Saturday, July 7, 2007

I wanna sho-ooooo-oooot... the Earth day down

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: Bob is still cool, even though he's a grump about Gore's concert.From treehuger.com:
Sir Bob Geldof is ragging on Al Gore. The Irish musician, who organized the Live Aid and Live 8 multi-venue rock concerts for famine and debt relief—in 1985 and 2005, respectively—is apparently "furious" to be linked to Gore's Live Earth event, calling it a "waste of time."

"It sounds like Live 8. I'm getting lots of responses from people who think I am organizing it," raged Geldof to Holland's De Volkskrant.

"I would only organize Live Earth if I could go on stage and announce concrete environmental measures from the American presidential candidates, Congress or major corporations," he goes on to say. "They haven't got those guarantees, so it's just an enormous pop concert or the umpteenth time that, say, Madonna or Coldplay get up on stage."

"I hope they're a success. But why is Gore actually organizing them? To make us aware of the greenhouse effect? Everybody's known about that problem for years. We are all [expletive] conscious of global warming."

Geldof has since said his comments were "small" and not meant for the press, but that said it's obvious he's not into the concept. I think Geldof more than anyone would understand the need to pull out the stops to get attention directed at a cause. Unlike famine in Africa, global warming is still seen by many as a fraud, or at least exaggerated, and this perception is in no little way caused by a mass disinformation effort by corporations like ExxonMoble. Additionally, the African people in the region he has championed over the past 25 years would certainly get hit hard by any warming trend.

SOURCE: treehugger.com

PS: I love Geldof, if only for Live Aid and I Don't Like Mondays, so don't take this the wrong way, but DAMN DUDE... get yourself some sun, some hair dye and a good plastic surgeon. Okay? Please. It's painful to look at you. At least take a multivitamin, for christ's sake. Even some fruit might help.









Live Earth makes me nostalgic for lost innocence/really good rock bands

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: I'm old and cranky, but buy compact fluorescent bulbs.
Sitting here watching Live Earth today. I've got my dual tuner recording both channels the various shows are being broadcast on, one of which is in HD. All on my big flat screen. It's a long way from 1985, TWENTY-TWO (could it be that long ago?) years ago, when my massive VCR was tied via coaxial cable to my 13 inch TV taping LIVE AID, the concert to provide some famine relief in Ethiopia. What a difference 22 years makes. I was 15, was sporting a mullet, and was entranced. The Who/Led Zep reunions, Duran Duran, Sting, Queen at their greatest, and that fantastic U2 set that took them from "good band" to "iconic".

These days I know only some of the performers, and I don't have enough hair for the mullet (thankfully, I suppose) but the good thoughts are still there, and despite my compounded cynicism after 22 extra years, maybe some of the hopeful innocence. Hopefully we all can find enough of that to make a change, however small, to get our global house in order.

Tip of the hat to those who worked so hard to put this wonderful show together.

Here's two clips from the 1985 show that taught me people could make a real difference, which I still believe. Call me a nostalgic fool, but look at these two clips and tell me if anything in the past 20 years comes close to this level of rock nirvana. They don't make em like Freddie Mercury anymore... both Queen and U2's '85 sets were beyond musical... they were transcendent. That said I just watched Madonna's Live Earth set and she's still amazing. Is it wrong to want to fuck someone old enough to be your parent? Catherine Zeta Jones, help me out here.










Friday, July 6, 2007

Republican Senator Specter against Bush's signing statements - YES!

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: When signing new laws Congress passes, President Bush often issues "signing statements" along with it. While not new, he has done this more that all other Presidents combined, and has expanded it's use to state he may or may not obey that law. Which even Republicans are now saying is fucked up.A well written summary from My Left Wing:
On the Friday before July 4 Republican Senator Arlen Specter showed his respect for the U.S. Constitution and his anger about President Bush’s repeated pissing on it by introducing the Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007. What happens to this crucial bill will test both congressional integrity and courage.

Specter had the honesty to call President Bush's abuse of signing statements an "unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority." "The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can he use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like," said Specter.

“Presidential signing statements can render the legislative process a virtual nullity, making it completely unpredictable how certain laws will be enforced. This legislation reinforces the system of checks and balances and separation of powers set out in our Constitution,” said Specter.
Commenting on the legislative process, Specter noted: “This is a finely structured constitutional procedure that goes straight to the heart of our system of check and balances. Any action by the president that circumvents this finely structured procedure is an unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority. If the president is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry-pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our framers.” Subversion of our Constitution – pissing on it: that’s what Bush has gotten away with. Bush-the-ruler has made a mockery of our sacred rule of law.

This bill would prevent the president from issuing a signing statement that alters a statute's meaning by "instructing federal and state courts not to rely on presidential signing statements in interpreting a statute."


Rest at From My Left Wing







Bush on leaking information: "If the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

And he sure did take care of Libby, huh?









British Perspective: Is healthcare really better in the UK?

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO READ: "In the UK, whilst the doctors and nurses who continue to work in the NHS still believe in the system, despite all its flaws, nobody fears that they are too poor to be ill."
Jay seems enamoured of the latest piece by Michael Moore, namely Sicko. I have yet to see the film, and after the Riefenstahlism of Fahrenheit 9/11, I will need some persuading, but Jay has asked me to comment on the British public health care system which features in the film.

The National Health Service (NHS) was one of the foundation policies of the post-war Socialist government that was elected over Churchill in 1945 and ever since has been lauded as one of the best elements of the European model over the American one. Yet the usage of the system varies enormously by class and income, and the experience differs by region and by individual.

As with any system that seeks to offer free-at-the-point-of-delivery service to 70 million people, it is going to be hit and miss. Indicative of this is the fact the employers continue to offer private health care as a perk. Private health care doesn't necessarily guarantee you better care (indeed many doctors work in the NHS and privately simultaneously) but you are able to choose the doctor you see and are more likely to be able to choose the date of treatment should it be needed. In total, it is designed to take out of the randomness that people feel afflicts the NHS. Whether seeing your general practitioner (GP) or having an operation at a hospital, like teachers at a school, the experience is often all down to the individual who is providing the care.

Yet the principal complaint made against the NHS is that the quality of care is deteriorating not because of the individuals involved but because of systemic faults. Created in 1945 when the demands of the population were different, it is now faced with a much larger population who are living longer. In facing up to these challenges, the system was widely seen as being consistently underfunded during the premiership of Margaret Thatcher and her successor, John Major. Blair was elected specifically on a promise to inject large amounts of money into the system which he duly did in the first 5 years of his rule. However, the level of care was not perceived to have changed much, in fact it was considered to have further deteriorated. Complaints were made that in being given money on condition of meeting certain performance targets, the hospitals recruited more middle managers to handle the budgets and ensure that targets were met, rather than hiring more doctors or nurses.

The solution to this is often see as introducing elements of free-market style resource allocation to the system, which then falls on the ideological barriers of the ruling Labour Party which, adhering to its socialist roots, does not want to see any privatisation of the health service. In that very British way, continued small scale changes will be made to the system rather than full scale reform, with both parties committed to ensuring it is funded and strengthened.

So, we now have a system which has had an enormous injection of extra cash, which is still free to all, but is widely seen to fail its patients due to a lack of structural change yet is still cherished.

That's the politics. But what about the day to day reality. Well, as mentioned, that's highly subjective. Whilst you can read daily newspaper reports of every increasing waiting times for critical operations or nurses deserting the system due to poor pay and conditions, my personal experience of the system has generally been good but this is perhaps because I generally only see my GP a few times a year. The one time I had an operation, to remove wisdom teeth, I had done under private care. Why? Well, because the wards in NHS hospitals are not particularly pleasant and the risk of being stuck with unpleasant staff could be mitigated by recourse to private health care. This meant I could go to a hospital, which by recommendation, was well staffed and comfortable.

Yet, the key point is that even if I didn't have private health care, I could still have the operation done for free. I may have had to wait longer and ended up in less pleasant surroundings (they key word there being may) but I could still have it done for free. In fact, since leaving my comfortable job a few months ago, I don't have private care anymore but am safe in the knowledge that should anything happen to me, I can still see my GP or be referred to a hospital. This feeling exists implicitly at the back of the mind of everyone on the UK, whether they have private care or not. But mostly importantly, it exists in the minds of the elderly or poor who rely on the system the most. This reflects an essential element of the British social compact: namely, that no matter what your income or social status, the state should be obliged to provide health care to you.

How sustainable this view is with a burgeoning population remains to be seen. There are undoubtedly severe problems affecting the system, but it has yet to be proved that the NHS is unviable as a concept. More privatisation is likely yet this need not reduce the ability of the system to continue to provide free care to all, especially if the quality of care improves as a result.

Here for the me, is the main question. It is not about whether a system is private or public, whether it is free for all, or free for some and not for others, but does it provide the best care for the most numbers? So far, from a utilitarian point of view, the European model seems to work better than the American one. More people are looked after to a better level. However, this is not to say a well structured ubiquitous, private system could not do better but that no one has managed to achieve it so far.

But for the timebeing, in the UK, whilst the doctors and nurses who continue to work in the NHS still believe in the system, despite all its flaws, nobody fears that they are too poor to be ill.







Someone's ass is about to be globally warmed


In a genius move by Al Gore's 24 year old son to give hybrid cars a badass image, he loaded up his Toyota Prius full of marijuana, Vicodin, Xanax, Valium, Adderall and Soma, and then drove it around until he got arrested. It was unclear if he pot was organically grown or not.

SOURCE: New York Post







Thursday, July 5, 2007

I'm talking about a Yankee Rose


A tip of the hat to Christina Aguilera. I admire... her... um.... voice. I know she's like 4 feet tall, but she looks like a superhero Amazon in this photo.







Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Why Bush and Cheney should resign

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO READ: "We enveloped our President in 2001. And those who did not believe he should have been elected—indeed those who did not believe he had been elected—willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it."


By Keith Olbermann - Anchor, 'Countdown' - MSNBC

“I didn’t vote for him,” an American once said, “But he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

That—on this eve of the 4th of July—is the essence of this democracy, in 17 words. And that is what President Bush threw away yesterday in commuting the sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

The man who said those 17 words—improbably enough—was the actor John Wayne. And Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them, when he learned of the hair’s-breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon in 1960.

“I didn’t vote for him but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

The sentiment was doubtlessly expressed earlier, but there is something especially appropriate about hearing it, now, in Wayne’s voice: The crisp matter-of-fact acknowledgement that we have survived, even though for nearly two centuries now, our Commander-in-Chief has also served, simultaneously, as the head of one political party and often the scourge of all others.

We as citizens must, at some point, ignore a president’s partisanship. Not that we may prosper as a nation, not that we may achieve, not that we may lead the world—but merely that we may function.

But just as essential to the seventeen words of John Wayne, is an implicit trust—a sacred trust: That the president for whom so many did not vote, can in turn suspend his political self long enough, and for matters imperative enough, to conduct himself solely for the benefit of the entire Republic.

Our generation’s willingness to state “we didn’t vote for him, but he’s our president, and we hope he does a good job,” was tested in the crucible of history, and earlier than most.

And in circumstances more tragic and threatening. And we did that with which history tasked us.

We enveloped our President in 2001.And those who did not believe he should have been elected—indeed those who did not believe he had been elected—willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

Did so even before the appeals process was complete; did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice; did so despite what James Madison—at the Constitutional Convention—said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes “advised by” that president; did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder: To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish—the President will keep you out of prison?

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental com-pact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens—the ones who did not cast votes for you. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party. And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander-in-chief who puts party over nation.

This has been, of course, the gathering legacy of this Administration. Few of its decisions have escaped the stain of politics. The extraordinary Karl Rove has spoken of “a permanent Republican majority,” as if such a thing—or a permanent Democratic majority—is not antithetical to that upon which rests: our country, our history, our revolution, our freedoms.

Yet our Democracy has survived shrewder men than Karl Rove. And it has survived the frequent stain of politics upon the fabric of government. But this administration, with ever-increasing insistence and almost theocratic zealotry, has turned that stain into a massive oil spill.

The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party, who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment. The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party, who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and quaint.

The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party, who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws. The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party, who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war.

And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor, when just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable fairness of government is rejected by an impartial judge, when just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice, this President decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.

I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.

I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.

I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.

I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent.

I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.

I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.

I accuse you of handing part of this Republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.

And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.

When President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” on October 20th, 1973, Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously.

“Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people.”

President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people.

It had been about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break in to a rival party’s headquarters; and the labyrinthine effort to cover-up that break-in and the related crimes.

And in one night, Nixon transformed it.

Watergate—instantaneously—became a simpler issue: a President overruling the inexorable march of the law of insisting—in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not previously understood - that he was the law.

Not the Constitution. Not the Congress. Not the Courts. Just him.

Just - Mr. Bush - as you did, yesterday.

The twists and turns of Plame-Gate, of your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the “referee” of Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s analogy. These are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.

But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush—and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal—the average citizen understands that, Sir.

It’s the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one—and it stinks. And they know it.

Nixon’s mistake, the last and most fatal of them, the firing of Archibald Cox, was enough to cost him the presidency. And in the end, even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment.

It was far too late for it to matter then, but as the decades unfold, that single final gesture of non-partisanship, of acknowledged responsibility not to self, not to party, not to “base,” but to country, echoes loudly into history. Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign

Would that you could say that, Mr. Bush. And that you could say it for Mr. Cheney. You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday. Which one of you chose the route, no longer matters. Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy, is irrelevant.

But that you have twisted the machinery of government into nothing more than a tawdry machine of politics, is the only fact that remains relevant.

It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them—or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them—we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time—and our leaders in Congress, of both parties—must now live up to those standards which echo through our history: Pressure, negotiate, impeach—get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

Resign.

And give us someone—anyone—about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

SOURCE







Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Draft Gore for President?

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: He won once, maybe he'll win again.


I don't know about you all, but I'm mighty disatisfied with the roster on either side of the fence.
  • Hilary Clinton? Four years of partisan stalemate.
  • Obama? Would make a hell of a VP.
  • McCain? Fire is gone, he sold out to Bush. Damn shame.
  • Mayor of 9/11? C'mon. Elect a firefighter if you want a hero.
  • Romney? He looks like a president. That's it.
  • Mike Gravel? He has all the merit in the world, and would do a great job, but no momentum (hope he gets some though).
Get Gore in the race. He could turn this shit around. If anyone reads his new book, Assault on Reason, and still thinks he would not be a president we'd be proud of, I can't imagine who you'd think is.

draftgore.com







Scooter Libby WALKS

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: As predictable as Cheney's next heart attack.


WASHINGTON (AP) — Just when things looked darkest for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, when prison seemed all but certain, President Bush wiped away the former White House aide's 2 1/2-year sentence in the CIA leak case.

"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a written statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend 30 months in prison."

Yeah. I think the point here is if you respected the virdict you would have let it stand. Did Libby deserve to go to jail? Not as much as the people he took the fall for. Which is no doubt the deal he made. At this point, he still MAY lose the ability to practice law (ironic) and pay a $250,000 fine. With supporters raising millions for his legal "defense", it's doubtful he'll pay a dime.

Oh yeah, and this if he isn't officially pardoned.

Next step: His tell all book deal, highy paid lectures, and a sweet lobbist gig and the firm of Douche, Bag and Anus.

At this point I am so disgusted with the Bush Administration there is nothing they could do I don't suspect as being an insult to the country. I'm so done looking for a silver lining. Impeach this bastard.







Monday, July 2, 2007

Michael Moore's SICKO does the job

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: Moore makes a strong case for tearing down America's for-profit health care system.

Taking advantage of the empty theaters while everyone was standing in line to get their iPhone, I saw Michael Moore's new film about the Health Care industry, Sicko. I thought it was brilliant, insightful and balanced. The point he makes is simple; a for-profit health care industry is incompatable with quality care. He has even garnered support for the film by no less than FoxNews, which called it "brilliant and uplifting."

The film is not perfect. The music is a little overly dramatic at times, and you do feel your emotions are manipulated in places, but these moments are overwhelmed by the way Moore is able to take a complex, dry subject (including a history lesson) and makes it entertaining and in the end, hopeful.

After bringing forth an army of Moore-haters after his last film, Fahrenheit 911, Moore appears to have lost none of his energy for taking on the big issues, and I am glad for it. Even those who despise him must admit that health care in the United States is failing and needs to be discussed, and perhaps that is what Moore's movies are best at – opening up debate. I am sure that like his previous movies, people will be studying this film frame by frame to find factual inconsistency, out-of-context sound bites, and distortion. I applaud those that do, and I look forward to hearing about them. The debate begins.

Moore testified before Congress last week, here's a clip (not sure who produced it):


Excellent overview of Moore's position can be heard in this interview on "Real Time with Bill Maher":


Added 7/7/07: Here's a story by the National Center for Public Policy Research (don't know anything about them) contradicting some of Moore's assertions regarding the Cuban health Care System as shown in Sicko.







Saturday, June 30, 2007

Ann Coulter pumps the publicity shaft like a pro.

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: Ann Coulter uses a sharp tongue and short skirts to shill kinda clever books. She also sucks the blood from live babies, but purges later to stay thin.
I've read Ann Coulter's How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Really Have To) a few months ago. It was okay. She makes a few witty comments, but overall, she seems to subscribe to the school of "even bad publicity is still publicity." She has made calculated, ultra-controversial statements will keep her in the public eye and her books selling, including her statements regarding the protesting 9/11 widows against the Iraq War as opportunistic. She know just how to push the buttons of the right (and the left, for that matter) to get what she wants — her books sold.

“These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process.”

“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”

Whatever. The widows put themselves in the public eye and in doing so agree to be criticized. Coulter has nice hair and looks passively decent in black leather or a little black dress, and tends to use that to maximum effect on her book's covers. She's obviously trying to promote a book and cash in, and that kind of statement is the "bait" to get people to buy.

It's sad that her extreme positions somehow reflect enough of the population that her remarks get defended, but if she is speaking for some percentage of the right, so be it. Too bad they are so wrapped up in their anti-liberal mentality that they don't realize they are getting used by her and her publisher. Moreover, why does the right has this bottle-blondie while the best the left can do is Hilary and Michael Moore? There must be a few half-decent looking liberals that haven't blown Clinton?

Here's Kathy Griffin (almost unrecognizable after plastic surgery) roasting her ass:


For the record, here's Coulter explaining herself on the Today Show (sorry it's poor quality):








Friday, June 29, 2007

British Perspective: Do you believe America is an empire, and if so who controls it?

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: A British citizen provides a view of America from outside the echo chamber.

In order to further test the patience and loyalty of his readers, Jay has invited me to blog on his... erm blog. Perhaps feeling there is not enough sarcasm and cynicism here, he has invited a British citizen to post. I hope that my use of the letter "U" will add humour and colour to his blog. But alas, first of all we have a rather heavy posting.

Jay's question to me was: Do you believe America is an empire, and if so who controls it?

In a somewhat cliched manner. let's look at the dictionary definition for the word empire:
  1. Supreme power; sovereignty; sway; dominion. "The empire of the sea." --Shak. [1913 Webster]

  2. The dominion of an emperor; the territory or countries under the jurisdiction and dominion of an emperor (rarely of a king), usually of greater extent than a kingdom, always comprising a variety in the nationality of, or the forms of administration in, constituent and subordinate portions; as, the Austrian empire. [1913 Webster]

  3. Any dominion; supreme control; governing influence; rule; sway; as, the empire of mind or of reason. "Under the empire of facts." --M. Arnold. [1913 Webster]

The first definition here is quite wide. It would obviously be false to say that America has supreme power as is evident from its problems in Iraq, Columbia, Afghanistan etc.

However, the third word, sway, is much looser and certainly more applicable. As a result of its cultural output, its economic might, its (actually our) language, and its military power, America certainly has a large sway over many people.

The second definition introduces the concept of territoriality, i.e. that an empire differs from a nation in that it exerts aspects of the first definition beyonds its borders. Well, yes, America certainly does hold sway over large parts of the world.

However, the word 'subordinate' is more problematic. Whilst other countries may be heavily influenced, even to the point of a loss of national sovereignty, by American decisions, they are still nominally equal in status in the eyes of international law, at the UN and so on.

The third definition, whilst repeating certain characteristics of the first, introduces perhaps the most important concept, that an empire can be of anything. The word empire usually invokes thoughts of the Roman or British Empire which were empires of land and people (or to use the collective term, nations) but we are not limited to these components.

So to answer the question: yes, by these definitions, America can be labelled an empire. An Empire of Language (though you guys picked up the baton from us on that one really) and an Empire of Culture.

But America is not certainly an Empire of Nations (though the Puerto Ricans and Al Qaeda may disagree). Nor is it an Economic Empire. The globalised world is too interconnected for their to be any single dominion holding sway over every else. Unequal influence, power or size yes, but not an Empire dictating its financial whims to others.

However, the final empire that America can lay claim to is the most contentious. It is an Empire of Values.

In the neo-conservative view of the world, America's values are universal and inherently good. They should be propagated far and wide, and in the Bush administration, this policy was combined with a miltary doctrine, to so far limited success. The locus of this policy was to bring nations suffering under despotic rule into this Empire.

Yet, in fact, even without this policy, there are millions who still wish to fall under this Empire. Some would rather strive to gain entry than have America forcibly help them (though I am sure there are still those, who despite Iraq, would welcome American intervention). To this extent, the American Empire of Values merely needs to exist. In doing so, it provides an advertisement for the empirical value of using these values on a day to day basis. We do not routinely speak of a Catholic Empire, yet in theory the Vatican and the Pope propagate and advertise a similar (and sometimes conflicting) set of values.

However, to also answer the second part of Jay's question, there is no one in charge of these Empires. It makes no sense to ask who is in charge of the English language: it's day to day use and empirical value as a lingua franca ensure its survival and its attractiveness. Similarly, there is no one in charge of the values of America. The values exist within America. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution protect these values. We could therefore say that Franklin, Jefferson & Co are in charge of the American Empire.

So, America is an Empire. But its rule is, mostly, passive and beneficial, it is in fact something to be proud of. It's most powerful effect is one of role model for the world. This makes it different to previous empires such as the British and Roman models, which were active and explicitly created for the purpose of subordinating others. As such, the inherent contradictions which ultimately brought down these empires may not apply to the American one. However, the Empire of Values is still vulnerable, still fragile and needs constant nurturing. We are lucky that in a small way this blog contributes to upholding those values by providing a forum for free speech and debate.







Al Gore's Global Warming Pledge.

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: The seven-point pledge announced by Al Gore to rally support against global warming.

I pledge
  1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;

  2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crises by reducing my own C02 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become "carbon neutral";

  3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the C02;

  4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;

  5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;

  6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,

  7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crises and building a sustainable, just and prosperous world for the 21st century.


I'm in, Al.

algore.com

liveearth.com







Katrina victim tells Cheney to go fuck himself

Remember this? A great moment. Cheney isn't above telling others to go fuck themselves either, but it usually happens on the Senate Floor.









Robin Williams did not write this email.

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: Hardline email attributed to Williams is bogus.


You've probably read this before. It's been circulating the Internet's email zone for around four years in several variations. At some point it became falsely attributed to Robin Williams, though you'd think if Williams penned it would be funnier, make more sense, and not read like Rush Limbaugh's Christmas list to Santa (Williams is a noted liberal). Anyway, just wanted to dispell this one for what it's worth. It's actually a fairly odious letter in my opinion, pretty low-brow, and makes a lot of assumptions without fact to back it up. Who did write it remains a mystery. The last line about the Statue of Liberty, the only funny part, is taken from Williams' act. Item number 3 alone would cripple the farming, construction and custodial industries.

"Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan ..what we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message.

Robin William's plan. (Hard to argue with this logic!)

I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan.

1.) The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past &present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic and the rest of those 'good ole boys,' We will never "interfere" again.

2.) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.

3.) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4.) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5.) No foreign "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If hey don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.

6.) The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7.) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8.) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere," They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

9.) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10.) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer.

The Language we speak is ENGLISH.....learn it...or LEAVE..

Now, isn't that a winner of a plan. "The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'"

~~~If you agree with the above forward it to friend... If not, and I would be amazed, DELETE it !!!"

SOURCES: UrbanLegends.com







Thursday, June 28, 2007

Larry King bumps Michael Moore's health care debate for Paris Hilton

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: Network needs to choose between universal health care and blonde half-wit. Blonde wins.
Dear Paris,

Welcome back! So, I hear you have decided to turn a new leaf. Cool! You said on Larry King tonight that jail "was a pretty traumatic experience, something that I really have grown from." Very mature outlook. You went on to say "I feel like God does make everything happen for a reason... And it gave me, you know, a time-out in life just to really find out what is important and what I want to do, figure out who I am." You seem ready to do some good in the world! You even are sporting new hair, wardrobe and makeup... no boobies at all. Wow, you really look all grown up. Good for you.

Okay, but here's a little tip: when Michael Moore - a filmmaker - spends years out of his life making a movie to help people get a basic service like health care and wants to get a few minutes to open up the debate on national television, TRY to let him do it before you allow him to get bumped so you can discuss your bullshit "traumatic experience." A real traumatic experience is losing your dad because a health care industry doesn't want to pay for his pancreas, or someone has to choose between what finger he can afford to re-attach.

You told King you were "a business person. I run several businesses." Great, then you must know about health care for your employees? Maybe this topic would have been of interest.

Part of growing up is learning what is really important. You moron.

Thanks for your time, Jay

----------------------------

Dear Larry,

You ratings grabbing DICK. Show some balls next time.

Thanks for your time, Jay

----------------------------

Dear Viewers of the Larry King show on 6/27,

Unless you think celebrities should be considered serious news, vote with your eyes and flip the channel next time.

Thanks for your time, Jay







Rebecca Romijn thinks Dick Cheney is very sexy.


Of course this is not true, but this picture makes me proud to be an American. John Stamos, you IDIOT.







GOP points Lugar at Bush as president calls Voinovich "a Sonovabitch"

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: Republican party support for Iraq War breaking up. And I make lame jokes.
In what is being touted as a "watershed moment" in the Iraqi War, two prominent Republicans Senators (Lugar pictured above) have come forward to tell Bush it's time to get this party ended.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. George Voinovich (below left) said Tuesday the U.S. should begin pulling troops out of Iraq, joining Richard Lugar as the second Republican lawmaker in as many days to suggest President Bush's war strategy is failing.

He said the Iraqi people must become more involved and "I don't think they'll get it until they know we're leaving."
The Ohio senator's remarks followed similar comments by Lugar, R-Ind., the previous night. The two GOP senators previously had expressed concerns about Bush's decision to send 30,000 extra troops to Iraq in a massive U.S.-led security push in Baghdad and Anbar province. But they had stopped short of saying U.S. troops should leave and declined to back Democratic legislation setting a deadline for troop withdrawals.

In a floor speech Monday, Lugar said the U.S. should reduce the military's role in Iraq and called on Bush to press other diplomatic and economic initiatives instead. Because of Lugar's position as the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, his speech was a considered a blow to the administration as it tries to shore up sagging political support for the unpopular war.

"In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. "Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Lugar's speech "brilliant" and "courageous" and said it would later be noted in the history books as a turning point in the war.
Nice job old boys. I don't know much about you guys other than you look old and wealthy, and you're Republican Senators, which makes me think you are corrupt, but until I do some research, I'll think your both awesome. Would have been even MORE awesome if you spoke up in 2003, but thanks for speaking up now.

Apparently Lugar is a fairly reserved fellow who doesn't do much podium grandstanding, and isn't in need of kissing election ass, which makes his statement even more powerful.



SOURCE: apnews.myway.com







People in Iran have fuel to burn

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: Not all Iranians spend every waking moment about how much they hate Americans... some are just trying get enough gas to drive to work.

Well, Americans may be bitching about gas prices, but despite cursing Mobil/Exxon at every fill-up, we haven't set anything on fire... yet. Iranians are a little more pissed off:
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Angry Iranians torched pump stations and hurled abuse at President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government after the world's fourth-largest oil exporter said it was imposing fuel rationing on Wednesday.

Some drivers scuffled while waiting to fill up their tanks before rationing began. Others chanted anti-government slogans and openly criticized Ahmadinejad, who came to power two years ago vowing to share out Iran's oil wealth more fairly.

"We are swimming in oil and all they do is just put pressure on people," said taxi driver Hasan Mohammadi, 44. "I'm using my last drop of gasoline."

"Last night's riots were an expression of the anger of people with lower incomes," said government employee Saeed Sameti, although he said he in principle backed rationing.

Despite its huge energy reserves, Iran lacks refining capacity and must import about 40 percent of its gasoline, a sensitive issue when world powers have threatened new U.N. sanctions in a row with Tehran over its nuclear program.


This is interesting to hear because many Americans have visions of Iranians wailing and chanting praise in support of Ahmadinejad, but that isn't exactly the case. Ahmadinejad may talk a big game but he still needs to manage a country. Having a lot of oil is useless unless you can turn it into something useful. Unfortunately it's the working class who are suffering.







Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Paris is liberated as a born-again absurdly rich person.

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: There is nothing you need to know here.
I bet nobody is celebrating more than the sheriff's department. I heard she's been doing a lot of thinking while in jail and has figured out how to cure cancer, and stuff.

In a stunningly vapid deconstruction of Paris' fresh faced born-again post-prison look, a stylist (above) reviews her new leaving prision persona.

Lest we forget the arrogance that her PR firm is trying to eliminate:


In prision, I wonder if she thought about her 500K sports car's value. A person in the third world who makes 3 bucks a day could sustain his family for around 456 years off that. Just sayin.







Monday, June 25, 2007

Tip & Wag's Quotes of the Day

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: I just bought a new book with cool quotes.

"I have too much respect for the idea of God to hold him responsible for such an absurd world."

- Georges Duhamel



"Faith is doubt."

- Emily Dickinson



"Brute force crushes many plants. Yet the plants rise again. The Pyramids will not last a moment compared with the daisy."

- D.H. Lawrence










Saturday, June 23, 2007

WOAH! Darwin born only 5816 years after God created universe.

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: Open-minded people can always find common groundFebruary 12, 2009 will mark the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, who among other things wrote the scientific watershed On the Origin of Species, giving generations of scientists and Bible fundamentalists something to argue over. But it doesn't have to be that way.

When I was at Malden Catholic High School, I took a great class, Western Civilization, taught by Brother Joseph Britt, CFX. Going to a Catholic high school was the last place I would have expected to hear any friends of Darwin. And yet, Brother Joe dispatched the whole issue quite simply.

He said there is no reason why God could not have used evolution as a method of creating the world. Furthermore, as measured time as we know it was not developed until recently, the differences between "man-time" and "God-time" could be radically different, which could account for the differences between the billions of years of scientific measured time and the 6000 years of Biblical time.

This was a revelation to me, not only for the explanation itself, but for the open-minded approach to integrating science and religion. Thanks Brother Joe!

Sadly, that explanation is SO reasonable and make SO much sense, it could never be accepted by die-hard Bible folk. Here's some links teaching kids about creation in a that special faux-friendly, anti-logic kind of way that makes me ill:

How old is the earth according to the Bible?
"Evolution — meaning that such diverse creatures as whales, worms, hummingbirds, hadrosaurs, platypuses and presidents have evolved from the same first life-form — is a belief system. It certainly has not been proved to be a scientific fact."
"There are many thousands of highly qualified scientists who believe that the Bible's account of creation is more in harmony with true science than is the theory of evolution."

This site also attacks poor Brother Joe's theory and said Darwin's evolution concept was some kind of attack on the Bible rather than pure scientific research.

Keep preaching the word, Bro.







Friday, June 22, 2007

Why we love idealistic freaks

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: Heros are cool. Now go read some Joseph Campbell. It'll blow your mind.
Check out this badass. This is a pic from the new Batman film The Dark Night coming out next year. He's black, he's bad, and he hiding in the shadows ready to attack. Why are heros so appealing, even to adults who know Superman can't fly and Wonder Woman's lasso can't make you tell the truth?

We live in very complicated times. News comes at us fast, and thanks to the "if it bleeds it leads" media, it's usually bad news. Evil seems everywhere. People have less and less to believe in. Politicians are utterly compromised by corporate power. Priests are routinely arrested for sodomizing children. Everyone seems on the take, and covering their tracks with spin and public relations campaigns. Hell even Philip Morris has commercials telling you they want to help you quit smoking! It is a world full of uncertainty and grey.

In this grey world, heros are black and white. Superman never takes a bribe, never lies, and never uses his x-ray vision to look at boobies. Batman uses his vast wealth to do good in and out of the suit. Luke Skywalker turned down ruling the Empire with his daddy and freed it instead. If only George W was so noble.

Since humans began telling stories, heros have been there doing good deeds. They are pure, like we all want to be, and they protect us from what we fear. And look damn cool doing it, like Harrison Ford ready to go it again as Indiana Jones (above).

But I'm just a blogger. You want to really blow your mind on this topic, Joseph Campbell, famed American writer, orator and inspiration-giver, has written at length on this in The Hero with a Thousand Faces among other great books. If think print is dead, you can listen to it for 12 bucks here.

Now check out this picture of Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman and ask yourself why we shouldn't fight to make a world worthy of this uber-babe. Riddle me that.








Dick Cheney thinks he's above the law. Again.

THE LEAST YOU NEED TO KNOW: VP Cheney pulls every trick in the book to keep America out of his monkey business.
It's been obvious for years that Dick Cheney is not only the most powerful VP in history, he's also the most clandestine. His association with corporate power is well documented, and these links have served him well financially and politically. How well? He doesn't want us to know. He gives the country a black eye every day he remains in office. He is incompetent, arrogant, and indictable. His vast network of cronies reaching back to Nixon keep him firmly held in his position, even when the country is failing and hemorrhaging money and blood. I have no idea the hubris and greed that motivates him every day, but there can be little doubt that this man in no way serves the public interest.

This wingnut is actually saying that the order for the executive branch to reveal their documents does not apply to him because HE IS NOT PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. HUH? He was previously recorded claiming protections of secret meetings because he WAS part of the executive. Do these people know they are being recorded, or is it just they love sound like jackasses.

Do you think he may be secretly fighting off terrorists, and this is why all his files need to be classified, and so important he won't even tell us how much classified info he keeps? We need to wake up. Information is the only way we will be able to overpower these slugs. They thrive in a country where American Idol is more important than American elections.

Am I buggin ya? Didn't mean to bug ya.



Read on:
Agency Is Target in Cheney Fight on Secrecy Data
By SCOTT SHANE

For four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has resisted routine oversight of his office’s handling of classified information, and when the National Archives unit that monitors classification in the executive branch objected, the vice president’s office suggested abolishing the oversight unit, according to documents released yesterday by a Democratic congressman.

The Information Security Oversight Office, a unit of the National Archives, appealed the issue to the Justice Department, which has not yet ruled on the matter.

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, disclosed Mr. Cheney’s effort to shut down the oversight office. Mr. Waxman, who has had a leading role in the stepped-up efforts by Democrats to investigate the Bush administration, outlined the matter in an eight-page letter sent Thursday to the vice president and posted, along with other documentation, on the committee’s Web site.

Officials at the National Archives and the Justice Department confirmed the basic chronology of events cited in Mr. Waxman’s letter.

The letter said that after repeatedly refusing to comply with a routine annual request from the archives for data on his staff’s classification of internal documents, the vice president’s office in 2004 blocked an on-site inspection of records that other agencies of the executive branch regularly go through.

But the National Archives is an executive branch department headed by a presidential appointee, and it is assigned to collect the data on classified documents under a presidential executive order. Its Information Security Oversight Office is the archives division that oversees classification and declassification.

“I know the vice president wants to operate with unprecedented secrecy,” Mr. Waxman said in an interview. “But this is absurd. This order is designed to keep classified information safe. His argument is really that he’s not part of the executive branch, so he doesn’t have to comply.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney, Megan McGinn, said, “We’re confident that we’re conducting the office properly under the law.” She declined to elaborate.

Other officials familiar with Mr. Cheney’s view said that he and his legal adviser, David S. Addington, did not believe that the executive order applied to the vice president’s office because it had a legislative as well as an executive status in the Constitution. Other White House offices, including the National Security Council, routinely comply with the oversight requirements, according to Mr. Waxman’s office and outside experts.