Abu Ghraib detainee quote:

CLICK ON PICTURE TO ENLARGE

"The Americans brought electricity to my ass before they brought it to my house."

Take Back Christmas? You Mean GIVE Back Christmas?

CLICK PHOTO TO ENLARGE

The first recorded Christmas on December 25th took place in the 4th century, a date coinciding with the birthdate of Mithras, the Persian sun god. Pope Julius I is rumored to have adjusted Jesus' birthday to match Mithras' because the church was unable to stop the pagan celebrations and thereby could associate their festivities in Jesus' name.

Other traditions owe their roots to non-Christian origin. Evergreen trees were revered by Druids for good luck and fertility because they withstood the hardships of winter. The tree became a religious symbol of everlasting life and was decorated to symbolize the sun's power. In the 16th century, Christians began decorating the trees as means of redirecting tree worship. Yule logs were lit to remind the family of the sun's coming and its ashes were used for protective powers. Mistletoe from oak was considered magical by Druids, who even carried out ritual sacrifice to release the aphrodisiac powers from the tree's soul for fertility. Today's decorative mistletoe is a variety found only in North America. Even the story of Santa Claus predates St. Nicholas to Norse legend as Hertha appearing in fireplaces to bring luck or Wodan who left gifts beneath the evergreen tree. The tale perverts through time to include the enslavement of an elf and a horned creature that visited children of ill behavior.

The pilgrims in New England, led by Governor William Bradford, attempted to penalize all pagan rituals associated Christmas celebration. Carols, tree decorations and gift exchange were perceived as heathen traditions marring the sacred date. In a twist of irony, removing the pagan celebration rites from Christmas renders the day moot as analysis seems to indicate the birth of Christ was more likely to have occurred in the summertime.

Merry Christmas - or perhaps more historically accurate, 'Happy Holidays?'"

War on .... CANDY CANES?

Dec. 14, 2005 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

H. RES. 579 Expressing the sense of the House that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia submitted the following

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;
(2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and
(3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions.

********
Mr. ISRAEL Madam Speaker, My difficulty with this resolution is that
it excludes some symbols and includes only certain symbols. So I would ask the gentlewoman, in the spirit of diversity, and of the many faiths that we celebrate in this body and throughout America, I would ask her not to withdraw the resolution, but allow this resolution to attract a very significant number of votes, maybe a unanimous vote, simply by adding the words "Kwanzaa,'' "Ramadan,'' and "Chanukah'' to her resolution. . . include holidays of all faiths so that this resolution can reflect the best of America, which is a place of justice for all.

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, The reason for this resolution is that the attack has not been on the menorah or any of the other symbols of the other religions. But the attack has been and is being made on red and green colors, on candy canes, on Santa Claus, which are not even religious symbols. That is the point of the resolution.

OOOOOPS!!!! Forgot Their Own Talking Points!

CLICK PICTURE TO ENLARGE

Red Book Hoax

The college student who claimed that Homeland Security paid him a visit because he requested Chairman Mao's Red Book from the campus library (See Tuesday, December 20, 2005--"Domestic Spying Nets Innocent People") has come clean -- admitted that it was a hoax.

At a time when we find more and more instances of our government spying on our own citizens, this fraudulent claim only gives the NeoCon apologists an opening to say, "See it's ALL a hoax!"

The New York Times, Dec. 20, reported:
One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

So, there really IS something going on ... no hoax!

Assault On Freedom Of The Press

Is Ohio In Iraq?

The much-hyped Iraq elections are as much a sham as our past two presidential elections. The foreign press is on top of this: I don't think you'll find much in the mainstream US press:

FRAUD allegations, threatened boycotts and a vote along rigid ethnic and religious lines are robbing last week's Iraqi election of its acclaimed certainty as a building block in Washington's democracy plans for the Middle East.
...
As the release of new provisional figures confirmed the stunning success of conservative religious parties - Shiite and Sunni alike - a chorus of foul play erupted from the secular parties that the US had banked on to guide Iraq through the baby steps of its democracy blueprint.

But senior officials of the triumphant religious Shiite coalition are already insisting there is no place for Washington's preferred candidate for prime minister, the secular Iyad Allawi, in the horse-trading to form a government.

Across Baghdad, Sunni leaders, who had boycotted the democratic process up until last Thursday's poll, were claiming that the vote was rigged. They couched their demand for a new election in terms that amounted to a threat to reverse back into the arms of the insurgency that has paralysed the country since mid-2003.

Apparently the Iraqis -- unlike US voters -- won't just lay back and take it while the NeoCons manipulate elections.

Bathroom in the Oval Office

Lying About Spying

Just in case anybody actually trusts a politician or believes what one says:

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act.

The story tells about a FISA judge who resigned in protest over revelations that he and his ten other colleagues had been by-passed by the Bush Administration and NSA, who are supposed to go to him to get warrants before planting wiretaps.

Bush: Reasons To Invade Iraq

Click picture to enlarge

Ummm ... why are we in Iraq?

“There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11,” Bush said. “I’ve never said that and never made that case prior to going into Iraq.”

Read the complete article HERE:

Who Ya Gonna Call? Torture Busters!!!

Click picture to enlarge

Domestic Spying Nets Innocent People

The NY Times published a story that the NSA has been spying on American Citizens since 2002 under secret orders from Pres. Bush --- although the paper sat on the story a full year (conveniently keeping it a secret before the presidential election).

Most have agreed that the action is illegal, as Richard Nixon found out, and could even lead to impeachment of the president.

What does this mean, you ask? So what if the government is spying on people?

Agents' visit chills UMass Dartmouth senior
By AARON NICODEMUS, Standard-Times staff writer

NEW BEDFORD -- A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."
Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.
The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.
The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.
"I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book," Professor Pontbriand said. "Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it."

Read the complete post HERE:

Torture -- The American Way

From Factcheck.Org:

A Tortured History
The President says "We do not torture." We look at what has surfaced so far.

December 19, 2005

Summary


President Bush has declared repeatedly, “we do not torture.” But claims of prisoner abuse continue to surface, Amnesty International has declared the US detention center in Cuba to be "a gulag," and the administration has yet to deny a news report that it holds scores of suspects in secret CIA prisons overseas.

Much of what goes on is classified, so we can't judge how accurately the President describes what is actually happening in US interrogation centers. But in this article we do present a summary of what has been said, and what has come to light so far.

Analysis

The President said at a press conference on November 29, 2005:

Bush : The United States of America does not torture. And that's important for people around the world to understand.

That unequivocal response is typical of all his public comments regarding torture. However, the actual record is more complicated.

Here we give a brief history of some key events in the evolution of recent US policy and practice regarding torture.

"The Dark Side"

Five days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Vice President Cheney said the US would need to operate on the "dark side" and "use any means at our disposal" to combat terrorism. In an interview with NBC's Tim Russert on September 16, 2001, Cheney said:

Cheney: We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side , if you will. We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful. That's the world these folks operate in, and so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective.

"Enemy Combatants"

Within months of that interview, Bush issued a Presidential Order February 7, 2002 which stated that members of al Qaeda were not considered prisoners of war but were "enemy combatants" instead. As such they were not entitled to the Geneva Convention's prohibition on torture, which it defines as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person."

Meanwhile, some legal experts within the administration were arguing that the US interrogators might legally inflict pain short of "an extreme level," defined in graphic terms. A memo sent from the Justice Department to then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales on August 1, 2002 – which became known as the "Gonzales memo" because he requested it – laid out a permissive standard:

"Gonzales memo": We conclude that for an act to constitute torture . . . it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying severe physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death .

The same memo went on to argue that US anti-torture law would not apply at all to interrogations of "enemy combatants" if ordered by the President in time of war, saying that the law "would be unconstitutional if it impermissibly encroached on the President's power to conduct a military campaign." It continued:

"Gonzales memo": As Commander-in-Chief, the President has the constitutional authority to order interrogations of enemy combatants to gain intelligence information concerning military plans of the enemy. The demands of the Commander-in-Chief power are especially pronounced in the middle of a war in which the nation has already suffered a direct attack. In such a case, the information gained from interrogations may prevent future attacks by foreign enemies. Any effort to apply [the law against torture] in a manner that interferes with the President's direction of such core war matters as the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants thus would be unconstitutional.

That memo, which seemed to argue that the President could legally order torture, caused a public outcry when it became public in 2004. The Justice Department then quickly withdrew it, and Gonzales publicly dismissed it as “abstract legal theory.” The Justice Department then issued a new memo in December 2004 which argued that inflicting "severe" pain would be illegal under the anti-torture law, in contrast to "extreme" pain as stated in the Gonzalez memo. But the new memo pointedly did not discuss whether or not the Constitution permits the President to order torture in time of war, saying any such discussion was "unnecessary." It added, "Consideration of the bounds of any such authority would be inconsistent with the President's unequivocal directive that United States personnel not engage in torture."

Abu Ghraib

The Gonzales memo surfaced just as the public began to learn of what happened at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Later, Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba investigated. His report on March, 2004, confirmed that prisoners had been abused at Abu Ghraib prison from August 2003 through February 2004. The report included the following list of abuses that he uncovered:

Taguba Report, March 2004: Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol; Pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick; using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

Former Army Reserve Spc. Charles Graner, Jr. later testified in military court, "I nearly beat an MI [Military Intelligence] detainee to death with MI there" while he was at Abu Ghraib. Graner himself was sentenced to ten years in prison for his involvement. He testified at the sentencing hearing of former Pfc. Lynndie England in September 2005.

A total of nine enlisted service members were convicted at court-martial or plead guilty to charges of prisoner abuse, and were discharged from the Army. Eight of the nine were given prison terms that ranged from six month to Graner's 10-year term. In addition, Army Reserve Brigadier General Janis Karpinski was demoted to the rank of Colonel and subsequently retired.

The CIA has said publicly that it is conducting its own investigations and holding its people accountable, but as of December 2005 no member of the US intelligence community has been publicly tried or accused of involvement in the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Allegations of Torture and Abuse

Detention centers at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba have been the subject of torture allegations. Perhaps the most credible are in several files from the FBI which were declassified in December 2004. A letter sent from the Counterterrorism Center of the FBI to the Army described separate incidents reported by FBI agents who monitored Guantánamo interrogations. The letter said one FBI agent watched on a TV monitor as a female interrogator questioned a handcuffed and shackled detainee who "on more than one occasion . . . appeared to be grimacing in pain." The FBI agent said a Marine – who was in the room and could see more clearly – later told him that the interrogator had "grabbed the detainee's thumbs and bent them backwards . . . she had also grabbed his genitals."

The FBI letter continued:

FBI Letter: The Marine also implied that her (the interrogator's) treatment of that detainee was less harsh than her treatment of others by indicating that he had seen her treatment of others result in detainees curling into a fetal position on the floor and crying in pain .

"Gulag of our times?"

An Amnesty International report released in May 2005 listed dozens of allegations of torture or abuse of prisoners by the US. The sources were various – including news reports, interviews conducted by Amnesty International with former prisoners, and notes taken by lawyers representing prisoners. These alleged incidents include punching, stomping, beatings with blunt objects, exposure to extreme cold weather for extended periods of time, stripping prisoners naked, sexual assaults, and sexual taunting in violation of Islamic customs. The report stopped short of accusing the US of ordering that prisoners be tortured, but said:

Amnesty International Report, May 2005: Amnesty International concludes that hypocrisy, an overarching war mentality, and a disregard for basic human rights principles and international legal obligations continue to mark the USA’s “war on terror”.

And in a forward to the report, Amnesty said, "The detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times. "

That "gulag" remark especially angered Bush, who called the Amnesty report "absurd" and said it was based on claims by "people who hate America:"

Bush, May 31, 2005: I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. It's an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that is -- promotes freedom around the world. When there's accusations made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way. It's just an absurd allegation.

In terms of the detainees, we've had thousands of people detained. We've investigated every single complaint against the detainees. It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of -- and the allegations -- by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble (sic) -- that means not tell the truth. And so it was an absurd report. It just is.

Secret Prisons?

On Nov. 2, 2005, Dana Priest of The Washington Post reported that a secret prison system run by the CIA and spread throughout Eastern Europe, Thailand, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay was holding suspected terrorists. The article reported that detainees who had been released from the secret prisons alleged that they were tortured, although whether that was by CIA personnel or others was not clear.

The Post said secret facilities in a total of eight countries had been used to detain more than 100 suspected terrorists. Roughly 30 of those are considered “major terrorism suspects” and more than 70 were described as “less important” with indirect ties to terrorism.

The State Department, CIA and White House would neither confirm nor deny the existence of the secret prisons. On Nov 8 Republican leaders in Congress demanded to an investigation of how the story got out. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN, and Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert sent a letter to the House and Senate Intelligence Committee chairmen saying:

Frist and Hastert Letter: As you know, if accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences, and will imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks.

Renditions

The Post article raised new questions about the practice of “extraordinary rendition” – a process whereby the CIA or other U.S. government agencies may seize foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism and ship them to detention centers for interrogation. Such centers may be in the US or overseas, including nations known for torturing their prisoners.

The practice was initiated and employed before the "war on terror" was touched off by the events of September 11, 2001. Presidential Decision Directives 39 and 62, written during the Clinton Administration, discuss rendition as a means to combat terrorism. The precise limits of the Clinton policy are not entirely clear: directive 39 states that all activities must be consistent with the procedures outlined in National Security Directive 77, but that document, issued by Bush's father when he was President, remains classified.

A chilling description of "rendition" surfaced in January, 2005 when the allegations of a German national, Khaled El-Masri, were reported in the British paper The Guardian . In December 2005, El-Masri filed a lawsuit against former CIA Director George Tenet in U.S. District Court. El-Masri said he was the victim of “inhumane conditions and coercive interrogation” when he was kidnapped by seven or eight men wearing black ski masks while he was on holiday in Macedonia, then flown to Afghanistan where he was detained in secret for months. El-Masri's legal brief states in part:

El-Masri allegation: He was beaten severely from all sides with fists and what felt like a thick stick. His clothes were sliced from his body with scissors or a knife, . . . his underwear was forcibly removed. He heard the sound of pictures being taken. He was thrown to the floor. His hands were pulled back and a boot was placed on his back. He then felt a firm object being forced into his anus.

. . . One of the men placed him in a diaper . . . [He] was marched to a waiting plane, with the shackles cutting into his ankles. Once inside, he was thrown to the floor face down and his legs and arms were spread-eagled and secured to the sides of the plane. He felt an injection in his shoulder, and became lightheaded. He felt a second injection that rendered him unconscious.

El-Masri claims to have been held in Afghanistan “in a single-person cell, with no reading or writing materials, and without once being permitted outside to breathe fresh air, for more than four months.” He was reminded that he was “in a country with no laws, and that no one knew where he was.” He lost 60 pounds as the result of a 37 day hunger strike he undertook after his requests for release, the chance to meet with an attorney, or for charges to be brought against him were continually ignored. He claims that his interrogations were “accompanied by threats, insults, pushing, and shoving.” He says he was finally released May 28th on a mountain road in Albania.

El-Masri was held even after his passport was confirmed as genuine and the case was discovered to be one of mistaken identity, according to several news organizations citing anonymous US government sources. And US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice all but confirmed the incident when asked about it at a news conference in Germany Dec. 6, where she appeared alongside German Chancellor Angela Merkel:

Secretary Rice: As to the case of Mr. El-Masri, I am not going to comment on any specific case. There are reports to -- newspaper reports and, of course, I believe this is going to be a matter for litigation, so it's properly handled in that channel. I did say to the Chancellor that when and if mistakes are made, we work very hard and as quickly as possible to rectify them. Any policy will sometimes have mistakes and it is our promise to our partners that should that be the case, that we will do everything that we can to rectify those mistakes. I believe that this will be handled in the proper courts here in Germany and if necessary in American courts as well.

Merkel hinted strongly that Rice had apologized for the incident, saying:

Merkel: The American Government, the American Administration, has admitted that this man had been erroneously taken and that as such the American Administration is not denying that it has taken place. I am also very pleased to note that the American Secretary of State has said that such a mistake, if it occurred, has to be rectified.

The "Torture Amendment"

While the President has flatly stated that the United States does not torture, his administration for weeks resisted an amendment introduced by Senator John McCain, R-AZ, to legally ban inhumane treatment of anyone in US military custody. The President threatened to veto the entire defense spending bill if the McCain amendment were attached. However, he later agreed to it after it was accepted by large margins in both the House and Senate, and after McCain agreed to guarantee legal counsel for interrogators accused of inflicting torture or inhumane treatment.

The McCain amendment not only bans torture of any individual in US military custody, it also prohibits “cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment." It would establish the revised Army Field Manual on Interrogation as the uniform guide for interrogations, whether or not the interrogators are members of the military or of an intelligence agency. Recent proposed revisions to the manual following the Abu Ghraib affair reportedly would prohibit the stripping of detainees, the use of police dogs, sleep deprivation and dietary restrictions. McCain's amendment was approved 90-9 in a Senate vote, and in the House by a vote of 308 to122.

The day after the House vote the President, in an Oval Office press briefing with McCain, announced an agreement and dropped his threat of a veto. McCain described the compromise:

McCain: In our negotiations, there was legitimate concerns [sic] raised by the administration concerning the rights of interrogators. And taking language from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, we provide them with legal counsel and certain protections that a reasonable person might view as carrying out of orders, not to contradict the Nuremberg decision, which, of course, said that obeying orders is not a sufficient defense.

The rest of the amendment's language, however, remained intact.

Before Bush accepted the amendment, the administration reportedly attempted to persuade McCain to exempt CIA interrogators. The Washington Post reported Oct. 25 that Vice President Dick Cheney made that request of McCain, but McCain refused. McCain is a former Navy pilot who was captured by the North Vietnamese and held for five years. He was tortured, and to this day is unable to lift his arms more than chest-high.

-- by Justin Bank and Emi Kolawole





Sources

Badger, T.A. “Lynndie England sentenced to three years for Abu Ghraib abuses,” The Associated Press. BC Cycle: 27 September 2005.

Bernard, Jerome. “Ex-commander of Abu Ghraib prison says she was a scapegoat,” Agence-France Presse. 17 November 2005.

Fletcher, Michael A. “Bush Defends CIA’s Clandestine Prisons; ‘We Do Not Torture,’ President Says,” The Washington Post. Final: 8 November 2005.

“Intelligence Policy: Staff Statement No. 7,” National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States .

“Memorandum of Admonishment,” Department of Defense. 17 January 2004.

Peirce, Paul. “Birthday celebration led to Abu Ghraib scandal,” Tribune-Review. 21 September 2005.

Myers, Lisa, "CIA Accused of Detaining Innocent Man," NBC News. 21 April 2005.

“Press Availability with German Chancellor Angela Merkel,” US Department of State. Transcript. 6 December 2005.

Pelley, Scott. "'Rendition' Revisited," 60 Minutes. 19 Dec 2005.

Priest, Dana. “CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons; Debate Is Growing Within Agency About legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11,” The Washington Post. Final: 2 November 2005.

“Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn.; Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, R- Ill. Correspondence Directed to House Select Intelligence Committee; Senate Select Intelligence Committee,” Congressional Quarterly Top Docs. 8 November 2005.

Senate Amendment No. 1977. Text. Congressional Record. S11062.

Sullivan, Jennifer. “Abu Ghraib ex-commander defends herself at Town Hall,” The Seattle Times. Fourth Edition: 2 November 2005

White, Josh. “ Reservist Sentenced to 3 Years for Abu Ghraib Abuse; Pfc. England Apologizes for Photographed Mistreatment, Says Superior and Lover 'Used' Her ,” The Washington Post. 28 September 2005.

Empty Gestures

Lying about Lying

The administration really backed off from criticizing Rep. Murtha -- and now they say that debate is honorable. That's a long way from their initial position that disagreement is treason, and dissent aids the terrorists ... and, by the way ... why do you hate America?

Argument Traps #2 -- Appeal to Authority

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:


The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person's reliability in the area.

Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. In academic fields (such as philosophy, engineering, history, etc.), the person's formal education, academic performance, publications, membership in professional societies, papers presented, awards won and so forth can all be reliable indicators of expertise. Outside of academic fields, other standards will apply. For example, having sufficient expertise to make a reliable claim about how to tie a shoe lace only requires the ability to tie the shoe lace and impart that information to others. It should be noted that being an expert does not always require having a university degree. Many people have high degrees of expertise in sophisticated subjects without having ever attended a university. Further, it should not be simply assumed that a person with a degree is an expert.

Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great debate. For example, some people have (and do) claim expertise in certain (even all) areas because of a divine inspiration or a special gift. The followers of such people accept such credentials as establishing the person's expertise while others often see these self-proclaimed experts as deluded or even as charlatans. In other situations, people debate over what sort of education and experience is needed to be an expert. Thus, what one person may take to be a fallacious appeal another person might take to be a well supported line of reasoning. Fortunately, many cases do not involve such debate.


The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable.

It is very important to remember that because of the vast scope of human knowledge and skill it is simply not possible for one person to be an expert on everything. Hence, experts will only be true experts in respect to certain subject areas. In most other areas they will have little or no expertise. Thus, it is important to determine what subject area a claim falls under.

It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise in another. For example, being an expert physicist does not automatically make a person an expert on morality or politics. Unfortunately, this is often overlooked or intentionally ignored. In fact, a great deal of advertising rests on a violation of this condition. As anyone who watches television knows, it is extremely common to get famous actors and sports heroes to endorse products that they are not qualified to assess. For example, a person may be a great actor, but that does not automatically make him an expert on cars or shaving or underwear or diets or politics.


There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.

There are many fields in which there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute. Economics is a good example of such a disputed field. Anyone who is familiar with economics knows that there are many plausible theories that are incompatible with one another. Because of this, one expert economist could sincerely claim that the deficit is the key factor while another equally qualified individual could assert the exact opposite. Another area where dispute is very common (and well known) is in the area of psychology and psychiatry. As has been demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to find one expert that will assert that an individual is insane and not competent to stand trial and to find another equally qualified expert who will testify, under oath, that the same individual is both sane and competent to stand trial. Obviously, one cannot rely on an Appeal to Authority in such a situation without making a fallacious argument. Such an argument would be fallacious since the evidence would not warrant accepting the conclusion.

It is important to keep in mind that no field has complete agreement, so some degree of dispute is acceptable. How much is acceptable is, of course, a matter of serious debate. It is also important to keep in mind that even a field with a great deal of internal dispute might contain areas of significant agreement. In such cases, an Appeal to Authority could be legitimate.


The person in question is not significantly biased.
If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim.

Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases and predjudices. If there is evidence that a person is biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert is biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would be reason to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice.

It is important to remember that no person is completely objective. At the very least, a person will be favorable towards her own views (otherwise she would probably not hold them). Because of this, some degree of bias must be accepted, provided that the bias is not significant. What counts as a significant degree of bias is open to dispute and can vary a great deal from case to case. For example, many people would probably suspect that doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to research the effects of smoking would be biased while other people might believe (or claim) that they would be able to remain objective.


The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
Certain areas in which a person may claim expertise may have no legitimacy or validity as areas of knowledge or study. Obviously, claims made in such areas will not be very reliable.

What counts as a legitimate area of expertise is sometimes difficult to determine. However, there are cases which are fairly clear cut. For example, if a person claimed to be an expert at something he called "chromabullet therapy" and asserted that firing painted rifle bullets at a person would cure cancer it would not be very reasonable to accept his claim based on his "expertise." After all, his expertise is in an area which is devoid of legitimate content. The general idea is that to be a legitimate expert a person must have mastery over a real field or area of knowledge.

As noted above, determining the legitimacy of a field can often be difficult. In European history, various scientists had to struggle with the Church and established traditions to establish the validity of their discliplines. For example, experts on evolution faced an uphill battle in getting the legitimacy of their area accepted.

A modern example involves psychic phenomenon. Some people claim that they are certified "master psychics" and that they are actually experts in the field. Other people contend that their claims of being certified "master psychics" are simply absurd since there is no real content to such an area of expertise. If these people are right, then anyone who accepts the claims of these "master psychics" as true are victims of a fallacious appeal to authority.


The authority in question must be identified.
A common variation of the typical Appeal to Authority fallacy is an Appeal to an Unnamed Authority. This fallacy is also known as an Appeal to an Unidentified Authority.

This fallacy is committed when a person asserts that a claim is true because an expert or authority makes the claim and the person does not actually identify the expert. Since the expert is not named or identified, there is no way to tell if the person is actually an expert. Unless the person is identified and has his expertise established, there is no reason to accept the claim.

This sort of reasoning is not unusual. Typically, the person making the argument will say things like "I have a book that says...", or "they say...", or "the experts say...", or "scientists believe that...", or "I read in the paper.." or "I saw on TV..." or some similar statement. in such cases the person is often hoping that the listener(s) will simply accept the unidentified source as a legitimate authority and believe the claim being made. If a person accepts the claim simply because they accept the unidentified source as an expert (without good reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this fallacy.

As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to rely on experts. This is because no one person can be an expert on everything and people do not have the time or ability to investigate every single claim themselves.

In many cases, Arguments from Authority will be good arguments. For example, when a person goes to a skilled doctor and the doctor tells him that he has a cold, then the the patient has good reason to accept the doctor's conclusion. As another example, if a person's computer is acting odd and his friend, who is a computer expert, tells him it is probably his hard drive then he has good reason to believe her.

What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good Appeal to Authority is that the argument meets the six conditions discussed above.

In a good Appeal to Authority, there is reason to believe the claim because the expert says the claim is true. This is because a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is being accepted because it is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the expert has found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being true. Thus, the listener is accepting a claim based on the testimony of the expert.

It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger.

Examples of Appeal to Authority

Bill and Jane are arguing about the morality of abortion:
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally acceptable. After all, a woman should have a right to her own body."
Jane: "I disagree completely. Dr. Johan Skarn says that abortion is always morally wrong, regardless of the situation. He has to be right, after all, he is a respected expert in his field."
Bill: "I've never heard of Dr. Skarn. Who is he?"
Jane: "He's the guy that won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on cold fusion."
Bill: "I see. Does he have any expertise in morality or ethics?"
Jane: "I don't know. But he's a world famous expert, so I believe him."


Dave and Kintaro are arguing about Stalin's reign in the Soviet Union. Dave has been arguing that Stalin was a great leader while Kintaro disagrees with him.
Kintaro: "I don't see how you can consider Stalin to be a great leader. He killed millions of his own people, he crippled the Soviet economy, kept most of the people in fear and laid the foundations for the violence that is occuring in much of Eastern Europe."
Dave: "Yeah, well you say that. However, I have a book at home that says that Stalin was acting in the best interest of the people. The millions that were killed were vicious enemies of the state and they had to be killed to protect the rest of the peaceful citizens. This book lays it all out, so it has to be true."


I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the hit series "Bimbos and Studmuffins in the OR." You can take it from me that when you need a fast acting, effective and safe pain killer there is nothing better than MorphiDope 2000. That is my considered medical opinion.

Siphwe and Sasha are having a conversation:
Sasha: "I played the lottery today and I know I am going to win something."
Siphwe: "What did you do, rig the outcome?"
Sasha: "No, silly. I called my Super Psychic Buddy at the 1-900-MindPower number. After consulting his magic Californian Tarot deck, he told me my lucky numbers."
Siphwe: "And you believed him?"
Sasha: "Certainly, he is a certified Californian Master-Mind Psychic. That is why I believe what he has to say. I mean, like, who else would know what my lucky numbers are?"

Argument Traps #1

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of
"reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.

Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

Person B attacks position Y.

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.<

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a
distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on
the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor
drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack
submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants
to leave us defenseless like that."

Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

Harold Pinter Nobel Speech

Playwright Harold Pinter used his acceptance speech for the Nobel prize in drama to sharply criticize the US for its foreign policy. Excerpts are quoted here under the "Fair Use" provision of the copyright law, which allows reprinting of parts of protected material for news and educational purposes.

Political language, as used by politicians, does not venture into any of this territory since
the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but
in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that
people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of
their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.

As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that
Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of
which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured
that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda
and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were
assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the
security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true.

The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States
understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it.

But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the recent past, by which
I mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. I believe it
is obligatory upon us to subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny,
which is all that time will allow here.

Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the
post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression
of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.

But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially
recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all.
I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world
stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the
United States' actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte
blanche to do what it liked.

Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's favoured method. In the
main, it has preferred what it has described as 'low intensity conflict'. Low intensity conflict
means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell
swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth
and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued – or beaten to death – the
same thing – and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit comfortably
in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace
in US foreign policy in the years to which I refer.

The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a potent
example of America's view of its role in the world, both then and now.

I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.

The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their
campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of
Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader
of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself).
Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners
built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a
Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the
cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner.
They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this
shocking terrorist activity.'

Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man.
He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some
gravity. 'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.'
There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.

Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.

Finally somebody said: 'But in this case “innocent people” were the victims of a gruesome
atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more
money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government
not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?'

Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,'
he said.

As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my plays.
I did not reply.

I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement: 'The Contras
are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.'

The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years.
The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking
popular revolution.

The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political
philosophy contained a number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational
and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty
was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the
dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite
remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free
education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third.
Polio was eradicated.

The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the
US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic
norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care
and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would
ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance
to the status quo in El Salvador.

I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described
Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by
the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death
squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of
systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were
in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian
dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought
down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over
200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.

Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American
University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning,
Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It
is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they
believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified
them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless
plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.

The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable
resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of
the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back
into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance.
'Democracy' had prevailed.

But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the
world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.

The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in
the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil,
Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala,
El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can
never be purged and can never be forgiven.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And
are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and
they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It
didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant,
vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to
America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a
force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

I put to you that the United States is without doubt the
greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may
be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most
saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all American presidents
on television say the words, 'the American people', as in the sentence, 'I
say to the American people it is time to pray and to defend the rights of
the American people and I ask the American people to trust their president
in the action he is about to take on behalf of the American people.'

It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words
'the American people' provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think.
Just lie back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence and your critical
faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not apply of course to the 40 million people
living below the poverty line and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of
prisons, which extends across the US.

The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in
being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite
simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent,
which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging
behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain.

What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do
they refer to a term very rarely employed these days – conscience? A conscience to do not only
with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this
dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years,
with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate
structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly
thought about by what's called the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being
committed by a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'. Do we
think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop
up occasionally – a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man's land from
which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed,
including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or
anaesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is
torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British
Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to
criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with
us or against us. So Blair shuts up.

The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute
contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action
inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of
the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle
East masquerading – as a last resort – all other justifications having failed to justify
themselves – as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the
death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder,
misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy
to the Middle East'.

How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and
a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is
just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice.
But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice.
Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock
Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and
is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're
interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.

Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back
burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq
insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank.
They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,' said the American
general Tommy Franks.

Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British
newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. 'A grateful child,'
said the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page,
of another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He
was the only survivor. 'When do I get my arms back?' he asked. The story was dropped.
Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated
child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and
tie when you're making a sincere speech on television.

The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in
the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds,
some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different
kinds of graves.

[.... portion of text excised]


I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on
the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum
dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of
land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources.

The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries,
with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but
they are there all right.

The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on
hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems
of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace
their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me?
Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity – the possession
and threatened use of nuclear weapons – is at the heart of present American political philosophy.
We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no
sign of relaxing it.

Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened,
shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent
political force – yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in
the United States is unlikely to diminish.

I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer
for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the
nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling,
sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man's man.

'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God.
Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We
don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am
the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society.
We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation.
I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess
moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority.
And don't you forget it.'

Scripted Questions and Troop Strength

After finding out that the soldiers were coached before asking questions of Pres. Bush -- is it any wonder we are skeptical about the “round table discussion” Veep Cheney had during his surprise visit to Iraq?
(I always thought the round table meant a meeting of equals – this must be a new usage.)
From the AP –

Facing tough questions from battle-weary troops, Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday cited signs of progress in Iraq and signaled that force changes could come in 2006.

By definition, I think even scripted questions can be “tough.”

…. Cpl. R.P. Zapella, asked, "Sir, what are the benefits of doing all this work to get Iraq on its feet?"
Cheney said the result could be a democratically elected Iraq that is unified, capable of defending itself and no longer a base for terrorists or a threat to its neighbors. "We believe all that's possible," he said.

Although another, and maybe even more probable, is an Islamic Theocracy.

Although he said that any decision about troop levels will be made by military commanders, Cheney told the troops, "I think you will see changes in our deployment patterns probably within this next year."

Read the entire post HERE:

The argument over whether the United States committed enough troops to the mission in Iraq began even before the March 2003 invasion.
Prior to the war, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, said publicly that he thought the invasion plan lacked sufficient manpower, and he was slapped down by the Pentagon's civilian leadership for saying so. During the war, concerns about troop strength expressed by retired generals also provoked angry denunciations by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Read the Full story HERE:
So it is the “suits” vs the “uniforms.” The Neo-Con hawks who never served in any branch of the military are dictating logistics to 4-star generals, and “disciplining” them if they complain.

Adding Pictures

For some reason, I'm not able to add pictures, and I'd like a regular feature of this blog to be reproductions of great political cartoons.

"Could not connect to Blogger.com. Saving and publishing may fail. Test connection now"

Yes, I've read the directions and followed the orders. I'll just have to try to troubleshoot this one.

--Cosmo

Speaking For Ourselves

This new Blog is a place where NeoLiberals can speak for themselves. We don't have to stand still while opponents define us to the rest of the world.

A NeoLiberal finds that there are problems both with conservatives and liberals. And that there isn't that much difference between them.

The NeoConservative is not a conservative. He believes in government expansion, government spending, high deficits, foreign incursions and interventions, and most of the things that conservatives traditionally have embraced.

A NeoLiberal is not a liberal in the traditional sense. Although, like neocons, there is a variety of beliefs among neolibs, the movement accepts some things from each end of the spectrum and rejects things from each end of the spectrum.

The most dificult thing to do is to imaging a 2-dimensional representation. Rightwing-Leftwing has been the traditional way of thinking of the political spectrum. The matrix developed and implemented by the Political Compass people is more accurate.

www.politicalcompass.org/

It's interesting to take the 6-page multiple choice questionnaire and see where you are plotted on the Matrix. Even more interesting is to compare your rating with famous figures in history -- from Hitler to Gandhi.

What Is A Neo-Liberal?

FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism refers to a political-economic philosophy that has had major implications for government policies beginning in the 1970s – and increasingly prominent since 1980 – that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the economy , focusing instead on structured free-market methods, and fewer restrictions on business operations and that the most important class of rights to expand are those of property enforcement, and of opening nations to entry by multinational corporations. In a broader sense it is used to describe the movement towards using the market to achieve a wide range of social ends previously filled by government.

It opposes protectionism, social democracy and socialism. It is often at odds with fair trade and other movements that argue that labor rights and social justice should have a greater priority in international relations and economics.

Many liberals consider that "neoliberalism" is just a straw man, an artificial concept created to cover several contradictory views from liberalism to conservatism, in order to form a common opposition of many socialist, nationalist and other groups that have very different ideologies. While liberalism is a philosophy defined by liberals, "neoliberalism" is an ideology defined and used by "its" antagonists, while one can hardly find people who speak of themselves as "neoliberals". Moreover, most texts on neoliberalism, including most of this article, is written by the antagonists or by people whose knowledge on "neoliberalism" is based by texts written by the antagonists. Some, not all, of the people mentioned in this article consider themselves as liberals, hardly any as "neoliberals".