dpk’s weblog

[Rumsfeld] said, for example, that more media attention was given to U.S. soldiers’ abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib than to the fact that Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith received the Medal of Honor.

I wonder if Donald Rumsfeld gets all upset at the local news when they report an accident closing a few lanes on the highway, instead of reporting on all of the open lanes every morning. Or if he’d prefer the media wrote more articles about how most of the country didn’t have hurricanes last year.

What a nut job.

If illegal immigrants become legal Americans, will they continue to work in agriculture, where they’ve worked now for a relative lack of other options, or will they try to move on to other better paying careers? I’d try to move on, or at least start expecting more money (even if I didn’t get it).

I also wonder what the new excuse will be. “Americans won’t do these jobs” would have to change, if they are given citizenship.

I’m not against the idea of amnesty (the word politicians are afraid of), I just wonder how well the reasoning being presented has been thought out.

A co-worker of mine, Russell, has got the motivation and the lack of experience to really make it as a Bush White House appointee. I urge you to write to your representative and senator today. Let’s make this happen people!

Shamnesty International, by Melana Zyla Vickers

For the most part, her argument makes sense. Amnesty International is not known for its support of the American government. It’s also hard to trust the word of a prisoner, former or current. It’s possible the Koran-in-the-toilet story was a lie, and the other abuse stories are lies as well.

Of course, the underlying message here, and being spread by the Bush administration, is that any and all accusations of wrongdoing must be handled “responsibly” in private, a message you can probably guess I do not agree with.

However, her argument falls apart right here:

The inmates are fairly treated. The guard-throws-Koran-in-toilet story was false. And claims that the inmates’ detention oversteps the boundaries of international law have been responded to at the highest levels. Besides, the 500-600 Guantanamo detainees wouldn’t be there if Al Qaeda hadn’t killed 2,948 Americans and others on Sept 11, 2001.

First off, claims may have been “responded” to at the highest levels, but that doesn’t mean they’ve been resolved. She even admits that later in the article (“failing to punish high level officers”).

Worse, however, is her justification for the detention of hundreds of people. Most of the people there are being held without any charges, and they weren’t even offered the basic rights of attorneys for quite some time. The belief that “it’s OK to imprison 500+ people indefinitely, because someone hurt us once!” is ridiculous. We’ve killed thousands of innocent people in Iraq: would she be OK with an Iraq prison holding 500 Americans, not allowing them to contact their families, or even to speak with a lawyer?

But the war against terrorism is a real and necessary one, and immunization against its cruelties is necessary if the U.S. is to win.

Another “the ends justify the means” message from the pro-war crowd. I think I’m more upset that people actually believe this war is “necessary”, than that the war is happening at all.

Bush Aide Says Newsweek Report Damages U.S. Image

“This report has had serious consequences,” White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said today in West Point, Virginia, where the president was giving a speech. “It has caused damage to the image of the United States abroad and people have lost their lives.”

The lies spread by the Bush administration have cost the lives of over one thousand Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the tens of thousands of non-American lives (which they conveniently do not track). This news article may have contributed to 16 deaths in riots.

Newsweek certainly should (and has) apologize for publishing an article that turned out to be false (apparently). That does not mean that the rest of the media should back off and let the Administration get away with pinning all of the blame on Newsweek. Newsweek did not put hundreds of Muslims in jail, without charges and without access to attorneys. Newsweek did not send troops to Iraq under the premise of destroying Saddam’s WMD capabilities. That was all Bush and his subordinates.

And where are the Democrats in all of this? I’ve yet to see an article or a press release from them denouncing President Bush’s efforts to shift the blame on to Newsweek. What is the point of having a multi-party system (ie: > 1) when one party is too scared to speak out against the other?

OK, enough ranting from me for now. Not like more than a couple people read this anyways.

KRT Wire | 03/20/2005 | Congress set to pass measure to keep brain-damaged woman alive

The Senate approved the measure on an unchallenged voice vote during a rare, Palm Sunday session that came amid charges of cynical political maneuvering. Just three members were on the floor and the bill’s prime sponsor, Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, served as presiding officer.

That’s right. With three senators voting, the majority(heh) of the press is reporting that this bill passed unopposed. That’s a 3% turnout, for those of you keeping score.

For someone who believes marriage should be between one man and one woman, Senator Martinez sure seems ready to involve a third party — the U.S. Government.

From USA Today:

President Bush conceded Wednesday that private accounts do not address the projected problems with Social Security, but he defended his approach and said he wanted more input from Congress on overhauling the troubled system.
…
But he said Wednesday he will not be pressed into outlining a more specific plan to deal with the projected shortfall. “I have not laid out a plan yet, intentionally,” he said. “I stood up in front of the Congress and said, ‘Bring your ideas forward.’”

Hahahahahahaha. *wipes away tears* So this great idea of his, that everyone else but Greenspan said was a bad one, he now admits is a bad one. The best part is that he’s setting up Congress to take the fall for not following through on his (lack of a) plan.

The Washington state representatives show a brief glimpse of enlightenment:

Under the legislation, at least 20 of the 161 state-owned liquor stores could sell on Sunday. Contract liquor stores — usually operated out of other businesses in rural areas — would also be allowed to open.

A very, incredibly brief glimpse. This is one of the areas of politics where I actually miss California — there, you can purchase liquor from grocery stores, or even specialty stores such as Beverages and More. Here, we purchase liquor from poorly lit, drab, ugly little retail outlets, with poor hours and poorer locations.

Personally, I hope this leads to more “common sense” approaches to law.</naive>