Politics

This is from a Mel Gibson interview with Playboy magazine in the July 1995 issue. I haven’t verified it myself, though I’ve found consistent excerpts (though they could all have an identical bogus source). The positions taken are quite plausibly attributed to Gibson, though I’m surprised at his foul mouth. On evolution: PLAYBOY: Do you believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution or that God created man in his image? GIBSON: The latter. PLAYBOY: So you can’t accept that we descended from monkeys and apes? GIBSON: No, I think it’s bullshit. If it isn’t, why are they still around? How come apes aren’t people yet? It’s a nice theory, but I can’t swallow it. There’s a big credibility gap. The carbon dating thing that tells you how long something’s been around, how accurate is that, really? I’ve got one of Darwin’s books at home and some of that stuff is pretty damn funny. Some of his stuff is true, like that the giraffe has a long neck so it can reach the leaves. But I just don’t think you can swallow the whole piece. Why does anyone think his first point is a good argument against evolution? I’ve never heard anyone argue that Italian-Americans couldn’t have come from Italy because there are still Italians there. And I wonder what book by Darwin he has. On assorted moral issues: PLAYBOY: We take it that you’re not particularly broad-minded when it comes to issues such as celibacy, abortion, birth control. GIBSON: People always focus on stuff like that. Those aren’t issues. Those are unquestionable. You don’t even argue those points. PLAYBOY: You don’t? GIBSON: No.On women: PLAYBOY: What about allowing women to be priests? GIBSON: No. PLAYBOY: Why not? GIBSON: I’ll get kicked around for saying it, but men and women are just different. They’re not equal. The same way that you and I are not equal. PLAYBOY: That’s true. You have more money. GIBSON: You might be more intelligent, or you might have a bigger dick. Whatever it is, nobody’s equal. And men and women are not equal. I have tremendous respect for women. I love them. I don’t know why they want to step down. Women in my family are the center of things. And good things emanate from them. The guys usually mess up. PLAYBOY: That’s quite a generalization. GIBSON: Women are just different. Their sensibilities are different. PLAYBOY: Any examples? GIBSON: I had a female business partner once. Didn’t work. PLAYBOY: Why not? GIBSON: She was a cunt. PLAYBOY: And the feminists dare to put you down! GIBSON: Feminists don’t like me, and I don’t like them. I don’t get their point. I don’t know why feminists have it out for me, but that’s their problem, not mine.Interesting that he thinks a woman being a priest would be “a step down.” From many occupations, I’d agree. Gibson on political conspiracy theory: PLAYBOY: How do you feel about Bill Clinton? GIBSON: He’s a low-level opportunist. Somebody’s telling him what to do. PLAYBOY: Who? GIBSON: The guy who’s in charge isn’t going to be the front man, ever. If I were going to be calling the shots I wouldn’t make an appearance. Would you? You’d end up losing your head. It happens all the time. All those monarchs. If he’s the leader, he’s getting shafted. What’s keeping him in there? Why would you stay for that kind of abuse? Except that he has to stay for some reason. He was meant to be the president 30 years ago, if you ask me. PLAYBOY: He was just 18 then. GIBSON: Somebody knew then that he would be president now. PLAYBOY: You really believe that? GIBSON: I really believe that. He was a Rhodes scholar, right? Just like Bob Hawke. Do you know what a Rhodes scholar is? Cecil Rhodes established the Rhodes scholarship for those young men and women who want to strive for a new world order. Have you heard that before? George Bush? CIA? Really, it’s Marxism, but it just doesn’t want to call itself that. Karl had the right idea, but he was too forward about saying what it was. Get power but don’t admit to it. Do it by stealth. There’s a whole trend of Rhodes scholars who will be politicians around the world. PLAYBOY: This certainly sounds like a paranoid sense of world history. You must be quite an assassination buff. GIBSON: Oh, fuck. A lot of those guys pulled a boner. There’s something to do with the Federal Reserve that Lincoln did, Kennedy did and Reagan tried. I can’t remember what it was, my dad told me about it. Everyone who did this particular thing that would have fixed the economy got undone. Anyway, I’ll end up dead if I keep talking shit. (Note added 30 December: I’ve heard from several people who have now verified the accuracy of these quotations.) ...

Howard Kurtz writes in yesterday’s Washington Post that Bush has been attempting (without success in a few notable recent instances) to suppress stories about CIA prisons and wiretapping. In the same article, he reports that Doug Bandow accepted payments of as much as $2,000 a story for pieces favorable to lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s clients. He has resigned from the Cato Institute in the wake of the story, exposed by Business Week, issuing a statement that “I am fully responsible and I won’t play victim … Obviously, I regret stupidly calling to question my record of activism and writing that extends over 20 years. . . . For that I deeply apologize." Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation is unapologetic about accepting similar payments; Jonathan Adler of the National Review reports that he was offered similar payments when he worked at a think tank but declined them. It’s more evidence that think tank output tends to be generated by starting with paid-for conclusions and generating arguments and selecting evidence to support them–similar to Feith’s selection of intelligence information to support the invasion of Iraq. Think tanks supported by particular interests simply aren’t a good way of getting objective information. More examples in Kurtz’s piece.

As quoted in the Miami Herald: The Watchdog Report asked a follow-up question: Does the governor believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution? Bush said: ``Yeah, but I don’t think it should actually be part of the curriculum, to be honest with you. And people have different points of view and they can be discussed at school, but it does not need to be in the curriculum.’’ There’s no word on whether this opinion is backed by the Mystical Warrior Chang. It is surprising that he says he believes in it. ...

Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth (in his sixth term, if you can believe it) has come out near the top of legislators who have received campaign contributions from “Indian tribes and others connected with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff." I actually agree with Hayworth that he should feel under no obligation to return donations from the tribes, and I agree with many of the stances he has taken supporting them, especially with regard to the case of Cobell v. Norton. This is a case that has been going on since 1996 (with underlying issues going back to the 19th century), when Elouise Cobell of the Blackfeet Nation of Montana filed a federal lawsuit to get a proper accounting of what the Department of Interior (DOI) has been doing with funds collected from leases of land held in trust for American Indians. In the course of the lawsuit, it has been found that the DOI intentionally destroyed records (and allowed others to be destroyed by the elements) and covered it up, did not maintain records with proper security (which led to DOI websites being removed from the Internet as a result of an injunction). On the other hand, Hayworth has held multiple fundraisers in sports stadium skyboxes owned by Abramoff, the value of which he failed to report to the Federal Election Commission, for which he refunded money to two tribes and filed amended FEC reports. If specific evidence of other failings along these lines–or of actual bribe-taking–is found, Hayworth should be nailed to the wall. The fact that he has had extensive involvement with Abramoff is itself reason to scrutinize his dealings carefully, as it’s a sign that he is either a poor judge of character or doesn’t care about who he associates with (it could be either, since he isn’t the sharpest blade in the drawer and is one of the biggest blowhards in Congress). When Hayworth first ran for Congress, he signed up for a dialup account at Primenet, the Arizona ISP where I worked at the time. His campaign manager said that if he won the election, he would be sure to remain a Primenet customer for quite some time. Shortly after his election, the account was cancelled.

It is possible to preload a memory card with negative votes that are not recognized by the machine, but which affect the final outcome in an undetectible manner. In the test described in a Wired article, a mock vote was held on the question of whether Diebold machines could be hacked, with eight votes. The eight votes fed into the machines (via optically scanned paper ballots) were six “no” votes and two “yes” votes. The outcome recorded on the rigged card was one “no” and seven “yes”–the memory card was preloaded with -5 “no” votes and 5 “yes” votes. By balancing out the preloaded votes (with a sum of zero), the final record showed an accurate number of votes, but not an accurate record of what the votes were. Further flaws indicate that the Diebold machines execute code residing on the memory cards, without doing checks on the content of that code which are required by Federal Elections Commission standards. As a result of the hacking demonstrations by Finnish security expert Harri Hurst in Florida on December 13, Leon and Volusia counties in Florida have cancelled their contracts with Diebold. Much more at blackboxvoting.org.

In the UK, the Law Lords ruled early this month that evidence obtained by torture is inadmissible in court, including evidence obtained by foreign governments (such as the United States) through the use of torture–and the burden of proof that the evidence was not obtained by torture falls upon the government. Lord Bingham stated, “The English common law has regarded torture and its fruits with abhorrence for over 500 years … I am startled, even a little dismayed, at the suggestion…that this deeply rooted tradition and an international obligation solemnly and explicitly undertaken can be overridden by a statute.” The panel of seven judges was unanimous in its ruling that the evidence of torture was inadmissible, but divided on the standard the government must overcome to demonstrate the evidence was not admitted by torture once a defendant produces a “plausible reason” to think that it was. Three of the judges (including Lord Bingham) argued for a standard that the government show “no real risk” of basis on torture, the other four that the government show it “on the balance of probabilities." In the United States, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have argued strongly against any restrictions on the use of torture by the United States, while at the same time claiming that the United States does not use torture. While Bush has recently and reluctantly agreed to support the McCain amendment on torture, that amendment states that “No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.” Ten classified pages have just been added to that manual, leading some to suggest that this has created a way around the McCain amendment. Fortunately, however, the McCain amendment goes on to say that “No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” It defines “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” as “the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984." But there seems little question that Bush and Cheney want to push the limits as far as they possibly can.

Jim Romenesko at Poynter Forums posts an incisive article on how the Fox News Channel has been pushing this phony “War on Christmas” idea as a method of division. The article is apparently by Charlie Reina, a former Fox News Channel producer. A couple key paragraphs: Fox anchors will tell you that no one in management dictates that they bring up religion. But my experience at FNC is that, once management makes its views known, the anchors have a clear blueprint of what’s expected of them. In this case, the point man is network vice president John Moody. A scholar and biographer of Pope John Paul II, John is a devout Catholic who seldom holds back on matters of the church, or in framing his views in “good guy, bad guy” terms. For example, during the 2001 Senate hearings on John Ashcroft’s appointment as Attorney General, Moody’s daily memos to the staff repeatedly touted Ashcroft as “deeply religious” and the victim of Democrats’ intolerance. One memo suggested a question of the day: “Can a man of deep Christian faith be appointed to a federal job, or will his views be equated with racism, intolerance and mean-spiritedness?” He added: “(K)eep pounding at the question: should Ashcroft’s detractors try to be as tolerant as they would have him be?”Then there’s Fox management’s view on the separation of church and state, and on those who support it. One not-so-subtle hint came in March, 2004, after a Baghdad bombing gave reporters at a hotel in the Iraqi capital a scare. Moody’s memo that day advised FNC staffers to “offer a prayer of thanks for their safety to whatever God you revere (and let the ACLU stick it where the sun don’t shine).” Not mentioned is that the book The War on Christmas is by Fox News “Big Story” host John Gibson, or the multiple fabrications by Fox’s Bill O’Reilly. (Update on the latter: Plano schools are getting some press over their response to O’Reilly’s fabricated claim that they banned students from wearing Christmas colors.)

I’ve been reading James Bovard’s book, The Bush Betrayal, which makes an overwhelmingly strong case that George W. Bush is not only a terrible president by liberal standards, but by conservative or libertarian ones (Bovard falls into the libertarian camp). The book is 278 pages of text followed by 43 pages of end notes (which, unfortunately, are mostly references to secondary sources) documenting Bush impropriety, dishonesty, and bad decisions regarding civil liberties, free trade, education, farm subsidies, Medicare, the war on drugs, and in war. I just finished reading the chapter titled “Spending as Caring,” which has a section on the expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs in 2003 (pp. 121-126), which the Bush administration estimated would cost $400 billion in its first decade (and the Congressional Budget Office estimated would cost $2 trillion in its second decade). The initial vote took place at 3 a.m. on November 23, 2003, and lost by two votes. The Republicans violated House rules, which limit votes to 30 minutes, with the longest floor vote in House history. The voting finished at 6 a.m., with two Republicans changing their votes to yes and passing the bill. Rep. Nick Smith (R-Michigan) was a Republican Congressman who opposed the bill and came under intense pressure to change his vote. Smith, who was in his last term and whose son was running for his seat, was told (according to Robert Novak–not a source I’d ordinarily rely upon) “business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father’s vote.” He declined, at which time “fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat.” Fortunately, Cunningham is now out of office after confessing to taking millions of dollars in bribes. A month after Bush signed the bill, Josh Bolton, Bush’s budget director, raised the estimate of the first decade’s cost to $540 billion. As it turned out, the Bush admnistration had known since June 2003 that the cost was higher than $400 billion, from an estimate by Richard S. Foster, the top actuary at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Democratic staffers had contacted Foster asking for an estimate, which he was legally required to provide, but Thomas Scully, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, reportedly threatened to fire Foster if he provided the information. Foster later said that “there was a pattern of withholding information for what I perceived to be political purposes.” Why was this information suppressed? Because 13 conservative House members had vowed to vote against any bill costing more than $400 billion–they were deceived by the Bush administration. Eighteen Democratic Senators requested the General Accounting Office to investigate whether any laws were violated (specifically a law that prohibits paying federal funds for the salary of any official who “prohibits or prevents, or threatens to prohibit or prevent” another employee from communicating with Congress). House Republicans blocked an effort to have Scully and White House aide Doug Badger testify before a congressional committee on this issue. The Congressional Research Service published a legal analysis which concluded that “such ‘gag orders’ have been expressly prohibited by federal law since 1912.” This position was backed by a 1927 Supreme Court ruling on that law which stated that a “legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information regarding conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change." But the worst part about all of this deception is that the program itself is mostly a handout to people who don’t need it. The Medicare prescription drug benefit helps wealthy elderly, corporations, and insurance companies more than elderly without insurance coverage. This change in the law brought the date of Medicare insolvency from 2026 to 2019, and is projected to cost up to $7 trillion over the next 75 years. After the bill passed, the Bush administration then spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising to promote the law, including “video news releases” by fake reporters which the GAO determined in March 2004 were illegal “covert propaganda” with “notable omissions and weaknesses” and were “not strictly factual news stories." The above gives a small sampling of the content of Bovard’s book (though not his exact words, I’ve summarized), which is packed with equally damning criticism of the Bush administration. BTW, Capitol Hill Blue (an often criticized source, yet which seems to often be quite accurate) claims reports from three witnesses that George W. Bush said, in response to criticisms of the USA PATRIOT reauthorization act, “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” (Hat tip to Scott Peterson from the SKEPTIC list.) ...

The Senate roll call vote is here. Unless a reauthorization passes, various provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act set to expire after three years will expire on December 31, 2005. These provisions include roving wiretaps, the ability to obtain certain kinds of business records without a court order, expansion of wiretap capabilities, certain kinds of sharing between agencies of information obtained via wiretap, etc. The specific details of what was in the Senate bill and the corresponding House bill may be found here (PDF). Some of the pieces of these bills were beneficial, e.g., placing a sunset provision on the use of National Security Letters, which predated USA PATRIOT and which do not currently have an expiration date. Others extended provisions due to sunset on December 31, 2005 to 2006 or later years. (The ACLU has a lawsuit against the constitutionality of National Security Letters.) The vote was 52-47; 60 votes were needed to end the filibuster. 2 Democrats and 50 Republicans voted yes, 41 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and one independent voted no. Arizona: McCain and Kyl both voted yes. UPDATE (March 25, 2007): The link for the ACLU’s lawsuit on National Security Letters is stale, you can now find that information here. ...

News is now out that the Bush administration, in 2002, authorized the National Security Agency to conduct eavesdropping (on international email or phone calls) against U.S. citizens without court oversight. The NSA’s domestic surveillance is supposed to be limited to foreign embassies and missions, and to require court approval. This is not a power granted to the president by the U.S. Constitution. This abuse of power has apparently been exercised against as many as 500 people in the U.S. at any given time. The NY Times reports that some NSA officials, to their credit, refused to participate due to their concerns about the legality of the program. Note that the standards which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court uses to approve wiretaps are already incredibly low (their decision algorithm is pretty close to “say yes to everything”), but apparently that was considered too great a barrier and it had to be bypassed. Approval of torture, secret CIA prisons in Europe, kidnapping citizens of other countries and taking them to Afghanistan… apparently the Bush administration has no respect for the U.S. Constitution on the principles behind it. ...