January 27, 2005
Doctor Death
The Black Commentator has some good articles this week: "The Condi and Colin Follies" by Margaret Kimberley, "Rice Arrives Just In Time To Oversee U.S. Decline," and "The Global Descent of America" by Aijaz Ahmad.
Disneyland, Iraq
Excerpts from an article by Brian Cloughey about some of what is being done in the name of our values:
'The New York Times reported that "Residents trickling back to Falluja ... enter a desolate world of skeletal buildings, tank-blasted homes, weeping power lines and severed palm trees. Sullen and anxious, tens of thousands of residents have passed through stringent checkpoints to find out ... whether their homes and shops were reduced to rubble or merely ransacked . . . people have to file through huge coils of razor wire and a gantlet of armed marines to pick up their supplies. On the road ... Lt Col Patrick Malay ... watched the scene with satisfaction. 'This is how I like it, just like Disneyland,' he said. 'Orderly lines and people leave with a smile on their face.'"
'The Director of Falluja hospital told the BBC that "about 60% to 70% of the homes and buildings are completely crushed and damaged ... Of the 30% still left standing, I don't think there is a single one that has not been exposed to some damage."
'... Marine Lt Gen John Sattler said his troops had "taken away this safe haven" of Falluja, which he stated was the base for the entire Iraqi uprising (he called it "rebellion") against US occupation troops. The Marine offensive, he said two months ago, has "broken the back of the insurgency" across Iraq. "We have," he announced proudly, "liberated the city of Falluja ... the enemy is broken."
'Following General Sattler's declaration that his enemy was broken there was a massive increase in ferocious anti-US attacks throughout the country. In the weeks after he mouthed his idiot words, over 150 US soldiers have been killed and scores more maimed. A few hundred Iraqi fighters against occupation have died. And hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Iraqi civilians have been slaughtered.'
'The New York Times reported that "Residents trickling back to Falluja ... enter a desolate world of skeletal buildings, tank-blasted homes, weeping power lines and severed palm trees. Sullen and anxious, tens of thousands of residents have passed through stringent checkpoints to find out ... whether their homes and shops were reduced to rubble or merely ransacked . . . people have to file through huge coils of razor wire and a gantlet of armed marines to pick up their supplies. On the road ... Lt Col Patrick Malay ... watched the scene with satisfaction. 'This is how I like it, just like Disneyland,' he said. 'Orderly lines and people leave with a smile on their face.'"
'The Director of Falluja hospital told the BBC that "about 60% to 70% of the homes and buildings are completely crushed and damaged ... Of the 30% still left standing, I don't think there is a single one that has not been exposed to some damage."
'... Marine Lt Gen John Sattler said his troops had "taken away this safe haven" of Falluja, which he stated was the base for the entire Iraqi uprising (he called it "rebellion") against US occupation troops. The Marine offensive, he said two months ago, has "broken the back of the insurgency" across Iraq. "We have," he announced proudly, "liberated the city of Falluja ... the enemy is broken."
'Following General Sattler's declaration that his enemy was broken there was a massive increase in ferocious anti-US attacks throughout the country. In the weeks after he mouthed his idiot words, over 150 US soldiers have been killed and scores more maimed. A few hundred Iraqi fighters against occupation have died. And hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Iraqi civilians have been slaughtered.'
January 26, 2005
Leahy: "I yield the floor."
"The other major reason I am voting in favor of Dr. Rice's nomination is that I am the Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. In this capacity, I have a responsibility to work with the Secretary of State, on a daily basis .... I hope that Dr. [sic] Rice will meet me half way."
So Patrick Leahy, "liberal" Democrat from Vermont explains why he had to vote in support of Rice's appointment to Secretary of State. Because he's scared of her! Yet he didn't hesitate to outline the long list of reasons to vote against her, as if she's not going to hear about it.
One thing he mentioned is her inability, characteristic of all Bush loyalists, to admit mistakes. Yet he says she is "capable of learning from her mistakes and changing her ways." What mistakes? What would compel her to change, Pat? The only possible lesson, since she won't admit there are any mistakes to learn from, would have been to reject her nomination. She's a liar (not even a good one) and a bully, and Leahy hopes she'll meet him half way with the many issues he hopes to deal with. Has he learned nothing during the last 4 years?!!
What a loser! It won't be long before Leahy and the 31 other Democrats with him will be denying they made a mistake in approving Rice. Remember how Russell Feingold voted to send John Ashcroft's nomination for Attorney General to the full Senate? He said much of what Leahy said about Rice, that Ashcroft would rise to the challenge and they would work together happily and productively. Unfortunately, Ashcroft didn't respond to the magnanimous gesture and -- because of one idiotic Senator's vote (for which he never expressed regret) -- we got a taste again of the days of J. Edgar Hoover. Feingold at least now opposes Ashcroft's replacement with the even more odious Alberto Gonzalez, though now it won't make any difference. Leahy is voting against Gonzalez, too. Yet they'll have to work with him! What guts! Lest we get carried away by this example of integrity (watered down as it is by their mealy words of respect for this monster), take comfort that Feingold joined Leahy in the big bipartisan thumbs up to Rice.
Democrats shouldn't be talking about getting along with the mockery of a government that Bush represents. They should be talking about locking them all up in Guantánamo for the rest of their lives. Their guiding strategy should be obstruction, not collaboration.
But where do I think I am? We don't have a representative parliament. There is only one party, the plutocrats playing good cop bad cop in an expensive entertainment that is all the politics we get. Feh!
So Patrick Leahy, "liberal" Democrat from Vermont explains why he had to vote in support of Rice's appointment to Secretary of State. Because he's scared of her! Yet he didn't hesitate to outline the long list of reasons to vote against her, as if she's not going to hear about it.
One thing he mentioned is her inability, characteristic of all Bush loyalists, to admit mistakes. Yet he says she is "capable of learning from her mistakes and changing her ways." What mistakes? What would compel her to change, Pat? The only possible lesson, since she won't admit there are any mistakes to learn from, would have been to reject her nomination. She's a liar (not even a good one) and a bully, and Leahy hopes she'll meet him half way with the many issues he hopes to deal with. Has he learned nothing during the last 4 years?!!
What a loser! It won't be long before Leahy and the 31 other Democrats with him will be denying they made a mistake in approving Rice. Remember how Russell Feingold voted to send John Ashcroft's nomination for Attorney General to the full Senate? He said much of what Leahy said about Rice, that Ashcroft would rise to the challenge and they would work together happily and productively. Unfortunately, Ashcroft didn't respond to the magnanimous gesture and -- because of one idiotic Senator's vote (for which he never expressed regret) -- we got a taste again of the days of J. Edgar Hoover. Feingold at least now opposes Ashcroft's replacement with the even more odious Alberto Gonzalez, though now it won't make any difference. Leahy is voting against Gonzalez, too. Yet they'll have to work with him! What guts! Lest we get carried away by this example of integrity (watered down as it is by their mealy words of respect for this monster), take comfort that Feingold joined Leahy in the big bipartisan thumbs up to Rice.
Democrats shouldn't be talking about getting along with the mockery of a government that Bush represents. They should be talking about locking them all up in Guantánamo for the rest of their lives. Their guiding strategy should be obstruction, not collaboration.
But where do I think I am? We don't have a representative parliament. There is only one party, the plutocrats playing good cop bad cop in an expensive entertainment that is all the politics we get. Feh!
January 25, 2005
From the Right: Hot Air
Editor Jim Motavalli writes in E (The Environmental Magazine), "Trust the chairman of the House Resources Committee, Richard Pombo, to seize upon consumer anxiety and twist it to his own anti-environmental ends." Motavalli's subject is the high demand for natural gas, which he takes as another reason we need large-scale wind power facilities. The funny thing is, Richard Pombo, seizing upon consumer anxiety and twisting it his own anti-environmental ends, also is an enthusiastic supporter of wind power. The American Wind Energy Association even donated to his election campaign last year. Who's "right"?
Okay, but why wind power, which doesn't work?
To the Editor, Burlington Free Press:
Mary Sullivan, spokesperson for Burlington Electric, scoffs that "some people" worry about the effect of giant wind-turbine facilities on our ridge lines while global warming and acid rain pose a much greater threat ("Let's not wait to reduce greenhouse emissions," opinion, Jan. 24). Her implication, one must assume, is that the giant wind turbines, occasionally spinning enough to generate more electricity than they use, are essential to reducing global warming and acid rain.
Despite warning us about ethically challenged pseudoscience, however, Sullivan does not explain her reasoning. How, in a state that gets no electricity from coal, would wind turbines reduce coal use? How, in a state where electricity accounts for only 1% of the greenhouse gas emissions, would wind turbines reduce global warming?
In fact, even if 100% of our electricity came from coal, wind power would not reduce its use. When researching the issue it does not take long to realize that there is no evidence anywhere that wind power on the grid reduces electricity generation other sources.
I support the challenge to reduce our energy use and make it cleaner. Nobody wants to see our mountains destroyed by pollution. "Some people" don't want to see them destroyed by useless wind facilities, either.
[Published Jan. 29, 2005, as "Turbines on ridgelines"]
Mary Sullivan, spokesperson for Burlington Electric, scoffs that "some people" worry about the effect of giant wind-turbine facilities on our ridge lines while global warming and acid rain pose a much greater threat ("Let's not wait to reduce greenhouse emissions," opinion, Jan. 24). Her implication, one must assume, is that the giant wind turbines, occasionally spinning enough to generate more electricity than they use, are essential to reducing global warming and acid rain.
Despite warning us about ethically challenged pseudoscience, however, Sullivan does not explain her reasoning. How, in a state that gets no electricity from coal, would wind turbines reduce coal use? How, in a state where electricity accounts for only 1% of the greenhouse gas emissions, would wind turbines reduce global warming?
In fact, even if 100% of our electricity came from coal, wind power would not reduce its use. When researching the issue it does not take long to realize that there is no evidence anywhere that wind power on the grid reduces electricity generation other sources.
I support the challenge to reduce our energy use and make it cleaner. Nobody wants to see our mountains destroyed by pollution. "Some people" don't want to see them destroyed by useless wind facilities, either.
[Published Jan. 29, 2005, as "Turbines on ridgelines"]
State Recommends Seasonal Shut Down of Altamont Pass Turbines to Save Birds
KCBS radio, San Francisco, reports that California is recommending that the wind turbines in Altamont Pass be shut down through the fall and winter to save the lives of perhaps up to 800 raptors (of the acknowledged 1,300 that are killed there each year). This is apparently a period of lower winds, so the 4,550 remaining turbines (the state also recommends that 650 of the current machines be taken down) would produce only a third less each year. I hope California can cope with losing that source of 0.1% of their electricity!
January 24, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)