Today's Vocabulary Booster: Impotence

Whenever Jesus' General takes the lead in improving the educational status of the United States, I like to get in line.

Today's vocabulary-building word is impotence.

Now, while it's our aim here to not only improve your vocabulary (did I say that impotence is our word of the day?), we also want to inform those of you who might be suffering from impotence. Impotence can be a debilitating affliction for today's need-to-be-strong males. I'm not aware that impotence is much of a female condition, but considering that male impotence might very well affect females, it's critical that they learn about impotence -- male impotence, in particular.

Impotence can be treated. Impotence must be defeated. Impotence is our enemy.

The Shit, You Say!

Anderson Cooper on Larry King Live:

I was at Camp Victory, which is a large military base here outside of Baghdad. I went into the port-a-john. There was an informal poll scrawled on the wall there, Bush-Kerry. They were running about even in this one port-o- potty. That's obviously not a very scientific poll, but gives you a sense that there is a wide variety of opinion, certainly.

The results of the poll? Bush is number two.

UPDATE: Bush is still number two!

Betsy DeVos Time Again

From the June 28 Betsy's Blog:

Mockumentary maker Michael Moore said last week on CNN that "being a proud American" means believing that Osama bin Laden "is innocent until proven guilty." Amazing. According to Moore, the U.S. military is unjustifiably pursuing the most wanted terrorist in the world – a man who admitted to orchestrating the most vicious attack ever on American soil and who gleefully rejoiced at the deaths of more than 3,000 innocents!

The transcript of the CNN interview indicates how the exchange went:

[DARYN] KAGAN: Summer may be the blockbuster season of the movie. But in this election year, a documentary film has people talking. Fahrenheit 9/11 opens today in more than 800 theaters nationwide. And its director Michael Moore joins me from New York this morning.

Michael, good morning. Thanks for being here with us.

MOORE: Thank you, Daryn. Thanks for having me on.

KAGAN: I think I have to tell you off the top, I have not seen the movie. I have a conspiracy for you to check into. The one screening that was offered here in Atlanta, offered while I'm on the air.

MOORE: Oh, I am so sorry they did that. And we'll find out who is responsible.

KAGAN: You get the cameras rolling on that one.

(LAUGHTER)

KAGAN: Let's get to the discussion of the movie. It seems to me you're clearly critical of how the U.S., especially the Bush administration, has responded to 9/11. But do you think you're as clear about how the U.S. should have responded? What they should have done?

MOORE: That's a very good question. I think -- and I think most Americans agree with this, that we should have seriously gone after anyone who was responsible for the murder of 3,000 people. I think we all support that. But as Richard Clarke so eloquently has pointed out, on September 12, the Bush administration wasn't interested in going after the people who did this. They wanted to bomb Iraq. And he told them, well, Iraq didn't do this. He said, well, we don't care. There's no good targets to bomb in Afghanistan. We want to bomb Iraq.

KAGAN: Well, let's go to some of the points you make in the movie about who we should have gone after. And some people think might be some contradictory statements. The film, you definitely talk about that you believe that the U.S. should not have focused on Iraq, should have focused on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. And yet back in 2002, you were at the Telluride Film Festival in a debate with Christopher Hitchens, where you almost defended Osama bin Laden, saying that he's innocent until proven guilty. So, did you change...

MOORE: Oh, that's not defending him. That's being an American.

KAGAN: Did you change your mind on Osama bin Laden?

MOORE: No. No. No. Wait a minute. Whoa! Whoa! That is not defending him. That is being a proud American. What is a basic, basic belief that you and I have as Americans? What is it?

KAGAN: What? You're going to say that he was innocent until proven guilty into a court of law.

MOORE: Not he. That all -- wait a minute. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

KAGAN: So, then how can you be critical of the...

MOORE: But don't you believe that?

KAGAN: I'll give you that point. But if you're doing that, how can you be critical then of the Bush administration not going after Osama bin Laden? Do -- are you -- which one is it?

MOORE: Because if you have a suspect and the suspect gets away, the police, or our military, have a right to go after and get that suspect. In fact, they should go get the suspect. And Richard Clarke's point, and my point is, is that they make a half-hearted effort. They kept our Special Forces from going in the part of Afghanistan where bin Laden was. They kept the Special Forces out of there for two months. They only sent 11,000 troops. As Richard Clarke said, there's more police here in Manhattan than the number of soldiers we sent in to get Osama bin Laden.

Where does she get the "According to Moore, military is unjustifiably pursuing the most wanted terrorist in the world"?!? The impression I get is that he was fully in support of finding bin Laden, especially since he stated it fairly explicitly.

Is this woman really the best the Republicans have got?

David Wins! David Wins!

Well, actually, his name is Tom... but he did defeat a Goliath, after all.

Artist wins battle over nude Barbie
By Catherine Elsworth

An artist who photographed Barbie dolls in sexually suggestive poses has won a five-year legal battle with Mattel, the toy's makers, after a judge dismissed its attempts to stop him as "groundless and unreasonable" and ordered the company to pay his £1 million legal fees.

Tom Forsythe, 46, from Kanab, Utah, produced a series of 78 images of the doll in 1998, entitled Food Chain Barbie, in sexual poses in or around household objects, to illustrate "Barbie's power as a beauty myth". The pictures, such as Blender Buddies in which two of the dolls are posed naked in a liquidiser and Stir Fry Barbie, where a supine doll performs high kicks in a wok, were exhibited in Utah, Kansas City, New Mexico, Texas and New York.

more >>

Iraq Sovereignty?

From today's New York Times:

The new Iraqi government, consisting of many wealthy exiles who spent years away from Iraq, is barred from making long-term policy decisions and will not control the 160,000 foreign troops remaining in the country. The government has the right to ask them to leave — but has made clear it has no intention of doing so. The government also cannot reverse any of the laws passed by American administrators during the occupation.

Got Bush Facts?

DrivingVotes.org provides a nicely organized fact sheet with regard to the Bush administration -- from the war in Iraq to education to the environment to Halliburton to the economy to foreign affairs to tax cuts...

Bill Clinton Blog

What the...?

Is this for real?!?


Hah!

Buddhists For Kerry

In today's New York Times, Ron Reagan noted:

"One thing that Buddhism teaches you is that every moment is an opportunity to change. And we will have a moment in November to make a big change."

He was also asked how his mother felt being ushered to her seat (at the Reagan funeral) by President Bush...

Well, he did a better job than Dick Cheney did when he came to the rotunda. I felt so bad. Cheney brought my mother up to the casket, so she could pay her respects. She is in her 80s, and she has glaucoma and has trouble seeing. There were steps, and he left her there. He just stood there, letting her flounder. I don't think he's a mindful human being. That's probably the nicest way I can put it.

I wonder what Cheney would have told her if she'd asked for a little help!

Fahrenheit 9/11

I made it to the second showing of the film on Friday, but have yet to formulate my thoughts about it beyond a few brief notes. I will say that the film has the possibility of swaying fence sitters. Comments about the war by soldiers both in Iraq and by one who has come home are convincing. I intend on seeing the film again with the idea of writing something more cogent.

In the meantime, I will suggest to those who haven't seen the film yet (or even those who don't intend to) to check out a few clips that are posted at the Yahoo! Movies site.

Bush In Ireland

Does Bush really think the Irish are idiots?

Does he think that they can't read? Does he think they don't keep up with what's going on in Iraq?

From the Irish Times

"I hope the Irish people understand the great values of our country, and if they think a few soldiers represent the entire of America they don't really understand America.

"If they say this is what America represents, they don't understand our country."

I think Bush has trouble understanding "the great values of our country," however. I also think he doesn't understand our country.

Bush Losing Support

Lee Iacocca jumps the Bush ship. I'm not so crazy about the CEO remark, but Iacocca remains a pretty popular personality in America. I'm sure Kerry will take as many (or few) votes this alliance will bring him. From Salon:

Iacocca ditches Bush for Kerry

Lee Iacocca, the executive and pitchman credited with saving Chrysler, has a new project: saving America from another Bush presidency. The retired businessman endorsed Senator Kerry today at a campaign event in San Jose, California.

Iacocca's endorsement is noteworthy not only because he's a venerable elder of Michigan's auto industry. In 2000 he publicly supported Bush, even standing next to Bush in a campaign commercial and saying that "Gore's extreme ideas about cars could cost a lot of Michigan families their jobs."

Jobs were again the central motive behind Iacocca's endorsement, except this time, he says, the Democrat is the one that's got it right:

"The fact is, we can't compete unless our technology is world-class and cutting-edge. We cannot create new high-paying jobs unless America is the world's leader in the industries of the future. And John Kerry understands that.

"John Kerry would make a great commander-in-chief, I have no doubt about that. He would also make one hell of a CEO. That's what a president is.

"So today I'm joining the Kerry team -- as a front-line worker, I guess -- I think in their jobs division or department or wherever I land. I will try to offer advice and consult with the senator and do whatever I can to make him the next president."

Good News For A Change

I drink coffee more for its taste than for the caffeine, so this is good news to me.

Mother Nature's Decaff Coffee
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor

The quest for a full-flavoured decaffeinated coffee may be over: scientists report today that they have found a naturally decaffeinated version of the world's most popular coffee bean.

Full-strength coffee can raise blood pressure, trigger palpitations and disrupt sleep, and decaffeinated now accounts for about 10 per cent of the world market.

But the decaffeinating process often flushes out important flavour compounds, so the demand for a flavoursome, low-caffeine blend remains high.

Attempts to transfer caffeine-free characteristics from wild coffee species in Madagascar to Coffea arabica, the most cultivated and consumed coffee in the world, have failed - and would produce an inferior beverage anyway.

The solution would be to find a naturally decaffeinated C. arabica plant, a species normally recognised for its high-quality beans.

This is what Prof Paulo Mazzafera of State University of Campinas, Brazil, and colleagues at the Agronomic Institute of Campinas report today in the journal Nature.

After screening 3,000 coffee trees, they have isolated three C. arabica plants from Ethiopia with naturally low caffeine content, probably because they have a faulty caffeine-making enzyme.

more >>

More Bush Lies

Mark Kleiman has a rather entertaining take on Bush's lies over the Texas "Patients' Bill Of Rights" bill that he, er, uh "signed."

To recapitulate: The President has executed a straddle to a flip-flop to a double staddle to a lie. That sequence of moves has a degree of difficulty of 2.8. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME.

Damn!

For some reason, it seemed to get darker earlier today!

A Load Of Crap

I regularly read Juan Cole's blog, Informed Comment. As I've noted before, Cole is a Professor of History at the University of Michigan, and is an authority on the Middle East.

On Sunday, I watched a portion of NBC's Meet The Press, on which former Navy secretary John Lehman, a Republican member of the commission investigating the September 11 attacks, appeared.

He stated that documents had been found in Iraq which "indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al-Qaida."

As the Washington Post reports it:

Although he said the identity "still has to be confirmed," Lehman introduced the information on NBC's "Meet the Press," countering a commission staff report that said there were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida but no "collaborative relationship."

Yesterday, the senior administration official said Lehman had probably confused two people who have similar-sounding names.

One of them is Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi, identified as an al Qaeda "fixer" in Malaysia. Officials say he served as an airport greeter for al Qaeda in January 2000 in Kuala Lumpur, at a gathering for members who were to be involved in the attacks on the USS Cole, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Iraqi military documents, found last year, listed a similar name, Lt. Col. Hikmat Shakir Ahmad, on a roster of Hussein's militia, Saddam's Fedayeen.

"By most reckoning that would be someone else" other than the airport greeter, said the administration official, who would speak only anonymously because of the matter's sensitivity. He added that the identification issue is still being studied but "it doesn't look like a match to most analysts."

Cole then makes it very clear that there never should have been any confusion in the first place:

Neocons Can't Spell

A reader asked me to comment on the controversy over whether an Iraqi intelligence agent was detailed to al-Qaeda in Kuala Lumpur to be the guy that picked people up at the airport. It was covered by the Washington Post after the allegation was made by 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, former secretary of the Navy.

The al-Qaeda employee in Malaysia is named Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi.

The Iraqi intelligence agent is named Lt. Col. Hikmat Shakir Ahmad.

Political Scientist Christopher Carney, who was brought in to look at documents by Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans so as to second-guess trained analysts at the CIA who actually know Arabic, first made the mistake of identifying the two. Carney is an Americanist at Penn State and had no business butting in.

The family name (here, nisba) of the al-Qaeda guy in Malaysia is Azzawi.

The family name of the guy in Iraqi intelligence is Ahmad.

Do you notice how they are not the same?

The personal or first name of the al-Qaeda guy is Ahmad.

The personal or first name of the Iraqi intelligence agent is Hikmat.

Do you notice how it is not the same?

So, Ahmad Azzawi is not Hikmat Ahmad. See how easy that is?

Mr. Ahmad Azzawi has a couple of middle names, to wit, Hikmat Shakir. Having a couple of middle names is common in the Arab world.

Lt. Col. Hikmat Ahmad just has one middle name, Shakir. This is the only place at which there is any overlap between them at all. They share a middle name. And, o.k., one of Azzawi's middle names is the same as Lt. Col. Ahmad's first name.

This would be like having someone named Mark Walter Paul Johnson who is a chauffeur for Holiday Inn.

And then you have a CIA agent named Walter Paul Mark.

Where does "A Load Of Crap" come in? All I'll say is that comes in when Cole segues to a comment that "[Jon] Stewart's Daily Show is among the best sources of news analysis on television."

Shoot First, Ask Questions Later

I don't have cable TV, so I missed this one as reported on by Douglas McDaniel, with a tip of the cap to Kevin at The American Street.

False Hope

My stomach churned last night as I watched American soldiers in Afghanistan track and shoot a 12 year-old Afghan boy. There he was, on CNN, laying on the ground, panting, after he had been shot while tending a herd. His crime: carrying a bag of water that soldiers could not identify.

more >>

Letter sent to the United States Congress regarding recent human rights issues in Iraq

June 16, 2004

To: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

As members of university faculties in law, international relations, diplomacy, and public policy, we write to register our objection to the systematic violation of human rights practiced or permitted by authorities of the United States within occupied Iraq during recent months: we request Congressional action to ensure accountability for such violations and to safeguard against such egregious abuses in the future. Current circumstances require that all transcend partisan politics or considerations. Action by Congress is necessary to promote a rule of law produced and enforced through a democratic process and to protect the physical and psychological integrity of all people consistent with the traditions of our nation.

I. Accountability for human rights violations
Congressional action is necessary to examine and ensure accountability for the organizational and individual failures that allowed persons within the control of U.S. forces to be subjected to acts of torture and to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

There can be no doubt that the acts of abuse in Abu Ghraib prison constitute violations of both the domestic and international legal obligations of the United States and its agents. Executive Branch officials have admitted as much. International humanitarian law provides that those classified as prisoners of war are entitled to special protections against such abuses under the Third Geneva Convention, ratified by the United States in 1955. Inhabitants of occupied territories are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention, also ratified by the United States in 1955, against physical or moral coercion to obtain information from them. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by the United States in 1994, requires that States party take measures to prevent both torture, and other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The Constitution of the United States protects prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment.

Accepting the applicability of international and domestic law, military officials have initiated prosecutions of lower level personnel. That response, while necessary, is clearly insufficient. Congress has an obligation to investigate and assess responsibility at all levels of the Executive Branch from the highest officers on down for the abuses in Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi prisons.

Despite clear and repeated notice [1], abuse of detainees has been both frequent and pervasive during the military occupation of Iraq. The fact that military officials failed after such notice to identify and eradicate the pattern of abuse itself constitutes a grave breach of responsibility.

In addition, a growing body of evidence indicates that the abuses practiced on detainees under American control are the consequence of policies developed at the highest levels in the months and years immediately preceding the scandal. First, there are reports that harsh interrogation tactics, designed for use against only the most serious terrorist suspects and themselves violative of humanitarian law, have been authorized and applied generally against detainees in Iraq. Second, authorization to coerce detainees to speak creates the potential for grave abuse. It is thus evident that very clear lines must be established and vigorously policed. Yet authorities failed to supervise subordinates adequately, or to establish minimal safeguards against abuse. Third, the dilatory response by military and other officials to reports by international agencies, human rights groups, and the media concerning egregious abuse operated as a predictable signal to those on various levels below that their admittedly illegal conduct was condoned, accepted, or encouraged. Fourth, Executive Branch officials have diverged from past practice by asserting presidential power to designate certain prisoners as not entitled to any judicial or other meaningful review of any aspects of the legality of their confinement, including imposition of torture. That approach to detainees created a culture facilitating disregard for the protections required to be accorded prisoners in Iraq.


II. Democratic definition of policies involving coercion
Military and intelligence officials have acknowledged that official U.S. policy now involves use of coercive methods that are morally questionable and that may violate international and domestic law. The question whether various forms of coercion against persons under American control can be justified goes to the heart of our identity as a democratic community.

Given the profound problems it may raise as a moral, legal, and constitutional matter, any decision to adopt a coercive interrogation policy and the definition of any such policy, if adopted, should be made within the strict confines of a democratic process. While the Executive Branch should retain sufficient authority to conduct military affairs, basic principles and policies regarding human rights must be defined by a representative and accountable body acting in transparent and deliberative fashion. In turn, the courts must retain ultimate responsibility for judicial oversight in order to ensure that the law meets constitutional requirements.

Thus, insofar as Executive Branch officials have authored and implemented a coercive interrogation policy, that policy must be submitted to Congress for examination and debate. Congress should determine afresh its wisdom, its consistency with basic democratic principles of humane treatment, and its conformity with international and domestic law. If any such policy were to be adopted by Congress, the reviewability of such law through the operation of the courts in due course must be assured.


Conclusion
Given the accumulation of reliable evidence demonstrating the practice of torture and degrading treatment of detainees by U.S. forces, and given Executive responsibility for creating the conditions enabling such practice to occur, and with regard for democratic responsibility with respect to these issues at the heart of our understanding of our nation, its culture and values, we ask that Congress take action to:

(1) assess responsibility for the abuses that have taken place, identifying the officials at all levels who must be held accountable for enabling these abuses to occur and for the failure to investigate them, and determining what sanctions, including impeachment and removal from office of any civil officer of the United States responsible, may be appropriate;

(2) decide whether the U.S. should have an official policy of coercion in connection with interrogation, and if so what form it should take as well as what safeguards it should include to protect against abuses in violation of the policy.


Sincerely,

[The undersigned]


[1] As summarized in a recent letter to President Bush:

For the past year and a half, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, Newsday, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, and other leading newspapers have repeatedly quoted unnamed U.S. intelligence officials boasting about the use of torture and other ill-treatment of prisoners. Numerous detainees have been killed or attempted suicide in custody in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay prompting unprecedented expressions of concern by the International Committee of the Red Cross; suspects have been turned over to the foreign intelligence services of countries, such as Syria, with records of brutal torture; the ICRC has also specifically expressed concern about conditions at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq; and now, the US military's own inquiry has found "systemic and illegal abuse of detainees" at Abu Ghraib.

Letter of May 7, 2004 to President George W. Bush from William Schulz, Amnesty International USA, et al.

Bush Record of Achievement

From The American Street and South Bronx Bubba:

• Rigged an election in conspiracy with brother Jeb in Florida to take office.


• Appoints administration made up of former executives and government officials who helped Saddam develop WMD, were involved in illegal arms sales, traded with the enemy in violation of U.S. law, and whose companies now profit from war
.

• Stonewalled GAO and Congress request for documents relating to Enron influence of Federal Energy Policy.


• Representing party of smaller government and less Federal spending, creates largest bureaucracy in U.S. history and signs largest entitlement spending program in U.S. history.


• Although recovering now, presided over a 30% loss in Dow Jones Industrial Average, nearly a 50% loss in NASDAQ, and a 33% loss in S&P 500, wiping out trillions in wealth. Despite a recent extended bull market, the markets have yet to recover back to where they were the day Bush took office.


• Presided over an increase in consumer debt to all time record high of over $2 trillion and an increase in personal bankruptcy filings to an all time high of 1.6 million households in 2003.


• Despite taking over after the longest and largest economic expansion in U.S. history, presided over the loss of more than three million jobs, with the highest unemployment in a decade and nearly nine million people out of work.


• Presided over the largest trade deficit in U.S. history, a record $489.4 billion in 2003, while the value of the dollar has reached an all time low against the Euro and the Yen.


• Presides over illegal arrest and detention and physical abuse of criminal suspects, who are held in secret without benefit of counsel without any charges.


• Signs "Patriot Act" that limits civil liberties and violates the Bill of Rights contained within the Constitution he took an oath to protect and defend.


• Despite inheriting an $80 billion surplus from the Clinton administration, turns it into a $2 trillion deficit with tax cuts, war, and out of control spending.


• Bush tax cuts could pay for hiring all nine million people out of work and pay them $40K for two years instead of benefiting wealthy.


• Gutted clean air regulations, allowing utilities and factories to continue polluting the atmosphere, calling it "Clear Skies".


• Rolls back environmental reviews and opens national forests up to the logging industry, calling it "Healthy Forests".


• Rolled back wetlands protection, reducing or eliminating regulations prohibiting pollution of wetlands, calls it "Clean Water Act".


• Rolled back wilderness protections, opening up wilderness areas to logging, mining, other development.


• Promotes school vouchers to take taxpayer money away from public education and give it to wealthy families to send their kids to private and mostly religious schools.
  
  
• Adopts the Project for a New American Century's strategy paper on Rebuilding America's Defenses as the official U.S. National Security policy, a policy that calls for imperialist expansion in the middle east and hopes for a national catastrophe "on the scale of Pearl Harbor" to awaken the public to the dangers posed by not adopting this policy. Hires most of its authors to run the Pentagon and develop defense policy.


• Worst terrorist attack in history, and the worst attack on U.S. soil occurred on current administration's watch, and Bush undermines efforts to investigate mounting evidence of numerous warnings that could have prevented it.


• Made speeches and signed laws promising more funding for shipping container inspections at U.S. ports to look for nukes and other WMD, then eliminated funding from budget.


• Allowed North Korean sale of Scud missiles to Yemen.


• Made deal with Iranian terrorist organization.


• Conducted preemptive unprovoked military invasion of sovereign state resulting in hundreds of military casualties and thousands of civilian deaths, deceived Congress and UN Security Council using "sexed-up" intelligence to justify.


• Claims two trailers used to make hydrogen for balloons, a vial of botox in some guy's refrigerator, and some junk buried in some guy's rose garden are "proof" of Iraqi WMD "programs", or as they are later termed in his State of the Union, "weapons of mass destruction related program activities".


• When U.S. weapons inspectors cannot find 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, tens of thousands of chem/bio warheads, and an advanced nuclear weapons program in Iraq and say that in fact they probably never existed despite Bush telling Congress and the American people they posed a "grave danger" and Rumsfeld saying "we know where they are" and Powell showing the U.N. pictures of them, Bush says "What's the difference?" and blames it on faulty intelligence.


• Proposes sweeping cuts in veteran's benefits, instructs Veteran's Administration to deceive veterans with regard to benefits available.


• Dressed in fighter pilot costume and flew military jet to aircraft carrier for stunt landing and political fundraising/campaign event despite having ticket pulled and being grounded for failing to take required physical and drug test and being curiously absent from his post during the Vietnam conflict.


• Declares victory in Iraq, yet soldiers die in Iraq every day, half the country has no electricity or water, attempts to install democracy failing miserably, WMD cannot be found, neither can Osama.


• Has destroyed American respect and credibility around the world. Unable to get assistance from France, Germany, or India to provide troops for additional security and peacekeeping in Iraq.


• Administration under investigation for illegally leaking the name of a covert CIA agent in retaliation for her husband exposing lies about Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The CIA demanded an investigation after Bush's denials.


• Proposes development of tactical nuclear weapons in violation of 1992 Senate ban which Bush worked to repeal.


• Begins privatization of Medicare disguised as prescription drug benefit.


• Lied to Congress and the American people about the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, intimidates government employees to cover it up.


• Tax cuts would fund health insurance for all 43 million uninsured Americans, including nearly ten million uninsured children.


• Pushes legislation to eliminate overtime pay for up to eight million American working people.


• Pushes legislation to limit medical malpractice claims to $250K, even if an incompetent doctor kills your wife or cuts off your legs instead of removing your appendix.


• Installs new Senate majority leader with ties to health care industry to shepherd through legislation benefiting corporate insurance and pharmaceutical pals.


• Pushes legislation to limit bankruptcy protections for consumers targeted by predatory lenders, but proposes no reforms for rogue corporations such as Enron that blow off creditors, employees, and investors at pennies on the dollar.


• According to a biographer, believes that he was selected by God to lead America and had preachers come to the Governor's mansion in Texas to "lay hands" on him and pray for his future during his campaign.


• Appoints as U.S. Attorney General a fundamentalist Christian who believes he receives divine guidance directly from God and anoints himself with Crisco and who was defeated by a dead man in his failed U.S. Senate election campaign.


• Pushes legislation to fund faith based social programs, Congress rejects it, Bush issues executive order to allow Federally Funded local and state programs to hire or fire based on religion or ideology and to promote religion as part of delivering services.


• Declines invitation to NAACP convention, but addresses Southern Baptist Convention by satellite, calling them faithful servants and praying for them, while they adopt a policy that "homosexuals can find freedom from this sinful, destructive lifestyle" by accepting Jesus as their savior.


• Comments on Supreme Court homosexual rights decision, declares "marriage should be between a man and a woman", proposes constitutional amendment in State of the Union address to eliminate civil rights for an entire segment of the population.


• Sends letter to Supreme Court urging them to strike down Affirmative Action programs, celebrates Strom Thurmond's "remarkable life" and says he was a friend.


• Allows cabinet member in charge of education to call American teachers "terrorists" and get away with it.


• Promises not to use 9/11 for politics, releases campaign TV ads showing firemen carrying remains of victims from ground zero.


• Allows his second in command Dick Cheney to be involved in suspicious activity regarding multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts for Cheney's former employer Halliburton. Cheney denies he receives compensation from Halliburton, but in fact receives $150K per year and owns 400K+ shares of stock.


• Complicit in Pentagon program to torture prisoners of war and other detainees in violation of U.S. and international law and treaties including the Geneva Conventions. Attorney General refuses to disclose legal guidance he provided Bush regarding use of torture.


• Releases a faked report claiming worldwide terrorism has been reduced by his "War on Terror". Forced to admit days later that the report was false and a "big mistake", and that in fact terrorism around the world has actually increased since he invaded "terror".


• Compares Iraq with WWII and himself with FDR.


• Continues to assert a connection between Iraq and al Qaida despite 9/11 Commission finding that no such connection existed.


• Claims fighting terrorism was top priority before 9/11, but claimed he had no information about specific threats yet ignored a briefing entitled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" just weeks before the attacks.


• Upon being informed that "the U.S. is under attack," on 9/11 continued sitting in photo-op reading to school children for five to seven minutes as the FAA and U.S. Military struggled to react in a command-and-control vacuum.


• Relied on information from convicted liar and thief Ahmad Chalabi to justify invasion of Iraq, paid him millions of dollars of taxpayer's money to oversee rebuilding and coordinate a new government. When Chalabi is accused of corruption and his home is raided and he is suspected of leaking sensitive top-secret U.S. intelligence to Iran, Bush denies having contact with him, despite previously inviting him to be his guest at the State of the Union and meeting with him on several occasions.


• Despite being at war around the world and under constant threat of terrorist attack at home, Bush has spent 27% of his presidency on vacation, taking more vacation days in his first three years than Clinton took in seven years.


• Plans on spending $300 million to get re-elected against challenger the GOP says is unelectable.

Yes, four more years of this is exactly what America needs. It's a good thing he isn't receiving oral pleasures in the Oval Office (at least that we know about) or we might have to impeach him or something.

OK, then.

For The Returning Dead...

Trying to get some cleaning done this morning, I came across one of the many books I use for scribbling my thoughts, songs and poems...

On a loose piece of green paper, I had written the words to a poem a number of years ago. The (abridged) poem was recited by Meryl Streep towards the end of the film Out Of Africa, which also starred Robert Redford, whose character had just died. I had transcribed the poem after watching a video of the movie, but I had trouble understanding one line.

With my rediscovery of the poem, it occurred to me to do a web search for the missing word(s). I found that the poem was written by Alfred Edward Housman, and that there exists a Housman Society, from whose website I copied the following biography.

ALFRED EDWARD HOUSMAN, poet and pre-eminent classicist of his time, was born near Bromsgrove in Worcestershire in 1859. The eldest of seven children he entered Bromsgrove School at the age of eleven and, with a strong academic grounding there, won a scholarship to St John's College, Oxford in 1877. After gaining First Class Honours in Classical Moderations, he failed his 'Greats', the Final School, in 1881 and so left Oxford without a degree. After a brief time teaching at his old school he returned to Oxford for a term to take a pass degree and the following year took up employment in the Patent Office in London, where his great friend from Oxford days, Moses Jackson, was working.

In 1892, on the strength of scholarly articles published in classical journals, Housman was appointed Professor of Latin at University College London. In 1896 his most famous book, A Shropshire Lad, was published and it has never been out of print since. The 63 spare nostalgic verses, born out of the troubles Housman suffered during his life, are set in a half-imaginary Shropshire, a 'land of lost content', and the heart-penetrating simplicity of its verse has given it an enduring popularity.

The poem (dedicated here for those being brought home "shoulder-high" from war):

XIX. The time you won your town the race

To an Athlete Dying Young


The time you won your town the race
We chaired you through the market-place;
Man and boy stood cheering by,
And home we brought you shoulder-high.

To-day, the road all runners come,
Shoulder-high we bring you home,
And set you at your threshold down,
Townsman of a stiller town.

Smart lad, to slip betimes away
From fields where glory does not stay
And early though the laurel grows
It withers quicker than the rose.

Eyes the shady night has shut
Cannot see the record cut,
And silence sounds no worse than cheers
After earth has stopped the ears:

Now you will not swell the rout
Of lads that wore their honours out,
Runners whom renown outran
And the name died before the man.

So set, before its echoes fade,
The fleet foot on the sill of shade,
And hold to the low lintel up
The still-defended challenge-cup.

And round that early-laurelled head
Will flock to gaze the strengthless dead,
And find unwithered on its curls
The garland briefer than a girl’s.

Bush Talking Points (Part 2)

This is the second of nine pages of talking points (The Language of Prevention and Protection) prepared for the Bush Campaign by Republican pollster and strategist, Frank Luntz -- simply to make available what the Bush monkeys will be mimicking between now and November. If you prefer to read the document en toto, you can find it here (PDF).

All emphasized text is per the original document.

MAKING THE CASE: THE LANGUAGE OF THE WAR ON TERROR

1) Set the Context: 9/11 changed everything. On this issue more than any, context is everything. The American people have notoriously short attention spans – and they do not always see the big picture unless it is unveiled to them. Start with what we all hold in common – the shared experience of the tragedy on September 11th, but then explain what it has done to the present and what it means for the future. Before Americans will accept where you want to go, you need to emphasize where we all have been.

THE CONTEXTOF 9/11: WORDS THAT WORK
"9/11 changed everything. [It changed our economy. It changed our spending priorities.] It changed the way we think about threats to the United States. It changed our recognition of our vulnerabilities. It changed the kind of national security strategy we need to pursue in guaranteeing the safety and security of the American people."
-- Vice President Dick Cheney

2) Before you can talk Iraq, you must talk about Homeland Security. Make the case for PREVENTION here at home before the need for action abroad. After explaining the context of 9/11, it’s equally important to paint a vivid – but not too graphic – picture of what you hope to prevent in the future. Prevention is a positive, optimistic, hopeful concept, but terrorism also requires that you communicate your concern of what may but hopefully never will occur. It’s not just a "we want our kids to have opportunities in the future" message, like most political issues. It’s also a, "we want our children to have a future, period" message.

You have to explain that this is not a war in which victory is measured by a signed treaty or a definitive military victory. It measured day-by-day in terms of prevention – in events that did NOT happen and lives that were NOT lost.

EXPLAINING THE THREAT: WORDS THAT WORK
"We came to understand that for all the destruction and grief we saw that day, September 11th gave only the merest glimpse of the threat that international terrorism poses to this and other nations. If terrorists ever do acquire weapons of mass destruction - on their own or with help from a terror regime - they will use those weapons without the slightest constraint of reason or morality. Instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives in a single day of horror.
-- Vice President Dick Cheney

Bush lies on Patients' Bill of Rights

Courtesy of the Center for American Progress via dailykos:

THEN:
"I signed into law some of the toughest patient-protection laws in the nation [and] I support a patient bill of rights for all patients, similar to those already enacted in Texas."

- George W. Bush, USA Today op-ed entitled "I Will Build On My Record," 8/17/00 (FYI - Bush didn't sign the law - he let it pass without his signature after the legislature forced him to accept it)


NOW:
"Before the Supreme Court, the Bush administration opposed the Texas law, instead joining two managed-care companies, Aetna Health Inc. and Cigna HealthCare of Texas Inc." Those two companies alone have given President Bush and the Republican Party more than $1.7 million since 2000.

- NY Times, 6/21/04; Center for Responsive Politics

----------

There's no place where Bush has been more dishonest than with this issue. He opposes the Texas Patients' Bill of Rights, but it is passed by a veto-proof majority in the Texas legislature, so Bush lets it pass into law without a signature. Yet in a debate with Gore, Bush blatantly lies claiming he signed it. (The media was too busy calling Gore a liar to write about Bush's REAL lies.)

Then, after Bush gets into office, he orders his Justice Department to fight the Texas law. Yesterday, Bush won. The Supreme Court has invalidated all state Patients' Bill of Right laws saying federal law supercedes it.

Even In Texas...

The Dallas Morning News has questioned the credibility of George W. Bush.

The editorial states that "President Bush presented both WMD and the al-Qaeda/Hussein link as reasons for striking Iraq before it attacks us."

While Bush and Cheney have managed to insinuate a Hussein/September 11 connection to a number of gullible Americans by citing proof od a relationship, the Morning News has decided that that dog no longer hunts.

The president has a credibility gap here, and he needs to address it right away. Vice President Dick Cheney tried but failed miserably. He said, in effect, "we know more than you and you better trust us."

The country did just that when we went to war in Iraq, but things aren't working as promised. The administration needs to respond with specifics, not like members of a secret society with keys to the kingdom.

more >

Stuck In Iraq

As Billmon suggests, the perfect metaphor...

Bush Talking Points

Over the next week or so, I'm going to reproduce nine pages of talking points (The Language of Prevention and Protection) prepared for the Bush Campaign by Republican pollster and strategist, Frank Luntz -- simply to make available what the Bush monkeys will be mimicking between now and November. Thanks to Atrios for pointing this out. The document he links to is a PDF file, so I've decided to copy/paste it here for less troublesome viewing and for easier discovery via a web search. If you prefer to read the document en toto, you can find it here (PDF).

COMMUNICATING THE PRINCIPLES OF PREVENTION & PROTECTION IN THE WAR ON TERROR

Here are the five essential message points:

The overwhelming amount of language in this document is intended to create a lexicon for explaining the policy of "preemption" and the "War in Iraq." However, you will not find any instance in which we suggest that you use the actual word "preemption," or the phrase "The War in Iraq" to communicate your policies to the American public. To do so is to undermine your message from the start. Preemption may be the right policy, and Iraq the right place to start. But those are not the right words to use.

Your efforts are about "the principles of prevention and protection" in the greater "War on Terror."

Please do not underestimate the importance of these rhetorical nuances. Let us understand the stark reality of public opinion which provides the context for this language research. Like it or not, the situation in Iraq is the poster-child for the War on Terror. It is today’s ground zero. You must develop a better way to talk about Iraq in the greater context of the War on Terror. Here are the five essential message points:

WHAT MATTERS MOST

1) "9/11 changed everything" is the context by which everything follows. No speech about homeland security or Iraq should begin without a reference to 9/11.

2) The principles of "prevention and protection" still have universal support and should be addressed prior to talking about Iraq.

3) "Prevention at home can require aggressive action abroad" is the best way to link a principle the public supports with the policies of the Administration. "It is better to fight the War on Terror on the streets of Baghdad than on the streets of New York or Washington."

4) "Terrorism has no boundaries, and neither should efforts to prevent it." Talk about how terrorism has taken the lives of the British, the Spanish, Italians, Germans, Israelis, innocents from all across the globe. Remind listeners that this is truly an international challenge. "Americans are not the only target."

5) "The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein." Enough said.

Presidential Screw-ups, Then And Now...

From Arianna's Blog:

"We blatantly failed to get it right...When you look at the record, it's impossible to escape the conclusion that we squandered an unprecedented opportunity."

So said Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution fellow and former adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority.

In fact, that pretty much sums up what should be the slogan of the Bush administration: Blatant Failure, Squandered Opportunity.

The quote is from the first part of a three part big-picture/where-are-we-now series about Iraq in the Washington Post. Given that they're not getting their information from Ahmed Chalabi, it's a must read.

And as President Clinton kicks off his rock-star-like tour, it's also a reminder of just how far we've come from a President who lies about sex, to one that lies about war but is still inexplicably getting the support of nearly half the country.

It simply befuddles me how so many people look at the last three years of Bush and can't see the same failed administration that I see: Dispassionate Neo-Conservatism.

Proud To Be Irish

What stirs the Irish blood in me?

Sometimes it's the lonely lilt of a pennywhistle. Sometimes it's the bouncy beat of a set of reels. Sometimes it's the ravishing red ringlets of a fair-skinned lass. Sometimes... it's a wild, wooly welcome!

Those Irish eyes not smiling at Bush

Even the Irish are hopping onto the anti-American bandwagon these days, the Boston Globe reports: "[N]ext Friday, when George W. Bush touches down at Shannon Airport for a United States-European Union summit, many Irish people are expected to give him their equivalent of a Bronx cheer instead of the traditional cead mile failte, or a hundred thousand welcomes. There were about 10,000 demonstrators when Reagan visited Ireland; Irish police say they are preparing for at least 10 times that number next week."

more >>

Controversy at UC Irvine over Muslim Witness to Faith




Juan Cole is one of the foremost authorities/commentators on Middle East issues. In his blogpost yesterday, he demystifies this controversy stirred up by Jewish students at University of California, Irvine.

The Orange County Register reports a controversy over graduation ceremonies at the University of California Irvine, where 11 Muslim students had been planning to wear green stoles with Islamic inscriptions over their robes. One side would say "Lord, increase my knowledge." The other would have the shahadah or Muslim confession of faith: "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Messenger." The Register reports that:

Jewish students and outside groups that have gotten involved in the controversy, such as the American Jewish Congress, say the wearing of a garment with that word implies approval of terrorism and suicide bombings. "I am offended by that," said Larry Mahler, president of the UCI chapter of the Jewish fraternity Alpha Epsilon Pi. "What they are doing is ratifying the suicide bombing that killed innocent people."

Rumors also swirled that the inscriptions involved support for Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist organization, the paramilitary wing of which sponsors suicide bombings against Israeli targets as a way of fighting Israeli occupation and annexation of Palestinian land.

I can't say how upset I am by the gross bigotry displayed by anyone in the American Jewish Congress who would attempt to associate the Muslim confession of faith with terrorism.

The shahadah or confession of faith is a universalist statement. It begins by saying "La ilaha illa Allah." "La" means "no" in Arabic. "Ilah" is god with a small "g", a deity of the sort that is worshipped in polytheistic religions like those of ancient Greece and Babylon. It is a cognate of the ancient Hebrew "eloh," which also means "god." One of the names for God in the oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible is Elohim, which literally means "the Gods." Some scholars believe that the use of this plural is an echo of the process whereby a council of gods in ancient Near Eastern religion gradually become merged into a single figure, the one God.

more >>

Beheading Follow-up

Why does it seem that every piece of news out of the Middle East (as it relates to the Iraq War) takes turns and twists that smell of something stinky in Denmark?

I was rather surprised that the Saudis were able to so quickly capture and/or kill a number of the terrorists that beheaded Paul Johnson the other day (although for some reason they've yet to find Johnson's body!).

Now, AP reports that al Qaeda has claimed complicity of Saudi security forces.

The al-Qaida group responsible for beheading an American engineer said sympathizers in the Saudi security forces provided police uniforms and cars used during the victim's kidnapping, according to an Islamic extremist Web site Sunday.

The account of the abduction of Paul M. Johnson Jr., who was later decapitated, highlighted the fears expressed by some diplomats and Westerners in the kingdom that militants have infiltrated Saudi security forces — a possibility Saudi officials have denied.

The article recounting the abduction appeared in Sawt al-Jihad, or Voice of the Holy War, a semimonthly Internet periodical posted by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula — the group that claimed responsibility for killing Johnson.

According to the account, militants wearing police uniforms and using police cars set up a fake checkpoint June 12 on al-Khadma Road, leading to the airport, near Imam Mohammed bin Saud University.

"A number of the cooperators who are sincere to their religion in the security apparatus donated those clothes and the police cars. We ask God to reward them and that they use their energy to serve Islam and the mujahedeen," the article read.

Another Beheading, More Outrage

Who amongst us -- liberal or conservative, left or right, Democrat or Republican, pro-war or anti-war -- isn't saddened by the beheading today of Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia?

Via Jesus' General, I clicked through to a couple of Iraq War supporters' blogs and found exasperation, despondence and vitriol with regard to Mr. Johnson's death.

Michele at A Small Victory writes:

I do not blame Bush, just as I do not blame Clinton, Bush I or Carter. I do not blame America.

But that is what they want and by telling you that their cause in murdering Nick Berg and Paul Johnson, among many others, has anything to do with Iraq they are force feeding you the lie that America is to blame. Some of you are eating that crap up like it's a decadent dessert. Spit it out. It's poison. They want you to believe that they really care about Abu Ghraib. They don't. It's just an excuse to get you to hate yourself the way they hate you.

You should all be taking this very personally. Because it was personal. They would kill you just as swiftly as they killed Paul Johnson.

First of all, what I take personally is the way our government has -- over many years and many administrations -- aided and abetted corporate globalization at the risk and expense of its citizens. We have come to believe that the American Culture is the one true culture: "America... love it or love it." We bring our culture of the Almighty Dollar to others' homes and expect them to open their doors without hesitation.

For those of us who step back and try to gain some sort of insight about how we ("America") might be perceived, the Johnson execution doesn't come as much surprise. Michele, then, is correct in surmising that any one of us would have met the same fate -- regardless of our politics; regardless of our innocence. She is wrong, however, in believing that it's personal. It's not personal. It is political... no less political than our reasons for having initiated this war in the first place.

What many Americans don't seem to understand, or perhaps can't quite come to grips with, is that many of the "terrorists" we are in battle with in Iraq, or the "terrorists" who have brandished their weapons against us in Saudi Arabia (or other Middle East nations), feel as deeply about their faith or patriotism as we do. Like those who believe that this war in Iraq is just, the "terrorists" believe that their actions are equally as just.

We knew at the outset of this war that we were sticking our necks out in a land where "an eye for an eye" is a much-quoted, much acted-upon rule of law. Feigning disgust at this crude method of meting out "justice", however, is almost as sickening to me as the beheadings themselves.

For our part in this war, why should we be any more disgusted, outraged or abhorred at the beheading of one or more of our citizens when we have incinerated thousands of innocent Iraqis since this war began? The remains of Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson are at least recognizable when they return home... no doubt to homes that are still standing.

George W. Bush is as much to blame for the deaths of Berg and Johnson as the men who put the knives to their throats. All of us who believe that we are some sort of "chosen" nation are equally as guilty, as are the extremist believers of fundamental writ.

Whomever we decide to blame, those of us who don't work for peace are apt to resort to war.

D Smith at The True Nature of Reality writes:

With each one of these incidents the tide rises higher, and takes a bit longer to recede.

Now imagine this goes on for months. Maybe a few years. And it will, even if Kerry is elected (you know they will not stop until they're dead or we are). And now imagine on top of that, that the terrorists get through and make a major attack in the US, worse than 9/11.

Imagine not just one Paul Johnson, but 10,000. American men, women, and children. Again.

And again (remember, the terrorists won't stop).

You want to sit there and tell me that eventually, in one of our spasms of grief and rage following one of these atrocities, that we aren't going to in fact start nuking first and taking names later?

Imagination isn't needed. There are already as many as 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians as a result of this war. For some reason, we seem to conveniently forget these casualties ("collateral damage") in our outrage over one American's death. Where is the outrage about the 800 American soldiers who have died? Those of us who express outrage over the deaths of all these people -- whichever "side" they're on -- are labelled, at most, anti-American [insert expletive here]s, or, at least, unsupportive of "the troops". It's a funny thing, outrage... one moment we let it fly over a beheading of a complete stranger; the next we're using it to denounce honoring dead soldiers on Nightline.

I am saddened for the family of Mr. Johnson. But I am also saddened for all the families of Iraq whose husbands, wives, sons, daughters, mothers and fathers will not come home whole or at all. I'm saddened that all of these lives are being lost, more or less, over property, petrodollars and power. I'm saddened that basically decent human beings in this country are being turned against each other when we should be working together trying to figure this out.

Not by nuking anybody, but by trying to make the killing stop.

Blog Fatigue

I have spent so much time reading other blogs this week, that I have not been inspired to the point of writing anything. The information flow this week seemed to have been so voluminous that I haven't yet digested everything in such a way that I've been able to connect fully with anything in particular. There is also the thought that I would merely regurgitate something about which more cogent bloggers had already given a voice.

I've found that trying to keep up with the events of the day, doing the research necessary, then developing opinions I feel are worth posting here is an incredibly time-consuming venture.

One of my favorite daily stops on the blogging highway is at the excellent, elegant Body and Soul, where Jeanne recently had a similar bout with this blog fatigue:

In a way, all of this is blogging manna -- an abundance of juicy stuff to write about. But on the other hand, what is there to say that isn't self-evident?

Maybe I was just grumpy (my internet connection was painfully slow yesterday, giving me long periods to grumble as I was waiting for each of those pages to load, and it could be that frustration with Charter translated into frustration with blogging), but I started wondering about the usefulness of blogging. For a couple of years, I've been reading about two dozen left-wing blogs a day, and a few more on the right. I'm finding it harder and harder, as evidence of the corruption in this government mounts, to read the ones on the right. In the past left-wing blogs gave me information I would have missed otherwise, and made me feel that my perceptions of what was going on in the world were shared by lots of people. But I'm starting to feel that all we're saying is "Bad Bush," which is a perfect legitimate thing to say, but I'm not sure hundreds of us need to say it.

I'm not sure anymore why people write blogs, and why people read them. So I guess I'm trying to start a conversation. What do you get from blogs that you wouldn't get elsewhere? Why are they worth reading? Why are they worth writing?

Of course, I posted a comment in support of what Jeanne does. Her ability to cut to the bone (and nerve) of issues is very heartening. There are too many bloggers out there with hateful agendas -- kneejerk, divisive, thought-devoid screeds that do not cherish the experience of wrapping one's mind, body or soul around an issue.

Support Fahrenheit 9/11

I've seen it posted on a couple of blogs today, but here's Tom Tomorrow's (This Modern World) mention of it:

Here's a Republican PR firm trying to shut down Michael Moore's new film. (More on them here.) If you scroll down you'll see that they thoughtfully provide a list of email addresses for major theatre chains, so visitors to their site can let theatre owners know that they appreciate and patronize businesses that don't buckle under to right wing thuggery.

That's how we can use it, anyway.

Note that emails to the National Amusements addresses (@national-amusements.com) have an anti-spam filter... you will have to send them as separate notes.

This is what I sent to those theatres who are already presenting the film; I modified it slightly for those who have yet to decide about showing it.

Hello.

I thought I would write a letter of support for Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" specifically, and freedom of speech in general.

Surely, this film has already created controversy with regard to its content, but in a country wherein freedom of speech is not only treasured but guaranteed, I praise your decision to make this film available.

There are those who would like to see the message of this film supressed for their own political, dubious gain, but these are the same people who would like us to believe -- in this case, escpecially -- that making use of one's freedom of speech equates to being "Anti-American".

Again, I thank you for making this film available, and hope that the publicity yields much attention for your theatres; that your profits are high.

High-Flying Journalism

As reported by Howard Kurtz in today's Washington Post:

Are any media types crazy enough to chase a story by jumping out of a plane?

Brit Hume fits the description. The Fox News anchor did a parachute jump yesterday, shortly before George H.W. Bush did so too, and then interviewed the just-turned-80 former president.

"We reporters are supposed to be up for stuff, aren't we?" Hume, 60, said before taking the plunge. "It's kind of an adventure." He said he determined after Bush invited him that "the level of peril in this was not overwhelming."

My sources report that Hume landed far to the right of the former President.

Hate Mail

I've touched upon Ted Rall's recent column about Reagan and the dressing down he received last week on Fox's Hannity & Colmes, and I wondered what -- if anything -- the Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs contribute to the political landscape. I wondered what they contribute to anything other than their pockets, Fox's (read: Rupert Murdoch's) and those of their advertisers.

After checking out Rall's blog this evening, I found out what they contribute to the American landscape: hate mail.

I simply can't understand how any even remotely responsible advertising executive can continue to buy advertising time on these shows, which continually encourage this type of vile, vicious, venomous, vindictive and (in many cases) villainous behavior.

While it's likely (I hope) that these types of threats are idle ones, there is always the possibility that one of these poor, misled, undereducated creeps will act out. Aside from the fact that these programs lead to vengeful reprisals such as these, they also contribute, sadly, to the withering, degenerating intelligence of young people who have come to believe that verbal abuse is considered proper dialogue; acceptable debate.

Certainly, the producers (as well as the principals) of the shows know what they're doing.

Hatemongers!

Dear Mr. President

Written by a Portland State University student, an open letter and invitation to Dubya...

The education of our president

Dear Mr. President,

I am graduating from college after a fair amount of sacrifice and struggle. I go to Portland State University, a fine institution that has done a lot for me, and I have attempted to do as much as possible for it. When I began, I felt so optimistic about the changes that I was seeing all around me. It was a time of great purpose and I felt a calling to serve my community in a way that I had never felt before. It was an exciting time. Don't get me wrong, Mr. President, I have not given up. It is just that everything has turned out so differently than the clear depths of promise that we all once enjoyed. This is the reason that I invite you to attend my university for a few days of classes. Portland State University, while not the most loyal compatriot to you, will offer you an education that you have, by all accounts, been lacking in your administration and in your decisions.

It disheartens me, though, that you dismiss my education, my planning and my purpose as elitism. This is especially confusing when you attended the most exclusive institutions in the world, while dismissing this fact as not worthwhile. I know of so many who struggle just to pay their electric bills, while dreaming of the chance to be educated in the way that you were. I am equally flummoxed by your political reasoning, which rejects differences of opinion and condemns a truly breathtaking feature of democracy: the press. For these reasons, as well, I look forward to you sitting beside me for a day as a PSU Viking (Vikings were fierce warriors, you know).

On Day One at PSU, we will attend the classes that I mentor in the general education program. Our goals, in these classes, are to negotiate ideas across rifts of opinion, to explore the reasons and social thinking that accompany categories of difference both locally and globally, and to communicate effectively using not only words, but all the media of technology, in presenting and arguing our evolving perspectives. The fundamental goal is to create a space of academic safety, not intellectual comfort, where we can challenge and inspire each other. On good days the room is filled with light, on others, like the day we discussed the torture at Abu Ghraib, we feel heavy and caked with the danger that you have foisted on our own fledgling democracy. You will be received with care, though, and knowing the intense consideration that my peers utilize with each other, you will be received with fairness. But you will be required to explain your actions; you will be required to clearly present your argument for all the things you do; you will be graded by your use of logic, not rhetorical flourish.

I am concerned that, due to your busy schedule, we may have just one day together at Portland State. In that case, let me prepare you for a few questions that you may be asked after your presentation. One of my gay students would like to marry; he will most definitely ask you why his love would bring down western civilization. Another student is very concerned about the deep influence of companies like Halliburton on your policy decisions. He is also very concerned about the manifest deception that Cheney has fostered concerning his connections to the companies that now run your war. One of the most politically conservative students is likely to ask why your administration has violated the basic tenet of conservatism by championing the Patriot Act. Another student, who exerts great effort in raising her child and attending school full-time, would like to know why her estranged parents received such a large tax break (when they clearly did not need it) while she is barely able to afford child and health care. She is also extremely worried about the rumors of implementing the draft. Another student, who is in the National Guard, awaits her war papers, while desperately trying to ignore the utter collapse of the organizational and command structure that you promised would be paramount in this effort.

Mr. President, I would like to know why your campaign spits the word "educated" and "liberal" in a shoddy attempt to create an enemy at home to cover your own actions abroad. I would also like to know, Mr. President, how you conceive of your actions as conservative when they more closely resemble Evangelical and Zionist zealotry. Mr. President, I invite you to my university because I would like you to see that we remain hopeful, not because of what you have done, but in spite of what you have done. We reminds ourselves, through the labors of liberally educating ourselves, that the shallow register of promise and potential that is definitive of your presidency will soon wash away.

A Reagan Dollar...That's it!!

Like so many liberals sick of the campaign to name every building, airport and fireplug after Reagan, I have tried to imagine what would be a proper tribute to a former president and reasonable at the same time.

I just came across this via Matthew Yglesias... a terrific idea, although it would seem to require compromise, which I'm not sure is possible these days in Washington.

Reagan money

WCCO: A $10 Reagan Bill?

First off, there's no way that Reagan's going on the dime. Forget it. Leaving aside the arguments for relative greatness (which in my opinion are all on FDR's side) it's divisive.

Hamilton deserves his place on money, as far as I'm concerned. But since he doesn't have FDR's fan club, ditching him for Reagan would be easier.

However, there is no reason to do this. There is an obvious answer, though I haven't seen anyone in the media suggest it: put Reagan on the $1 coin. Yes, this would displace Washington, but he would still have the quarter, and some $1 bills would remain in circulation.

The great advantage of this is that it would gain powerful allies for something the Mint and the government have tried and twice failed to do: to establish a viable $1 coin. The Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea coins were both miserable failures. But with half the country wanting to honor its hero, a Ronnie would have a big leg up in getting established. And us liberal good government types, whatever our feelings about the man, would support the coin because it's the sort of thing we like to support.

There are a number of arguments for a dollar coin, most of which you've probably heard. Drink machines and the like wouldn't have to have the stupid dollar bill readers that don't work most of the time. (The people who make the dollar bill readers, of course, are anti-dollar coin.) The coin would be more expensive to produce than the greenback, but would last much longer, leading to ultimate savings. And it would be nice to have some coins worth something.

The Bush Arrogance

George W. Bush lives in such a fantasy world -- one in which he simply can't see past the nose (which seems to get longer by the day, by the way) on his face. Last week, he met with French President Jacques Chirac while in France for the D-Day ceremonies, so -- given our strained relations with France since Bush's slapdown in the wake of their refusal to support the attack of Iraq -- the press inquired about their tete a tete.

From Time:

When Bush was asked if he would offer Chirac a coveted invitation to his Texas ranch, the President seemed hesitant. "If he wants to come and see some cows, he's welcome to come out there," he told the French magazine Paris Match. Chirac, a former agriculture minister, was just as cool in an NBC interview. "I myself am from a region," he noted, "where we raise cows — probably the most beautiful and best in the world."

Touché!

The Living Ronald Reagan

The only portions of yesterday's ReaganFest that I watched were the two Bushes' eulogies (actually only parts of them) and a little bit of the internment ceremony. I had the TV on for the latter but with the sound turned down until I noticed that Reagan's children were speaking.

Because I recently posted here about my memories of my own father, I wanted to hear what Patti and Ron had to say about theirs. I appreciated the stories that both of them told -- memories of a man they knew outside the realm of politics.

I'd read Patti Davis' recent comments on her father as well as a Salon interview with Ron from about a year ago. Patti stuck to the personal aspect of her relationship, with much to say about Alzheimers. Ron, on the other hand, took a swipe at the current administration:

"Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the '80s. But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father's -- these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive, and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."

So, I suppose it comes as no surprise that in his eulogy last night, he included:

Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians, wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference.

There was no commentary on the event on ABC immediately afterwards (although I wouldn't have watched it anyway), but I wonder if any mention was made by all of the pundits afterwards. I wonder if any of them dared to draw anyone's attention to it in fear of wrecking the canonization.

The Howard Stern Factor

Ryan Lizza, in his Campaign Journal at The New Republic Online, makes note of the possible (and likely unsuspected) blowback effect of the FCC's crackdown on Howard Stern's radio show.

THE STERN GANG: Forget about soccer moms and NASCAR dads. The New Democrat Network has identified the hot new swing vote of the 2004 election: people who listen to Howard Stern. It turns out that Stern's anti-Bush diatribes might actually be having an impact on the presidential campaign. From a polling memo released by NDN yesterday:

The Stern Gang. Potentially offsetting the conservative dominance of the radio waves is Howard Stern. The nationally-syndicated radio host is listened to by 17 percent of likely voters, and nationally, they would support Kerry over Bush by a margin of 53 percent to 43 percent. In the battleground states, their preference for Kerry is even stronger, backing him by a margin of 59 percent to 37 percent.

More importantly, one-quarter of all likely voting Stern listeners are swing voters. This means that four percent of likely voters this fall are swing voters who listen to Howard Stern, showing Stern's potential ability to impact the race. Generally, likely voters who are Stern listeners are: 2 to 1 male to female; 40 percent Democrats, 26 percent Republicans, and 34 percent Independents; more liberal and less conservative than the average voter; significantly younger than the average voter (two-thirds are under 50 and 40 percent are under 35); more diverse; and more driven in their vote by economic issues. [Emphasis added.]

Hmm. In 2000, Bush sat down for a soft interview with Oprah--remember that kiss?--to help close the huge gender gap that had opened up in the race. You have to wonder what will happen this year if Bush and Kerry decide to aggressively court the Stern Gang. No word yet on whether the Bush twins or Kerry's daughters have been asked to drop by Stern's radio lair.

UPDATE: In the June issue of The Atlantic, Ross Douthat has a great piece on how "hundreds of thousands of swing-state radio listeners may turn the unlikely Howard Stern into a presidential kingmaker."

All Reagan, All The Time

I was talking with a co-worker today and she asked what I thought of the wall-to-wall Reagan coverage, and the clamor to name anything and everything after Reagan. I suggested that it might be like somebody wanting to get married after getting laid for the first time.

This is the "fiscally-responsible" Republican Party!

Mark Kleiman shared this link to a piece by Charles P. Pierce, a letter from Ronnie in heaven:

Pennies From Heaven

My friend, I miss you and send you love.

The week has been ... something. I watched it from where I am, in the place beyond. It's wonderful here. I'm working as a lifeguard again, and I love it. It's a little crowded, though, and an awful lot of people seem to want to talk to me, which I'll get to in a minute. But first you and I have to talk. I know what you were trying to do all week, or what you sort of meant to be doing. But, Peg, it's been bad.

Peg. Please, for the love of God -- who's in the next hammock, by the way? -- shut the hell up.

I'm not kidding. The adjustment's been tough enough. First thing, Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney come up and start asking me about kicking off the 1980 campaign down by the earthen dam there in Philadelphia, and about what all that stuff about states’ rights was. I tried to be charming, and I used all the sunny optimism that disarmed even my political opponents, as you know. Mostly, though, they just wanted to talk, so we did. You'll be amazed at what I think is one of the best parts about this place. Two words: no grudges.

Seriously. Most of the Founders are up here (though Franklin's still in Purgatory) and James Madison and I had a nice chat about how he was different from Alfonso Calero. We started with their hairstyles and worked from there. He said he didn't necessarily agree that the Contras were the moral equivalents of his bunch; for one thing, he said, he was a lot better at designing a balance of power than razing a hamlet, and that he wouldn't even know which end of an M-16 you blow into. He pointed out that a lot fewer people died at the Constitutional Convention than did in Nicaragua in the 1980s. I told him about how it was Morning in America again, and he said he was glad to hear it. I think we're playing tennis some time next week. I'll be pretty busy until then. A couple of thousand Guatemalans want to say hello.

Which is why, the next time you see him in the Green Room or around town, you should tell old Ollie not to worry about anything. The Nicaraguans are really nice people, especially all their beautiful children. He's going to enjoy meeting them. And I promise I won't spend too much time kidding him about selling me out at his trial. But he's got to expect me to have a little fun. Does he know how to laugh yet?

more >>