—————————————————————————————————
Work the Smirk

It would appear that the impending confirmation vote on Alberto Gonzales has more than a few people worried that the slavish Republican Congress is simply going to rubber stamp Bush's right hand, Abu Graib man as Attorney General. Many of those are Democrats, of course, who are apparently considering a filibuster before the GOP changes those rules, too. But, it is not just the Dems who are opposed to the man many consider the enabler of the various torture regimens which are now coming to light. An even dozen retired generals have come forth publicly to strongly denounce the appointment of Gonzales and wrote a letter to Army newspaper, Stars and Stripes. the BHC reprints it in its entirety as we consider this an important statement against an appointment which should, by all rights, be considered completely absurd. It is under Gonzales' guiding legal hand that the US government is now acting like those they would wish to stifle with democracy:

As retired professional military leaders of the U.S. armed forces, we are deeply concerned about the nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales to be attorney general. We feel that his views concerning the role of the Geneva Conventions in U.S. detention and interrogation policy and practice have put soldiers in harm’s way.

During his tenure as White House counsel, Gonzales appears to have played a significant role in shaping U.S. detention and interrogation operations in Afghanistan; Iraq; Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.

Today, it is clear that these operations have:

* Fostered greater animosity toward the United States;
* Undermined our intelligence-gathering efforts; and
* Added to the risks facing our troops serving around the world.

Before Gonzales assumes the position of attorney general, it is critical to understand whether he intends to adhere to the positions he adopted as White House counsel or chart a revised course more consistent with fulfilling our nation’s complex security interests — and maintaining a military that operates within the rule of law.

Among his past actions that concern us most, Gonzales wrote to the president on Jan. 25, 2002, advising him that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict then under way in Afghanistan. The reasoning Gonzales advanced in this memo was rejected by many military leaders at the time, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, who argued that abandoning the Geneva Conventions would put our soldiers at greater risk and would “reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions.”

Perhaps most troubling of all, the White House decision to depart from the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan went hand in hand with the decision to relax the definition of torture and to alter interrogation doctrine accordingly. These changes in doctrine have led to uncertainty and confusion in the field, contributing to the abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib [prison in Iraq] and elsewhere, and undermining the mission and morale of our troops.

The full extent of Gonzales’ role in endorsing or implementing the interrogation practices the world has now seen remains unclear. A series of memos prepared at his direction in 2002 recommended official authorization of harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding, feigned suffocation and sleep deprivation.

The United States’ commitment to the Geneva Conventions — the laws of war — flows not only from field experience, but also from the moral principles on which this country was founded, and by which we all continue to be guided.

We urge senators to take into account the effects of Gonzales’ advice on U.S. detention and interrogation policy and practice.

Marine Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms (retired)
Carlsbad, Calif.

The letter also was signed by: Army Brig. Gen. James Cullen (retired), Army Brig. Gen. Evelyn P. Foote (retired), Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (retired), Navy Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn (retired), Navy Rear Adm. Don Guter (retired), Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar (retired), Navy Rear Adm. John D. Hutson (retired), Army Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy (retired), Air Force Gen. Merrill McPeak (retired), Army Maj. Gen. Melvyn Montano (retired), Army Gen. John Shalikashvili (retired).

So, what does Gonzales think about all this controversy? Is he at all worried that the GOP won't tow the line? See for yourselves:



You know, we have seen that smirk somewhere else. hmmmm…. oh, yeah. Here it is:



—————————————————————————————————
Flat Broke and Busted

Any activities which might help Bush meet his pledge to halve the deficit by the end of his second term will not, apparently, begin soon. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has announced a projected a $368 billion deficit for the 2005 fiscal year. And that number, through a "technical quirk", will not include the expected $115 billion for the Iraq war. But that little accounting trick is how Bush has financed the war from the start. The costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have never been included in the federal budget and Bush only submits requests for the war effort outside of the purview of that budget. In fact, he is about to ask for $80 billion more, which will bring the total cost of this misbegotten effort to almost $300 billion. And tucked away in this request is $1.5 billion for a shiny new US embassy in Baghdad.

Well, that is quite an humanitarian effort. $300 billion for freedom and democracy in another country. Would it were that Bush exhibited such concern about pressing affairs here in the US. But instead, his administration picks through the federal budget looking for ways to nickel and dime domestic programs. Recent stories have shown the White House and the Republican Congress eyeing cutbacks on Medicare and other medical services for the elderly, Pell grants for low income college students, community development block grants and low income housing assistance.

And slipping off Bush's swelling heap of debt is the valuation of the US dollar as it continues its slide on international markets. A projected record $600 billion dollar trade deficit is also expected for fiscal year 2005. And what is the effect of all this disagreeable economic news ? More disagreeable economic news.

The Commerce Department just announced that the growth of the US economy slowed in the fourth quarter of last year and it is believed that the single largest factor in this is the enormous trade deficit. And just to let readers know that disquisitive minds studying the problem have a firm handle on it, the chief of the national investment and wealth division of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Carol Moylan, explains the complexities of the international trade deficit:

We had less exports and we had more imports

Ouch. That economic mumbo-jumbo lacing this cogent analysis is very nearly impenetrable. Come on, Carol, can you dumb that down a bit?

Taken altogether, record budget deficits, record trade deficits, a slumping dollar and ever mounting, yet unaccounted, war costs, that the Bush administration sallies forth and tells the American public that Social Security is facing a crisis —forty years from now — because it might go into debt, appears to us as very nearly incomprehensible. Unless, of course, one refracts it through a Republican mindset. With this ginned-up "crisis" in the recent and ongoing debate about Social Security, many have come to view these monstrous deficits as another classic Republican "starve the beast" tactic. We here at the BHC find it hard to believe that Republicans could be so hateful of SS that they would be willing to plunge the country into financial insolvency and economic languor just so they can finally justify killing an entitlement program they have never not despised. But then, unprovoked, pre-emptive war seemed extreme not so long ago and the world then learned that nothing is so extreme that it is beyond this administration's consideration.

Row row row your boat …

—————————————————————————————————
Shortfall and a Long Drop

It now appears that White House advisors have agreed on a plan for the restructuring of Social Security. We have all heard from Bush and the White House that SS is facing a looming "crises" — in 2042. Or 2052. Or maybe at some time even further in the future. But, rest assured people, it is coming. As discussed in the previous item, that Republicans are worried about a government entitlement program potentially falling into the red forty or more years hence when these same Republicans have been, and will continue to assiduously rack up massive debt is beyond reason. Or at least it is beyond logic. Because make no mistake, they do have a reason. But it is not a reason they are telling anyone, except when an occasional unguarded comment burps out of one of the brethren.

It likely has not escaped the notice of readers that, in the face of considerable opposing fact, White House rhetoric has been slowly shifting from SS facing a "crises" to it now being about personal choice, which means, you know, freedom. Republicans love for people to have the freedom to choose how they use and invest their own money. Yes, a grand and lofty ideal that. Only, as Bush himself said, there won't be that much freedom. The rhetoric is at once lofty, noble and, as we've come to expect, complete bullshit. Bush says that he wants Americans to have choice. He wants Americans to take control. But, whoa, nelly! Not too much control because, you know, he doesn't want people taking this money and going out gambling. Nope, can't have that. Bush then tells us all that he is going to let us place our money on the biggest damn roulette table there is but that he and the White House will have to restrict our choice and tell us where we can put our marks. How's that for safe, sound, personal financial responsibility? And let's all not be too surprised if it turns out that some of those pre-chosen "freedom" funds happen to be managed by companies who may have contributed to the Bush/Cheney campaign. No, that should certainly not cause us any surprise at all.

The BHC wishes the Republicans would just come out and say, hey, we hate Social Security. Hate the very idea of it. Because we know they do. Fine. We can respect that position. It is a very conservative stance. But at least have the wherewithal to argue your philosophy from its own perspective. Don't wash it over with false claims of "crisis" and "personal accounts" when what is proposed is a complete and transparent sham: there is no crises and, more and more, it is starting to look like a pay-off to the big donor financial industry.

Of course, the GOP knows the American public generally respects and supports SS and no amount of theoretical conservative rhetoric is going to convince them otherwise, so Bush and his supporters squawk and flap and just make shit up. Do none of us recall John Kerry warning the American public of the "January surprise"? The bellowing of the Swift Boat dunces effectively drowned out any substantive talk about anything and Social Security barely rated a mention(for a further discussion of this episode, see The BHC, Who's On First). And when it was brought up, the Bush campaign cried foul and accused Kerry of scaring senior citizens. Kerry clearly had Bush pegged and we all failed to see just how correct Kerry was then. Well, we are seeing it now.

Another ridiculous aspect of this so-called debate is the White House language police directing the media to not use the term "private" accounts. They are "personal" accounts. Ahhh, that's warmer and fuzzier. Indeed, it is the White House's claim that should the media use the word private then they are editorialising and displaying a clear liberal bias. Even though Bush was using that term a month ago, when the GOP saw that that wasn't polling well they realised they had to powder the tot with a new talc. And lots of it. Because its Rosemary's fucking baby under that soft, powdery coating.

If readers think that might be a bit of editorial hyperbole, read on. When George Bush and the White House began trotting out their grand vision of financial freedom for retirees, they pointed to the many industrialised countries who have private investment accounts managed by the government. Look at Britain! they said. Oh wait, don't look at Britain because, after twenty years since battle-axe Thatcher instigated it, it doesn't seem to be doing all that well and, in fact, the Brits are now looking favourably upon the current American system.

Well, hey, check out Chile! Yes, Chile can make us all proud. Twenty five years ago, Pinochet embarked his country on a privatised retirement voyage which many have pointed to as a model smooth retirement sailing. Except, it isn't. It seems that some damnable liberal reporters of the NY Times actually went to Chile to find out how old timers are doing there and the tales are not so happy:

many middle-class workers who contributed regularly are finding that their private accounts - burdened with hidden fees that may have soaked up as much as a third of their original investment - are failing to deliver as much in benefits as they would have received if they had stayed in the old system.

Hidden fees? Oh dear, what an unhappy surprise. But those Chileans don't know what they're doing. It's hot down there, their brains are mushy. We are confident that George Bush and his administration certainly do know what they are doing. Aren't you?

—————————————————————————————————
Pay to Play

Otero Mesa is a 1.2 million-acre Chihuahuan Desert wilderness in New Mexico. BHC readers can probably already figure out what this item is now going to be about. And yes, it is.

The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has just announced that it will allow an expanded oil and gas drilling program in this delicate region and it did so against the objections of New Mexico's governor, Bill Richardson and the fact that 85% of public comments were against allowing this increased activity. And, naturally, there is a deeper and uglier, though perfectly expected, aspect to this episode. This new announcement is a near complete reversal of the original BLM plan for Otero Mesa put forth in 2000. Hmm, so what has happened between then and now?

The Yates Petroleum Co. was the single largest Republican campaign donor in New Mexico between 2000 and 2004. Yates Petroleum has drilling leases in the Otero Mesa but suffered greatly under drilling restrictions imposed by the Clinton administration. Early on in the first term of the Bush administration, presumably before Bush started to crowbar industry lobbyists and other cronies into various departments, the BLM developed a land management plan which placed some reasonably strict rules on drilling activities which were expected to begin in the Otero region. After complaining about the original BLM plan of 2000, Yates Petroleum lobbied the Interior Department hard and it would seem that the efforts and the money are now producing some just rewards. Of course, this sort of government regulation flip-flopping doesn't happen without a little inside help and Yates Petroleum had that base covered. Before being appointed Deputy Secretary of the Interior in 2002, J. Steven Griles was paid by Yates to lobby the BLM in an effort to secure eased drilling restrictions in the Otero Mesa region and given the current plan, the BHC recognises that Yates' payments to Griles and RNC has, indeed, been money well spent.*

In Yates Petroleum's defense, George Yates stepped up to proclaim that this is all just coincidence, as though restriction-free environmental restrictions just drop out of the sky and coincidentally bless those who wish for such things. He claims any complaints about the appearance of impropriety are the yowlings of partisan hacks. But let's just see if we happen to stumble upon any other unassuming coincidences: Oh look, here's one: George Yates provided Dick Cheney fund raising assistance and has personally contributed over $90,000 to Republicans in the last five years. George Yates says he doesn't play the "donation game" and that the GOP merely represent his philosophical leanings much better than the Democrats ever would.

Well, the BHC was naturally curious about this claimed philosophical leaning and we conducted a little investigation of the history of Yates family donations using the marvelous web tool, www.followthemoney.org. Members of the Yates family have, indeed, contributed to the Republican cause over the course of the last fifteen years. However, there is an interesting "uptick", shall we say, in their avowed philosophy:

Yates Petroleum and Yates family GOP contributions:

1990-2000 contributions: $40,000
2000-2004 contributions: $282,000

An interesting uptick, indeed, and one which coincides exactly with the election of George Bush and the initial BLM plan for Otero Mesa. George Yates' claim that he does not "play the donation game" would seem to be mitigated somewhat by these numbers, for once the opportunity arose for him to take advantage of his philosophy, he certainly took it.

Now bear this in mind: whatever Yates Petroleum and the various Yates family members claim, they have been sedulously working their Republican brethren for the last four years in an effort to get the environmental restrictions either lifted or eased on the Otero Mesa region. The BLM itself has stated that the production potential of Otero Mesa is low to moderate, which ultimately means there ain't much there. A few months worth of domestic consumption is about the best that can be imagined. Put those two together and what have we got? A family owned company gaming Washington Republicans for four years in order to get approval to scour a pristine, unique and protected wilderness for, at most, a few months worth of oil and, at current world oil prices, a healthy windfall for the whole family. Now that's long term thinking, Republican style!

An environmental group, the Campaign to Protect America’s Lands, claims that the Bureau of Land Management has, "surrendered to the demands of one oil company," which it certainly appears to have done since Yates Petroleum is the company that lobbied for the new, lesser restrictions. The BLM hilariously claimed that the environmental group is one of "special interests" and spreads delusional partisan misinformation like facts about the Otero Mesa region and the Yates Family.

* www.protectamericaslands.org/pdfs/yates_0304.pdf+otera+mesa+oil+reserves&hl=en"> Cash, Connections and Concessions: The Yates Family, the Bush Administration and the Selling of Otero Mesa

—————————————————————————————————
Cut and Dried

But wait folks, the Yates Petroleum assault is not the only one on the environmental front these days. Pacific Lumber Co. is threatening to go all bankrupt if that company is not allowed to cut down more trees in flood-prone watersheds in California. The company contends that it will be forced to shutdown mills and lay off hundreds of employees. Of course, Pacific Lumber is employing the usual heartfelt arguments about being concerned for the company's workers and their need to feed their families. The BHC is never happy about hearing of layoffs but, really, just how much of a threat is this when considered against the recent SBC-AT&T merger, which is expected to result in the loss of 13,000 jobs around the country? We don't recall hearing any simpering arguments about those folks feeding their families.

Of course, many locals are skeptical of Pacific Lumber's claims of insolvency and are claiming that this is just a ploy to get permits to log easily accessible, though environmentally sensitive watersheds. As we are all aware, logging watersheds generally has one result: flooding. Pacific Lumber is simply stating that "there is nowhere else for us to log." This displays the usual corporate inertia and inability to perceive the nature of the problem: when there is nowhere else to log, perhaps it might be time to reconsider the logging business and think about doing something else.

Timmmmberrrrrr …

—————————————————————————————————

Losing My Religion

There are some not so good reports coming out of tsunami-torn southern India wherein claims are being made by local Hindus that a group of Christian missionaries are refusing aid to devastated villagers unless they convert to Christianity. It would seem that the missionaries arrived with truckloads of food, medicine and clothing and then left when locals had the temerity to disagree with the bargain. Yes, folks, some of the charitable hands of God are apparently only charitable if one believes in JeeeeSUS. The BHC really doesn't see this as a viable way of demonstrating the value of Christianity to anyone unless, of course, this is how Christians actually view themselves: petty and sanctimonious. The fact that this is probably the first encounter most of these Hindus have ever had with "Christianity" would indicate to the BHC that it will likely be their last. Nice work spreading "the word."

Believe or die …

—————————————————————————————————
That Ol' Liberal Media

We have all heard how the Bush administration has been hiring conservative media flacks to to shill various Republican messages. Armstrong Williams was the first one busted for his deal with the Department of Education to hype the No Child Left Behind Act. This was followed quickly by the outing of Maggie Gallagher and then, most recently, Michael McManus, for their deals with the Department of Health and Human Services as advocates of Bush's Community Healthy Marriage Initiative. Of course, this is a great strategy and we should all have expected divorce rates to plummet once a huge celebrity and all-round ethical guy like McManus started leading the charge against the forces of adultery and spousal abuse. That McManus is now in the centre of an ethics scandal does appear a tad ironic when one understands that his syndicated column is titled, ""Ethics & Religion." The BHC imagines McManus contemplating and new title for his column, "Just Religion, No Ethics Here."

So, is that the end of this rheumy conservative line? Apparently not. Weekly Standard editor and known neo-conservative, Bill Kristol and Washington Post columnist, FOX News contributor and known neo-conservative, Charles Krauthammer (who is apparently considering a name change to Iraqihammer), lauded George Bush's inaugural address as "sophisticated" and "nuanced" during Fox News' live telecast of the event. What Bill and Charles did not tell viewers was that they helped write the "sophisticated" sophistry. Wow, what a opportunity! After all, there aren't too many people who get paid to appear on national television and proudly say to the world that they themselves are cleaver and sophisticated. But then again, since they got caught, maybe they aren't that clever after all.

Not so clever ….

—————————————————————————————————
Personal Income

Just to give BHC readers a sense of how useless some economic statistics can be, a recent headline proudly proclaimed, "Incomes Jump Record 3.7 Percent in Dec. " Kaa-ching! Most Americans must be thinking the good times are rolling.

Until one realises that the reason for this "record" is the fact that Microsoft disbursed a one time dividend payment of some $32 billion in December. Of that, Bill Gates' own payment to himself amounted to $3.29 billion. Without this Microsoft largesse, total personal income for the month of December would have been 0.6% lower and not a record at all. Let's rephrase this shall we? America's (not Americans) personal income went up 0.06% in December because Bill Gates paid himself $3.29 billion. Thanks, Bill. We all feel flush now.

Good times ….

—————————————————————————————————
Go Packers!



—————————————————————————————————

One of These Things is Not Like the Others …

Hey kids, we've got some headlines from around the world and we've got a little game for you to play. It is called One of these things is not like the others. And this fun game even has its own song. Let's sing along and play the fun guessing game …

sung to the tune, One of These Things (Is Not Like the Other)

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Headlines, January 27, 2005

- U.S. Suffers Deadliest Day So Far in Iraq

- Report: U.S. & Iraq No Longer Control Parts of Baghdad

- UPI: U.S. Air Force Launches Flights Over Iran

- New Ed. Secretary Denounces PBS For Cartoon w/ Lesbians

- Ex-Guantanamo Detainees Report 'Systematic Torture'

- Report: Global Warming Much Worse Than Thought

Keep singin'!
Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?

Can you guess which one is not like the others? Oh, go on, give it a try!

—————————————————————————————————

One of these things ….