10T12:39:00.000-05:00

“NBC will now have an 82 percent stake in the network, with the option to acquire the remaining 18 percent after two years. NBC and Microsoft will continue to share ownership of the network's Web site, MSNBC.com.”

This is particularly disturbing for several reasons. First Bill Gates was the only major player in cable news who was not a Republican. Second, NBC is owned by GE which is nearly completely Republican. In fact, Jack Welsh, former GE Chairman, was personally responsible for the network’s early declaration of Bush as the winner of the 2000 contest. Breaking with tradition, he entered the newsrooms at NBC headquarters and demanded that the network make the announcement of Bush’s victory. Also, MSNBC has developed a somewhat independent voice in recent months, to the point where it’s almost worth watching. Now that GE has complete control of it, we can expect to see that change.

The above link also had information about cable news ratings that you might find interesting.

How low is Bush's estimate of 30,000 Iraqis dead?

2006-01-09T11:47:00.000-05:00

In the aftermath of the First Iraqi-American War, the question of the number of Iraqi deaths always fascinated me in the inability of anyone to agree on an actual total. How many fleeing troops were actually massacred on the "Highway of Death" as they attempted to flee Kuwait? The scene in Jarhead where they come upon its re-creation recently reminded me that some estimates were in the 250,000 range.

With the Second Iraqi-American War dragging on through its third year of occupation the answer to the question as to the number of Iraqi civilian deaths proves equally difficult to answer. In the linked article, Andrew Cockburn quotes at length from a statistician, Pierre Sprey, who provides an argument that supports the notion that the number may be as high as 100,000.
Who knew there might be a "tyranny of the Gaussian"?

Bush's Abramoff connections

2006-01-09T08:55:00.000-05:00

Although Bush's Press ~~Whore~~ Secretary claims that "the President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him.", apparently Abramoff had plenty of contact with Cheney and Ashcroft soon after the Administration took office.

Read more about how these meetings potentially relate to the Marianas Islands scandal.

A Murder in D.C.

2006-01-09T08:30:00.000-05:00

NYT reporter David E. Rosenbaum died Saturday after being beaten and robbed Friday night outside his home in one of the safest neighborhoods of D.C.:

After leaving his house Friday night for a walk to get some fresh air, Rosenbaum was found by a neighbor about 9:30 p.m. in the 3800 block of Gramercy, a one-block street in an upscale neighborhood about a half-mile south of the Montgomery County border.

Little was known about the circumstances of the assault and robbery.

Police said earlier that two men had been seen getting into an automobile and leaving the area about the time of the attack.

Here's a list of his most recent articles. They're in chronological order running down the right column.

Note his last by-line from 2 weeks ago, which deals with the warrantless wiretapping scandal and speculates on what position Alito might take if confirmed for SCOTUS. Also one from Dec. 20 on the Bush position on ignoring FISA.

I hope the authorities investigate this crime fully. I'm just sayin'.

Dean Destroys Blitzer

2006-01-08T15:17:00.000-05:00

When Blitzer tries to drag Dems into the Abramoff scandal, Dean completely nukes him.

No Democrats have ever accepted money from Abramoff. Period. Its that simple.

Blitzer is so flustered, he's reduced to dead air. Brilliant.

Your Debt

2006-01-08T12:02:00.000-05:00

Remember when Republicans believed in smaller government? Maybe you don’t, because that was literally decades ago. Today when the Republican Party is in power they outspend Democrats by a large margin.

Fiscal conservatives like me are upset to see credit-card Republicans borrowing excessively and spending inefficiently. Today our individual share of the public debt is $27,551.46. That’s how much every man, woman and child (even those being born this second) owe to the government’s creditors – mainly places like China. The total debt under Bush has grown from $5,656,270,901,615.43 to $8,160,320,491,591.57, the largest percentage increase in the history of the country.

If current trends continue, by the time Bush leaves office, the national debt will exceed the national income for the first time in history. In other words, even if we were somehow able to apply every single dollar made by the economy to paying down the national debt, we couldn’t do it in a year.

The Republican penchant for spend-and-borrow finance is particularly ironic when one stops to consider the draconian IMF policies they favor for the world’s developing economies. The IMF typically frowns upon regimes which allow debt to exceed say 10% of national income. The United States is now at about %75 of national income and will be 100% or more of national income in the near future. It’s time for us to practice what we preach. No more tax cuts for the super rich, no more corporate welfare, a freeze on increases in entitlement and most importantly, an end to foreign military misadventures which harm our national security and cost far more than we can afford.

Sweet Charity. . .

2006-01-07T09:57:00.000-05:00

Arianna has a good post that shows how the DeLay/Frist charity scams work. With wholesome names like "U.S. Family Network" and "World of Hope", these "charity" organizations' 501(c)(3) status allows them to keep their donor lists secret, and basically operate as slush funds for Republican causes. Another big plus - as "charities" these vehicles allow corporate donors to make their payoffs tax-exempt. Feeling sick yet?

Oh, one thing more. These charities have the added benefit of enriching these legislators' family members to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars for performing mundane clerical functions.

Check-in on Iraq

2006-01-06T21:47:00.000-05:00

Riverbend has a "Happy" new year post up. Apparently the gasoline price spike caused by everyone's favorite international lending institution, the IMF, is really doing a lot to help raise everyone's spirits. As well as completely shred their purchasing power via inflation. Well, when fraudster Chalabi is the new oil minister, what else can you expect?

There is talk of major mismanagement and theft in the Oil Ministry. Chalabi took over several days ago and a friend who works in the ministry says the takeover is a joke. “You know how they used to check our handbags when we first walked into the ministry?” She asked the day after Chalabi crowned himself Oil Emperor, “Now WE check our handbags after we leave the ministry- you know- to see if Chalabi stole anything.”

Way to nation build, America!!! Keep it up!

FAO warns 11 million on brink of starvation in Horn of Africa

2006-01-06T10:21:00.000-05:00

That's ok, Bush appointed a crony with no previous experience to head the US global humanitarian relief efforts. He did so after seeing how effective this strategy was at eliminating black people from New Orleans, and has high hopes for the gentrification of Eastern Africa.

Who's in charge of the Abramoff Investigation?

2006-01-05T13:29:00.000-05:00

It appears that a recess appointment will be in charge of the Abramoff investigation.

Alice Fisher has never been a prosecutor, but she's a big Bush supporter. I wonder where her loyalties will be?

James Moore placed on TSA's "No-Fly" List

2006-01-05T10:12:00.000-05:00

Moore co-authored the book Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George Bush Presidental.

This is the same list that Ted Kennedy found himself on recently. Oh, and the number of those on the list has grown from 35,000 to 80,000 in the last few years. Hmmm.

Apparently critics of the administration are now officially "people who might have terrorist connections".

Signing orders, an End-run Around the Constitution

2006-01-04T20:44:00.000-05:00

Someone was asking about the President’s peculiar habit of issuing “signing statements” after signing bills. By noting in such statements that he plans to only follow those aspects of the new law that he pleases to follow, he is able to increase his power. Normally, a Congress that wasn’t fat, corrupt and stupid would get upset about losing their ability to pass laws, but no such luck here. In fact, the Senate will probably install Alito on the Supreme Court, despite the existence of a memo in which he advised Bush to broaden his use of the “signing statement.” The following is an example of how Bush has used this innovative power-grab to widen his authority.
“BUSH SIGNS 2004 INTEL BILL INTO LAW
President Bush signed into law the 2004 intelligence authorization bill on December 13, while signaling a continuing posture of secrecy towards congressional overseers.
In a signing statement, he warned that he might not comply with several legislative provisions on intelligence accountability and reporting because, he said, they intruded on executive authority.
"Many provisions of the Act, including section 106 and subtitle D of title III of the Act, seek to require the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress on various subjects. The executive branch shall construe the provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."
See the December 13 signing statement here:”

Frontline - The Torture Question

2006-01-03T21:23:00.000-05:00

You all must watch this PBS Documentary about how torture became the norm in our once humane military. The link above allows you to watch the entire program on your computer.

Just a warning, this might make you a little sick to your stomach. If you have a shred of human decency, self respect, responsibility, or traditional patriotic values this should make you very ashamed of how far our great nation has fallen in just a few short years. We faced down the mighty Soviet Union for nearly fifty years without giving up our cherished values; now we cower before a pathetic band of thieves and thugs. There can be no justification, practical or moral, for the sort of behavior shown in this documentary. If you differ, you are a fool and a coward.