$100 ticket for Bushit Bumper Sticker
An oncology nurse from Emory University Hospital here in DeKalb Country Georgia got a $100 Ticket for a bumpersticker that was described as “lewd.” The officer gave her a talk about patriotism, too.
All is said was
“NO MORE BUSHIT”
That’s just ridiculous. I have seen much worse than that!
Clearly she was pulled over and issued a ticket because of her politics. Not allowed.
She was even wearing her nurse’s uniform when she was pulled over.
Elaborating to The Progressive, Grier says people are wrong to view this in a partisan way.
“It’s not just a Democrat/Republican issue,†she says. “Y’all need to get beyond that. It’s my right to speak, and yours.â€
Gerry Weber, the legal director of the ACLU of Georgia, is representing Grier. “The indicators are that the officer didn’t like her views of President Bush and that was the motivating factor,†he says.
Weber says the ticketing was clearly illegal.
He says the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the “lewd bumpersticker†statute way back in 1991, in a case involving a defendant who had a “Shit Happens†bumpersticker.
Hiding Monetary Policy Now?
It has been standard modus operandi of this administration that when it doesn’t like the facts, it stops the flow of information. Here’s yet another example.
We all know that the government prints money, and regulates the amount it prints to help control some factors of our economy. Whatever your theories or ideas might be about the Federal Reserve, this is public information. We deserve to know.
A number called M3 exposes the full extent of the Federal Reserve money production. M3 currently shows that the money supply is exploding.
So – guess what? They’re going to stop reporting the M3 number starting March 23.
Fortunately, there’s a bill in Congress that would force the Fed to continue publishing M3. Please support this bill!
Click here http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=44 to tell Congress to pass H.R. 4892, the Sunshine in Monetary Policy Act.
Or simply call your Senators and Representative to register your support of this bill. This is one way you really can help.
We have to register the fact that we are aware of these attempts to withhold information from the American people.
Tracing Torture
Here is a brief excerpt from testimony that claims the authorization to use torture in Iraq came from pretty high up. Read the whole article at TomDispatch.com and Truthout.org.
“Tracing the Trail of Torture: Embedding Torture as Policy From Guantanamo to Iraq,” by Dahr Jamail
While President Bush has regularly claimed – as with reporters in Panama last November – that “we do not torture,” Janis Karpinski, the U.S. Brigadier General whose 800th Military Police Brigade was in charge of 17 prison facilities in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib back in 2003, begs to differ. She knows that we do torture and she believes that the President himself is most likely implicated in the decision to embed torture in basic war-on-terror policy.
While testifying this January 21 in New York City at the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration, Karpinski told us: “General [Ricardo] Sanchez [commander of coalition ground forces in Iraq] himself signed the eight-page memorandum authorizing literally a laundry list of harsher techniques in interrogations to include specific use of dogs and muzzled dogs with his specific permission.”
All this, as she reminded us, came after Major General Geoffrey Miller, who had been “specifically selected by the Secretary of Defense to go to Guantanamo Bay and run the interrogations operation,” was dispatched to Iraq by the Bush administration to “work with the military intelligence personnel to teach them new and improved interrogation techniques.”
Karpinski met Miller on his tour of American prison facilities in Iraq in the fall of 2003. Miller, as she related in her testimony, told her, “It is my opinion that you are treating the prisoners too well. At Guantanamo Bay, the prisoners know that we are in charge and they know that from the very beginning. You have to treat the prisoners like dogs. And if they think or feel any differently you have effectively lost control of the interrogation.”
Miller went on to tell Karpinksi in reference to Abu Ghraib, “We’re going to Gitmo-ize the operation.”
When she later asked for an explanation, Karpinski was told that the military police guarding the prisons were following the orders in a memorandum approving “harsher interrogation techniques,” and, according to Karpinski, “signed by the Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld.”
That one-page memorandum “authorized sleep deprivation, stress positions, meal disruption -serving their meals late, not serving a meal. Leaving the lights on all night while playing loud music, issuing insults or criticism of their religion, their culture, their beliefs.” In the left-hand margin, alongside the list of interrogation techniques to be applied, Rumsfeld had personally written, “Make sure this happens!!” Karpinski emphasized the fact that Rumsfeld had used two exclamation points.
When asked how far up the chain of command responsibility for the torture orders for Abu Ghraib went, Karpinski said, “The Secretary of Defense would not have authorized without the approval of the Vice President.”
Karpinski does not believe that the many investigations into Abu Ghraib have gotten to the truth about who is responsible for the torture and abuse because “they have all been directed and kept under the control of the Department of Defense. Secretary Rumsfeld was directing the course of each one of those separate investigations. There was no impartiality whatsoever.”
Does she believe the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib has stopped?
“I have no reason to believe that it has. I believe that cameras are no longer allowed anywhere near a cellblock. But why should I believe it’s stopped? We still have the captain from the 82nd airborne division [who] returned and had a diary, a log of when he was instructed, what he was instructed, where he was instructed, and who instructed him. To go out and treat the prisoners harshly, to set them up for effective interrogation, and that was recently as May of 2005.”
Karpinski was referring to Captain Ian Fishback, one of three American soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division at Forward Operating Base Mercury near Fallujah who personally witnessed the torture of Iraqi prisoners and came forward to give testimony to human rights organizations about the crimes committed.
Tiny Tooth Horror
It’s a matter of aesthetics. I simply find certain kinds of mouths repulsive. For me, it all has to do with the teeth.
The worst mouth? The one where you have to wonder whether or not there are any teeth at all. The person hardly ever lets you see them. I dislike the bulldog expression – the bottom teeth appear, but the top teeth do not. I dislike very small teeth – they look like corn on the cob.
If you add tension, smirking, and other strange manneristic muscular signals to the secret-teeth, bottom-teeth-only, or corn teeth, then I have a very primal sort of reaction.
It’s a kind of prejudice – it is certainly a preference. Back in the day when I was basically a serial monogamist, all of my boyfriend/lovers had medium-to-large white teeth (not that it matters here, but I am also partial to strong chins and warm expressive eyes). My husband shows his nice white teeth. My whole family has big white gleaming teeth. Maybe it’s a narcissistic tribal affiliation.
Perhaps it is a coincidence, but my Dad lost all his teeth when he was young. I had the most trouble relating with him when his dentures were rather small. Later, when he was older, the dentures were (or at least seemed) bigger, and he smiled more often (and more naturally). We got along better – but that was probably for other reasons altogether. Still – I wonder if this sort of thing could really be a subliminal/unconscious factor i our responses to others?
I don’t care about skin color or language or class or sexuality – but I just don’t like those scary little teeth set in those hard unfeeling mouths. In such a case I may have to admire him (usually it’s a him I mean) in spite of teeth capacity or expressive usage. Someone would have to be so brillant or witty or creative that I would overlook the scary teeth situation, like say… Anthony Hopkins.
I never realized this about myself until now. I know this is a really odd thing. I wonder if I am alone in feeling this way. Having realized this, I’ll have to be more conscious of it in my daily interactions with people. It may be unfair, maybe, may… be.
I like big clean white teeth that show up and make a strong appearance. Americans are known all over the world for our big white honest teeth. Sometimes the teeth may suggest some sort of aggression, like a tiger baring its teeth, but I still prefer that to the scary little teeth. I’m very welcoming to Mormons at the door despite having been a door-to-door cousin Jehovah’s Witness – for some reason they tend to have great teeth (and they are so wonderfully earnest).
Actually I think there are people who prefer the secret teeth, the corn on the cob, show-the-bottom-teeth like a bulldog kind of thing. Maybe they are equally repulsed by people who show their upper teeth. Maybe they are self-conscious about their own teeth. I can’t say that I have the answers on this.
Could there be a political divide – could teeth actually be a factor?
I started having wild thoughts about this. JFK and Jimmy Carter showed teeth. The Clintons have the teeth and so does Kerry. Hollywood people are, of course, big teeth-showers. I’m sometimes undecided about Ahhnold – I like his teeth – but I notice that he doesn’t show them much when he is around the President.
It seems like such a shallow sort of thing, but I wonder if there really are any perceptual differences or other psychological effects across populations based on tooth preferences. I have really gotten to dislike the white male republican kind of mouth. Here’s what I mean.
Nixon had a nice smile:
But is that how we remember him? No, here is the mouth I think of…
Bush is more attractive to me when he shows his teeth.
See? This is nice.
But here is how I see him in my mind’s eye:
It’s probably not a consistent thing. I’m sure there are lots of attractively-toothed Republicans and some scary little-toothed bulldog-underbited Democrats. Condi has a big toothy smile, but that one is a bit terrifying. Zell Miller looked like what he really was, a DINO. Joe Leiberman is borderline – smallish teeth but he shows them sometimes.
Still, here are a few examples of mouths with expressions that I find particularly unattractive.
Cheney
Rumsfeld
Rove
DeLay
Perdue (GA Gov)
Chambliss (GA Sen)
Man O man, show me thy teeth.
Port Questions – Et tu Dole?
It turns out that former Majority Leader and Presidential candidate Bob Dole was hired last year as a legal consultant by Dubai Ports World to shepherd the deal through, courtesy of Alston & Bird.
Wife Sen. Elizabeth Dole says that she is "deeply concerned" about operations at six U.S. ports being controlled by Dubai Ports World (owned, in case you somehow hadn’t heard, by the United Arab Emirates – AUE). Congrats on her "independence" – I guess.
I have several concerns and questions about this whole situation, so I thought I’d weigh in.
I object to any port operations run by non-Americans. This is a national security issue.
The deal would allow Dubai Ports World to operate ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. They have been operated by a British company until now – why has no-one objected to that? With that in mind, some of the objections now seem to be to be shadowed by a tinge of racism. That said, and I think it should be acknowledged that it is a possible factor…
Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of military operations in Iraq flows through two of the ports in question. Why isn’t this a matter for military logistics or Homeland Security? Has this always been a private concern? If so, why? If not, how long has it been this way and why are non-Americans in charge at our ports? If this isn’t illegal, it should be.
I thought our policy was to limit dealings with nations that support terrorism. This is actually a state-owned company. They may be allies in some ways, but they do have troubling involvement with international terrorism, including:
– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
Former CIA director Tenet told the 9/11 commission that the United States did not target Bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in February 1999 because he was meeting with the UAE royal family. What exactly are our ties here? Is there any connection to the royal family of Saudi Arabia that we’ve been protecting for so long?
It seems very suspicious to me that there are two White House ties on this. One is Treasury Secretary John Snow. The Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S (the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World – giving it control of Manhattan’s cruise ship terminal and Newark’s container port)and he was also chairman of the CSX railroad company that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left to join Bush’s cabinet. The other is David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. Conflict of interest, crony capitalism, anyone?
Of course, there is standard documentation of Presidential hypocrisy, this one from February 2004:
Part of doing our duty in the war on terror is to protect the homeland. That’s part of our solemn responsibility. And we are taking unprecedented steps to protect the homeland. In the 2005 budget, as the Secretary mentioned, we proposed increases in homeland security spending. And some of those increases are measures to protect our seaports. And that’s why I’ve come to this vital seaport, to remind people — to remind the American people, as they pay attention to the debates in the halls of Congress, that we have a solemn duty to protect our homeland, including the seaports of America.
Bush admits he had no knowledge of the deal before his administration approved it, but he has also threatened to veto any legislation from Congress to overturn the sale. Why didn’t he know? Why would he veto? What’s at stake here?
In a press briefing on the 21st Donald Rumsfeld also claimed ignorance of the deal, but as Secretary of Defense, he is a member of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States – who unanimously approved the sale on February 13. Huh?
Of course one must ask – how is Cheney involved in this? Here’s one connection – Halliburton has used an offshore subsidiary incorporated in the Cayman Islands (where the company has no oil and gas construction or engineering operations) to trade with Iran. Halliburton Products and Services, a Cayman islands firm headquartered in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, made over $39 million in 2003 (a $10 million increase from 2002) by selling oil-field services to customers in Iran. Offshore money laundering, trade with Iran, avoidance of America’s laws, presumably the usual Cayman Islands tax evasion… Is this just one clue to a much bigger picture? See also "All Roads Lead to Cheney" at Rense for information on a company called Prime Projects International Trading LLC (PPI). By the way, why is Halliburton still working for the US after ripping us off? Why was it awarded multiple no-bid contracts in the first place?
On CNN’s Late Edition (Feb. 19), Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff appeared, only to assert a right to government secrecy.
The discussions are classified. I can’t get into the specifics here…
Why is it ok for Chertoff to refuse to talk about any of this? How can it be "classified"? What information exactly could be entrusted to a foreign government but not shared with the American people?
So my larger question is – who gains from this deal? What is the back story? How could this be classified? It seems to me that this bears a fractal resemblence to numerous other situations this administration has been involved with – The Carlisle Group, Enron, etc.
Homeland Unsecured has a detailed report about how the Bush Administration’s ties to industry and hostility to regulation leave our country vulnerable by failing to secure the most vulnerable, high-impact targets in our country. The report is based on an analysis of five key areas – chemical plants, nuclear plants, hazardous material transport, ports and water systems. citizens who still manage to think that Bush is "strong on security" still haven’t gotten an accurate picture. His comfty appearance as a swaggering little-boy cowboy-wanna-be doesn’t have anything to do with the realities of his policies and priorities.
Some of the Repubicans, every watchful of re-election, are starting to listen to some of their constituents on these topics. What they won’t do for the right reasons, they might do for the wrong ones. I’m not sure how to feel about that exactly, but I do welcome any signs that there might be any no-saying to this increasingly fascistic, heartless war-for-profit administration.
As with many situations involving the Bush administration, we may never know the whole story.