Today's melt-down anniversary confirms nuke revival as a form of Three Mile Island Insanity
Today's twenty-seventh anniversary of the disaster at Three Mile Island finds the nuclear industry pushing yet another lunatic attempt to revive atomic energy.
This periodic outbreak of industry-financed insanity usually precedes a major disaster, and always reflects a cynical denial of basic economic, public health and ecological reality. This year it also indicates a complete unwillingness to face the fact that renewable energy---especially wind power---has long ago left atomic energy in the radioactive dust.
At 4am on March 28, 1979, an "impossible" series of errors at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island Unit Two---which had opened exactly three months earlier---turned a $900 million investment into a $2 billion liability. The plant's owners lied repeatedly about the seriousness of the accident and its emissions. Escaping radiation poured into the surrounding countryside, quickly killing thousands of birds and insects. A plague of death, disease, malformation, stillbirth and spontaneous abortion followed among a host of nearby farm animals.
This periodic outbreak of industry-financed insanity usually precedes a major disaster, and always reflects a cynical denial of basic economic, public health and ecological reality. This year it also indicates a complete unwillingness to face the fact that renewable energy---especially wind power---has long ago left atomic energy in the radioactive dust.
At 4am on March 28, 1979, an "impossible" series of errors at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island Unit Two---which had opened exactly three months earlier---turned a $900 million investment into a $2 billion liability. The plant's owners lied repeatedly about the seriousness of the accident and its emissions. Escaping radiation poured into the surrounding countryside, quickly killing thousands of birds and insects. A plague of death, disease, malformation, stillbirth and spontaneous abortion followed among a host of nearby farm animals.
Blaming the media for bad war news
Top officials in the Bush administration have often complained that
news coverage of Iraq focuses on negative events too much and fails
to devote enough attention to positive developments. Yet the White
House has rarely picked direct fights with U.S. media outlets during
this war. For the most part, President Bush leaves it to others to
scapegoat the media.
Karl Rove’s spin strategy is heavily reliant on surrogates. They’re likely to escalate blame-the-media efforts as this year goes on.
A revealing moment -- dramatizing the pro-war division of labor -- came on March 22, during Bush’s nationally televised appearance in Wheeling, West Virginia. On the surface, the format resembled a town hall, but the orchestration was closer to war rally. (According to White House spokesperson Scott McClellan, the local Chamber of Commerce had distributed 2,000 tickets while a newspaper in the community gave out 100.) It fell to a woman who identified herself as being from Columbus, Ohio, to give the Wheeling event an anti-media jolt.
Karl Rove’s spin strategy is heavily reliant on surrogates. They’re likely to escalate blame-the-media efforts as this year goes on.
A revealing moment -- dramatizing the pro-war division of labor -- came on March 22, during Bush’s nationally televised appearance in Wheeling, West Virginia. On the surface, the format resembled a town hall, but the orchestration was closer to war rally. (According to White House spokesperson Scott McClellan, the local Chamber of Commerce had distributed 2,000 tickets while a newspaper in the community gave out 100.) It fell to a woman who identified herself as being from Columbus, Ohio, to give the Wheeling event an anti-media jolt.
Bush makes Iraq the vital reason for his impeachment and removal
George W. Bush has clarified the most vital reason why he must be impeached and removed from office as soon as possible: the slaughter in Iraq, and his clear statement that it will not end while he is in the White House.
Bush has made his departure the light at the end of the tunnel.
If he stays, more killing is inevitable. If he goes, a quicker end to the war is not certain, but it is more likely. Nobody expects Dick Cheney to pull out of Iraq if he succeeds Bush. But a successful impeachment and removal will reshape all American politics, and open up the possibilities.
Bush's escalating unpopularity has moved impeachment talk out of the margins, toward the mainstream. Increasingly worried GOP hacks portray it as an attack on Bush's ability to protect the country, and on our soldiers.
But polls now show a majority of US troops in Iraq say the war should end in 2006, not 2009. More than 80% of the Iraqi people want the US out now.
By pledging to prolong the slaughter, Bush endangers both our troops and our national security.
Bush has made his departure the light at the end of the tunnel.
If he stays, more killing is inevitable. If he goes, a quicker end to the war is not certain, but it is more likely. Nobody expects Dick Cheney to pull out of Iraq if he succeeds Bush. But a successful impeachment and removal will reshape all American politics, and open up the possibilities.
Bush's escalating unpopularity has moved impeachment talk out of the margins, toward the mainstream. Increasingly worried GOP hacks portray it as an attack on Bush's ability to protect the country, and on our soldiers.
But polls now show a majority of US troops in Iraq say the war should end in 2006, not 2009. More than 80% of the Iraqi people want the US out now.
By pledging to prolong the slaughter, Bush endangers both our troops and our national security.
The definition of insanity
"We have a responsibility to promote human freedom. Yet freedom cannot be imposed; it must be chosen."
The more I ponder these words, the deeper my confusion grows - at the consciousness that confabulated them, at the futility of any possible response. And so the war enters its fourth year, impervious to its own unpopularity, disabling critics with the irony it generates.
In the context of what can only be called worldwide despair, the Bush administration has issued a National Security Strategy white paper oblivious to the extent that it fits the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results each time.
The report's assemblers proudly announce to the nation that they have learned nothing, hoisting one more time the flag of pre-emption, as though no one will notice how tattered and blood-stained it is: ". . . we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."
The more I ponder these words, the deeper my confusion grows - at the consciousness that confabulated them, at the futility of any possible response. And so the war enters its fourth year, impervious to its own unpopularity, disabling critics with the irony it generates.
In the context of what can only be called worldwide despair, the Bush administration has issued a National Security Strategy white paper oblivious to the extent that it fits the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results each time.
The report's assemblers proudly announce to the nation that they have learned nothing, hoisting one more time the flag of pre-emption, as though no one will notice how tattered and blood-stained it is: ". . . we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."
Newspaper suicide
AUSTIN, Texas -- I don't so much mind that newspapers are dying -- it's watching them commit suicide that pisses me off.
Let's use this as a handy exercise in journalism. What is the unexamined assumption here? That the newspaper business is dying. Is it? In 2005, publicly traded U.S. newspaper publishers reported operating profit margins of 19.2 percent, down from 21 percent in 2004, according to The Wall Street Journal. That ain't chopped liver -- it's more than double the average operating profit margin of the Fortune 500.
Let's use this as a handy exercise in journalism. What is the unexamined assumption here? That the newspaper business is dying. Is it? In 2005, publicly traded U.S. newspaper publishers reported operating profit margins of 19.2 percent, down from 21 percent in 2004, according to The Wall Street Journal. That ain't chopped liver -- it's more than double the average operating profit margin of the Fortune 500.
Americans call Bush "Incompetent, Idiot, Liar"
America has spoken, and for George W. Bush, it's not pretty. Asked to use one-word answers to describe how they felt about the president, an astounding 48%--virtually half the country--said "incompetent," "idiot," and "liar." The Pew Research Center survey released this week shows a stark contrast to how Americans answered the same question three years ago, when positive one-word descriptions of Bush, such as "honest" and "integrity," far outnumbered negative ones. In the current poll, only 28% used positive words. And previously used superlatives like "excellent" or "great" were virtually non-existent.
The survey casts Bush's overall approval rating at a pathetic 33%. With a few more dead soldiers and a civil war in Iraq, combined with a couple of more political blunders like Harriet Miers, the ports deal and illegal NSA wiretappings, the president just might find himself facing single digits in the not-too-distant future.
Other highlights of the survey include:
-Only 42% now approve of Bush's job in handling terrorist threats, an 11-point drop since February.
-Only 73% of Republicans approve of Bush, down from 89% in January 2005.
The survey casts Bush's overall approval rating at a pathetic 33%. With a few more dead soldiers and a civil war in Iraq, combined with a couple of more political blunders like Harriet Miers, the ports deal and illegal NSA wiretappings, the president just might find himself facing single digits in the not-too-distant future.
Other highlights of the survey include:
-Only 42% now approve of Bush's job in handling terrorist threats, an 11-point drop since February.
-Only 73% of Republicans approve of Bush, down from 89% in January 2005.
Domestic lying: The question that journalists don’t ask Bush
With great fanfare the other day, Oprah Winfrey asked James Frey a
question that mainstream journalists refuse to ask George W. Bush:
“Why would you lie?”
Many pundits and news outlets have chortled at the televised unmasking of Frey as a liar. The reverberations have spanned from schlock media to highbrow outlets. On Friday, the PBS “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” devoted an entire segment to what happened. The New York Times supplemented its page-one coverage with an editorial that concluded “Ms. Winfrey gave the audience, including us, what it was hoping for: a demand to hear the truth.”
A key reality of the National Security Agency spying story is: President Bush lied. But routinely missing from media coverage is a demand to hear the truth.
Many pundits and news outlets have chortled at the televised unmasking of Frey as a liar. The reverberations have spanned from schlock media to highbrow outlets. On Friday, the PBS “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” devoted an entire segment to what happened. The New York Times supplemented its page-one coverage with an editorial that concluded “Ms. Winfrey gave the audience, including us, what it was hoping for: a demand to hear the truth.”
A key reality of the National Security Agency spying story is: President Bush lied. But routinely missing from media coverage is a demand to hear the truth.
Harman vs. Winograd, tough choice?
For the past 10 months I've worked on a project at www.afterdowningstreet.org to urge Congress Members to hold the Bush Administration accountable for crimes and abuses of power. Some Democratic members of Congress have been as helpful in this effort as Fox News. Some have been less. In that last category you can list Jane Harman.
When Congressman John Conyers wrote a letter to Bush asking him to explain the Downing Street Memo, and 120 Congress Members signed it, Harman didn't. When Barbara Lee introduced a Resolution of Inquiry into the Downing Street Memo, and over 100 Members co-sponsored it, Harman didn't. Kucinich's Resolution of Inquiry into the White House Iraq Group? No Jane. Holt's inquiry into the Plame leak? Uh-uh. Barbara Lee's commission on pre-war intelligence? Not Harman. Lee's commission to monitor the treatment of prisoners in US custody? Jane was elsewhere.
When Congressman John Conyers wrote a letter to Bush asking him to explain the Downing Street Memo, and 120 Congress Members signed it, Harman didn't. When Barbara Lee introduced a Resolution of Inquiry into the Downing Street Memo, and over 100 Members co-sponsored it, Harman didn't. Kucinich's Resolution of Inquiry into the White House Iraq Group? No Jane. Holt's inquiry into the Plame leak? Uh-uh. Barbara Lee's commission on pre-war intelligence? Not Harman. Lee's commission to monitor the treatment of prisoners in US custody? Jane was elsewhere.
Homeland dreamland
If you have not yet seen the film "Occupation Dreamland," I highly recommend it. Co-Director Garrett Scott died on March 2, but he truly accomplished something before he left.
http://www.occupationdreamland.com
Those who oppose the Iraq War often struggle with the fact that so many U.S. soldiers are willing to participate in it, are willing to attack someone else's country, raid their houses, shoot at their cars, melt the skin off their children with white phosphorous. Why, it's easy to wonder, don't more soldiers do what a brave few have and refuse to fight?
This film of seven U.S. soldiers stationed in Falluja before its destruction does absolutely nothing to convince us that the war is any less of a crime than we've supposed. In fact, it will convince many of that criminality who've doubted it. But this film shows us a glimpse of the complex, fragile, and suffering minds of the U.S. soldiers we've sent over there.
Those who oppose the Iraq War often struggle with the fact that so many U.S. soldiers are willing to participate in it, are willing to attack someone else's country, raid their houses, shoot at their cars, melt the skin off their children with white phosphorous. Why, it's easy to wonder, don't more soldiers do what a brave few have and refuse to fight?
This film of seven U.S. soldiers stationed in Falluja before its destruction does absolutely nothing to convince us that the war is any less of a crime than we've supposed. In fact, it will convince many of that criminality who've doubted it. But this film shows us a glimpse of the complex, fragile, and suffering minds of the U.S. soldiers we've sent over there.
War-loving pundits
The third anniversary of the Iraq invasion is bound to attract a lot
of media coverage, but scant recognition will go to the pundits who
helped to make it all possible.
Continuing with long service to the Bush administration’s agenda-setting for war, prominent media commentators were very busy in the weeks before the invasion. At the Washington Post, the op-ed page’s fervor hit a new peak on Feb. 6, 2003, the day after Colin Powell’s mendacious speech to the U.N. Security Council.
Post columnist Richard Cohen explained that Powell was utterly convincing. “The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them,” Cohen wrote. “Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise.”
Continuing with long service to the Bush administration’s agenda-setting for war, prominent media commentators were very busy in the weeks before the invasion. At the Washington Post, the op-ed page’s fervor hit a new peak on Feb. 6, 2003, the day after Colin Powell’s mendacious speech to the U.N. Security Council.
Post columnist Richard Cohen explained that Powell was utterly convincing. “The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them,” Cohen wrote. “Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise.”