S.M.B. - Logic and Rhetoric
Saturday, February 08, 2003


If you think the war on terror is counter-intuitive, the war on drugs is that much more retarded. The link is a link to a very funny flash presentation on working for change.com


The Los Angeles Times reports:

Just 45% of registered voters said they are now likely to support Bush for reelection, while 40% said they were inclined to back the Democratic nominee, the survey found. Fifteen percent said they don't now lean in either direction.

There's a lot of hubris in this administracion, but it will be quieted in 19 months, thank goodness...


In a sign of how important protecting oil has become to the US, 70 Army Green Berets are training Colombian soldiers how to guard a 500-mile stretch of oil pipeline in a lawless portion of the country.
Every drop of oil has taken on new significance for Washington as uncertainty grows in the petroleum-rich Middle East, and a two-month strike in neighboring Venezuela has slowed exports from there.

This is from the Christian Science Monitor, a great, fair publication. The fun doesn't stop at the above passage though!

In 2001, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) bombed the pipeline 170 times, stalling production for seven months and causing a loss of $500 million to the Colombian government. In 2002, as Colombian protection grew, rebel attacks decreased, but it is still a prime target.
Occidental Petroleum spokes- man Larry Meriage, calls the arrival of US troops "reassuring." He points to a December explosion outside the Caño-Limón complex that killed two and wounded 11 Colombian Occidental security contractors.

This is what military funding is all about. Bush has the cajones even to use the military to bail out the oil industry. At this point in time, Bush has fostered a climate in which funding the military is not about national defense, it's protecting oil assets worldwide, and interfering in another country's domestic conflicts simultaneously.


Does anybody recommend I go and see a particular movie with friends? Please leave rec's in the commenting box...


North Korea has warned the United States that any decision to send more troops to the region could lead the North to make a pre-emptive attack on American forces.

This North Korean government has some audacity. Nevertheless, this is our future if Bush legitimizes preemption as an option.


The Bush Administration has known that North Korea restarted its nuclear program since November, 2001. The Washington Post reports:

In November 2001, when the Bush administration was absorbed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, intelligence analysts at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory completed a highly classified report and sent it to Washington. The report concluded that North Korea had begun construction of a plant to enrich uranium that could be used in nuclear weapons, according to administration and congressional sources...

The North Korean drive to enrich uranium came as the Bush administration was trying to build support for military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein on grounds he was hiding a program of weapons of mass destruction and would be more dangerous if he obtained nuclear weapons. Some critics say the Bush administration kept secret the most worrisome intelligence about a North Korean nuclear plant out of concern that public disclosure would undermine the campaign against Iraq, or interfere with the pursuit of Osama bin Laden and his network. Top administration officials have repeatedly denied that they suppressed the intelligence for political reasons.

This is a very good story, it is long, but I suggest you read it link

It does not stop with North Korea and El Presidente though. Our "friends" the Pakistanis were involved in this too:

The history of the intelligence about North Korea's drive to enrich uranium underscores how the effort to stop weapons proliferation is made more complex by other foreign policy goals.
For example, the Livermore report included the disclosure that Pakistani scientists were the source of the plans showing the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, how uranium is enriched, the sources said.
Just weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, joined the United States in the fight against bin Laden and the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan. The United States, in return, dropped sanctions imposed on Pakistan for pursuing a nuclear program.

There has been little mention of North Korea in the U.S. print media and I have not seen a reference to him on tv news in a long while AND THAT IS WITH 24 HOUR "NEWS" (there are at least a dozen 24 hour "news" tv stations). So why is Bush so calm about North Korea? Why is Bush so frenzied about Iraq? Why is Bush so luvy duvy about Pakistan?
Whenever I ask these questions to myself and I reference the administracion's answers, I notice their answers do not make sense. Bush always says that an invasion of Iraq would be for the liberation of the Iraqi people, that the U.S. would be saving them from an evil dictator and giving them the gift of Democracy. General Pervez Musharraf is the dictator of Pakistan who has repressed citizens, killed and jailed dissidents and built up weapons programs.


North Carolina Representative Howard Coble (Republican) says that he believes Arab Americans (United States Citizens) should be kept in "internment" concentration camps. They are concentration camps for two reasons - citizens would be kept there against their will, they would not be able to leave. I wonder if Mr. Coble would object to the armed guards shooting these U.S. citizens if they were to try to flee the compounds, or would they place the compound in the middle of a lake of lava. Hmm...

"We were at war. They (Japanese-Americans) were an endangered species," Coble said. "For many of these Japanese-Americans, it wasn't safe for them to be on the street."
Like most Arab-Americans today, Coble said, most Japanese-Americans during World War II were not America's enemies.

So is this guy saying that it was for the good of certain Americans that their property was taken away, they were put in a place against their will and placed there for years? This guy is funny. "We are flabbergasted that a man who supports racial profiling and ethnic scapegoating" chairs the subcommittee, the group's national executive director, John Tateishi, said in a statement Wednesday. I'm not flabbergasted, he's a Republican. In any event, I define racial profiling as: seeing someone or some group as suspicious for no reason other than the color of his skin. Clearly, Coble would separate Arab-Americans only for this reason, using the justification that some Arabs want to kill us. Coble forgets that there were plenty of Arab-Americans in the twin towers, but I don't think he cares, he lives in nowhere North Carolina, where they'd probably shoot the arab. In any case, reading such hateful language from a man with leadership in Congress makes me want to join the NRA, it was somebody famous who once said "a well-armed populous is the best defence against tyranny." But then again, we may have glocks and shotguns, but they have nukes and napalm... hmm...
The whole Islamic issue is being clouded by people who have never interracted with Muslims in their lives, people like Representative Coble who is from the rural South. I would not be against placing a moratorium on immigration from states that are known to harbor a whole lot of terrorists; immigrants are not Americans, and therefore our government has no legal responsibility to defend and protect their lives, liberty or property. But when it comes to United States citizens, we cannot let racist representatives in Congress dictate policy. Your link is Republican for concentration camps

Friday, February 07, 2003

Democratic Senator John Edwards (NC) is having a "meet 'n greet" at the haunted house of one of the largest slaveholders in American history, William Aiken. Edwards can have his meet 'n greet wherever he wants, but a) he's just sacrificed the South Carolina primary, which will be 50% black b) has symbolically moved away from his pledge to "honor and endorse" the NAACP's boycott of South Carolina, while technically upholding it by having it at a house and not a hotel or convention hall. This disqualifies Edwards from getting my vote, unless he does something to clarify his position on this issue of symbolic racism and the confederacy. Here are the goods on William Aiken, slave enforcer extraordinaire:

1) Aiken owned over 700 slaves on his plantation.
2) Aiken turned over his house for use as a Confederate headquarters.
3) Aiken refused to attend the ceremony in which the flag of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was raised over Fort Sumter.

Oh that American patriotic spirit. I hope Edwards gets some good money in Aiken's haunted house, with his confederate flag, built with the blood, sweat and tears of the thousands of slaves who suffered and died building and running that hell hole. I wonder what flag John Edwards pledges to?

Thursday, February 06, 2003

As we know, the Taliban considers it a sin for a man to see a naked woman who is not his wife. So, this Saturday at 2:00p.m EST all North American women are asked to walk out of their dorm completely naked to help weed out any neighborhood terrorists. Circling your dorm for one hour is recommended for this anti-terrorist effort. All men are to position themselves in lawn chairs in front of their dorm to prove they think it's okay to see other women nude and to show support for their fellow sisters. And since the Taliban also does not approve of alcohol, a cold six-pack at your side is further proof of your anti-Taliban sentiments. ITS YOUR PATRIOTIC DUTY TO PASS THIS ON!


NO SHIT!! But how is El Presidente's secretary trying to spin this one?

But he added, "I think there is also the possibility that success could fundamentally reshape that region in a powerful positive way that will enhance U.S. interests, especially if in the aftermath of such a conflict, we are also able to achieve progress on the Middle East peace."

This is some more of this WAR IS PEACE foolishness, I find it insulting to my intelligence that Colin Powell sits up there and and tells us that war in the mideast is going to enhance peace in the mideast, I did not know that war and peace are synonyms. You didn't either, you say? That makes two of us.

Maybe this administracion is releasing a new thesaurus, the entry for "war":

WAR - (synonyms) liberation, progress, democracy, peace, stability.
PEACE* - (synonyms) communism, softness, dastardly [does Dubya know this word?] treachery, treason, betrayal, appeasement.

*(note)- only attainable through war. Link Colin's brown tongue

Wednesday, February 05, 2003

The jurors in this California case said that they did not know that the man they convicted of growing illegal marijuana was growing it for medicinal use.

The jurors said they had been unaware that the defendant, Ed Rosenthal, was growing marijuana for medicinal purposes, allowed since 1996 under California state law, when they convicted him on three federal counts of cultivation and conspiracy. He is to be sentenced in June and faces a minimum of five years in prison.

The cops that shot Amadou Diallo 41 times got no time. Hundreds of people convicted of killing people by manslaughter or wreckless endangerment do not get five years in prison, many get 3, some get less. This man is another casualty of our government's hypocrisy when it comes to the war against drugs... Jurors want a second chance for convictee

Commenting is available, please leave your names (or at least funny fake ones), and website url. I want new links, so if you provide i will respond by posting them permanently. We will read all comments, and feel free to express any positions, persuasions, arguments, shout-outs or disagreements.


General Powell will, apparently, claim that links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's organisation include terrorist training and co-operation on chemical and biological weapons, the presence of an Islamist group in northern Iraq and medical treatment for a senior Islamist operative in Baghdad.
But security sources in London said yesterday that both they and the CIA remained unconvinced by the material.

Why do these guys want war so bad? They are itching for war, why?! A really old column by one Daniel Kurtzman explains something about war and Orwell's 1984:

In "1984," the state remained perpetually at war against a vague and ever-changing enemy. The war took place largely in the abstract, but it served as a convenient vehicle to fuel hatred, nurture fear and justify the regime's autocratic practices.
Bush's war against terrorism has become almost as amorphous. Although we are told the president's resolve is steady and the mission clear, we seem to know less and less about the enemy we are fighting. What began as a war against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda quickly morphed into a war against Afghanistan, followed by dire warnings about an "Axis of Evil," the targeting of terrorists in some 50 to 60 countries, and now the beginnings of a major campaign against Iraq. Exactly what will constitute success in this war remains unclear, but the one thing the Bush administration has made certain is that the war will continue "indefinitely."

OK, lets see what these cats want to do.


The Guardian of Britain reports:

In a series of leaks or previews, the state department has said Mr Powell will allege that Iraq moved mobile biological weapons laboratories ahead of an inspection. Dr Blix said he had already inspected two alleged mobile labs and found nothing: "Two food-testing trucks have been inspected and nothing has been found."

So the question remains, on what basis is the U.S. claiming Iraq has moving weapons facilities?

[Blix] said the choice for the UN was between continued containment and invasion. Both strategies had problems, but an invasion required 250,000 troops and over $100bn while for containment the numbers were 250 inspectors and $80m... (I like the British diction and use of tense)

Swollen Colin is here in New York, and I'll be listening. If he shows three things, I'll be satisfied.

a) Show that a problem exists.
b) Show that there is a solution that will fix the problem. And demonstrate that the most desireable solution is developed and exhausted efore a less desireable solution is given creedence.
c) Show that the "solution" will not be more problematic than the original problem.

I feel like the Secretary is going to try to pull a fast one, like making a charge that cannot be independently confirmed or denied. This all comes down to American security, European security, world security. Wingnuts like to claim the French and Germans are no longer allies of the U.S. but does it make sense that a competent regime would oppose war if they the livelihood of its nation were actually threatened. France and Germany are not stupid, they have intelligence, they are closer to Iraq, so I will not pretend that their points have no merit, even if I were to support a war.


Last night France's demand that more time be given to the weapons inspectors was dismissed by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. He wrote in a letter to the Times: "We must not allow endless calls for more time to become a cop-out."

The role of the weapons inspectors is not to protect Iraq, it is to destroy weapons and disarm Saddam Hussein. Blair and Dubya would have us believe that inspectors want to cuddle Hussein, calls for more time are not "endless", calls for war are endless and unrelenting. We loathed war when it was brought here, the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were burning, thousands of people died, our families and friends were affected. Bush and Blair want nothing but war except when the effects hit Americans, I simply hate war against Americans and against anybody who is not threatening Americans. If this war commences, I'll be praying for our soldiers and the Iraqi innocents; I hope Saddam has a heart attack in the first minute, maybe it'll spare a few thousand of his people...


The United States has chosen a successor to Saddam Hussein from Iraq's notoriously fractious opposition groups, according to a former Iraqi diplomat who lives in Sydney.

The article continues:

Dr al-Jabiri, who talked to Mr Chalabi over the phone last month, said: "He told me that he would take over. He has the blessing of the White House and the State Department."

OK, this guy has the blessing (or curse) of El Presidente and swollen Colin's support. So will we give this guy weapons of mass destruction to defend himself? Will our government spare the guy some anthraz cluster bombs? I bet the guy speaks english better than El Presidente, but that's just speculation. The American press is lost on this story, I had to fly halfway around the world for this story, and the link is US Has Chosen Saddam's Successor


Weapons testing is alive and well in the U.S. of A. but we have nobody to answer to. Magazine "In These Times" reports:

On September 4, 2001, the New York Times printed a front-page article under the headline, “U.S. Germ Warfare Research Pushes Treaty Limits.” While the story got lost in the events of September 11, the article revealed that the United States had initiated a secret weapons program that could be in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention...
During the Clinton administration, the United States initiated classified biodefense programs within the Energy and Defense departments and the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA built and tested a cluster bomb that could spread biological agents over a wide area... The Defense Intelligence Agency tried to genetically engineer more powerful anthrax to replicate a Russian strain thought to be resistant to U.S. military vaccinations.
The United States maintains that these programs are defensive, claiming that in order to manufacture vaccines and develop defenses against biological attacks, researchers must first be able to produce the weapons. In the words of one official, the projects are “fully consistent with the treaty.”

Defensive anthrax? RIIIIIGGGHHT. Defensive anthrax. This is more of that WAR IS PEACE mentality, and I think that our military and intelligence, the driving forces behind U.S. foreign policy, truly believe that WAR IS PEACE. This is where that extra military spending is going. Our government think its more important to build cluster bombs and other toys for the military than it is to make sure all kids have excellent educational opportunities. This administration thinks excellent killing machines should be higher on the priority list than excellent healthcare. I'm a liberal because building anthrax bombs, daisy cutters and napalm doesn't give me a hardon, it makes me puke. Inspect This: America's Secret Bioweapons Program


Al Kamen of the Washington Post reports-- Dick's racist sticker

At the Conservative Political Action Conference, which featured Vice President Cheney as its opening luncheon speaker yesterday, one of the various exhibition booths hawking paraphernalia had some virulently anti-Muslim vinyl bumper stickers, for $3.95, including one that said: "No Muslims = No Terrorism."

In 2003, why do Republicans and conservatives tolerate racists in their company, why do they allow themselves to equate a faith with an evil. Inductive reasoning leads me to believe that racists have a strong enough pull within the CPAC in order to get its resources and time devoted to making a bumper sticker that says that the elimination of terrorism is the elimination of muslims. After a con with conscience complained the stickers were taken off display but check this out:

But the offending stickers were not really taken off sale. When a Washington Post reporter asked about the anti-Muslim bumper stickers, a booth attendant smiled and reached behind a sheet, saying conference organizers had ordered her to take them off display.
"Somebody doesn't believe in free speech," she complained, offering them for $2.75 apiece.

Assuming that conservatives are like most decent people and are for the end of terrorism, wouldn't they want to eliminate the causes of terror? If the end of Islam would bring the end of terror, wouldn't conservatives want to rid one to rid the other? These stickers are not about "free speech", they're about a racist impulse in the conservative right. Should our vice prez be supporting a genocidal equation? I am sick of people defending racism as "free speech" or saying that people who take offense to prejudice are against free speech! When Osama bin Laden shows his recruits what El Presidente's or the vice Prez's friends say about Islam, the nazi terrorist motherfuckers are not going to pull out the constitution and cite the first amendment, they are going to yell like Tarzan and try to sneak a dirty bomb into New York, Washington or some place else. If liberals don't want their government cozying racist perspectives that doesn't mean we think racists should be locked up for their thoughts, it means we don't want the association with racist assholes.

Monday, February 03, 2003

I found a nice website that gives us nothing but the facts and figures on los Bushes vs. Bill, here is an example of a graph comparing Democratic and Republican tax priorities:

Wow, the truth clears things up for me, but why does half the voting population vote Republican if they don't get paid enough to benefit? Here's another link you can stab the wingnuts with: Are You Better Off Now?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@@@@@@@@@@@ 60 HITZ A DAY @@@@@@@@@@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have reached sixty hits a day (on average) on this blog, awesome!!! And we have received a total of 107 hits in the last 7 days. Thanks a million for visiting and thanks even more for telling your friends about it. I hope the blog is somewhat entertaining...


WhiteHouse.org features a speech made by El Presidente concerning this affirmative action issue, and boy is Dubya candid as ever:

You see, in the programs under review by the Supreme Court, the University of Michigan has established an admissions process which we like to say is "based on race." Fact is, it's based on achievement, but by saying otherwise, Karl Rove can whip swing-state crackers who didn't finish high school into a racist frenzy believing you darkies are stealing the Chef Boy-ar-dee right out of their babies' mouths.
Of course, I realize that some of you might actually believe that affirmative action is a good thing. Hell, you might even know older black folks who went to college and seem to be better off for it. But did you know that for every last one of them that illicitly savored the nectar that pours forth from formerly white-only University water fountains, there was some other, more-deserving person – an upstanding blue-eyed legacy C-student exactly like my younger self – who was unjustly displaced by that uppity negro trash? Well there was. And THAT, my young Lincoln-lovers, is the problem. Fortunately, Yale and Harvard still know how to pay homage to a political dynasty – and rightly look past such trivial matters as academic achievement and criminal records when admitting members of my family to their hallowed, disgustingly intellectual and tweed-wearing-faggot-infested halls.
You know, I speak often of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" – and I mean it. In fact, I speak for all Republicans when I manage to not burst into laughter while stating that we really want you people to believe that we have HIGH expectations and great respect for you. Don't believe me? Listen to Trent Lott. And that's why it pains us when we hear you all still clinging to this affirmative action nonsense. I mean, how are you people ever supposed to pull yourselves up out of the gutter if you're not going to leave advancement to the nice white folks, whose pennies will miraculously "trickle down" to you while you're cleaning the toilets in their vacation villas?

With speeches like that, he could make me almost want to vote for him, that silly bastard. I hope El Prez keeps it up; the URL is El Prez lays down the facts on the soft bigotry of low expectations


Big government is big government, whether its feeding children through school lunch programs or pumping the military-industrial complex, as El Presidente seems to have a fetish for. His new budget is $$$$$2.23 trillion, and that money isn't going to school children, its going to weapons of mass destruction. $$$$$2.23 trillion is more than $7,000 per citizen. Unfortunately, its not really $$7,000 per citizen because the very wealthy would get back an average of $$$25,000 if the President's budget goes through, whereas the middle class would get back a few hundred dollars. Another reason $7,000 dollars is not truly spent on every citizen is because the money that goes into the military is not spent to protect us from our enemies, it didn't protect us on September 11, 2001 and it truly has not been used to protect us since the Cold War, and arguably since World War II. I have a question for all of you: when is the last time the Department of Defense passed an audit? I know that it hasn't passed one since at least 1990, it gets more money than any department in our country, Bush wants to spend more money. Senators have a hard time finding out where the Pentagon spends the money, and this is what Senator Robert Byrd said about it one and a half years ago:

As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I find it profoundly disturbing that the Department of Defense cannot account for the money that it spends, and does not know with any certainty what is in its inventory. These problems have been exposed in detail by the Department's own Inspector General, as well as the General Accounting Office. Ten years after Congress passed the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Department of Defense has still not been able to pass an audit of its books. The Pentagon's books are in such disarray that outside experts cannot even begin an audit, much less reach a conclusion on one.

Republicans like big government, big government spending for military contractors, the financial industry, big oil for big bombs, big banks, and big bombers. Republicans spend big, create big deficits, and leave it for the kids to clean up; that's the legacy of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and los Bushes.

Sunday, February 02, 2003

OK, so Puxsatawney Phil saw his shadow, this "indicating" that there will be 6 extra weeks of this dreadfully cold winter. I won't put up with it, I'll move to Texas before I get frozen in my native land that I love, New York City. This groundhog thing is getting old anyway, the thing cannot know whether or not it has a shadow, we do, but it doesn't. So if the groundhog doesn't know if there's a shadow or not, then what's the point of groundhog day, why isn't there a groundhod day parade, or a groundhog day wet tee shirt contest? Why doesn't dubya make a beer run for groundhog day? Its all beyond me, my friends...


Pollution is a major health problem nobody pays attention to. If the chefs in the White House were passing off rat poison for the Presidential dog's puppy chow, wouldn't that make page one of the New York Times, or Washington Post?! There is not widespread coverage of the harm of anti-environmental pollution, but I dug up a story that was marginalized even at the pretty marginalized San Francisco gate story on the Google News site. Here are some of the main points of the story:

American children carry traces of some common pesticides, industrial chemicals and other contaminants at levels twice as high as in adults, according to the largest study ever of human exposure to environmental chemicals.
"Clearly, a fair number of chemicals have been put into common commerce that weren't adequately tested, particularly as pesticides were grandfathered in in the early '70s and '80s," said the CDC's Jackson. It is "important to begin to have the toxicology data when large numbers of people are being exposed."

I think World News Tonight with Peter Jennings covered the neutering of former el Presidente Clinton's dog Buddy; but how is that mutt's minced testes more important than how the poisons, chemical agents and biological agents are having weird effects on our collective health? Chemicals in Kids

Powered by Blogger