Bush criticises Iran's election

I thought I'd go ahead and post this from the BBC. In a statement released by the White House, Bush said:

Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world.

I passed out briefly from the intense irony and am now waiting for my HMO to say it's okay to see a doctor.

MMMM Kool-Aid! Want Some?

This blog is barely read, so imagine my utter surprise when I got a comment on a throwaway post titled Hello Portland. In it, I used the phrase "republican propaganda radio". You know what I meant, the standard radio talking heads all spewing the exact same talking points every single work day, with repeats on the weekends. Here's where you can find the big ones in the Portland metro area (AM radio): Bill O'Reilly, Lars Larson, Tony Snow, and Michael Savage are on KXL (750), Rush is on KEX (1190), and Sean Hannity is on KPAM (860). They all have the same topics. It's like they get together every morning and the White House press office tells them what to talk about. Here in Portland, KPOJ (620) provides a progressive counter balance, but in Houston - there is none (there may be now, I really don't know).

Here's the comment:

"...Republican party propaganda.."
Golly, ever wonder why Dems lose elections?
Maybe it's because they have nothing to say and say it badly.
Do you have any response to this "propaganda" other than becoming snooty?
Didn't think so.

Noo Yawkah

It's short, so read it a couple of more times (especially where it says DEMOCRATS "say it badly").

First off, let me say that our friend, Noo Yawkah (probably upstate Noo Yawkah) is correct in one regard. The term "republican propaganda radio" was snarky and sarcastic, but as for having nothing to say on the matter, let me spell it out for you. They lie. It's calculated, organized, and they have no integrity whatsoever. There are organizations that do nothing but catalog the immense spew of deceit. Some authors make their reputations from writing and speaking on the matter. Geez, where do I start? Let's go to Media Matters.

Rush Limbaugh.
Bill O'Reilly (they could do a whole site on him alone).
Michael Savage.
Sean Hannity. Hannity is my favorite. Check out this exchange from the article, Hannity debated Rosie O'Donnell on Abu Ghraib abuse: no torture or rape, just "underwear on the head of one" prisoner.

HANNITY: I want to ask -- I want to ask one question. Are we better off with Saddam captured and the mass graves and rape rooms closed, yes or no?

[crosstalk]

ROSIE O'DONNELL (guest co-host): Do you think that we are not raping and torturing the prisoners at --

[crosstalk]

HANNITY: No. Do you have any evidence that we are?

O'DONNELL: Oh, my God, Sean, don't you see the pictures from Abu Ghraib?

[crosstalk]

HANNITY: Where's the evidence?

O'DONNELL: Hello?

HANNITY: There was underwear on the head of one of them. We're not raping and killing anybody.

O'DONNELL: Oh, my God. I think you're delusional.

I debated whether to put that one up, as any comments would probably focus on O'Donnell and not on the fact that severe torture at Abu Ghraib is very, very well documented (anyone remember The Taguba Report?).

To the final point, Democrats lose elections because without an opposing voice, there are a higher number of voters who have swallowed the party line with no curiosity, no criticism, and have bought into the fear this deceitful administration purposefully tried to instill in them. These people are not unintelligent, merely uninformed. Slowly though, they look at their job situations, their finances and debt, their retirement savings, the educational system, their military aged children, and slowly they begin to see that something's not right. The reality is not matching the message. It is then they will seek out other viewpoints, and seek other solutions.

Thank you for posting, Noo Yawkah and do post again. I sincerely mean that.


(Kool-Aid is a registered trademark of Kraft Foods. I happen to love Kool-Aid and am sorry that the phrase "drink the Kool-Aid" has a negative connotation. "OH YEAH!")

(I do not however feel that way about Spam, a registered trademark of Hormel Foods)

He Already Worked There, He Just Needed an Office

Remember Philip Cooney, the chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and former lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute? As reported in the New York Times, he was the guy who, with no scientific training whatsoever, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust. (Click here for sample)

It was reported today (AP via Yahoo, MSNBC, even Market Watch) that Cooney has resigned his position and will be joining ExxonMobil this fall, although they decline to say what exactly he'll be doing. Cooney naturally could not be reached for comment, but White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Cooney's departure was "completely unrelated" to the earlier disclosure that he changed government climate reports. The AP continues:

The White House made no mention of Cooney's plans to join ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company. Its executives have been among the most skeptical in the oil industry about the prospects of climate change because of a growing concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The leading greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

Like the Bush administration, Exxon Mobil Chairman Lee Raymond has argued strongly against the Kyoto climate accord and has raised questions about the certainty of climate science as it relates to possible global warming. Greenpeace and other environmental groups have singled out Raymond and ExxonMobil for protests because of its position on climate change.

This also comes on the heels of new revelations reported in Britain's The Guardian that Bush's decision not to sign the Kyoto accord was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil and other industries, according to US State Department papers that were obtained by Greenpeace through the freedom of information act. From The Guardian:

Until now Exxon has publicly maintained that it had no involvement in the US government's rejection of Kyoto. But the documents, obtained by Greenpeace under US freedom of information legislation, suggest this is not the case.

"Potus [president of the United States] rejected Kyoto in part based on input from you [the Global Climate Coalition]," says one briefing note before Ms Dobriansky's meeting with the GCC, the main anti-Kyoto US industry group, which was dominated by Exxon.

The papers further state that the White House considered Exxon "among the companies most actively and prominently opposed to binding approaches [like Kyoto] to cut greenhouse gas emissions".

Thank goodness they still have real journalists over in the UK who can report on this stuff. Maybe now that the Michael Jackson trial is over, one of our journalist wannabes can muster up enough spine to cover something relevant. How about the Downing Street Memo as a start?