Bush Dead-Enders: the Sin of Pride

Ignorant and proud

Over the past year, I have been treated to discussions with some of those ever-more-rare relics of the halcyon days of the Bush administration: unrepentant Bush supporters. In these days of new awareness of the extent of corruption and ineptitude that pervades the Bush administration, such finds are rare, indeed, and should be savored if for no other reason than to witness the obstinacy that gives these people the ability to deny reality.

My discussions lasted over the course of several months, in the form of email exchanges that sometimes became rather nasty. I was at least as responsible as my counterparts for the nastiness of the exchanges. No surprise. In this Karl Rove era of politics, there are few reasoned debates; instead, demonization, smear, and humiliation are the tools used to browbeat opponents into silence. (And I can play that way, if you want.)

The problem for Republicans is that the people that Rove targeted for support (mostly under-educated evangelicals and reactionary bigots) are generally not capable of understanding (let alone articulating) the mind-twisting arguments that must be used to justify the policies that the administration promulgated. Therefore, Rove aimed for the lowest common denominator with easy-to-grasp slogans and innuendo: Democrats are soft on terror; the terrorists hate us for our freedom; we must fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here.

Well, the exchanges I have had with Bush supporters are textbook Rove. Just a few examples:

Regarding the Iraq invasion

Bush Supporter: We had to invade Iraq in response to 911.

Dade: Saddam had nothing to do with 911. But, even if that were true, more innocent people have been killed in the Iraq invasion than were killed in 911.

BS: We have to confront the terrorists, even if they hide behind the innocent.

Dade: So, how many innocent people should be killed in response to 911?

BS: That's a rhetorical question.

Dade: No, it's an empirical question. You've advocated invading Iraq. You know that, in an invasion, innocent people will be killed. Therefore, how many innocent people can be killed in order for the invasion to remain justified?

BS: As many as it takes!*

Regarding Cheney and Halliburton

Dade: Cheney's ties to Halliburton are unethical. He is the former CEO, and the company was on the verge of bankruptcy when he became vice-president. After the Iraq invasion, of which Cheney was one of the chief proponents, Halliburton was awarded billions of dollars in federal contracts without being subjected to competitive bidding.

BS: That doesn't mean there is a conspiracy.

Dade: But those are the facts.

BS: Facts can lie!*

Other random goodies

BS: I don't advocate torture .... We are treating illegal combatants alot [sic] better than we should*

BS: I'm not afraid of terrorists. I just see them as a threat*

BS: Given my current situation, the best way I can support the troops is to continue to communicate the virtue of their mission and sacrifice. *

BS: The President has ALWAYS had the power to suspend Habeus [sic]! It's written into the Constitution!*

BS: Those opposed to the war are free to speak - I'm free to characterize them as cowards (ain't free speech great!).*

*These are actual quotations.

Well, even a hard-core Bush supporter has trouble keeping a straight face when spouting this kind of drivel. But it occurs to me that it is not really about logic or reason; it's about identity. Karl Rove convinced the Republican "base" to ignore facts and base its support on the (false) belief that Bush was one of them. The implied message behind all the propaganda put forth by the administration and its accomplices in the media is that Junior is like you (the conservative base); he's not a godless big-city liberal. He believes in the Bible. He says what he means. He does not waver in his principles. When the Democrats/liberals/gays/peace activists attack Bush, they are attacking you; they are attacking your way of life, your creed.

If you can sell this line to people, you've got a power base that will stick with you through thick and thin. After all, for these people to suddenly accept the facts and admit that Bush is a liar, an incompetent, a demagogue, would be to admit that they have been woefully befooled. The Bush administration has counted on this unbending support; indeed, they wield it like a cudgel, threatening the pathetic Democratic leadership whenever the latter makes even a pretense at defying them.

Well, people, this is what happens when you put the yahoos in charge. If I sound contemptuous, rest assured that the contempt I have toward Bush supporters pales when compared to the contempt in which they are held by the Bush administration itself.

We're mired in war, facing financial ruin, and paralyzed with animosity and mistrust. The paltry 25% of the population that still supports Bush are, for now, standing in the way of real progress and redress in order to save themselves from the humiliation of admitting that they were wrong to believe in this failure of a man, George W. Bush. They demonstrate so painfully and clearly the truth of Catholic teachings: the sin of Pride is deadly, indeed.

Hey, Pat, did you actually go and grow a pair?

Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee

Well, well, well... what is going to become of all this?

Senator Patrick Leahy (VT-D), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee ruled today that certain high-ranking aides (and former aides) cannot claim executive privilege to avoid testifying before the Senate about the US attorney firings that occurred in late 2006. You remember? The big dust-up that exposed former US Attorney General Al Gonzales as the wormy, sycophantic incompetent that he is?

The way I see it, this was a brilliant move by Leahy. Up until now, Leahy and other Democratic Senators (Chuck Schumer from New York, for example) have been firing questions at the White House that were aimed at determining whether or not Junior Bush was involved in the attorney firings, or whether it was an underling, like former adviser Karl Rove, former legal counsel Harriet Myers, or perhaps Gonzales on his own. The Judiciary Committee has gone so far as to issue subpoenas to Rove, Myers, and White House Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten.

The White House has insisted that Bush himself was not involved and has refused the subpoenas, citing executive privilege. The administration has offered an inadequate compromise: Rove, Myers, Bolten and others would testify privately to the Senate, but not under oath, and without a recorded transcript. (Don't you find that insulting?)

In a truly Machiavellian maneuver, today, Leahy accepted the assertion that Bush was not involved and then ruled that, since Bush was not involved, the subpoenaed White House big wigs could not therefore claim executive priviledge.

The White House response was so lame that it seems they were caught flat-footed. White House Spokeswoman Dana Perino said she was "baffled" by the ruling. "If [Senator Leahy] is now saying that the president wasn't aware of it, as we have said from the beginning, then I don't understand why he continues to have this rope-a-dope that's not going to go anywhere," she said. Hmm....that sounds kinda shaky to me.

There are a couple possible outcomes to this development. Leahy has a number of options:

1. It could go nowhere. Leahy may be pawing the ground and making a lot of noise in order to get the White House to come up with some acceptable compromise wherein everyone involved can save face. (Don't ask me what that might be, but they're all experts at that kind of thing.) There is certainly reason to believe that might be what he wants. The prognosticating beltway gurus, even the Republicans, are all expecting a Democratic landslide in the '08 elections, and that is incentive (from Leahy's perspective) not to rock the boat too much. (I offer as Exhibit A, Reid's and Pelosi's sickening lack of spine regarding war funding).
   
2. Leahy could actually press the issue by referring the subpoenas to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where they would be considered and then be voted on for referral to the entire Senate. Since Democrats hold the majority, we can assume that such a referral would pass. This would be a Big Deal^TM. The entire Senate would then vote on whether or not to hold Rove, Bolten, Myers and others in contempt of congress, which is a felony. And, you know, I may be a star-eyed dreamer, but I think Leahy might just go ahead and do it.
   

Consider what Leahy's Republican counterpart, Senator Arlen Spectre (PA) said today, regarding the subpoenas: "It's a bad idea to have subpoenas issued and then not to act on them. If you cry wolf, you ought to follow up." That's right, Arlen. If you let them ignore you now, they will ignore you whenever they please.

Further, one has to imagine that Leahy and Specter, to say nothing of their fellow senators, have egos that are vast enough to stretch from purple mountain's majesty all the way across the fruited plain. It must gall them that a creature like Junior Bush, whom I'm convinced they must view as a cretin and a ne'er-do-well, does not afford them the respect they feel they are due.

Well, I'm popping up some virtual microwave popcorn before I watch this play out. Somebody is going to get embarrassed and exposed. Somebody who richly deserves it. It might be Junior, it might be Rove, or it might be Leahy. There's no way to know. But keep your fingers crossed. There's always a chance...there's always a chance.

Norovirus at Edgefield Pub

Edgefield McMenamins: Better bring a bucket...

I don't suppose I ever was much of a fan of McMenamin's Brewery. The beer is inconsistent, sometimes good, sometimes passable, but often wretched. And the food is poor.

Well, my ill disposition toward McMenamin's has been thoroughly cemented now, punctuated by a nasty illness I contracted from partaking of its cuisine at the Edgefield Pub.

My employer scheduled an off-site meeting at Edgefield for the dates of November 12 through November 14th. Coworkers arrived from various points around the globe, including India, Egypt, and the United Kingdom in order to participate. During this event, we held seminars and creative sessions to determine how to enhance our profession as writers. Many of us stayed at the Edgefield and we all partook of the cuisine throughout the three days.

Well, the night of Wednesday, November 14th, I was home, seated at my computer when, out of the blue, I thought "I think I'm going to be sick." Guess what? I was right. That night was a hellish eternity of nausea, chills, and diarrhea. I called in sick to work on the morning of the 15th and spent the entire day miserably trying to retain fluids. When I returned to work, still shaky, on the 16th, I learned that as many as 16 other people were experiencing the same symptoms. One person was even hospitalized.

Suspicion immediately fell upon the Edgefield kitchen, but the issue remained in doubt until I saw this in yesterday's Oregonian:

Luncheon attendees suffer viral outbreak

The Multnomah County Health Department has traced an outbreak of illness suffered by more than two dozen people to a virus that was apparently spread at a luncheon sponsored by the Port of Portland at a Troutdale restaurant, a department official said Monday.

Hai Ta, clinical nursing supervisor in the Multnomah County Disease Control Office, said about 30 people became ill after the Nov. 14 luncheon at McMenamins Edgefield. She said the victims suffered vomiting and diarrhea for a day or two and that all have recovered.

The cause was a Norwalk-like virus, a common virus that is most prevalent during cold, winter weather, Hai Ta said. She said the virus is most often spread by an infected food handler and that one restaurant employee suffered similar symptoms two days before the lunch.

Well, that pretty much settles it, in my mind. If you are not familiar with the Norovirus, you can read up on it here. This virus is the one that occasionally makes headlines with the outbreaks that occur on cruise ships. I can tell you that it is something you will want to avoid. And, for me, that means avoiding Edgefield and other McMenamins pubs.

Dick Cheney and Phineas Gage

What d'ya know? It turns out that Dick Cheney, the anti-charismatic, misshapen puppet master behind Junior Bush, actually has a heart.

The punditry was all abuzz yesterday with news about Cheney's unexpected, urgent visit to George Washington University Hospital, where he received an electrical shock to restore his heartbeat to a normal rhythm. Apparently, the condition is not life-threatening in immediate terms, but can cause blood clots over an extended period, which clots can then lodge themselves in the brain, causing stroke.

Cheney has a long history of heart problems, having suffered four heart attacks in his lifetime. He had a pacemaker installed in 2001 to correct an irregular heartbeat and, from then until now, has seemed in good health (publicly, at least).

But Cheney has displayed some very --er-- strange behavior over the last few years, ce n'est pas?

While it is certainly not a perfect parallel, consider the case of one Phineas Gage. Gage was a railroad worker in the 19th century, who suffered a traumatic injury to his brain. An explosion caused a railroad spike to be driven through his skull. According to reports from the time, before his injury, Gage was a hard-working, responsible fellow. But after the injury, his personality was radically altered. He became impulsive, irreverent, and "impatient of restraint or advice" when it conflicted with his desires. The speculation was that the iron spike destroyed some part of Gage's brain that kept in check his impulses and outrageous behavior.

Well, Dick Cheney hasn't had an iron spike driven through his skull. At least, of which I am aware. But, could it be that, perhaps, one of his heart attacks denied blood to some part of his brain, and killed his capacity for empathy? There is little doubt in my mind that the man lacks some fundamental ability that most of us have, wherein we are able to imagine the suffering of others. But it wasn't always that way with him.

A few quotations from Cheney's associates lend credence to my suggestion:

• "I consider Cheney a good friend. I've known him for 30 years. But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore." Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor for President George H. W. Bush


• "...I did see him as secretary of defense and now as vice president. I can tell you that 9/11 made him a paranoid, to the extent where I'm not sure his exercise of power carries with it reason." Lawrence Wilkerson, retired Army colonel, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell

Well, the human brain remains largely a mystery, even with today's breakthroughs in understanding human anatomy. The only way to really understand a creature like Dick Cheney is to view the world from his perspective. Personally, I doubt my capacity to survive such a horrifying and twisted experience. (This, from a former acid head!) But I am convinced that the man is mad; a twisted monster warped by his own physical frailty and his sense of entitlement. Can such a creature experience joy, I wonder? Or even some modicum of tranquility?

Perhaps secretly, Cheney resents that modern medicine allows him to continue. Perhaps he secretly hopes for an end to his tormented existence.

Whatever, Dick! I can't bring myself to hope for your death; I don't need that kind of bad karma. But, by the same token, I can't work up much sympathy for you as you plod along your gloomy path to the grave.

Harsh? Maybe. But it's from the heart, Dick. I can assure you of that.

The "genius" of capitalism

In our society of 30 second advertisements and flashy packaging, of consumerism and status symbols, the myth of the merits of capitalism is largely accepted as truth. Basically, the myth boils down to something like this: If one works hard, and provides a superior product/service at a reasonable price, the laws of the marketplace (sometimes referred to as Adam Smith's invisible hand) dictate that one will be successful, that one will be financially rewarded. There need be no concern for the common good, or for society at large; such altruistic fruits will come about naturally via one's efforts on behalf of one's self. Or, to quote Adam Smith directly:

...every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. --The Wealth of Nations

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is frequently and reverently referenced by conservative luminaries who justify regressive and unfair tax policies, foreign wars, and any number of practices that, on their face, are detrimental to the common good.

(Check out these examples: Gerald Segal says East Asians need tough love. The Sword of Gideon assures us that, by helping the poor, we only perpetuate their misery. The Heritage Foundation, back in December 2003, urged Junior Bush to show some tough love at the Americas summit, lest Latin American governments fall into the trap of insisting on control of their own natural resources.)

There have been any number of authors and philosophers since Smith who have taken his message and distorted it to more completely fit their respective agendas. It is an indication of how completely conservatism has dominated the political and economic discourse in this country that the farce of an inherently good "marketplace" governed by the laws of capitalism is accepted as truth.

Sometimes this faith is taken to comical levels: I was at a poker game once, where we called out to the local Pizza Hut in the wee hours of the morning. Well, an hour passed and the pizza had not yet arrived. One of the conservative light bulbs at the game got on the phone to complain and demand that, when the pizza arrived, it be submitted gratis. It was all I could do to not burst into uproarious laughter as I listened to his half of the conversation:

"No, you don't understand. I like Pizza Hut pizza. I want to continue to order it. But if you can't accomodate me, I won't come back. You'll lose a customer."

I could imagine a teenager, at a part-time job that he despised, on the other end of the line listening to this harangue (delivered in a reasoned and logical tone) and coming to the realization that people really are as stupid as he had hitherto suspected.

Or, at a professional event recently, I became involved in a political discussion (surprise, surprise) with some coworkers. When I mentioned that the CEO pay-to-minimum wage ratio has soared over the last 40 years, one of my coworkers shot back: "But a CEO deserves that extra money. He carries so much more responsibility than the line worker."

If only this were true. CEOs get rewarded regardless of the performance of the stocks for which they are ostensibly responsible, regardless of the financial health of their organizations, in short, regardless of the degree to which they succeed. Read Ralph Nader's recent article on the matter here.

The myth of benevolent capitalism has even penetrated the realm of spirituality. For example, consider the hypocrisy of today's Christian mega-churches.

The point I'm trying to make, I guess, is that the first step in recovering from the regressive and brutal miasma of unbridled greed, is to expose the myth of capitalism. It is a monumental task. It will surely take a long time. But the ancient wisdom of China reminds us: a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Merci, mon Dieu...

With apologies to Eugene at the Pudgy Indian, I want to write today about things for which I am thankful. Regardless of the repugnant intentions of that bunch of hideous prudes that took advantage of the mercy and compassion of the Native Americans that saved them from starvation, I believe it is good to have a day to express gratitude. So, let's co-opt their genocide day, and make it our own: a day when we can say "thanks" to the Great Whatever for all of the blessings that have been bestowed upon each of us.

So here is my (cliché, perhaps, and trite) list of things for which I am thankful:

1. Maty gets home tonight! My wife has been in Burkina Faso since late September, and I haven't seen her since I left there in the third week of October. The house is clean, I'm buying fresh flowers to put on the dining room table, and I'm picking her up from the airport at 10:45 pm.


2. Scottie McClellan grew a conscience. Yesterday, it came to light that the forth-coming memoirs of Scottie (the Duck) McClellan, former press secretary in the Bush administration, reveal that Junior Bush himself was involvedin the coverup that followed the leaking of Valerie Plame's name. We already knew that Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Dick Cheney were directly involved. But now, in addition to pathetic Andrew Card, Scottie fingers Junior. I hope Special Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is paying attention.
   


3. Senator Gordon Smith is polling at around 33% approval. That's a bad number for an incumbent before the campaign has even started. Well, Senator, respectfully, when you shake hands with the devil, you usually end up with jizz on your hand.
   


4. Portland, Oregon is still the best place in the world to live.

And, of course, I'm most grateful for my family and friends, and for all of you, who read this blog now and then. Happy holidays to all.

Por favor, abrazarlos

¡Abrazarlos!

Cada día, ellos vienen: los pobres trabajadores de las tierras a la sud. Buscan el trabajo, un método de sostener sus familias, una vida mejor, habiendo oído de la promesa del país que se llama, inexactamente, America. Traen todos sus temores y sus esperanzas, sus espaldas fuertes y sus éticas buenas del trabajo.

¿Y qué encuentran cuando llegan?

Bien, ellos encuentran una gente dividida y llenada de temor por la futura. Los EEUU están en conflicto sobre el asunto de inmigración. Por un lado, hay muchos norteamericanos con corazones buenos que quieren dar la bienvenidalos. Y hay un reconocimiento que la migración es inevitable. Pero, por el otro lado, las fuerzas del racismo y el fanatismo son fuertes con algunos porciónes de la población, alimentado por demagogos poder-hambrientos. Cínicamente, estos mismos hipócritas que ceban los fuegos del racismo, trabajan en secreto para mantener indocumentados en las sombras, donde ellos pueden ser explotados para la obra barata.

El asunto sube en la mente del público. Pero no hay una solución aparente.

Bien, la solución sencilla que ocurre a mi es esta: abrazalos. Dé la bienvenidalos. Ayúdelos organizan. Intégrelos. Ofrezca amistad a ellos.

Quizàs, soy sencillo. Pero, la migración de una gente no puede ser parada. Y esta es la tierra de promesa. Somos una gente buena. No debemos permitir los mentes pequeños nos dar miedo. Somos mejor que esa; somos mejor que los racistas.

Como he dicho por muchos años: un mundo, una gente.

(Perdóneme por favor para mi español malo.)