NSA Goal: "listen in on a vast array of communications"

2006-02-05T06:21:58Z

Well there you go.

What was in the speech Powell didn't read?

2006-02-05T06:13:08Z

Specifically, the article refers to the speech being written by Cheney's new Chief of Staff, John Hannah:

John Hannah, a Cheney aide who became the vice president's national security adviser after Libby's resignation, recycled some of the material into a draft of the speech Secretary of State Colin Powell was to give at the United Nations in February 2003--a draft that Powell threw out, calling it "bullshit."

We need to get our hands on that speech. What false information did Cheney try to get Powell to pimp -- on the world stage? How can the White House justify keeping the draft secret when they were prepared to sell its contents to the world? If Powell or another insider can be pursuaded to leak the speech, it would present a powerful new piece of evidence in the debate over the White House's prewar intelligence tampering, right?

How can we get it?

The media and the Abu Graib Tapes

2006-02-05T06:01:58Z

We know from here and here that the tapes contain extremely graphic footage of U.S. soldiers doing very naughty things, such as overseeing the rape of young Iraqi boys.

It seems to me, a good test for a modern democracy is whether evidence of war crimes committed by that democracy's soldiers is suppressed or shown to the public in full.

Do we still live in America or are things beginning to look awful...Serbian around here?

Evolution: a losing issue for liberals

2006-02-05T05:50:51Z

Here's my take: corporate Republicans (the true power in the party) want to attack science because science negatively impacts profits. Scientific study hurts oil companies by saying that global warming is real. It hurts cigarette companies by showing that lung cancer is real. It hurts insurance companies by showing that malpractice suits aren't "driving up" premium costs. In short, corporate Republican elites want Americans to question the following words any time they appear on television or in print. "A new study shows..." Once scientific findings are viewed with even a little public skepticism, the GOP's enormous financial/political advantages come to bear.

Clearly, this is an ambitious agenda. Scientists are respected and admired by most Americans...and it won't be easy for the GOP to change these views. Yet judges are also admired by Americans, and look what the GOP is doing to them. Post-Watergate, journalists were respected too. Now look at them. How about college professors?  They used to be pretty popular too. Now they are "liberal elitist leftist commies." The bottom line is, Republicans are fully capable of making Americans question the words "a new study shows..." by creating the impression that many studies are biased or agenda-driven.  They don't need to bismirch all of science, after all.  All it takes is a little public cynicism before the GOP financial/political advantage comes into play. If scientific results can be credibly "rebutted" by opposing experts and personal attacks, the attack on reality can begin. And they have been building the conservative thinktank infrastructure for years. Blur the lines a little, and Americans won't know the difference between the National Academies of Science and the Heritage Foundation.

Which brings us back to Evolution and Intelligent Design. With the "evolution debate," Republicans have discovered the chink in science's armor in terms of public opinion. Evolution is a polarizing issue and most polls show that Americans feel Democrats are on the wrong side of the debate.  And the left's dismissive response to Intelligent Design has played directly into Republican hands by allowing the GOP to paint scientists as god-hating liberals and elitists know-it-alls who tell you how to raise your own children. Bad bad bad. Pro-evolution scientists will soon be lumped in with the rest of "liberal academia."

Sorry, but evolution is a loser of a national issue. The harder we fight on it, the worse we look. For Republicans, it's a fantastic political tool.  Intelligent Design gives them the the perfect trojan horse for attacking science using the earnest outrage of the religious right (will they ever realize how exploited they are?).

The results of the "debate" will be:

1. Democrats who argue in favor of evolution are anti-religion (when will the first "moderate" Democrat come out in favor of ID?).
2. Pro-evolution scientists are leftists, just like the rest of academia.
3. These scientists are also elitist snobs who want to tell you what to think (namely that God is fake) and force you to teach your children their views.
4. "Scientists" are actually agenda-driven atheists and "scientific studies" should always be taken with a grain of salt.
5. The same liberal scientists who argue in favor of evolution are the ones pretending global warming is real.
6. Any study criticizing corporate America is quite possibly motivated by liberal hatred.

If the Democratic Party had even the slightest ability to fight this type of battle effectively, I would say go for it. We all know that's not that case. And we all know this type of debate is right in the Republicans' wheelhouse.

Sorry folks, but I think we should abandon the issue of evolution in the classroom before any more damage is done.

owenz's Blog

NSA Goal: "listen in on a vast array of communications"

What was in the speech Powell didn't read?

The media and the Abu Graib Tapes

Evolution: a losing issue for liberals