Driving along the Massachusetts Turnpike today, I noticed 2 very large, professionally designed (and presumably expensive) billboards advocating that the state legalize and tax marijuana. The name of the group sponsoring the advertisements is Change the Climate, and they are claiming that the initiative would produce something like $138 million annually for the state treasury. I'd be curious to know how that number was generated, given that the price of grass would likely plummet if it were legalized. In any case, the people behind this seem to be taking their cues from the gaming industry, which has very successfully exploited the fact that most state governments are deeply in debt and desperate for revenue from any source. It'll be interesting to see if the prospect of some fresh revenue motivates the social conservatives to reconsider their position on this issue. Here's a link-
http://www.changetheclimate.org/
Monday, December 29, 2003
Saturday, December 20, 2003
I grew up in Minnesota, where snowmobiling is a holy rite in the culture. My father was a small town photographer, and in 1966 he was engaged by the local newspaper to photograph the very first "Blessing of the Snowmobiles," which took place outdoors, on the steps of the nearby Catholic church. (I truly am not making this up.) Apparently the church decided that a blessing might help to prevent the inevitable tragedies, which included decapitation by barbwire fence, and drowning in frozen lakes-- these things occurred regularly each winter. The parish priest stood up on the steps and sprinkled holy water upon the gathered multitudes, but most of it froze in the -20 air before it hit the ground.
Thursday, November 27, 2003
A cheerful thought for Thanksgiving Day-
The GOP scratched and clawed its way to a position of political strength, but they are governing in an immature, desperate fashion, as if they know that their time in office is short, and the strongarm tactics on the Medicare vote are just the latest example. What I see is the bull-in-the-china-shop mentality of a political party that does not actually believe in its own ability to implement its agenda by winning hearts and minds. A party that has a long-term vision and the confidence that it enjoys a legitimate mandate doesn't act the way DeLay and his cronies do. These guys are going down- it's just a matter of time...
The GOP scratched and clawed its way to a position of political strength, but they are governing in an immature, desperate fashion, as if they know that their time in office is short, and the strongarm tactics on the Medicare vote are just the latest example. What I see is the bull-in-the-china-shop mentality of a political party that does not actually believe in its own ability to implement its agenda by winning hearts and minds. A party that has a long-term vision and the confidence that it enjoys a legitimate mandate doesn't act the way DeLay and his cronies do. These guys are going down- it's just a matter of time...
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Enclosed is a fine piece by George Monbiot, writing in the Guardian on the deception that led us into the Iraq war.
Dreamers and idiots
Britain and the US did everything to avoid a peaceful solution in Iraq and Afghanistan
George Monbiot
Tuesday November 11, 2003
The Guardian
Those who would take us to war must first shut down the public imagination. They must convince us that there is no other means of preventing invasion, or conquering terrorism, or even defending human rights. When information is scarce, imagination is easy to control. As intelligence gathering and diplomacy are conducted in secret, we seldom discover - until it is too late - how plausible the alternatives may be.
So those of us who called for peace before the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan were mocked as effeminate dreamers. The intelligence our governments released suggested that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were immune to diplomacy or negotiation. Faced with such enemies, what would we do, the hawks asked? And our responses felt timid beside the clanking rigours of war. To the columnist David Aaronovitch, we were "indulging... in a cosmic whinge". To the Daily Telegraph, we had become "Osama bin Laden's useful idiots".
Had the options been as limited as the western warlords and their bards suggested, this might have been true. But, as many of us suspected at the time, we were lied to. Most of the lies are now familiar: there appear to have been no weapons of mass destruction and no evidence to suggest that, as President Bush claimed in March, Saddam had "trained and financed... al-Qaida". Bush and Blair, as their courtship of the president of Uzbekistan reveals, appear to possess no genuine concern for the human rights of foreigners.
But a further, and even graver, set of lies is only now beginning to come to light. Even if all the claims Bush and Blair made about their enemies and their motives had been true, and all their objectives had been legal and just, there may still have been no need to go to war. For, as we discovered last week, Saddam proposed to give Bush and Blair almost everything they wanted before a shot had been fired. Our governments appear both to have withheld this information from the public and to have lied to us about the possibilities for diplomacy.
Over the four months before the coalition forces invaded Iraq, Saddam's government made a series of increasingly desperate offers to the United States. In December, the Iraqi intelligence services approached Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-terrorism, with an offer to prove that Iraq was not linked to the September 11 attacks, and to permit several thousand US troops to enter the country to look for weapons of mass destruction. If the object was regime change, then Saddam, the agents claimed, was prepared to submit himself to internationally monitored elections within two years. According to Mr Cannistraro, these proposals reached the White House, but were "turned down by the president and vice-president".
By February, Saddam's negotiators were offering almost everything the US government could wish for: free access to the FBI to look for weapons of mass destruction wherever it wanted, support for the US position on Israel and Palestine, even rights over Iraq's oil. Among the people they contacted was Richard Perle, the security adviser who for years had been urging a war with Iraq. He passed their offers to the CIA. Last week he told the New York Times that the CIA had replied: "Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad".
Saddam Hussein, in other words, appears to have done everything possible to find a diplomatic alternative to the impending war, and the US government appears to have done everything necessary to prevent one. This is the opposite to what we were told by George Bush and Tony Blair. On March 6, 13 days before the war began, Bush said to journalists: "I want to remind you that it's his choice to make as to whether or not we go to war. It's Saddam's choice. He's the person that can make the choice of war and peace. Thus far, he's made the wrong choice."
Ten days later, Blair told a press conference: "We have provided the right diplomatic way through this, which is to lay down a clear ultimatum to Saddam: cooperate or face disarmament by force... all the way through we have tried to provide a diplomatic solution." On March 17, Bush claimed that "should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war". All these statements are false.
The same thing happened before the war with Afghanistan. On September 20 2001, the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer. On October 1, six days before the bombing began, they repeated it, and their representative in Pakistan told reporters: "We are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems." Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied: "There's no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on [sic] our time."
On the same day, Tony Blair, in his speech to the Labour party conference, ridiculed the idea that we could "look for a diplomatic solution". "There is no diplomacy with Bin Laden or the Taliban regime... I say to the Taliban: surrender the terrorists; or surrender power. It's your choice." Well, they had just tried to exercise that choice, but George Bush had rejected it.
Of course, neither Bush nor Blair had any reason to trust the Taliban or Saddam - these people were, after all, negotiating under duress. But neither did they have any need to trust them. In both cases they could have presented their opponents with a deadline for meeting the concessions they had offered. Nor could the allies argue that the offers were not worth considering because they were inadequate: both the Taliban and Saddam were attempting to open negotiations, not to close them - there appeared to be plenty of scope for bargaining. In other words, peaceful resolutions were rejected before they were attempted. What this means is that even if all the other legal tests for these wars had been met (they had not), both would still have been waged in defiance of international law. The charter of the United Nations specifies that "the parties to any dispute...shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation".
None of this matters to the enthusiasts for war. That these conflicts were unjust and illegal, that they killed or maimed tens of thousands of civilians, is irrelevant, as long as their aims were met. So the hawks should ponder this. Had a peaceful resolution of these disputes been attempted, Bin Laden might now be in custody, Iraq might be a pliant and largely peaceful nation finding its own way to democracy, and the prevailing sentiment within the Muslim world might be sympathy for the United States, rather than anger and resentment.
Now who are the dreamers and the useful idiots, and who the pragmatists?
· www.monbiot.com
Dreamers and idiots
Britain and the US did everything to avoid a peaceful solution in Iraq and Afghanistan
George Monbiot
Tuesday November 11, 2003
The Guardian
Those who would take us to war must first shut down the public imagination. They must convince us that there is no other means of preventing invasion, or conquering terrorism, or even defending human rights. When information is scarce, imagination is easy to control. As intelligence gathering and diplomacy are conducted in secret, we seldom discover - until it is too late - how plausible the alternatives may be.
So those of us who called for peace before the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan were mocked as effeminate dreamers. The intelligence our governments released suggested that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were immune to diplomacy or negotiation. Faced with such enemies, what would we do, the hawks asked? And our responses felt timid beside the clanking rigours of war. To the columnist David Aaronovitch, we were "indulging... in a cosmic whinge". To the Daily Telegraph, we had become "Osama bin Laden's useful idiots".
Had the options been as limited as the western warlords and their bards suggested, this might have been true. But, as many of us suspected at the time, we were lied to. Most of the lies are now familiar: there appear to have been no weapons of mass destruction and no evidence to suggest that, as President Bush claimed in March, Saddam had "trained and financed... al-Qaida". Bush and Blair, as their courtship of the president of Uzbekistan reveals, appear to possess no genuine concern for the human rights of foreigners.
But a further, and even graver, set of lies is only now beginning to come to light. Even if all the claims Bush and Blair made about their enemies and their motives had been true, and all their objectives had been legal and just, there may still have been no need to go to war. For, as we discovered last week, Saddam proposed to give Bush and Blair almost everything they wanted before a shot had been fired. Our governments appear both to have withheld this information from the public and to have lied to us about the possibilities for diplomacy.
Over the four months before the coalition forces invaded Iraq, Saddam's government made a series of increasingly desperate offers to the United States. In December, the Iraqi intelligence services approached Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-terrorism, with an offer to prove that Iraq was not linked to the September 11 attacks, and to permit several thousand US troops to enter the country to look for weapons of mass destruction. If the object was regime change, then Saddam, the agents claimed, was prepared to submit himself to internationally monitored elections within two years. According to Mr Cannistraro, these proposals reached the White House, but were "turned down by the president and vice-president".
By February, Saddam's negotiators were offering almost everything the US government could wish for: free access to the FBI to look for weapons of mass destruction wherever it wanted, support for the US position on Israel and Palestine, even rights over Iraq's oil. Among the people they contacted was Richard Perle, the security adviser who for years had been urging a war with Iraq. He passed their offers to the CIA. Last week he told the New York Times that the CIA had replied: "Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad".
Saddam Hussein, in other words, appears to have done everything possible to find a diplomatic alternative to the impending war, and the US government appears to have done everything necessary to prevent one. This is the opposite to what we were told by George Bush and Tony Blair. On March 6, 13 days before the war began, Bush said to journalists: "I want to remind you that it's his choice to make as to whether or not we go to war. It's Saddam's choice. He's the person that can make the choice of war and peace. Thus far, he's made the wrong choice."
Ten days later, Blair told a press conference: "We have provided the right diplomatic way through this, which is to lay down a clear ultimatum to Saddam: cooperate or face disarmament by force... all the way through we have tried to provide a diplomatic solution." On March 17, Bush claimed that "should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war". All these statements are false.
The same thing happened before the war with Afghanistan. On September 20 2001, the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer. On October 1, six days before the bombing began, they repeated it, and their representative in Pakistan told reporters: "We are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems." Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied: "There's no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on [sic] our time."
On the same day, Tony Blair, in his speech to the Labour party conference, ridiculed the idea that we could "look for a diplomatic solution". "There is no diplomacy with Bin Laden or the Taliban regime... I say to the Taliban: surrender the terrorists; or surrender power. It's your choice." Well, they had just tried to exercise that choice, but George Bush had rejected it.
Of course, neither Bush nor Blair had any reason to trust the Taliban or Saddam - these people were, after all, negotiating under duress. But neither did they have any need to trust them. In both cases they could have presented their opponents with a deadline for meeting the concessions they had offered. Nor could the allies argue that the offers were not worth considering because they were inadequate: both the Taliban and Saddam were attempting to open negotiations, not to close them - there appeared to be plenty of scope for bargaining. In other words, peaceful resolutions were rejected before they were attempted. What this means is that even if all the other legal tests for these wars had been met (they had not), both would still have been waged in defiance of international law. The charter of the United Nations specifies that "the parties to any dispute...shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation".
None of this matters to the enthusiasts for war. That these conflicts were unjust and illegal, that they killed or maimed tens of thousands of civilians, is irrelevant, as long as their aims were met. So the hawks should ponder this. Had a peaceful resolution of these disputes been attempted, Bin Laden might now be in custody, Iraq might be a pliant and largely peaceful nation finding its own way to democracy, and the prevailing sentiment within the Muslim world might be sympathy for the United States, rather than anger and resentment.
Now who are the dreamers and the useful idiots, and who the pragmatists?
· www.monbiot.com
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
The Bush administration has done a lot of foolish and irresponsible things, but perhaps none as arrogant and hubristic as assuming that the situation in Iraq would be under control well before it became a liability in the '04 political campaign. We are now faced with the possibility that the crucial decisions the White House makes on Iraq will be made under extreme political pressure. I'm not optimistic...
Friday, August 29, 2003
Sunday, August 24, 2003
Friday, August 22, 2003
A federal judge has just dismissed the FOX News lawsuit against humorist Al Franken. He had used the line "Fair and Balanced" in the subtitle of his new book, and FOX claimed that it had proprietary rights to the phrase. The blogosphere responded immediately with a flurry of bloggers adding 'Fair and Balanced' to the headers on their sites. Now I can remove that "fair and balanced" line from the header on my blog and go back to being a shrill and and biased liberal.
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Here's my all-time favorite African email scam letter. This one features a humanitarian angle....
Dear Friend,
Though I know that a transaction of this magnitude will make any one apprehensive and worried,but I am assuring you that everything will be well at the end of the day. I have decided to contact you due to the urgency of this transaction.
Let me start by introducing myself properly to you. I am Mr.Jeffrey Mbuzo,External Auditor,NedBank Plc, Johannesburg-South Africa.
THE PROPOSITION:
A Foreigner, a french, Late Engr.Jean claude Pierre (Snr), a staff of Witwaterstrand Gold Mining Coy South Africa,until his death months ago in Kenya Air Bus (A310 - 300)Flight KQ430,banked with us at NedBank Plc Johannesburg- South Africa,and had a closing balance as at the end of September, 2000 worth $33,800.000.00 (Thirty Three Million eight hundred United State Dollars), (this is aside the accrued interest so far from that date) the bank now expects next of kin as beneficiary.Concerted efforts made by the management of NedBank Plc Johannesburg- South Africa to get in touch with any of the Pierre's Family or Relatives proved abortive.
It is because of the perceived possibility of not being able to locate any of Late Engr. Jean Claude Pierre(Snr.)'s next of kin (He had no wife or children that is known to us according to his immigration data available to the bank),that the Management, under the influence of our Chairman and Members of the Board of Directors,concluded arrangement for the fund to be decleared "Unclaimed" and subsequentlly be donated as trust fund for arms/ ammunition to further enhance the course of War in Africa and the World in General.
In order to avert this negative development, some of my trusted colleagues and I now seek your assistance to stand as next of kin to the late Engr. Jean Claude Pierre (Snr.) so that the fund will be released and paid into your Account as the beneficiary/ next of kin.
All validating and authenticating documents to enable you get this fund will be carefully worked out. We have secured from the probate registry, an order of Mandamus to locate any of the deceased beneficiaries, and more so we are assuring you that this business is 100% Risk Free.
Your share will be 30% of the total sum while the rest will be for myself and my colleagues for investment purposes, according to agreement between both parties. For the successful completion of this task, you'll be required to claim the funds after documentation in our offshore clearing centre in Holland or London with the assistance of one of our collegues,who will be willing to talk with you on phone as soon as possible. We shall arrange to change the name of beneficiary in your favour in NedBank Plc, Johannesburg-South Africa.
Kindly indicate your interest to enable us, with your assistance,move the fund to our offshore clearing house in London or Holland without any transfer fee payable by you. Please note that for the purposes of confidentiality, all further correspondences would be through my alternative email address:zojefff1@mail.com
Accept my warm regards as I await your response.
Sincerely,
Mr.Jeffrey Mbuzo
Dear Friend,
Though I know that a transaction of this magnitude will make any one apprehensive and worried,but I am assuring you that everything will be well at the end of the day. I have decided to contact you due to the urgency of this transaction.
Let me start by introducing myself properly to you. I am Mr.Jeffrey Mbuzo,External Auditor,NedBank Plc, Johannesburg-South Africa.
THE PROPOSITION:
A Foreigner, a french, Late Engr.Jean claude Pierre (Snr), a staff of Witwaterstrand Gold Mining Coy South Africa,until his death months ago in Kenya Air Bus (A310 - 300)Flight KQ430,banked with us at NedBank Plc Johannesburg- South Africa,and had a closing balance as at the end of September, 2000 worth $33,800.000.00 (Thirty Three Million eight hundred United State Dollars), (this is aside the accrued interest so far from that date) the bank now expects next of kin as beneficiary.Concerted efforts made by the management of NedBank Plc Johannesburg- South Africa to get in touch with any of the Pierre's Family or Relatives proved abortive.
It is because of the perceived possibility of not being able to locate any of Late Engr. Jean Claude Pierre(Snr.)'s next of kin (He had no wife or children that is known to us according to his immigration data available to the bank),that the Management, under the influence of our Chairman and Members of the Board of Directors,concluded arrangement for the fund to be decleared "Unclaimed" and subsequentlly be donated as trust fund for arms/ ammunition to further enhance the course of War in Africa and the World in General.
In order to avert this negative development, some of my trusted colleagues and I now seek your assistance to stand as next of kin to the late Engr. Jean Claude Pierre (Snr.) so that the fund will be released and paid into your Account as the beneficiary/ next of kin.
All validating and authenticating documents to enable you get this fund will be carefully worked out. We have secured from the probate registry, an order of Mandamus to locate any of the deceased beneficiaries, and more so we are assuring you that this business is 100% Risk Free.
Your share will be 30% of the total sum while the rest will be for myself and my colleagues for investment purposes, according to agreement between both parties. For the successful completion of this task, you'll be required to claim the funds after documentation in our offshore clearing centre in Holland or London with the assistance of one of our collegues,who will be willing to talk with you on phone as soon as possible. We shall arrange to change the name of beneficiary in your favour in NedBank Plc, Johannesburg-South Africa.
Kindly indicate your interest to enable us, with your assistance,move the fund to our offshore clearing house in London or Holland without any transfer fee payable by you. Please note that for the purposes of confidentiality, all further correspondences would be through my alternative email address:zojefff1@mail.com
Accept my warm regards as I await your response.
Sincerely,
Mr.Jeffrey Mbuzo
Saturday, August 16, 2003
Friday, August 15, 2003
From BuzzFlash:
"In June of 2001, Bush opposed and the congressional GOP voted down legislation to provide $350 million worth of loans to modernize the nation's power grid because of known weaknesses in reliability and capacity. Supporters of the amendment pointed to studies by the Energy Department showing that the grid was in desperate need of upgrades as proof that their legislation sponsored by U.S. Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) should pass."
"In June of 2001, Bush opposed and the congressional GOP voted down legislation to provide $350 million worth of loans to modernize the nation's power grid because of known weaknesses in reliability and capacity. Supporters of the amendment pointed to studies by the Energy Department showing that the grid was in desperate need of upgrades as proof that their legislation sponsored by U.S. Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) should pass."
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
A very astute observation about conservative death penalty supporters from Tim Dunlop, Australian blogger:
"One thing that always strikes me as weird is that it often seems to be the very people who purport to hate "government" the most, and would't trust it to do anything competently or honestly who are most willing to hand the power of life and death to the very organisation that is the usual object of their ire and contempt."
"One thing that always strikes me as weird is that it often seems to be the very people who purport to hate "government" the most, and would't trust it to do anything competently or honestly who are most willing to hand the power of life and death to the very organisation that is the usual object of their ire and contempt."
Monday, August 11, 2003
Sunday, August 10, 2003
Saturday, August 09, 2003
The field seems to be narrowing in the race for Governor of California; there are only 136 entries at the moment. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be simpler, cheaper, and perhaps wiser to just hold a lottery- why not pick a random name out of the 33.9 million left coast residents and let the winner govern? I was following the campaign of filmaker Brian Jennings for awhile- he was running on the platform of "I Will Not Serve." His notion was that if elected, he would immediately resign and thus hand over the office to Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante. I emailed Jennings and suggested that he make up some campaign buttons- they would be hot sellers on Ebay after the election....
I learned recently that my old blogsite 'E-Town' shared its name with a very cool radio program hosted by Nick and Helen Forster out in Boulder, CO. Their show aims to create a strong community that shares environmental and social values through music and conversation.
So as to avoid confusion and spare those folks the embarassment of being identified with the author of the incoherent mumblings contained herein, I have decided to put down roots here at Jung At Heart. Hopefully my worldwide audience of 3 unemployed Tarot card readers will remain loyal and continue to watch this space for illuminating commentary on a wide range of irrelevant topics.
So as to avoid confusion and spare those folks the embarassment of being identified with the author of the incoherent mumblings contained herein, I have decided to put down roots here at Jung At Heart. Hopefully my worldwide audience of 3 unemployed Tarot card readers will remain loyal and continue to watch this space for illuminating commentary on a wide range of irrelevant topics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)