a War Monger's ADD

Now that Afghanistan and Iraq have been whipped, tamed (except for a mere handful of pesky "insurgents") and left to stand as bright and shining examples of America's benevolence, it's time to spread some cheer elsewhere in the Middle East.

Left Blogtopia has been buzzing about the possibility of a June strike on Iran. The speculation has been fueled by predictions earlier this year by Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter - two truth-hounds with a hell of a lot of high level sources - and Xan's observations regarding naval maneuvers (Corrente) (via Agitprop via Blondesense).

While it's hard to discount the prognostications of Hersh & Ritter, after venturing over to Empire Burlesque, that fearless journalist Chris Floyd just changed my mind about our intended target.



Given the homicidal nature of George W. Bush, venturing a guess on our next military playground is like trying to determine the next victim of a serial killer.

Organs of Freedom

Revealing the true nature of Bush's hallucinatory visions of freedom and democracy, King of Zembla brings us this story of one young man's desperation.

It Takes a Potemkin Village

Potemkin village: Something that appears elaborate and impressive but in actual fact lacks substance: “the Potemkin village of this country's borrowed prosperity” (Lewis H. Lapham). ETYMOLOGY: After Grigori Aleksandrovich Potemkin, who had elaborate fake villages constructed for Catherine the Great's tours of the Ukraine and the Crimea.

I originally planned to simply post the latest Bushism with a few comments about the saturation of propaganda in America. But because embarassing speech by U.S. government officials has a tendency to disappear from the public record and cast into the useful pit of urban myth, here's the entire transcript and an all too typical example of Bush's Potemkin Village Idiots in action. By the way, I don't expect anyone to actually read the whole thing (I didn't). Scroll down for the money shot.

The official transcript can be found - this morning, anyway - at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html. I suspect it won't remain there for long because in spite of the fakery of this staged event, some truth seeped in.


It bears mentioning citizens like you and I will never have our words transcribed from a "public" appearance by George W. Bush because we're not even allowed to be present.

Thanks to Agitprop for spreading the word.


THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Go ahead and be seated. Be seated, thank you. We've got to get to work. Thank you all for coming. Please be seated. (Applause.) Thanks for coming. Thanks for the warm welcome, and thanks for caring about the future of our country, because that's what we're here to discuss. Before I get to the Social Security issue, I do want to thank some people.

President George W. Bush leads a conversation about strengthening Social Security at Greece Athena Middle and High School in Greece, N.Y., Tuesday, May 24, 2005. White House photo by Paul Morse First I want to thank the Greece Athena Middle and High Schools for letting us use this fantastic facility. It really is beautiful, yes. (Applause.) A fantastic place, isn't it? Yes. I want to thank Helen Wahl and Dick Snyder -- Helen is the principal of the high school; Dick Snyder is the principal of the middle school. I want to thank all the teachers. I want to thank the superintendent. I want to thank all the folks who care a lot about making sure the kids get educated here in this part of the world. (Applause.)

I'm sorry Laura is not here. Yes, you'd probably rather have her here than me, wouldn't you? Anyway -- (laughter.)

Q We didn't say that.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, no, but you thought it. You didn't say it, but I could tell you thought it. You're not the only person here who feels that way, I want you to know. She's doing great. She is on a trip promoting the freedom agenda. She's made it very clear to people in the Middle East, you can't have a complete society unless women participate fully in the society in the Middle East. (Applause.) I'm really proud of her. I'm a fortunate man that she said yes when I asked her to marry me back in Midland, Texas. She's a great First Lady. I'm looking forward to having her come home tonight, back to the White House. (Applause.)

I thank Congressman Tom Reynolds. He's an effective United States Congressman who cares a lot about this district. (Applause.) I'm proud to call him friend. I'm proud to call Congressman Sherry Boehlert friend, as well. Sherry is from the district next door; I've known him for a long time. He's a good, thoughtful man. He's a fine United States congressman. (Applause.) Congressman Jim Walsh is with us today. He, too, is a fine United States congressman. (Applause.) And I was proud to be traveling with Congressman Randy Kuhl -- he's a freshman member of the House of Representatives, doing a great job. Thank you all for coming. (Applause.)

They want to ride on Air Force One. (Laughter.) Proud to make room for them. They want to ride back on Air Force One. (Laughter.) And they probably want a meal on Air Force One. Save up your appetite, fellows, you got a good meal coming.

I want to thank all the state and local officials who have joined us today. I'm proud you're here. There's two athletes in the audience I want to pay recognition to. First of all, a person you all know well, really a fine member of the community, member of the NFL Hall of Fame -- Jim Kelly. Thank you for coming. Good to see you again, Jim. (Applause.) And at the other age of the -- at the other end of the age spectrum is a fine athlete from this part of the world. I just met her. As you know I'm a baseball person. I love baseball. The fact that somebody would pitch a perfect game at any level of baseball is amazing. The fact that a person would pitch a perfect game and strike out every batter is even more amazing. So welcome a fantastic pitcher in the -- representing the Dodgers baseball team, from Little League Baseball, Katie Brownwell. (Applause.) Thanks for coming.

President George W. Bush talks with a fellow stage participant during a conversation about strengthening Social Security at Greece Athena Middle and High School in Greece, N.Y., Tuesday, May 24, 2005. White House photo by Paul Morse And finally, one other person, before I get to the topic at hand, I'd like to introduce, is a woman named George-Ann Schauffele. George-Ann is a volunteer. And the reason I bring up people who volunteer is I want to remind you that the true strength of this country lies in the hearts and souls of our citizens; that if you want to be a participant in America, and in the future America, volunteer to make somebody's life better. Feed the hungry, help find shelter for the homeless. George-Ann is involved with the Literacy Volunteers of Rochester Program, helping somebody learn to read. I can't think of a better way to pass on a gift from one generation to the next than to mentor somebody, particularly somebody who needs to learn to read.

My point is this: Serve your community and serve your country by taking time out of your busy lives to volunteer to make somebody's life better; to answer that universal call to love a neighbor just like you'd like to be loved yourself. (Applause.) I don't know where George-Ann is. Where are you, George-Ann. Thanks for coming. Thanks for being a great role model. (Applause.)

We got a lot to do in Washington, D.C. One of the big issues, of course, is Social Security -- although yesterday there was some progress made. I'm pleased that the Senate is moving forward on my judicial nominees who were previously being blocked. These nominees have been waiting years for an up or down vote on the Senate floor, and now they'll get one. It's about time we're making some progress. (Applause.)

It's important for this nation to address issues. I believe the job of the President is to confront problems, not to pass them on to future Presidents or future generations. I believe my job in representing everyone who lives in this country is that when I see a problem, is to say to the United States Congress, let's work together to solve the problem. And, folks, we've got a problem when it comes to Social Security.

President George W. Bush leads a conversation about strengthening Social Security at Greece Athena Middle and High School in Greece, N.Y., Tuesday, May 24, 2005. White House photo by Paul Morse First, let me start by saying that Franklin Roosevelt did a good thing when he created the Social Security system. Social Security has been an important part of a lot of people's lives in America. The Social Security system created by Franklin Roosevelt provided a safety net for people in their retirement. And it worked. There are a lot of people still in this country counting on their Social Security check. And, therefore, I want to start by saying to people who are getting their check, people who were born prior to 1950, the system will not change when it comes to you. The system has got plenty of money in it to make sure you get your check.

The reason I have to say that is because I understand how the Social Security issues has worked in the past -- somebody like me talks about it, and then somebody comes in behind by telling seniors, "really what he's saying is he's going to take away your check." That's old-style, scare politics, but it is a part of the American system. And so people have got to understand when we start talking about Social Security, to strengthen the Social Security system for generations to come, to deal with the problem I'm about to describe to you, that if you're a senior in Greece, New York, you're going to get your check. It's the folks coming up that you need to worry about. See, if you're a grandmother, you're going to get your check. You need to worry about your grandson.

We're about to talk to a generation of folks from this part of the world about Social Security. Now, here's the reason I even have to bring it up, that the pay-as-you-go system in Social Security is confronting some serious demographic difficulties.

Now, the system is pay-as-you-go -- that means when you pay in, we go ahead and pay out. Your payroll tax goes into a -- not into a trust that we hold for your account; your payroll tax goes into an account and we pay out the money for the retirees and with any money left over, we spend it on general government. It's important for people to understand that aspect of Social Security. In other words, it's not a trust. In other words, we're not taking your money and holding it for you and then giving it back to you when you retire. We're taking your money, we're spending it on current retirees, and in that more money is coming in that needs to go out for the retirees, we're spending on other programs. And all that's left behind in Social Security is a group of file cabinets with IOUs in it. That's the way the system works. It's called pay-as-you-go.

Now, what's going to change from today in terms of the pay-as-you-go system is that there's a lot of people getting ready to retire. I happen to be one of them. (Laughter.) At least I reach retirement age in 2008 -- I like to remind people, that's a convenient date for me. (Laughter.) Particularly the end of 2008. (Applause.) And there are a lot of people like me. We're called the baby boomers. I'm looking at some baby boomers out there. As a matter of fact, by the time the baby boomers fully retire there's going to be over 70 million of us getting paid by younger workers who are paying through payroll -- paying our retirement through payroll taxes. Today there's about 40 million retirees. So, you see, a lot more people are going to be -- having to be taken care of in the retirement system through the pay-as-you-go system.

And not only that; we're going to live longer than the previous generation. And not only that; our benefits are going to rise faster -- at least the promised benefits will rise faster than a previous generation. So you've got a lot of people who will be living longer, getting paid greater benefits, with fewer people paying into the system.

In 1950, there were some 16-to-one workers paying into the system for each beneficiary. Today there's 3.3 workers for every beneficiary. Soon there's going to be 2 workers for every beneficiary. So I think you're beginning to get a sense of the math. A lot of us are going to get greater benefits, we're going to live longer with fewer of the young people paying in the system to take care of us.

Now, what ends up happening under that type of system is that, in 2017, the system starts to go into the red -- more money going out than coming in on Social Security benefits, for Social Security benefits relative to the payroll taxes. And it gets worse every year. In 2027, it's projected to be -- it will be $200 billion in the hole, $200 billion more benefits going out than payroll taxes coming in; every year worse after that, until 2041, all those -- the paper in the file cabinets in West Virginia are just eaten up, bankrupt. The system is bust.

What we're asking youngsters to do is to contribute money through payroll taxes into a system that will be broke in 2041 -- unless we do something about it. And so that's the problem. And it's a real problem. My friend, Tim Penny, former congressman from Minnesota, is going to describe the problem to you in further detail.

Now, I have a duty not only to describe the problem, I believe I have a duty to come forth and say, let's do something about it and here's some ideas to the United States Congress. I did it. I stood up in front of the Congress at my State of the Union, I said, here's a problem; by the way, here's some ideas; all ideas are on the table -- except running up the payroll tax rate, which I think would hurt the economy -- all ideas are on the table, bring them forward. And then I further refined that by talking about some of these ideas. And the reason I'm doing it is because I understand if we wait, it costs $600 billion a year more every we wait. See, if we don't do anything, if we don't come up with a solution to permanently solve this problem, it is conceivable a younger generation of Americans will have to pay an 18-percent payroll tax, or benefits will have to be cut by 30 percent, or the rest of government will have to cut substantially in order to make sure that the promises that have been made are pr

And so here are some ideas Congress needs to consider. First of all, that a future generation should receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits enjoyed by today's seniors. That seems like a reasonable principle as we go forward. Secondly, that the Social Security system should be designed such -- the future Social Security -- by the way, if you were born prior to 1950, nothing changes. What I'm talking about here doesn't pertain to you. You're going to get your check. The system is going to be exactly the way it is. There's plenty of money in it to take care of you. It's the younger folks that need to be paying attention to what I'm talking about.

And so I think a second principle ought to be this: if you've worked all your life, that you should not retire in poverty. That's a principle that makes sense. We can design a system that supports that concept. And here's the way you do it: It's called progressive indexing. That's a Washington kind of thing, you know. (Laughter.) It says that if you're in the -- for example, a guy named Pozen, who Tim knows well, came up with this concept. It said that if you're a -- poorest 30 percent of the workers, nothing will change in terms of how your benefits increase.

Right now the benefits, by the way, increases are tied to wages. If you're the top 1 percent of workers in terms of income, your benefits would increase by the rate of inflation, not by the rate of wage. Your benefits increase, but not as fast as the folks at the bottom end of the spectrum. And if you're in between, depending upon your income, your benefits will increase somewhere between the rate of wage and the rate of price.

Now, incredibly enough, structuring the system this way when it comes to benefit increases will get about -- a significant portion of the problem permanently solved. I think it makes sense for Congress to consider this idea. It says you'll get a benefit equal to or greater than the previous generation; that, at the very minimum, your benefit will grow at the rate of inflation -- if you're poor, your benefit will grow at the rate of wage increases, and that you won't retire into poverty.

And there are other things we can do to permanently solve the problem completely. I say, permanently solve it, because you might remember 1983. Were you in the Congress then, Tim? Yes, first term in the Congress. Tim came together with others -- Ronald Reagan was the President, Tip O'Neill was the Speaker. We had a problem in Social Security. They came together and put together what they called a 75-year fix. Here we are 22 years later. The 75-year fix didn't stick for 75 years. It's time to fix this deal once and for all.

And there are some good ideas I put on the table. Let me tell you one other good idea that I want people to think about before we get to our panelists here, folks we're going to be discussing this issue with, and that is that I think that as we permanently solve the system, that we ought to make it a better deal for younger workers by allowing younger workers to take some of their own payroll taxes and set it aside in what is called a voluntary personal savings account. (Applause.)

Notice I said "voluntary." In other words, the government should say to a younger worker, if you want to, you can put some of your own money aside. You don't have to. If you're uncomfortable with watching your money grow with a conservative mix of bonds and stocks, you don't have to do that. You can keep it the way -- into the system. And you'll get your check. If you're in the bottom 30 percent, your benefits over time will grow at wages. If you're in the top 1 percent, they'll grow with inflation. And if you're somewhere in between, they'll grow depending upon your income, but greater than the rate of inflation. Secondly, it's called a personal account. That means you own it. It's an account the government cannot take away. (Applause.)

So why would we do this? Why would we think of this idea? Well, first of all, with your money in your payroll taxes -- after all it's your money -- is earning about a 1.8 percent rate of return over time in the Social Security system. You can do better than that. You can do better than that with T-bills, which have very little risk to them, if any at all. You can do a lot better than that in a conservative mix of bonds and stocks. They say that over time you should be able to average at least 4.6 percent.

Now, over a lifetime that is a significant amount of money relative to the 1.8 percent, because money compounds, money grows. For example, if you're making $8 an hour and you put your money -- and you're allowed to set aside a third of your payroll taxes -- $8 an hour over your life, and you're allowed to set a third of your payroll taxes aside in a personal savings account, and you earn the 4.5 percent rate of return, which is definitely achievable, particularly when you look at the history of a conservative mix of investments, by the time it comes -- you reach retirement age, you'll have earned $100,000 in your nest egg. That will be a part of your Social Security retirement system. See, you'll get benefits out of the current system, out of the system that's reformed, plus you get $100,000 that you call your own.

If you're -- say, you're a police officer and a nurse, and enter the work force in 2011; you set aside money, you make the average salary those folks make over time, and you set aside a third of your payroll taxes -- both of you do

-- by the time both retire, they have about $669,000 in a personal savings account. Money grows over time. The higher the rate of return, the more -- the faster your money grows, and the more you end up with.

A lot of people are able to understand that. You know why? Because we're into a 401(k) culture. When Penny and I were growing up, we didn't have 401(k)s. The other day I was in an automobile manufacturing plant in Mississippi, I'm sitting with a lot of line workers. I said, how many of you have got 401(k)s? A lot of hands went up. A lot of people from different walks of life, different backgrounds, now understand what it means to watch your money grow. This isn't a new concept that's in American society, this is something that's taking place throughout all of society. And I think it makes sense to understand the investor class doesn't belong to a privileged few, but the investor class ought to be extended to everybody who lives in America if that's what you want, if that's what you choose. (Applause.)

I like the idea of somebody saying, here's your asset and you can leave it to whomever you want. And the more people are able to do that in our society, the better off society is. See, I think government ought to promote an ownership society. We ought to encourage more people to own their own home, encourage entrepreneurs to be able to take risk and own their own business -- and in this case, encourage Americans from all walks of life, if they so choose, to manage their own retirement account. And I say, manage it -- you know it's your money; you're going to have some choices to make when it comes to a personal savings account. You can't take it to the lottery, by the way. You notice I've been stressing conservative mix of bonds and stocks, because we want this account to grow and be a part of a modern safety net for you in your retirement. And so there will be some guidelines.

And I can predict to you that it works because a lot of other people have watched their money grow in the same kind of accounts, including people who work for the federal government. See, we have got in Washington what's called a Thrift Savings Plan. And members of the United States Senate, for example, can choose, if they so desire, to set aside some of their own money in a personal savings account, a voluntary personal savings account. And a lot of people like it.

I think -- I was doing one of these events with Senator McCain, who told me that his rate of return on his money was, like, 7 percent over the last 20 years. That's a lot better than the 1.8 percent we now get for you in the Social Security system. And so my attitude about this issue on thrift savings plans when I speak to members of the Congress is pretty simple -- if the idea of taking some of your own money and setting it aside in a conservative mix of bonds and stocks is good enough for you, Mr. Senator, it is good enough for workers all across the United States of America. (Applause.) You'll be happy to hear Senator McCain agrees with me, because he's seen his money grow.

Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you -- as I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to redesign the current system. If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)

But if you choose to have one of these accounts -- notice I keep saying "if you choose" -- the government is not going to tell you, you have to do this. I think the government ought to give you the opportunity to set up one of these accounts. And the account becomes a part of your retirement plan. It's your own asset. It's something you leave to somebody -- whomever you choose. And it makes the system eminently more fair.

Now, with those thoughts in mind, we got a problem, and here's some ideas on how to solve it. I've asked Congressman Tim Penny, right out of the state of Minnesota, a person who's followed this issue a lot -- he happens to be of a different political party than I am, but, nevertheless, we both share the common goal of doing our duty as involved citizens to permanently solve the problem of Social Security today.

Welcome, Congressman. Thanks for coming.

* * * * *

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Tim, good job. (Applause.) Articulate guy, isn't he? One thing you don't have to worry about is me staying with this effort. This is a vital issue. The American people expect those of us who are fortunate enough to serve in Washington to solve problems. And I've just begun. I like getting out of Washington to begin with -- (laughter) -- I like explaining the situation. But we're just beginning. If this were easy, it would have been done a while ago. And I fully recognize some in Washington don't particularly want to address this issue, it may be too difficult. And I recognize some of them say, well, this is a partisan thing, we don't want to make one party look good as opposed -- at the expense of another.

But let me tell you what I think is going to happen. I think -- and Tim is right -- I think more and more people recognize there's a problem, and people are beginning to say, go do something about it. And those who obstruct reform, no matter what party they're in, will pay a political price, in my judgment. People expect us to go to Washington, D.C. to work together. That's what they want to see, particularly when it comes to an issue like Social Security. (Applause.)

We've got three members of a fine family here. We've got grandmother, mom, and down there anchoring at the end is grandson or son, isn't that right?

MRS. CEGLINSKI: That's right.

THE PRESIDENT: You are Audrey Ceglinski.

MRS. CEGLINSKI: That's right. I'm a 70-year-old widow.

THE PRESIDENT: Don't ever say your age. (Laughter.)

MRS. CEGLINSKI: Oh, that's -- I have no problem. Don't ask me my weight, though.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. (Laughter and applause.) Reminds me of my mother. (Laughter.)

MRS. CEGLINSKI: That's good. I was a teacher's aide for Williamsville South High School for 25 years, and I retired from there -- a very enjoyable job. I also wanted to mention I'm a volunteer for Meals on Wheels.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, fantastic.

MRS. CEGLINSKI: Which I'm missing today. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I hope somebody filled in --

MRS. CEGLINSKI: Oh, yes. We've got some great people there. It's a good group.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for doing that.

MRS. CEGLINSKI: I like it a lot. My husband and I retired eight years ago. Unfortunately, he passed on after only two years, so the money he had invested in Social Security in a sense was gone. Had we had a personal account, I would have had some money for Deborah, Jeremy, his brothers, to pass on.

THE PRESIDENT: Let me stop you there, if you don't mind.

MRS. CEGLINSKI: That's fine. (Laughter.) You have my permission.

THE PRESIDENT: Here's the way the system works. Two folks work, they both contribute to the Social Security system; if one dies early, the spouse, the remaining spouse gets to choose her benefits or his benefits, which are ever greater, but not both. Think about that system. Dad went and contributed a lot into the system. He passed away. But the money he put in -- most of the money he put in is gone. That's not fair. What kind of system is that? It's not a fair system. It's not fair to the family. It's not fair to the person who has worked all his life, in this case. Had he been able to put money aside in a personal account, that account would have gone to Audrey.

Isn't that right? Keep going. You're on a roll.

MRS. CEGLINSKI: Okay. (Laughter.) I have five children, seven grandchildren, and that's my concern. I think you, making the young people aware that there's a problem, is going to make them aware and encourage them to save. And I think that's what we need to do.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that. Younger people need to pay attention to this issue. See, if nothing gets done in Congress, as Congressman Penny pointed out, you're going to get to pay higher payroll taxes -- and higher and higher and higher payroll taxes. And so you need to pay attention. Actually, I believe younger people are beginning to pay closer attention to this issue. We're beginning to get their attention.

First thing is, is there any doubt in your mind that you're going to get your check?

MRS. CEGLINSKI: I'm getting my check, and it's wonderful.

THE PRESIDENT: They're still coming.

MRS. CEGLINSKI: It's still coming. And I'm planning on it for a while yet. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you need to, yes. Heading toward 80.

MRS. CEGLINSKI: That's right.

THE PRESIDENT: Right around the corner. You look great.

MRS. CEGLINSKI: Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT: You look like 100 to me. That's where you're going to be. Thirty more years?

MRS. CEGLINSKI: I'll remind you of that. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: All right, good. And she's going to want her check. On her 99th birthday, she's going to want her check. And you're going to get your check. Okay, and so who did you bring with you?

MRS. CEGLINSKI: I brought my daughter, Deborah, the oldest of my five.

THE PRESIDENT: Debbie or Deborah?

MRS. CEGLINSKI: Debbie. We like to call her Debbie.

THE PRESIDENT: You called her Deborah.

MRS. CEGLINSKI: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. (Laughter.)

MRS. CEGLINSKI: Only when she's in trouble. And Jeremy, her youngest son.

THE PRESIDENT: Fantastic. Debbie, welcome.

MRS. BROWN: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming. Mom did a good job, didn't she?

MRS. BROWN: Yes, she did.

THE PRESIDENT: So what was it like growing up? Was Mom pretty tough, a disciplinarian?

MRS. BROWN: Yes, she was. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, then you and I share the same thing. (Laughter.)

MRS. BROWN: Yes, we do.

THE PRESIDENT: Tell me what's on your mind.

MRS. BROWN: Well, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I was an at-home mom. I was privileged that my husband, who is here today, was willing to let me stay home and raise the kids, work part-time. But when you do that, you don't get to pay into a retirement system anywhere. So I went, got my masters degree. I have a job I'm very happy with now. But I will never be able to build a good retirement in the amount of time I have until I retire. So it's very appealing, the plans that you're talking about, because I'll be quite dependent on Social Security.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, set aside a little money, watch it grow at a better rate than the current Social Security system.

MRS. BROWN: Exactly, so that -- certainly, for Jeremy and for my other three sons, as you said, it would make me happy to know that they're taken care of, too, and that they would have options.

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And how is old Jeremy doing?

MR. BROWN: I'm doing good. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Tell them where you were born.

MR. BROWN: Tomball, Texas. (Laughter and applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Tomball, Texas, right outside of Houston.

MR. BROWN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: So you've got grandmom here, you've got mom here.

MR. BROWN: I've got the brother out in the audience

-- one of the three is out in the audience, the other grandparents.

THE PRESIDENT: Good. First of all, what are you doing with yourself these days?

MR. BROWN: Well, I'm 18; I'm a sophomore at Canisius College, in Buffalo. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: What's your major?

MR. BROWN: I'm dual-majoring in business marketing and business management.

THE PRESIDENT: Great. All A's?

MR. BROWN: Hopefully. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, don't worry about it. That won't disqualify you from being President. (Applause.)

All right, Jeremy, get going, will you?

MR. BROWN: Well, being the younger generation, I'm just starting to pay into the system. I like the idea of having these personal accounts, getting a better rate of return in the end, and compound interest and everything so I build up something for myself that I could leave for my future kids and everything. And I like the fact that I'll have something to show for it, because people go and pay decades and decades into Social Security and when it comes time for me to retire, if we don't change, I'll have nothing to show for it.

THE PRESIDENT: You know what's interesting -- I say this a lot when I travel around the country -- is that a lot of young people think it's more likely they'll see a UFO than a Social Security check. (Laughter.) What do you think, Jeremy?

MR. BROWN: I don't know. I'd rather see Social Security change. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I didn't ask your preference. (Laughter.) But there's a lot of young people who, when they listen to the debate and understand the demographic shift that's going on, don't think they're going to see anything. What kind of system is that where you got a young guy getting ready to graduate from college paying into a -- paying a payroll tax, a hefty payroll tax into a system where he doesn't think he's going to see any benefits from it. It's a system that sounds like to me is screaming for reform, so that somebody who contributes into the system not only knows they're taking care of a baby boomer generation, or doing their part for their retirement, but also will have something left over for his family in this case.

What do you want to do when you get out of college?

MR. BROWN: Go into real estate.

THE PRESIDENT: Real estate, yes, good. Sounds like to me you can understand finances pretty well, too, that money can grow over time.

MR. BROWN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Anybody -- any other 18-year-olders that you know worried about this issue, thinking about the issue?

MR. BROWN: They are now. I got them informed.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you do? That's good. (Laughter.) Good job. It's important for people Jeremy's age to start listening to this discussion. As Tim said, the longer we wait, the more difficult it's going to be for an up and coming generation.

This is a generational issue, folks. See, the grandmoms and grandads around America now understand they're going to get their check, and so once that comfort level has been provided, the next logical question from many of the grandmothers I've talked to is, what you going to do about my grandson? You've said there's a problem, Mr. President, I expect you and the United States Congress to make sure that my grandson has got a viable retirement system. That's what a lot of people are beginning to say around America.

And that's why I can predict that once we get through on this issue, once I finish traveling the country -- and I got a lot more to do -- people are going to start demanding from their representatives and their senators a solution. They don't want any Washington double-talk. What they want is a solution, so a grandmother can then look at her son, her grandson, Jeremy, and say, thankfully, people in Washington did their duty, and I can rest easy knowing I'm going to get my check and Jeremy is going to get his, as well. That's the issue. (Applause.)

Good job. You were great.

You two look alike. These are the Weitzel girls -- McKenna and Riley, isn't that right? Okay. Which one is Riley? That makes you McKenna.

MS. McKENNA WEITZEL: That's true. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: They're twins. I'm the father of twins. I am a white-haired father of twins. (Laughter.)

MS. RILEY WEITZEL: They can do that to you.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you do the same thing?

MS. RILEY WEITZEL: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Tell me what you all do.

MS. RILEY WEITZEL: Well, I'm a history teacher at Bread of Life Christian Academy here in Rochester.

THE PRESIDENT: Fabulous. Thanks for teaching.

MS. RILEY WEITZEL: I teach history to the fourth through seventh grades there. Hi, guys, I love you and I miss you. Be good.

THE PRESIDENT: Taking advantage of C-SPAN. (Laughter and applause.)

MS. RILEY WEITZEL: And I am getting married in the summer, in August. And my fianc and I are just starting to think about retirement and about future generations and, hopefully, if God blesses us with kids, our kids, and something we can pass on down to them. We're really excited about your plan, and that we can set up personal accounts and then watch compound interest grow, and hopefully get a nest egg and be able to hand that down to our kids.

THE PRESIDENT: Fantastic. I don't remember thinking about compound interest growing when I was 23. There wasn't a lot of discussion about that type of issue. There's a change, there's a cultural change in America when it comes to investment. Because a lot of people are now getting used to the concept of watching their own money grow, isn't that right.

So is fianc here?

MS. RILEY WEITZEL: Yes, he's right over there -- Ben.

THE PRESIDENT: Ben. Look at him, fine-looking lad.

MS. RILEY WEITZEL: Thanks. I think so, too. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: August is the wedding?

MS. RILEY WEITZEL: August 6th. You're invited. (Laughter and applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: That's a smart move. (Laughter.) She knows I won't come, but I will send a gift. (Laughter and applause.) McKenna going to be in the wedding?

MS. RILEY WEITZEL: McKenna is my maid of honor, of course.

THE PRESIDENT: Cool. McKenna, what do you do?

MS. McKENNA WEITZEL: I'm a hairdresser at the Scott Miller Salon in Pittsford, New York.

THE PRESIDENT: Great, good.

MS. McKENNA WEITZEL: It's a wonderful place to work.

THE PRESIDENT: A lot of talk about Social Security?

MS. McKENNA WEITZEL: Not a whole lot there, but, honestly, I've been thinking about it.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you? Good.

MS. McKENNA WEITZEL: Yes, definitely. I feel like there's definitely a problem in the system right now and things need to change. And I want to say that it's completely commendable of you to stand up and tackle this issue.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, thanks. Thank you. That's my job. (Laughter.) I appreciate you saying that. There's a lot of others in Washington feel the same way I feel, that there's -- they say, are you taking a risk? How can you be taking a risk when you're doing what the people expect, solving problems. I think the people who take the risk are those who won't come to the table to discuss the issue in a way that will help solve the problem. (Applause.)

So are you in agreement with Riley on personal accounts?

MS. McKENNA WEITZEL: I certainly do. I feel like being able to take more ownership over your future and over your investments is very wise.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Don't you like the idea -- some of you have got 401(k)s and you open up your statement on a quarterly basis -- it seems like to me that would be a healthy thing for our country if more and more people are opening a statement that says, this is what your worth, this is how your worth has grown. It's a -- to me, it's a notion of getting people to understand that they've got to pay attention to the future of the country, when you, on a monthly basis, in some cases on a daily basis, if you want to get on the Internet and look at your -- look at your asset base. Now, you're contributing in to the -- both of you -- payroll tax, aren't you?

MS. McKENNA WEITZEL: Yes, we both currently are.

THE PRESIDENT: Pretty good-size chunk.

MS. RILEY WEITZEL: No, not really.

THE PRESIDENT: No, a pretty good-size chunk of your payroll tax.

MS. RILEY WEITZEL: Oh, of course.

MS. McKENNA WEITZEL: Yes, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I think the interesting thing is that when you first talk to people entering into the workplace their reaction when they first get their checks, what -- their reaction to what it's like to not have quite as much money as you expected. That happen to you?

MS. McKENNA WEITZEL: Yes, that was a shocker. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, in other words, government tends to take out a pretty good chunk. And it seems like to me that a significant chunk that is being taken out ought to at least be able to say to young kids, there's a reason why, it's worthwhile for the money to go out, because it will help me in my retirement age. That's kind of what we're talking about, isn't it?

Okay, now that you've got your kids watching, anything else you want to say?

MS. RILEY WEITZEL: Just, be good today.

THE PRESIDENT: How about you -- how about you, McKenna? McKenna, you got anything else you need to say?

MS. McKENNA WEITZEL: Well, I just also want to state that I feel like it's just encouraging to know that we could collect money in the end, that we aren't hoping that there will be money there, that it truly will be -- and also just the responsibility of knowing that you're setting aside money, and that you will be getting it.

THE PRESIDENT: See, it's a little lack of trust right now it sounds like to me -- don't quite trust the government to have a Social Security system available for my -- for the money I put in. This is a matter of trust. This is a big issue.

I want to thank our panelists for coming to discuss this issue. (Applause.) Very good job.

Washington has a duty to earn the trust of the people by making wise decisions about how the people's money will be used. We have a chance -- both Republicans and Democrats have a chance to come together and to solve the Social Security issue forever. And when we do -- and I believe we will, because the people's voices are going to resonate on this issue -- and when we do, all of us who are fortunate enough to serve this country can look back and say, we did our duty for generations to come.

Listen, thank you all for coming. May God bless you all, and may God continue to bless our country. (Applause.)

END 11:40 A.M. EDT

"Free People Do Bad Things"

Joe Bageant, the finest essayist on the planet, has a new one up over at King of Zembla.


Like all great art, Joe's work speaks for itself.

Dobson Furious, Lefties Declare Victory

The reviews are in: V-I-C-T-O-R-Y, cheer the Lefty Bloggers. Dems prevailed over their evil Republican overlords, and it's about time, isn't it? Dems don't emerge triumphant very often, so let's all give them credit where credit is due.



Only three of the five theofascist whackjob nominees will get new jobs with the federal judiciary in exchange for Democrats "preserving" the filibuster... so long as Republicans reserve the right to dictate the terms by which the filibuster can be used. So what if no one knows what constitutes "extraordinary circumstances."

Let's not get picky. What truly matters is this:

James Dobson is Angry!

The next time you aren't sure whether Democrats saved the day or just sold your ass down the river, use the Democratic Party Progress Scale.

Ahhh, the smell of democracy. Sweet, ain't it? So what if the filibuster is now reduced from a means of preventing mob rule to a mere theatrical prop. It's not as if Republicans will pull the same stunt the moment Dems push back on the next unqualified judicial nominee because they are, after all, honorable people who can be expected to live up their end of the deal.

And did I mention only three of the five theofascist whackjob nominees will get new jobs with the federal judiciary?

Now, let's get the party started. Has anyone seen the corkscrew?

Looking Past The Obvious

Main Entry: meme
Pronunciation: 'mEm
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of mimeme, from mim- (as in mimesis) + -eme
Date: 1976
: an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture

"The Rule Of Law." Beyond the civics classroom or occasional judicial decision, this wasn't a phrase we heard much of until 1999 when it became a Republican meme used in conjunction with "high crimes and misdemeanors" referring, of course, to executive fellatio.

"Nine eleven changed everything." Used to explain away everything from our newfound love of torture to invading sovereign nations solely because that's what the King wants, to our collective agreement that civil rights were never "rights" at all, but luxuries extended to us from our benevolent government.



We subscribe to a lot of things as a nation, but "rule of law" isn't one of them in George W. Bush's America. Rule of law no longer depends on that outdated old rag we used to revere, The Constitution, but is now almost wholely dependent on ideology. One needn't look much further than the judicial record of Priscilla Owen or any of the other extremists nominated by the King to federal bench, to say nothing of the insane legislation proposed day after day in the United States Congress.

Many believe we turned this corner because "Nine eleven changed everything," but they're wrong. The corner was turned when five justices of the United States Supreme Court took it upon themselves to install George W. Bush as president against the wishes of voters, leaving legally cast ballots to be forever uncounted as votes. From there, we've been in a freefall as we embrace a full-blown oligarchy untethered to pesky ideals such as the rule of law.

Who needs the rule of law when we have an infallible demigod like George W. Bush, that personification of all things neocon; he who - according to the bizarre interpretation by the Christian Dominionist Right - is the closest thing to Jesus Christ since, well, Jesus Christ. We don't need silly artificial constructs like the rule of law when we have the divine King Bush and the no-longer-invisible hand of the free market lording over us like a shepherd tending to his sheep. Oh, sure, there are a few holdouts stubbornly clinging to the anachronism of constitutional law, but they'll be dying off soon enough and we can all get on with the conservative revolution, that utopian nightmare built on a solid foundation of irrational fear, shameless greed and gleeful avarice.

International law? Please. Lest anyone forget Vietnam, we only subscribed to it when it leaned in our favor (ring a bell?). So let's be done with that, too, once and for all.

What better way to demonstrate the absurdity of international law than to consider the criminality of parading an underwear-clad Saddam Hussein before the world via Rupert Murdoch's media empire, and, subsequently, the rest of Mediaville.

I am struck by the naivete of those on The Left in reponding to this incident. The prevailing opinion is this another one of those bad apple stories in which - with no prodding from the intelligence community - some greedy enlisted twerp obtained and then peddled Fruit of the Loom Saddam pics to Mr. Murdoch.

Well, pardon me for saying so out loud, but did the Left just fall off the turnip truck? I'm well accustomed to the whole spectrum of the Fascist Right building their sand castles of reality entirely around their personal prejudices, but I expect more than gullibility from self-described "reality-based" liberals. Alas, I often expect too much.

Liberals have become so afraid of being called "conspiracy theorists" that we no longer acknowledge the fact conspiracies actually exist. Given the crimes committed every day before our very eyes - crimes rubber-stamped by rabid Republicans and tepid, trembling Democrats - I don't feel the need to go searching out conspiracies to indict our unindictable government, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize one when it takes a seat at the dinner table.

Compare this:

... with this:


"I don't think a photo inspires murderers," Bush said.
Notice a disconnect there? Looking at his body language, inflection and the quote itself, it is obvious The King seems rather ambivalent, at best.

Which begs the question: Who benefits from the national conversation (screw the international one because, hey, they're all a bunch of know-nothing socialist foreigners and we don't care what they think, anway) triggered by the display of Saddam in his tighty whiteys?

The perpetrators of torture and murder, that's who. Those who set the policy. Those who - in a sane world in which international heads of state demonstrate courage instead of deferrence to the American dollar and the bully who holds it - would actually prosecute King Bush and his minions for violating the Geneva Conventions. Those who would have us believe "the rule of law" on the international stage - just like at home - is an irrelevancy which has outlived its original use. And just what is it that lies at the heart of this argument? Simple. "Nine eleven changed everything."



Nine eleven, of course, did not change everything. It merely expedited the path on which we had already set course. And, apparently, it made an awful lot of Lefties forget just why it is we have a CIA.


See also: The Surveillance Saddam

Matt Johnson's Third Eye

They're five miles high as the crow flies
leavin' vapour trails against a blood red sky
Movin' in from the East toward the West
with baklava helmets over their heads, yes!

But if you think
that Jesus Christ is coming
Honey you've got
another thing coming
If he ever finds out
who hijacked his name
He'll cut out his heart
and turn in his grave

Islam is rising
The Christians mobilising
The world is on
its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message
and worships the creed

It's war, she cried,
It's war, she cried,
THIS
IS
WAR!!!
Drop your possessions,
all you simple folk
You'll fight them on the beaches
in your underclothes
You'll thank
the good lord
for raising the union jack

Watch the ships out of harbour
and the bodies come floating back

If the real Jesus Christ
were to stand up today
He'd be gunned
down
cold
by the C.I.A.

Oh, the lights that now burn brightest behind stained glass
Will cast the darkest shadows upon the human heart

But God didn't build himself that throne
God doesn't live in Israel or Rome
God belong to the yankee dollar
God doesn't plant the bombs for Hezbollah
God doesn't even go to church
And God won't send us down to Allah to burn
No, God will remind us what we already know
That the human race
is about to reap what it's sown

Islam is rising
The Christians mobilising
The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message
and worships the creed

Armageddon days are here again

"Armageddon Days" 1989
THE THE from the album MIND BOMB

Killing The Machine

My only post for the day because my head feels like it's in a vice and I'm all narc'd up.

If you want to read something more than just the usual & customary blistering accounts of what's wrong with America - that is, if you're as curious as me in terms of what we can do about it - I suggest pondering the lucid advice found in the following essay:

MODELS OF ENGAGEMENT

Later, gators.

Two things I actually enjoyed this week

The first high point: The brutal beating James Galloway delivered to Norm Coleman, Carl Levin, the besotted Christopher Hitchens and the rest of the criminal enablers we call the United States Congress. Galloway was like the whirring blades of a food processor and he chewed up all the idiots who just couldn't stop themselves from taking a little peek into the vortex.

The second high point: Reading Stan Goff's open letter to Dems:.

excerpt:

You don’t deserve anyone’s support, not even as a tactical matter any longer, because you end up doing ritual verbal combat then giving the “cornpone Nazis” of the Republcan Party any goddamn thing they want. That’s why Galloway rhetorically spanking that soap-opera-looking shitbird was the most satisfying thing many of us have seen in months.

That’s exactly why some of us are saying go Bolivian on their asses. Tell the Democratic Leadership Council to eat shit and die. Stop working, stop obeying, block the streets and highways, shut down the capital, and watch them choke on their own sewage. If Americans weren’t so bewildered by television, so addled and soft from junk food and cars and electronic appliances, and so addicted to their own cultural superficiality, they might begin organizing general strikes: women’s strikes, workers strikes (without union bureaucrats to calm them down), Black people strikes, Brown people strikes, info-tech strikes, eco-strikes, all working our way up to One Big Strike.

It’s a ways off, but it’s coming. Of course, there won’t be any Democrats there. They’ll be wringing their hands about their defunct careers, and conducting focus groups to see how they can shift further to the right in the next election.

And the reason this doesn’t happen is that people still hang their thin hopes on you, on electing Democrats who stab them in the back the first chance they get. But Galloway’s appearance before the U.S. Senate moved us an inch closer to the Big Strike and an inch further away from your worthless asses.

Because Galloway didn’t, as some are saying, expose the Republicans.

Someone with a full frontal lobotomy could expose a Republican politician.

He exposed the spinelessness of the Democrats.

Yours very truly,

Stan Goff

I get the feeling me and Stan are gonna get along just fine.

Contrasting Views on Corporate Media

In the course of reading RobinE's American Street post "Finally, We Know Where To Put the Blame for the State of the Corporate Media", I was referred to the following:

Kevin Drum: LET US NOW PRAISE DAILY NEWSPAPERS

"...liberals should think very hard before joining the media bashing crusade too eagerly. Sure, the New York Times employs Judith Miller, and the pressure of daily deadlines promotes too much lazy he-said/she-said reporting on their pages, but guess what? It's still the best newspaper in the world, bar none. If you really believe the Times is a piece of crap, your problem is not with the Times, it's with the current state of the art in human perfectibility.

None of this means newspapers shouldn't be criticized. But endless broad brush howling does nothing except enable the right wing's agenda, regardless of what the howling is aimed at. If liberal bloggers were wiser, we'd spend a little more time praising our big national newspapers and a little less time shaking our fists over the fact that sometimes they aren't on our side. Our real opposition is the right wing press destruction machine, not the press itself.

Normally, I would deconstruct damn near every sentence of the above excerpt, but (1.) I've already spent too much time at this time computer today; (2.) I have a ferocious headache, and; (3.) A blissfully cogent opinion on this subject can be found via the great and wonderous blog, A Tiny Revolution:

Jonathan Schwartz: We've Got To Pray To God They're Lying

"Probably no first world country has a media as right wing and cowardly as the US. Most of it is garbage—as you'd expect, since it only exists to fill up the space between the ads. While there are many journalists who'd love to do a good job, the pressures on them make this almost impossible."

"So every day the media is filled with 20 million mistakes, from misspelled names to garbled quotes to the uncritical transmission of lies that kill thousands of people. And the Newsweek thing WAS a mistake, even if the general story turns out to be be true; you really shouldn't publish something with such weak sourcing."

"But of the 20 million daily mistakes, there are only consequences when the media steps on powerful toes. Journalists are free to create stories that are 99% crap and 1% truth, as long as its about Official Enemies or people without money. But write something that's 99% true and arguably 1% mistaken about a billionaire or US foreign policy, and you're going to media jail."

Careful, there, Jonathan. You're "enabling the right wing agenda" (!!!)


Just so's ya know: Now that I'm back in the saddle, when I'm not posting here at The Carnival of Horror, I'm runnin' my big mouth in the comments section of everyone else's blogs. In response to RobinE's American Street post, I crafted the following response to Kevin Drum's misguided criticism of the Left Blogsylvania's propensity for pointing out the deficiencies of America's abandonded and collapsed Fourth Estate:

1. Arvin Hill Says:
   May 19th, 2005 at 12:23 pm

   Kevin Drum, who I’m sure is a nice enough fellow, is one of millions who - despite all evidence to the contrary - continues clinging to the laughably pathetic illusion that centrism is not dead. Centrism is dead. It was murdered by the ascendency of neoconservatism, a malign philosophy that emphasizes the notion of compromise as evil, all while paying lip service to “moderation” and “working together” so as to put the other side in an impossible position.

   During times of epic, historical upheaval, there is no getting around the fact that people are sometimes forced to choose sides whether they want to or not. Claiming the center when it doesn’t exist isn’t just a benign shortcoming. The Neville Chamberlains of contemporary American politics are directly responsible for perpetuating the tyranny we’re all living with today. Attempting to place himself “above the fray,” Kevin and others of like mind are perfectly content to eat warm cookies and milk while the blood flows all around them.

   I’ve said it a million times, so this will make it a million and one: In a climate of Fascism, there is no center. There are aggressors and resistors. Choose a side and fight like hell, but spare us the haughty moral platitudes issued forth from an overactive imagination.

   Those who stake out a non-existent middle ground have unwittingly chosen their side, and it sure as hell ain’t mine.

My aim in posting that response isn't - believe it or not - to rub Drum's face in his errors in judgment. It's to emphasize that we're presently in one of those times of "epic, historical upheaval" and it's time to take the damn gloves off. At some point, The Left has to stop operating under the illusion that America's political and cultural landscape is the same as it was in 1975. It ain't. The rules have changed, and either we take the fight to our adversaries or we might as well resign ourselves to asphyxiation under tyranny's knobby boot.

Addendum: Kevin's taking a well-deserved beating in the commentary of his own blog, and some of the responses are pretty entertaining. My favorite snarkage there - and a great meme for dissemination - is found here:

"The 'Old Gray Lady" has become the 'Old Fat Whore'. The old fat whore may be the finest prostitute in the world, but the best newspaper? Are you kidding?

Unfortunately, I don't think he is.

Targeting Your Neighborhood Theo-Pharmacist

Speaking of pharmaceuticals, you might want to take a beta blocker before reading this tale of what theofascism has wrought (via Adam at A Violently Executed Blog, who cribbed it from nuvo.net. . It's got it all - assault, rape and a pious pharmacist who says no to filling a legal prescription. Here's an excerpt which takes place following the rape:

After nearly an hour of discussing the options with her doctor, Michelle finally agreed to be examined in his office on Monday and to see a rape counselor. In the meantime, he would call Michelle’s pharmacy with a prescription for emergency contraception to prevent any chance of a pregnancy.

Driving to the pharmacy a little while later, Michelle said she felt a huge sense of relief. “I felt like I was down, but not out. I felt like I could get through this like I had everything else, and it would all work out.”

But standing at the pharmacy counter, Michelle learned otherwise.

Michelle’s pharmacy didn’t stock the medication. “They said they could order it for me, and it would be in on Monday afternoon. But that would be too late. By then it would be nearly 72 hours, and it should be taken during the first 24 hours. After 72 hours, it doesn’t work. I just didn’t want to take that big of a chance.”

She asked for her prescription and drove a few blocks to Wal-Mart. She knew they had a pharmacy, and she thought she would pick up a few things for the apartment while she waited.

“Again, I was trying to stay really positive. I was trying to hold myself together and concentrate on solutions, not the problems.”

The pharmacist at Wal-Mart, however, was less helpful than the previous one. “He looked at me with what was clearly contempt and said, ‘We don’t carry this.’ Then he shoved the paper back towards me and walked away. At first I didn’t understand. I mean, I thought he was saying the same thing — that they didn’t have it in stock. So I said, ‘Can you order it?’

“And from about 50 feet away, he turns and says loud enough for practically everyone in the damn store to hear, ‘I mean we don’t kill babies. You’ll have to find someone else to do that for you.’”

Michelle picked up the prescription from the counter and drove back to her apartment where she searched through boxes for the phonebook.

“I called 13 pharmacies. Some of them were nice, and said they didn’t have it in stock but could order it for me. Some of them were rude, and said they didn’t have it and just hung up. Not one of them had it available. After the last one said no, I just started to cry. I couldn’t stop.”

Michele made one more phone call. She called her doctor and through her sobs she told him that she had tried 15 pharmacies, but none of them would or could fill her prescription. Just before 5 p.m., her doctor knocked at her door with the medication in hand.

“I didn’t ask him where he got it. I didn’t even care. I was crying too hard at that point and I just wanted the whole thing to be over. I took the medicine, drank a glass of water and thanked him over and over. When he left, I just laid down on the couch and slept until the next afternoon. I woke up when my mom called and asked what time I was coming to pick up the boys.”

I strenuously object to the argument that pharmacists should have the professional and legal authority to deny any patient a legally prescribed medication. A patient's access to any medication should not be held hostage to the whims - religious or otherwise - of the pharmacist. The "conscience clause" movement sweeping the country (today's legislators really have that Orwellian naming scheme down pat, don't they?) is a scourge on public health policy. I've also heard of pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control pills for similar reasons. Given the tension between advances in science and the rise of theofascism, it's safe to assume the list of medications pharmacists will refuse to dispense will only grow longer if they're ultimately given the authority imparted to them via "conscience clause" legislation.

This is one arena where progressives can prevail against (or at least thwart) the onslaught of theofascist policy. Even when state legislatures pass bills imparting this papal-like authority to pharmacists, individual pharmacies can be pressured to work around such obtuse legislation. For example, in stores where more than one pharmacist work the same shift, store managment could ensure patients aren't deprived of medication by assuring at least one of those pharmacists is not a fundie whackjob. If a pharmacist objects to such a policy, that puts him or her at odds with their employer as opposed to the employer being at odds with state law.


The next time you go to the pharmacy, ask where store management stands on this issue. If their pharmacists' morality - or lack thereof - trumps the public's access to legally prescribed medications, let them know orally and in writing you will take your business elsewhere - and that this action may well be augmented by a visible protest of the store's policy. Unlike protesting, say, Halliburton or GE, drug stores - at least once the light of public scrutiny is on them - can be brought around if challenged forcibly enough by us. Your local drugstore has the potential to be one of the better battlegrounds in which progressives can take a stand and have a positive, real world effect.

Them's FIGHTIN' Words

So I'm over at the coolest solo blog on the planet, Meanwhile, Back At The Ranch, where I'm reading about H.R. 1528, “The Safe Access to Drug Treatment & Child Protection Act of 2005" - a bill introduced by James "Prince of Rats" Sensenbrenner which would incarcerate half the freakin' citizenry in another fit of - what else - drug hysteria, that tried and true past-time of the fearmongers and Chicken Little's who are calling all the shots in America these days.

In the course of my lamentations, I found myself bemoaning one of the shortcomings of the Lefty Blogosphere:

Part of my current malaise with blogging lies in my belief there’s simply no stopping the tidal wave of self-destruction washing over the United States - just as there would be no mitigation of the Third Reich in pre-WWIII Germany. So much of the poli-blogosphere is about chronicling the present, which is all well and good - hell, somebody’s gotta do it - but I see precious little preparation for what is to come. Maybe it’s not possible. Or maybe it is and we just don’t have the fortitude...

Bearing that in mind, I refer you to some philosophical musings of Skookum's Spartacus O'Neal. These two essays, in my humble opinion, are very much in need of dissemination and serious consideration by those of you who do understand the nature of the theofascist beast and its grisly influence on America's present and future.

Last Empire

and

Moral Sanction
There is a great deal of food for thought in these two works and, as such, I recommend printing them both out and reading them more than once. I'll refrain from elaborating on the ideas presented therein except to say they make a lot of people very uncomfortable, and you may or may not be one of those people. Either way, Bon appetit!

16 Tons of Corporate Hubris

My offense-o-meter has a pretty high threshold these days. Words & deeds I found offensive in the pre-Bush years are now met with a shrug and a sigh, and then it's off to the next outrage. How else is one to survive four and a half years of unbridled corporate aggression?

This phenomenon of lowered expectations is exemplified by my response to Randy Paul's recent post at American Street in which he notes his offense at derogatory remarks made by Hugo Chavez concerning Condoleeza Rice. Were those remarks misogynistic? They could be construed that way, although I believe the intended offense was directed at Rice personally, and since my contempt for her is boundless, I am willing to overlook the broader implications of those insults. Despite my semi-snarky response to Randy Paul, I feel compelled to acknowledge Randy is an astute political observer very much entitled to feel otherwise.

For me, though, there are so many utterly egregious, horrific crimes being committed by my own government - official actions which have immediate and detrimental consequences for humankind - that politically insensitive speech by a foreign head of state ranks extremely low among my indignations.

Leave it to a TV commercial to remind me of what it feels like to be genuinely offended, sending me into a fit of quietly boiling anger which cannot be adequately conveyed in HTML. Worse, I suspect the people responsible for this ad campaign, those conscientious philanthropists at GE, take great delight in its effect on me and others of like mind. With a wink and a smile, they likely describe the ad among themselves as an one which works on multiple levels, meaning it effectively dupes the ignorant while poking a sharp stick in the eyes of critics.

It starts off well enough, with dark shots of a coal mine and an unremarkable sillouhette of a man entering the mine. Must be an ad for Tylenol or Advil, I thought.

If only.

It quickly gets to the good stuff. Oh yeah, baby. Sexy coal miners, chiseled with a fine sheen of sweat from head to toe. No industrial attire for these hotties, save the miner's hard hats, which, in this context, appear as fetish wear. These wet, beautiful, youthful "miners"- when they aren't shirtless - sport sleeveless tees and, of course, the ripped abs (I've long called 'em fascist abs) that are all the rage in George Bush's hyper-narcissistic Amerca. Then there's that fabulous hair. Pretty boys. Pretty girls. White. Black. A little homoeroticism here and a little S&M there. Something for everyone.


But it is the soundtrack to this absurdity which transforms the commercial from banal titillation to something much more malevolent.

Sixteen Tons
by Merle Travis

I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
Picked up a shovel and I walked to the mine
I hauled Sixteen Tons of number 9 coal
And the straw-boss said, "Well, bless my soul"

You load Sixteen Tons, whadaya get?
Another older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

Narrator: "Imagine if a 250-year supply of energy were right here at home. Now, thanks to emissions reducing technology from GE Energy, harnessing the power of coal is looking more beautiful every day. Another product of pure eco-imagination. GE: Imagination at work."

Imagination, indeed.

Click here to see these and other Earl Palmer photographs

"Sixteen Tons" conveys the misery of being a coal miner: the toughness it required; the brutality fomented by the coal mining industry; the meager payoff. It would have been impossible for GE to have selected a song more inappropriate for extolling the virtues of coal. "I owe my soul to the company store," sums up the savagery to which the people of Appalachia were - and still are - used as pawns by the mining industry.

GE wisely chooses not to show us how a few gargantuan pieces of heavy equipment destroy entire mountains in order to get that coal today. We don't see rivers of sulphuric acid flowing through fragile ecosystems. We don't see the checks being cashed by elected representatives who betray the public trust so that those mountains can be legally obliterated for the likes of GE and other corporations. We don't see the pain of wives and husbands suffering one miscarriage after another due to illnesses caused by the coal mining industry. We don't see the graves of those consumed by cancer in statistically significant populations where Big Coal reigns supreme.


"More beautiful every day" thanks to GE & the coal industry.

It strains my eco-imagination to believe Merle Travis would appreciate GE's use of "Sixteen Tons" to ridicule of the blood, toil and misery of those so ruthlessly exploited by the coal industry. It is interesting that this song, like many folk songs in the Cold War hysteria of the 1940's and 50's - particularly those which championed workers - was considered commie enough to warrant harrassing its creator:

From www.earnieford.com:

The song's chorus came from a letter Merle received from his brother lamenting the death of World War II journalist Ernie Pyle, killed while covering combat in the Pacific in 1945. John Travis wrote, "It's like working in the coal mines. You load sixteen tons and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt." Merle also recalled a remark his father would make to neighbors when asked how he was doing: "I can't afford to die. I owe my soul to the company store. " This referred to coal-company owned stores where miners bought food and supplies with money advanced by the company, called "scrip".

...Later released on Capitol's 1947 LP "Folk Songs From The Hills", the song almost immediately began to generate controversy, causing Travis himself, problems, in the anti-communist, Cold War hysteria of the late forties. Some in government saw songs dealing with workers' woes, and folk music "activists" as potentially subversive. It made no difference that Travis was a true American patriot. Veteran Capitol producer, Ken Nelson, who worked at WJJD radio in Chicago in the late forties, recalled in a 1992 interview that FBI agents advised the station not to play Travis' records, because they considered him a "communist sympathizer," which was, of course, completely untrue.

Today, earth-raping, humanity-killing GE is "the company store" and we all have an account there whether we want it or not. This ad is an in-your-face fuck you from one of America's most accomplished corporate thugs.

Right back at'cha, GE. The feeling is mutual.

ADDENDUM #1: See also "GE's Greenwashing" (as referred by B12 Partners Solipsism)

ADDENDUM #2: The link to the MPEG at www.adrants.com is no longer active - probably because it was eating all their bandwidth judging from the number of Google hits I'm getting. I do have the MPEG (7.33 megabytes) but lack a means to host it. If you or someone you know cares to host this wretched assault on labor and the environment, send me an email - but please don't ask me to send it for your own amusement because I'm on an agonizingly slow dial-up connection.

King George, The Koran & Newsweak

Newsweek Says Qur’an Report May Be Wrong

...While U.S. authorities have not denied outright that incidents involving the Qur’an have occurred at Guantanamo, General Richard Myers, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week that no evidence had been found yet to back the allegations.

But in the face of the widespread protests, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week decried the desecration of any holy text as "abhorrent" and promised that any offenders at Guantanamo would face "appropriate action".

U.S. officials opened an investigation, but maintained that members of the Guantanamo security force were sensitive to the religious beliefs and practices of the detainees in U.S. custody, reports Reuters.

U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley earlier on Sunday stressed the report had not been confirmed. "If it turns out to be true, obviously we will take action against those responsible," Hadley said on CNN's "Late Edition."

The May 9 report, which appeared as a brief item by Michael Isikoff and John Barry in Newsweek’s "Periscope" section, had a huge international impact, sparking the protests from Muslims who consider the Qur’an the literal word of God and treat each book with deep reverence, reports Reuters.

Newsweek, which said opponents of the Afghan government including remnants of the Taliban had used its report to fan unrest in the country, said it was not contemplating disciplinary action against staff, the news agency reports.

"This was reported very carefully, with great sensitivity and concern, and we'll continue to report on it," said Newsweek Managing Editor Jon Meacham. "We have tried to be transparent about exactly what happened, and we leave it to the readers to judge us."

"The issue here is to get the truth out, to acknowledge as quickly as possible what happened, and that's what we're trying to do," Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Daniel Klaidman told the "CBS Evening News" on Sunday, reports the Associated Press.

The White House said Monday that Newsweek's response was insufficient, the news agency reports.

"It's puzzling that while Newsweek now acknowledges that they got the facts wrong, they refused to retract the story," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "I think there's a certain journalistic standard that should be met and in this instance it was not."

Torture, rendition and murder are par for the course, but desecrating the Muslim holy book is "abhorrent", says Condi.

Sure it is... wink, wink.

Who says the Bush Machine isn't transparent?

Cat got my tongue

Since returning from Jamaica a couple of weeks ago, I've found myself dumbstruck - blogwise, anyway. Like peddling a bicycle uphill and stopping long before reaching the top, I'm finding that picking up where I left off is considerably more difficult than I'd anticipated.

For the two and a half weeks I was gone, I gave barely a thought to politics. While the break was entirely welcome - perhaps even necessary - now that I'm attempting to reclaim my dusty little corner of Blogville, the feeling of being overwhelmed by everything is pervasive and hard to shake. Instead of looking a mere twenty feet beyond the front tire of my blog bike, I'm staring at the mountain and wondering what there is to be gained from making the tortuous trek to its peak.

And so I mow the yard or dig a flower bed or propagate some roses. I play with the dogs. I watch television. I disengage.

Looking at the mountain, I see a militarized, Constitution-less government run by small-minded, sexually repressed sickos who proudly hate approximately half the country and conduct themselves in accordance with that hate. Their allegiance is to a queer-hating, Arab-hating, liberal-hating God who - oh, by the way - approves of every individual act of hatred committed in his name.

America. The cop using a Taser to torture a pregnant woman because she refused to sign a speeding ticket. The Fascist Right closing ranks around the woefully corrupt Tom Delay. Congress making major cuts in Medicaid. Changing the rules to squelch dissent. The casual manner in which Americans accept murder, torture and self-destruction for empire. The impunity which infuses each and every action and inaction of the immortal King Bush and his malicious minions; the way they're never, ever called on anything by the lapdog corporate media or, God forbid, the cowardly, willingly corrupted Democratic Party. The astounding ignorance, hysterical fear and unbridled hubris of Bush's brainwashed supporters. And, finally, informed yet desperate people on the Left advancing the mistaken and very dangerous notion that neoconservatism is now, or soon will be, waning - a discouraging indication of how deep our river of denial runs.

I have said previously this blog was conceived as nothing more than a means of preserving my sanity, a way to avoid frequent bouts of rage and chronic despair by allowing a healthy outlet for my angst. It was also a training ground for my personal admonishment to write every day (though this wasn't confined to blogging).

Yet, having experienced the strange luxury of not blogging - of not forcing myself to look each day at the disemboweled guts spilling forth from the corpus of shared American ideals - I realize the reason I began blogging is no longer valid enough to justify the time a decent blog requires. For better or worse - overwhelmed or not - I've largely adjusted to the New America. Psychologically, from here on out, living amid the deafening roar in the near sterile cowling of The Machine is simply a matter of adapting to the downward spiral of socioeconomic and [anti]cultural trends.

Do I really want to be doing this, I asked myself. How many times - how many ways - can I say This is insane! on a near daily basis?

After some serious contemplation, I've concluded it just doesn't matter because (1.) silence is complicity, and; (2.) blogging irritates The Great American Elite. Those two points are impossible to refute, and while the prospect of quitting doesn't bother me, the notion of surrender - of silence - bothers me a great deal more than mere redundancy.

And on that note, I think I'm (finally) back from the dead.

the Pot Priority

Marijuana behind 45 percent of U.S. drug arrests

Marijuana - The Myths Are Killing Us

Drug prohibition has long been indispensable as a battering ram against civil rights, but I never cease to be amazed at how much support it enjoys among my brothers and sisters on The Left. Many will make an exception for cannabis, and while that's not something against which I'd argue, I think those same people are accepting prohibition and the drug war without ample examination. This, like so many problems, is fundamentally a failure of imagination, one of those "it's always been that way" beliefs which, thanks to the great propaganda war, has extended its taproot deep into the American psyche.


Drug prohibition across the board affects everything from due process of law to medical care. As a pain patient who sometimes - no, make that often - requires narcotic relief, I know what it means to be denied treatment as a result of the punative bureaucracy hiding behind a thin veneer of public safety. How many people are condemned to dysfunctional lives or worse, suicide, when they cannot obtain adequate pain relief?

The dark veil of prohibition is itself largely responsible for the laughingstock that passes for "drug education" in America. Lift it, and the woefully mis-and-dis-informed public will learn that all illicit drugs are not the same - and formulating policy as though they are is astoundingly ignorant and inherently dangerous from a public health perspective.

To those who contend reform of marijuana laws is a trojan horse for the broader issue of drug policy reform, let me be the first to say you're damn right it is - at least for some of us. We gotta start somewhere. I categorically reject the assertion the government has any business controlling the real estate of my brain... or, for the more spiritual among us, my soul. Frankly, I think the world would be a better place if more people were free to experience the personal and not-so-personal revelations triggered by many hallucinogens including LSD, psilocybin and mescaline.

Considering the prevalence of legally sanctioned neurochemical drugs in our society, drug prohibition seems to me especially ridiculous. Self-medication? You bet I'm for it. Americans do it every day.

At its heart, the concept of drug prohibition is one based on fear and our collective need to maintain the illusion of control. Perhaps one of these days we'll turn the distant corner and resolve to face our fears straight on.


Frank files legislation for medical marijuana

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank re-introduced legislation this week to let individual states allow medical marijuana use.

Although several states have legalized medical marijuana, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that federal law supersedes state law on the issue.

Rep. Frank said in a release that he believes the federal government is wrong to prohibit medical marijuana if states approve it and doctors recommend it for patients.

Take The Money & Run

Probably just an accounting error. Like Rummy says, "You go to war with the accountants, contractors and criminals you have."

U.S. cannot account for spending of nearly $100 million in Iraq

There's no place like home.

I don't need a Wizard of Oz experience to remind me of what home means; just a little excursion to pretty much anywhere for more than 36 hours, which should tell you all you need to know about what a reclusive shut-in I really am.

It was really a working vacation that called me to Jamaica, but I'm glad I didn't describe it as such before leaving, as my conscience would be porous from guilt since my time was mostly spent in a hammock, by the pool or parked at the bar with a big, fat spliff working up an appetite for lobster, conch fritters, callaloo and ackee.

Speaking of spliffs: Oddly enough, the cannabis in Jamaica is wildly inconsistent. Kofi Anan should appoint Jack Herer to head a campaign for Dutch & Canadian cannabis enthusiasts to collect five hundred pounds of pollen to be dispersed over the entire island by crop dusters. Trust me, the Jamaicans would be no less grateful than the tourists.

But I digress.

How wonderful it was to return in time to catch James Wolcott mentioning the latest dis from Hugo Chavez:

"HAVANA, Cuba (AP) -- Saying that U.S. citizens are oppressed by their own government, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez promised Friday that he would not visit the United States again until Americans 'liberate' their nation.

"Chavez, in Havana for trade talks, told an international gathering of activists here that before an earlier trip to Cuba, a U.S. State Department undersecretary he did not identify warned him not to go because he would no longer be received in Washington.

"He said he went ahead with that trip anyway, and later traveled to the United States to visit U.S. President George W. Bush, who he said greeted him with a Coca-Cola in his hand.

"'I have not returned, nor do I think about returning again, until the people of the United States liberate that nation,' said Chavez, saying that Americans are 'oppressed' by their government and U.S. media.

By my estimate, probably one third of United States citizens - and 98.3% of lefty bloggers - agree with President Chavez. Apparently, when one tries to kill a foreign adversary and fails, it is unrealistic to expect said adversary to engage in the flowery talk of diplomatic lies comprising the usual and customary chorus of world leader speak.

While I was drinking Ting & Absolut and enjoying the company of the lovely people of Jamaica, the often prescient and always formidable Juan Cole made a similar point with regard to Americans being oppressed by the corporate news media, even though the word oppressed isn't explicitly stated.

Matthew Haughey says he won't read our blogs if we use the term "mainstream media" (a.k.a. MSM).

A news flash for Matt: We don't care.

We don't care if you read our web logs.

The difference, Matt, is that we are independent actors, not part of a small set of multi-billion dollar corporations. The difference is that we are not under the constraints of making a 15% profit. The difference is that we are a distributed information system, whereas MSM is like a set of stand-alone mainframes. The difference is that we can say what we damn well please.

If we were the mainstream media (perhaps better thought of as corporate media), we would care if you threatened to stop reading us. Because although we might be professional news people, we would have the misfortune to be working for corporations that are mainly be about making money.

Journalism is out and stock value is in, and this won't be changing anytime soon. Sure, we all know this and say so with some frequency, but few articulate it quite as well as Juan Cole. I love that guy.

In addition to the vortex of despair I missed out on for the past couple of weeks, I have lots of mundane things to catch up on here at la hacienda, so if I'm not as graphically entertaining as usual, cut me some slack. Recognizing the need to add a little beauty to my surroundings, I also have a hefty aquarium to set up this week. Viva pim pictus!