The Guardian has an article on Oslo buses running on biogas - Flush hour: Oslo to run buses powered by biomethane from human sewage.

It is available for free in huge quantities, is not owned by Saudi Arabia and it contributes minimally towards climate change. The latest green fuel might seem like the dream answer to climate crisis, but until recently raw sewage has been seen as a waste disposal problem rather than a power source. Now Norway's capital city is proving that its citizens can contribute to the city's green credentials without even realising it.

In Oslo, air pollution from public and private transport has increased by approximately 10% since 2000, contributing to more than 50% of total CO2 emissions in the city. With Norway's ambitious target of being carbon neutral by 2050 Oslo City Council began investigating alternatives to fossil fuel-powered public transport and decided on biomethane.

Biomethane is a by-product of treated sewage. Microbes break down the raw material and release the gas, which can then be used in slightly modified engines. Previously at one of the sewage plants in the city half of the gas was flared off, emitting 17,00 tonnes of CO2. From September 2009, this gas will be trapped and converted into biomethane to run 200 of the city's public buses.

Project leader, Ole Jakob Johansen said: "The city of Oslo has great visions for Oslo as a green capital. Oslo aims to be one of the most environmentally sustainable capitals of the world. Using biomethane makes sense. Not only would the biomethane otherwise be wasted, but the reduction in emissions per bus will go a long way to achieving our carbon-neutral target. What's more, aside from the intial set-up costs, we expect to see an average saving of €0.40 per litre of fuel (based on an average diesel price of €0.67 per litre compared with biomethane at €0.27 per litre)".

The city's diesel public buses will only require minor modifications to their engines to run on methane, which is stored on tanks on top of the vehicles. The only noticeable difference will be how quietly they drive.

"Biogas is popular in Sweden, but they have very few vehicles powered by biomethane. We chose to focus on biomethane as this emits less carbon and is easier and cheaper to produce," said Johansen.

The net emissions from a biomethane operated bus are zero, because the carbon originally came from the atmosphere rather than fossil fuels, but electricity is used at the sewage plant to convert the gas from the waste into fuel for the buses. Oslo city council is taking the electricity used to generate the fuel into consideration and calculate that carbon emissions per bus are 18 tonnes per year, a saving of 44 tonnes of C02 per bus per year.

The city's two sewage plants have enough biomethane to provide fuel for the 80 buses, but if the trial is successful Oslo city council plans to convert all 400 of the public buses to run on biogas. The biogas will be created from a mixture of biomethane and biogas from the incineration of kitchen waste from the capital's restaurants and domestic kitchens. Eventually, the council hopes that cars will also be able to run on biogas sourced locally from biomethane and converted kitchen waste.

The SMH reports that Bush has only been out of office for a day, but talk has already started about bringing him and his minions to justice for the crimes they have committed over the past 8 years - Bush, Rumsfeld should be pursued for torture: UN rapporteur. I suspect they'll never get their just deserts, but hopefully they'll at least end up leading a Pinochet or Kissinger like existance, forever paranoid about leaving their home country.

The UN's special torture rapporteur called on the US Tuesday to pursue former president George W Bush and defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld for torture and bad treatment of Guantanamo prisoners. "Judicially speaking, the United States has a clear obligation" to bring proceedings against Bush and Rumsfeld, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak said, in remarks to be broadcast on Germany's ZDF television Tuesday evening.

He noted Washington had ratified the UN convention on torture which required "all means, particularly penal law" to be used to bring proceedings against those violating it. "We have all these documents that are now publicly available that prove that these methods of interrogation were intentionally ordered by Rumsfeld," against detainees at the US prison facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Nowak said. "But obviously the highest authorities in the United States were aware of this," added Nowak, who authored a UN investigation report on the Guantanamo prison. ...

Asked about chances to bring legal action against Bush and Rumsfeld, Nowak said: "In principle yes. I think the evidence is on the table." At issue, however, is whether "American law will recognise these forms of torture."

A bipartisan Senate report released last month found Rumsfeld and other top administration officials responsible for abuse of Guantanamo detainees in US custody. It said Rumsfeld authorised harsh interrogation techniques on December 2, 2002, at the Guantanamo prison, although he ruled them out a month later. The coercive measures were based on a document signed by Bush in February, 2002.

French, German and US rights groups have previously said they wanted to bring legal action against Rumsfeld.

The Economist has a look at George Bush's sorry legacy, noting "Few people will mourn the departure of the 43rd president" - The frat boy ships out. Even fewer will mourn the departure of Dick Cheney, with the lord of darkness recording a final 13% approval rating.

HE LEAVES the White House as one of the least popular and most divisive presidents in American history. At home, his approval rating has been stuck in the 20s for months; abroad, George Bush has presided over the most catastrophic collapse in America’s reputation since the second world war. The American economy is in deep recession, brought on by a crisis that forced Mr Bush to preside over huge and unpopular bail-outs.

America is embroiled in two wars, one of which Mr Bush launched against the tide of world opinion. The Bush family name, once among the most illustrious in American political life, is now so tainted that Jeb, George’s younger brother, recently decided not to run for the Senate from Florida. A Bush relative describes family gatherings as “funeral wakes”.

Few people would have predicted this litany of disasters when Mr Bush ran for the presidency in 2000. True, the 2000 election was likely to be divisive because of the peculiar arithmetic of the outcome (Mr Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore by 500,000 votes, then won a disputed recount in Florida by a few hundred). But for most people Mr Bush was a pretty acceptable choice, and certainly not a crusader-in-waiting.

He came across as an affable chap, particularly when compared with his uptight rival. Frank Bruni, who covered his election campaign for the New York Times, wrote in 2002 that “the Bush I knew was part scamp and part bumbler, a timeless fraternity boy and heedless cutup, a weekday gym rat and weekend napster.” And the then governor of Texas presented himself as a centrist—a new kind of “compassionate conservative”, a “uniter rather than a divider”, an advocate of a “humble” and restrained foreign policy. The Economist liked this mixture enough to endorse him in 2000.

How did all this change? How did the uniter become a divider? How did Mr Bush’s governing style shape American politics over the next eight years? And what legacy has the 43rd president left for the 44th?

His supporters—the few that remain—point out that this was a presidency knocked sideways by the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, which no one foresaw. The huge expansion of government and executive power under Mr Bush, and the prosecution of a disastrous war, all unrolled in the wake of those attacks. The financial crisis, which began with overvalued homes and sloppily underwritten mortgages, was the product of numerous forces and failures in which Mr Bush was not a major contributor; they included low interest rates, bankers’ reckless risk-taking, flawed regulation and consumers’ bubble mentality, all of which spanned borders. ...

Relentless partisanship led to the politicisation of almost everything Mr Bush did. He used his first televised address to justify putting strict limits on federal funding for stem-cell research, and used the first veto of his presidency to prevent the expansion of that funding. He appointed two “strict constructionist” judges to the Supreme Court, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, turned his back on the Kyoto protocol, dismissed several international treaties, particularly the anti-ballistic-missile treaty, loosened regulations on firearms and campaigned against gay marriage. His energy policy was written by Mr Cheney with the help of a handful of cronies from the energy industry. His lacklustre attorney-general Alberto Gonzales, who was forced to resign in disgrace, was only the most visible of an army of over-promoted, ideologically vetted homunculi.

Bumbling towards Baghdad

The Iraq war was a case study of what happens when politicisation is mixed with incompetence. A long-standing convention holds that politics stops at the ocean’s edge. But Mr Bush and his inner circle labelled the Democrats “Defeaticrats” whenever they were reluctant to support extending the war from Afghanistan to Iraq. They manipulated intelligence to demonstrate that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and had close relations with al-Qaeda. This not only divided a country that had been brought together by September 11th; it also undermined popular support for what Mr Bush regarded as the central theme of his presidency, the war on terror.

Sean Wilentz, a historian at Princeton, remarks how unusual it is for a president to have politicised such a national catastrophe: “No other president—Lincoln in the civil war, FDR in world war two, John F. Kennedy at critical moments of the cold war—faced with such a monumental set of military and political circumstances, failed to embrace the opposing political party to help wage a truly national struggle. But Bush shut out and even demonised the Democrats.”

The invasion of Iraq was like much else in the Bush years—an initial triumph that contained the seeds of disaster. Thomas Ricks, the author of “Fiasco”, argues that “the US-led invasion was launched recklessly, with a flawed plan for war and a worse approach to occupation.” Mr Rumsfeld’s decision to invade with too few troops led inexorably to the breakdown of law and order, which turned the Iraqi population against the Americans, and to the Abu Ghraib scandal, which solidified world opinion against America. But Mr Bush responded to the unfolding disaster with a mixture of denial and stubbornness, refusing to force Mr Rumsfeld to adjust his plans. He engaged in an absurd photo-op to declare “Mission accomplished”, and he also gave medals to three of the architects of the debacle, George Tenet, Tommy Franks and Paul Bremer.

Mr Bush’s weaknesses were on display again in the second great disaster of his administration, Hurricane Katrina, which struck New Orleans in August 2005. The hurricane exposed Mr Bush’s congenital passivity: he did not visit New Orleans until five days later, after first viewing the damage from the safety of Air Force One. It also exposed the consequences of filling your administration with third-rate hacks. The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Michael Brown, a former commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association, made a hash of dealing with the disaster but nevertheless received an encomium from the president—“Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job”—that rang around the country.

How will Mr Bush be judged in the light of history? “Many historians”, says Princeton’s Mr Wilentz, “are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.”

Billmon has a look at how much money Dick Cheney made out of the Iraq war in "Worth It". Billmon also has a look at the likely disappearance from the public scene of Bush and Cheney forthwith, in "Flushing the Cheney Administration Down the Memory Hole".

Not too many years after the collapse of the Soviet state, I spent a couple of weeks in Moscow reporting on the rise of Russian capitalism -- or the system of organized corruption that then (as now) was passing for capitalism in the former workers paradise.

I quickly found that most Russians I interviewed didn't want to talk about the past. Some may have been afraid, or had something to hide (in a Stalinist police state, just about everyone eventually has something to hide); some may have found the memories too painful.

But I had the distinct impression that most of the people I met didn't want to talk about the former regime, its crimes or its downfall, because they didn't give a damn about it any more. They were too busy trying to survive (and/or get rich) in the social chaos the collapse of the system had left behind. The price of milk in the now tolerated (if not strictly legalized) private markets, the dollar-ruble exchange rate, the prospects for listing privatized (i.e. stolen) assets on the New York Stock Exhange -- these the topics that seemed to preoccupy people.

Likewise the "free" Russian press, which had long since worn out the novelty of glasnost and was busy figuring out how to make a buck filling a ravenous Russian hunger for infotainment -- an appetite every bit as big as its American counterpart. Gangsters and strippers, not democrats and dissidents, were on the cover of the New Russia.

There was, in other words, an informal cone of silence in effect -- motivated, I guess, by a tacit agreement that it was best not to pick at old wounds, or acknowledge divisive truths, out of fear that the battered national psyche (and national unity) might not be able to handle it.

This was not exactly a whopping big surprise -- it seems to be the way most societies cope, consciously or unconsciously, with the aftermath of a trip through the totalitarian funhouse (almost always funner going in than coming out). And, judging from the coverage of Commander Codpiece's last White House press conference, it also appears to be how the semi-official media in this country is going to cope with our own ugly brush with the dark side of the national security state.

But the difference -- or one of them, at least -- is that the old system here is still more or less intact, and has every intention of remaining that way right through the Obama era. Which means it has even less of an incentive to confront (much less investigate) nasty truths.

And so we get leads like this one, from one of our major "news" organizations (i.e. corporate conglomerates):

In his final news conference today, President Bush candidly reflected on the mistakes and milestones of his eight years in office, conceding he made some mistakes but forcefully defending some of his most controversial actions.

And here's a little sample of what ABC (or rather, Disney-Cap Cities-ABC) considers a "candid" defense of the administration's policies on Gitmo, the invasion of Iraq and the use of torture:

And in terms of the decisions that I had made to protect the homeland, I wouldn't worry about popularity. What I would worry about is the Constitution of the United States, and putting plans in place that makes it easier to find out what the enemy is thinking, because all these debates will matter not if there's another attack on the homeland.

Or FEMA's criminally negligent response to Hurricane Katrina:

People said, well, the federal response was slow. Don't tell me the federal response was slow when there was 30,000 people pulled off roofs right after the storm passed . . . I Thirty thousand people were pulled off roofs right after the storm moved through. It's a pretty quick response.

Or the neocon dream team's willfully destructive approach to Middle East diplomacy (diplomacy as an act of sabotage):

Why haven't we achieved peace? That's a good question. It's been a long time since they've had peace in the Middle East.

To call this "candor" is either a baldfaced lie -- or an admission that you are completely incapable of recognizing the difference between a lie and a truth. And while ABC (like Bush himself) may only be guilty of the latter, not the former, the fact that this produces reporting that is functionally indistinguishable from a lie is telling. It shows just how far the system -- specificially, in this case, the Beltway political press -- has wandered from reality.

You can see this in just about all of the transition coverage. Reporters (like the ones responsible for the journalistic abomination above) and columnists and pundits are busy cranking out the usual lame duck legacy stories, as if this were the "normal" end of a "normal" presidency, instead of the concluding chapter of a national tragedy.

There is just a yawning disconnect between the nature of the crimes allegedly committed (and, in many cases, essentially admitted): waging aggressive war, torture, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping on a massive scale, obstruction of justice, perjury, conspiracy -- to the point where it would probably take an army of Patrick Fitzgeralds and a full-time war crimes tribunal a year just to catalogue them all -- and how the story is being treated in the corporate media.

It's not quite Pravda -- at least some of the hard questions are being asked, if only half-heartedly -- but it still has some of the same barely concealed, everybody-knows-even-though-we-are-not-allowed-to-say quality of Soviet discourse in the USSR's terminal Potemkin Village phase. It's as if keeping up the pretense -- observing the customary rituals as handed down by the priests of High Broderism -- is all most of the press corpses know how to do any more, or care to do.

And, as in late Soviet times, the absurdity of the official story line is only reinforced by the other systemic failures that surround it: in our case, financial collapse, plunging asset prices, massive fraud and a corrupt, sclerotic political system that may be incapable of doing even the most simple, obvious things (like printing and spending sufficient quantities of fiat money) to stave off an deeper downward spiral.

This being the case, I have a strong hunch the political-media complex (i.e. the Village) is going to want to move fairly quickly to the post-Soviet solution I described earlier -- skipping right over the perestroika and glasnost to get directly to the willful amnesia and live-in-the-moment materialism of mid-1990s Russia.

Which means, in turn, that Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Feith and the whole noxious crew are about to get flushed straight down the memory hole: banished fairly quickly from public discussion and corporate media coverage -- in much the way the Iran-Contra scandal (go ahead, Wiki it) was almost immediately forgotten or ignored once it became clear that the fix was in. America apparently had its big experiment with truthtelling and reform in the post-Watergate era, and the experience was so unpleasant that nobody (or nobody who counts) is willing to go there again. That would be like expecting the Baby Boomers to start dropping acid again.

There is an upside, of course: We may actually get a break from Bush and his insufferably arrogant, dimwitted face -- that is, until he re-emerges in a couple of years as, if not exactly a respected elder statesman, then at least a harmless old geezer of an ex-president, good for the odd charity golf tournament and the occasional Larry King interview.

Cheney, on the other hand, I fully expect to be permanently banished to an undisclosed location and airbrushed out of all the old photos.

Our Future has a good summary of the worst aspects of the Bush years - Bye Bye to the Worst President Ever.

After eight long years, Bush can no longer fool the public. Polls show that he is the most unpopular president in the history of survey research. When the 2006 and 2008 elections are considered together, Bush policies resulted in the landslide rejection of his party at both the federal and state levels. There are probably a hundred examples where Bush conservatism failed, but let’s stick with the top ten.

1. The worst recession since the 1930s. The current recession will be the deepest and longest downturn since the Great Depression. And unlike other recessions, this one was directly caused by conservative anti-regulatory policy. In fact, recent evaluations show that Bush policies never created any real growth—the ephemeral financial upswings of the past eight years were based on market bubbles and economic Band-Aids.

2. The worst financial crisis since the 1930s. The Bush Administration, flacking an “ownership society,” helped manufacture the housing bubble. When it burst, Americans lost $6 trillion in housing wealth (so far) fueling a market crash which has cost Americans another $8 trillion of stock wealth, according to economist Dean Baker. On a grand scale, we’ve been mugged.

3. The worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country. That’s what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid correctly called the Iraq war. This preemptive war—based on phony pretenses—is now the second longest in our nation’s history (after Vietnam). Some 35,000 Americans are dead or wounded, as well as an enormous number of innocent Iraqis. And even today, more than five years later, can anyone explain why Bush marched us into this quagmire?

4. Unprecedented rejection of human rights. Recently, a Bush Administration official finally admitted that the U.S. government engaged in torture at Guantanamo. Bush admitted that he personally authorized waterboarding. While these clear violations of the Geneva Convention would have been unthinkable a few years ago, today we’re not surprised. From Abu Ghraib and “extraordinary rendition,” to years-long detention of innocents and the unrestrained killing of civilians by U.S.-paid mercenaries, this administration has systematically squandered our nation’s moral standing in the world, making us less able to protect Americans and American interests worldwide.

5. Watergate-style abuses of power. As the House Judiciary Committee staff has documented, Bush used the politics of fear and division to justify warrantless wiretapping of innocent Americans (including U.S. soldiers fighting overseas), spying on peaceful domestic groups, and use of national security letters to pry into the private records of millions of Americans. He also presided over illegal politicization of the Justice Department and retribution against critics. In fact, Bush claimed the authority to disobey hundreds of laws—as if Richard Nixon were right when he famously said “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.”

6. Unprecedented increases in inequality. As the Economic Policy Institute points out, “For the first time since the Census Bureau began tracking such data back in the mid-1940s, the real incomes of middle-class families are lower at the end of this business cycle than they were when it started.” That’s because Bush policy was designed to increase economic inequality. The richest one percent of the population received 36 percent of the Bush tax cuts; the least affluent 40 percent received only 9 percent. While the rich got exponentially richer, the poverty rate and the percentage of uninsured dramatically increased.

7. A culture of sleaze. This was an Administration without shame. Kicked off by Dick Cheney’s secret energy task force, the Administration fostered a “greed is good” culture. The subsequent conservative money scandals (Jack Abramoff; White House officials J. Steven Griles and David Safavian; Congressional Republican Rep. Bob Ney, Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Rep. Duke Cunningham and Sen. Ted Stevens) and other lawlessness (Cheney’s Chief of Staff O. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Sen. David Vitter, Sen. Larry Craig) have toppled the conservative “moral values” façade into the gutter, where it belongs.

8. Blind rejection of science. The Bush Administration thumbed its nose at scientific evidence that contradicted conservative political goals. The resulting lies about global warming, endangered species, toxic chemicals, and consumer products threaten the health and safety of every American. And the virtual outlawing of stem cell research has delayed important medical advances by years, causing immeasurable suffering and loss of life.

9. Utter refusal to protect the health, safety, and legal rights of Americans. Following the conservative business-is-always-right philosophy, Bush dismantled the agencies and rules designed to protect consumers from unscrupulous businesses, workers from reckless employers, and small companies from anti-competitive large companies. If conservatives didn’t like a federal law, they blocked, hindered, or defunded agency enforcement.

10. Presiding over our nation’s worst natural disaster, and not caring. Hurricane Katrina was transformed from a calamity into a national disgrace by the sheer incompetence and indifference of the Bush Administration. Before the hurricane struck, Bush had downsized the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and placed in charge a political crony with no relevant experience. When Katrina ripped through New Orleans and inflicted nearly $100 billion in damages, making it the costliest hurricane in U.S. history, FEMA was unprepared to help and thousands of Americans suffered the consequences. More than three years later, New Orleans still has not recovered.

So, congratulations for being the worst president in American history. That’s not just my personal opinion; that’s the opinion of 109 historians polled by the History News Network. Fully 61 percent ranked Bush as the “worst ever.” Ninety-eight percent labeled his presidency a “failure.” And this poll, taken in early 2008, predated the cataclysmic housing and banking crashes. Bye bye W—history will not be kind.

The SMH has an article on the demise of the US economy (along with many other previously positive aspects) under the Bush administration - America didn't jump off the cliff - it was Bushed.

We like our failed presidents to be Shakespearean, or at least large enough to inspire Oscar-worthy performances from magnificent tragedians. So here, too, George Bush has let us down. He is not a memorable villain so much as a sometimes affable second banana whom Will Ferrell can nail without breaking a sweat. He is smaller than life.

The last NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll on Bush's presidency found that 79 per cent of Americans will not miss him. He is being forgotten already, even if he's not yet gone. You start to pity him until you remember how vast the wreckage is, stretching from the Middle East to Wall Street to Main Street and even into the heavens, which have been a safe haven for toxins under his passive stewardship.

The one indisputable ability of his White House was to create and sell propaganda both to the public and the press. Now that bag of tricks is also empty. In what was intended as a farewell victory lap to show off Iraq's improved post-surge security, Bush was reduced to ducking shoes.

Iraq burned, New Orleans flooded, and Bush remained oblivious to each and every pratfall on his watch. Americans essentially stopped listening to him after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, but he still doesn't grasp the finality of their defection.

Bush is equally blind to the collapse of his propaganda machinery. Almost poignantly, he keeps trying to hawk his goods in these final days. Though no one is listening, he has given more exit interviews than either Clinton or Reagan. Along with old cronies like Karl Rove, he has embarked on a Bush "legacy project", as Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard described it on CNN.

To this end, Rove has repeated a stunt he first fed to the press two years ago: claiming that he and Bush have an annual book-reading contest, with Bush chalking up as many as 95 books a year, by authors as high-falutin' as Camus. This hagiographic portrait of Bush the Egghead might be easier to buy were the former national security official Richard Clarke not quoted in the new Vanity Fair saying that both Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, had instructed him early on to keep his memos short as the President is "not a big reader".

The BBC has a look at The 'misunderestimated' president?, harking back to a variety of nonsensical Bushisms over the years.

All politicians are prone to make slips of the tongue in the heat of the moment - and President George W Bush has made more than most.

The word "Bushism" has been coined to label his occasional verbal lapses during eight years in office, which come to an end on 20 January.

Here are some of his most memorable pronouncements.

ON HIMSELF

"They misunderestimated me."
Bentonville, Arkansas, 6 November, 2000

''I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe - I believe what I believe is right." Rome, 22 July, 2001

"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."
Nashville, Tennessee, 17 September, 2002

"There's no question that the minute I got elected, the storm clouds on the horizon were getting nearly directly overhead."
Washington DC, 11 May, 2001

"I want to thank my friend, Senator Bill Frist, for joining us today. He married a Texas girl, I want you to know. Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me."
Nashville, Tennessee, 27 May, 2004

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times."
Tokyo, 18 February, 2002

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorise himself."
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 29 January, 2003

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." Washington DC, 5 August, 2004

"I think war is a dangerous place." Washington DC, 7 May, 2003

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the - the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."
Washington DC, 27 October, 2003

"Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies against these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat."
Washington DC, 17 September, 2004

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."
CBS News, Washington DC, 6 September, 2006

EDUCATION

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"
Florence, South Carolina, 11 January, 2000

"Reading is the basics for all learning."
Reston, Virginia, 28 March, 2000

"As governor of Texas, I have set high standards for our public schools, and I have met those standards."
CNN, 30 August, 2000

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''
Townsend, Tennessee, 21 February, 2001

ECONOMICS

"I understand small business growth. I was one."
New York Daily News, 19 February, 2000

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."
Reuters, 5 May, 2000

"I do remain confident in Linda. She'll make a fine Labour Secretary. From what I've read in the press accounts, she's perfectly qualified."
Austin, Texas, 8 January, 2001

"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
Washington DC, 19 May, 2003

One from June 2000 - "Bush Would Use Power of Persuasion to Raise Oil Supply".

Gov. George W. Bush of Texas said today that if he was president, he would bring down gasoline prices through sheer force of personality, by creating enough political good will with oil-producing nations that they would increase their supply of crude.

"I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply," Mr. Bush, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, told reporters here today.

John McCain is advocating alternative energy to solve America's energy security problems - unfortunately by "alternative" he means coal and nuclear. I guess they hadn't invented solar or wind power during his mid-life years - though someone is shamelessly using wind turbines in some of his campaign material.

The Huffington Post meanwhile, has a look at the fantasy world the McCain campaign is trying to get voters to inhabit for a little while.

John McCain unveiled his new campaign strategy today: invite the American people to take a magic carpet ride with him to the land of Eternal Sunshine.

In a speech this morning in Ohio -- backed up by a companion TV ad -- McCain hopped into an imaginary time machine and took us all to the year 2013, offering a sneak peek of what the world will look like at the end of his first term as President.

And what a wonderful world it will be: "The Iraq War has been won": "Iraq is a functioning democracy"; "al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated"; Osama bin Laden has been captured or killed; there's been no major terrorist attack in the U.S.; Iran and North Korea have renounced nuclear weapons; "the size of the Army and Marine Corps has been significantly increased and are now better equipped"; there's been "a substantial increase" in veterans' benefits; the genocide in Darfur has been stopped; "the United States has experienced several years of robust economic growth, and Americans again have confidence in their economic future"; "the world food crisis has ended"; "test scores and graduation rates are rising everywhere in the country"; "health care has become more accessible"; Medicare and Social Security have been fixed "without reducing benefits" or "increasing taxes and raising premiums"; America is "well on the way to independence from foreign sources of oil"; "our southern border is now secure" and "illegal immigration has been finally brought under control." And, oh yeah, there are a lot fewer fat kids trudging their way through PE class.

Sounds pretty great, doesn't it?

There's only one problem: it's pure, unadulterated fantasy. The political equivalent of the trippy tour the Beatles gave us in Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds -- only instead of rocking horse people eating marshmallow pies, we have "professional and competent" Iraq Security Forces and an Iraqi government "capable of imposing its authority in every province" and "defending the integrity of its borders."

Despite starting his speech by saying how important it is for candidates to lay out "what they plan to achieve not with vague language but with clarity," McCain then proceeded to spin his cotton candy daydream with nary a hint of how his lofty and admirable goals will be accomplished. He's taking us on a trip to Fantasyland, but at no point does he show us how we're going to get there.

Sure, he tossed out a few generalized, pie-in-the-sky allusions to "reforms of the [health] insurance market" and "reforms to the way we acquire weapons programs" and a handful of specifics, including "a reduction in the corporate tax rate" and the building of "20 new nuclear reactors." But when it came to Iraq, he didn't offer even the vaguest clue about how -- after five long years of failure -- victory, democracy, the defeat of al Qaeda, the prevention of civil war, the disbanding of militias, and the sudden competence of the Iraqi military will magically be achieved. Rather, one morning four and a half years from now, we're going to wake up and pigs will be flying, and all will be right with the world.

I get the thinking behind the McCain camp's strategy. With 82 percent of the public unhappy with the direction of the county, and with 68 percent unhappy with the war, and 75 percent anxious about the economy (which McCain admits he doesn't understand all that well), there is no way McCain or his fellow Republicans can run on reality or their record over the last seven-plus years, so they have to run on fantasy.

But building castles in the sky -- and painting rosy, reality-free scenarios -- runs counter to McCain's brand as a straight talker™ who tells it like it is, even when that means admitting that ending the war or fixing the economy or passing needed reforms won't be easy.

Meanwhile Keith Olbermann has a great dissertation on the evils of the Bush regime, noting that they may one day face international war crimes trials for their destruction of Iraq - check out the videos.

Hopefully Bush's disgraceful performance in the middle east this week makes people think about the attraction of another 4 years of Republican fear and war mongering if they are foolish enough to vote for McCain (whether or not Obama or Hillary will pull out is pretty questionable of course, but you can be sure McCain won't).



Watch the videos - there are more gem quotes in here than I have seen in a long time.

Moving on, the Huffington Post has a review of John Cusack's new movie "War, Inc"

War, Inc. is a radically different kind of movie. In fact, it really defies genre. It is sort of like this generation's Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange and The Wizard of Oz mixed together with the un-embedded reporting of Naomi Klein, spiced up with a dash of South Park. It is a powerful, visionary response to the cheerleading culture of the corporate media and a pliant Hollywood afraid of its own shadow.

On the surface, War, Inc. appears to be a spoof of the corporatization of the occupation of Iraq. Cusack plays a hit man, named Hauser, deployed to Turaqistan with the mission of killing a Middle Eastern oil baron (named Omar Sharif). Hauser's employer is a secretive for-profit military corporation run by the former US vice president, played by Dan Aykroyd. We first meet Aykroyd's character as he sits, pants down, on a toilet seat during a closed-circuit satellite videoconference call to give Hauser his mission. Hauser arrives in the Turaqi capital and heads for the "Emerald City" (read: the Green Zone), where his cover is director of a trade show for the military corporation, Tamerlane, which is basically running the Turaqi occupation. Hauser soon falls for a progressive journalist, played by Marisa Tomei, who is in Turaqistan to investigate Tamerlane, and what follows is an insane ride through Cusack's interpretation of the radical corporatization of war.

Singer Hilary Duff gives a surprisingly fun performance as a pop star, Yonica Babyyeah, who performs a song in the war zone with the lyrics, "You say you want to invade me, baby/Enslave me, baby." As Duff delivers the song, she caresses a phallic gas nozzle decorated with diamonds while singing, "I want to blow you....up." Obviously Cusack and his co-writers, Mark Leyner and Jeremy Pikser (REDS/Bulworth), sought to tap into the extreme nature of the corporatized war and take it to another level, but anyone who thinks the premise behind War Inc. is "over-the-top" has not been paying attention to real life.

Cusack, Leyner and Pikser are not predicting the future, they are forcefully -- and with dark humor and wit -- branding the present for what it is: the Wal-Mart-ization of life (and death) represented in the new US model for waging war. With 630 corporations like Blackwater and Halliburton on the US government payroll in Iraq getting 40% of the more than $2 billion Washington spends every week on the occupation, Cusack's "futuristic" film is not far from the way things really are. A powerful, for-profit war corporation, run by the former US vice president "owning" the war zone; tanks with NASCAR-like sponsor logos speeding around the streets firing at will; "implanted journalists" watching the war in IMAX theaters in the heavily-fortified "Emerald City" to get "full spectrum sensory reality" while eating popcorn; a secretive "viceroy" running the show from behind a digital curtain are all part of Cusack's battlefield in the fictitious Turaqistan. But how far are they from the realities of the radically privatized corporate war machine Washington has unleashed on the world?

War Inc. is already an underground cult classic and will likely remain so for years to come. The film is not without its shortcomings -- at times it is confusing and drags -- but its faults are significantly overshadowed by its many strengths. It also accomplishes the difficult feat of being very entertaining and funny, while delivering a powerful punch of truth. War, Inc. is a movie that deserves a much wider viewing than the barons of the film industry are likely to give it. But by filling the theaters in the opening days, people can send a powerful message that there is -- and must be -- a market for films of conscience.