Beware of Gay Puppets! Is Miss Saigon a Liberal?

The excitement just continues on unabated.

This from my Patty, perusing The Week website:

Republican delegates will be stepping into hostile territory when they show up for their party’s convention in New York City a month from now. More than two-thirds of the city’s voters disapprove of President Bush, and anti-war activists say they’ll be gathering 250,000 people to protest during the convention. Mindful of the possible culture clash, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay originally proposed housing the party’s delegates and politicians on a 2,240-passenger luxury liner docked in the Hudson River, where they wouldn’t have to mix with New Yorkers. But the idea was widely mocked and has been scrapped. Still, the local host committee has tried to shield delegates from unpalatable Broadway musicals, and vetoed giving out free tickets to several popular shows deemed unsuitable; one featured gay puppets, another had an anti–Vietnam War theme. To keep order and ensure security, the city is putting on an extra 10,000 cops, but one worried police captain predicted that close encounters between red-state Republicans and irascible New Yorkers would make this a convention to remember. “The whole city is going to turn into a wild cauldron of Looney Tunes,” he said.

I wish I could be there. This may be the worst choice of convention sites since the Democrats chose Chicago in '68. I suspect another Broadway show off limits will be the BLUE MAN TUBE.

Drop that Payday and assume the position, m'am.

What a rich day for comment.

Enclosed is an Associated Press (bah, UPI was so much better! :-) ) about how some "police" are taking the War on Terror to extremes that no one would have ever have thought about. This is pretty incredible.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A government scientist finishing a candy bar on her way into a subway station where eating is prohibited was arrested, handcuffed and detained for three hours by transit police.

Stephanie Willett said she was eating a PayDay bar on an escalator descending into a station July 16 when an officer warned her to finish it before entering the station. Both Willett and police agree that she nodded and put the last bit into her mouth before throwing the wrapper into a trash can.

Willett, a 45-year-old Environmental Protection Agency scientist, told radio station WTOP that the officer then followed her into the station, one of several in downtown Washington.

"Don't you have some other crimes you have to take care of?" Willett said she told the officer.

Washington has been under heightened security because of the continuing threat of terrorism. And last week, police declared a citywide crime emergency over rising juvenile crime.

The transit police officer asked for Willett's identification, but Willett kept walking. She said she was then frisked and handcuffed.

"If she had stopped eating, it would have been the end of it and if she had just stopped for the issuance of a citation, she never would have been locked up," Transit Police Chief Polly Hanson said Thursday.

Metrorail has been criticized in the past for heavy-handed enforcement of the eating ban. In 2000, a police officer handcuffed a 12-year-old girl for eating a French fry on a subway platform.

In 2002, one of their officers ticketed a wheelchair-bound cerebral palsy patient for cursing when he was unable to find a working elevator to leave a station. Unflattering publicity eventually led the police to void the ticket.

What happened to the eye that never blinked?

Another follow-up to my position that the broadcast media is a total embarrassment when it comes to covering important news. I could rail on about this in some detail, but Roger Simon presents oh so much better an argument:

TV Blackout
ROGER SIMON COLUMN
JULY 28, 2004

BOSTON - - I am not saying that Tuesday night at the Democratic Convention was the most electrifying or informative in the history of politics.

I am saying it was more electrifying and informative than “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” “Last Comic Standing,” “Navy NCIS” and “Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy.”

But that is what the commercial TV networks brought us instead of covering even one second of the convention.


The networks are barely covering the convention at all. They are broadcasting just one live hour a night for three nights. Tuesday night, they broadcast nothing live at all.

I think that is embarrassing. Especially considering the tripe they are broadcasting instead.

How embarrassing is it? This embarrassing: According to the Boston Herald, the Arab news network, al Jazeera, “is airing more live prime-time broadcasting” of the Democratic convention “each night than the major commercial American networks.” Al Jazeera, according to the newspaper, is broadcasting 90 minutes of the convention each night.

Why is al Jazeera doing so? According to the network’s spokesperson, Stephanie Thomas, “This convention is particularly relevant, both to our Middle Eastern and our American audiences.”

American networks apparently do not think a presidential nominating convention is “particularly relevant” to their American audiences, however.

But wait, you say, some of the networks have cable outlets that are covering the convention a lot more, right?

Yeah, but examine the difference in audience size: According to Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, the combined prime-time viewing audience for ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox is 30 million. The combined prime-time viewing audience for the cable and satellite channels (PBS, CNN, Fox News Channel, CNBC, MSNBC and MTV) is 6.6 million.

And there is something else to consider. “Those who select one of these cable or satellite channels or seek convention coverage on the Internet are already politically interested and committed,” Gans said. “Those who watch only the networks are the general public. It is the general public that needs to be engaged and informed.”

I am not faulting the news operations of the commercial networks. You can bet the news operations wanted to cover the conventions. But the money people at the networks did not. And that is because they know they can make a lot more money bringing the public “reality” programming instead of the reality of the nominating conventions.

But the public doesn’t want to watch! the money people say. And we have low ratings from past years to prove it.

To which I say: Who cares? You were granted broadcast licenses by the government to provide a public service, not just make money hand over fist. And by refusing to meet your public service obligations, you deny those members of the public who do want to be informed the ability to get the information they want and need.

The same networks that broadcast every lap of 500-lap auto races could not bring us a single second of a convention on a night during which Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Barack Obama, Ron Reagan, and Teresa Heinz Kerry all spoke.

It is shameful.

And you would think that American TV networks would be just a little embarrassed that if American citizens want to really watch American democracy in action, they would be better off watching al Jazeera.


Posted by rsimoncol at July 28, 2004 03:39 PM | TrackBack

Comments
Last time I was without cable, PBS was still broadcast over the airwaves. I used to get it through a set of rabbit ears. Is it now only a cable/satellite outlet?

Also, I thought it was the news people who had given up on the conventions. Wasn't it Ted Koppel, after the 96 convention, who was rumored to have remarked, "there is no news here"? I wonder if a breaking development in the Scott Peterson trial would have been deemed worthy of pre-empting "Trading Spouses".

I also heard that the networks lost about 10% of their regular viewers last night, presumably because people watched the convention on cable.

The convention is sometimes boring, but it is newsworthy. We'll likely see snippets of the speech by Clinton, Obama, and Heinz-Kerry for the next several months. The speeches by Kerry and Edwards will be referenced for years, especially if they win.

Maybe the Republicans will take the hint. They can put the TV networks and the public on notice that, randomly throughout their convention, Britney Spears and Madonna will appear on stage for a passionate makeout session. Or maybe they could get a 900-number that viewers can call to vote for the GOP Idol; perhaps it could be couched as an audition to see who will replace Rumsfeld and Ashcroft.

Going, going, gone! Over the Green Monster for a Homerun!

Day Four of the Democratic Convention. Kerry nailed it.

I was nervous. There have been some great speeches and great moments at the Convention, and I was worried that Kerry might pale before them. He did not. We made an excellent choice for candidate. It's amazing how the primary system can do that. There has been a great amount of talk by the talking heads about how the Conventions are no longer interesting. I suppose they would like the controversy and thrills of the smoke-filled rooms. It would give them something to talk about instead of endlessly interviewing themselves, but to hell with them. The primary system works. Dean was ready to be crowned (Time Magazine even did so) before the primaries got underway, but then people began voting. The rest is history.

Funny how if you let democracy work, that it actually works.

I could go into a long discussion of all of Kerry's points last night - he hit everyone that I thought he should hit. He bitch-slapped Bush around while smiling all the time and keeping it on a "high plane."

But instead of reprinting the speech here (just go to the link-http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/politics/campaign/29TEXT-KERRY.html), here is a column in the New York Times you should read that will put the speech in context of what's wrong with how news is being reported today. Paul Krugman, you are right on yet again!

Triumph of the Trivial

July 30, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN





Under the headline "Voters Want Specifics From Kerry," The Washington Post recently quoted a voter demanding that John Kerry and John Edwards talk about "what they plan on doing about health care for middle-income or lower-income people. I have to face the fact that I will never be able to have health insurance, the way things are now. And these millionaires don't seem to address that."

Mr. Kerry proposes spending $650 billion extending health insurance to lower- and middle-income families. Whether you approve or not, you can't say he hasn't addressed the issue. Why hasn't this voter heard about it?

Well, I've been reading 60 days' worth of transcripts from
the places four out of five Americans cite as where they usually get their news: the major cable and broadcast TV networks. Never mind the details - I couldn't even find a clear statement that Mr. Kerry wants to roll back recent high-income tax cuts and use the money to cover most of the uninsured. When reports mentioned the Kerry plan at all, it was usually horse race analysis - how it's playing, not what's in it.

On the other hand, everyone knows that Teresa Heinz Kerry told someone to "shove it," though even there, the context was missing. Except for a brief reference on MSNBC, none of the transcripts I've read mention that the target of her ire works for Richard Mellon Scaife, a billionaire who financed smear campaigns against the Clintons - including accusations of murder. (CNN did mention Mr. Scaife on its Web site, but described him only as a donor to "conservative causes.") And viewers learned nothing about Mr. Scaife's long vendetta against Mrs. Heinz Kerry herself.

There are two issues here, trivialization and bias, but they're related.

Somewhere along the line, TV news stopped reporting on candidates' policies, and turned instead to trivia that supposedly reveal their personalities. We hear about Mr. Kerry's haircuts, not his health care proposals. We hear about George Bush's brush-cutting, not his environmental policies.

Even on its own terms, such reporting often gets it wrong, because journalists aren't especially good at judging character. ("He is, above all, a moralist," wrote George Will about Jack Ryan, the Illinois Senate candidate who dropped out after embarrassing sex-club questions.) And the character issues that dominate today's reporting have historically had no bearing on leadership qualities. While planning D-Day, Dwight Eisenhower had a close, though possibly platonic, relationship with his female driver. Should that have barred him from the White House?

And since campaign coverage as celebrity profiling has no rules, it offers ample scope for biased reporting.

Notice the voter's reference to "these millionaires." A Columbia Journalism Review Web site called campaigndesk.org, says its analysis "reveals a press prone to needlessly introduce Senators Kerry and Edwards and Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, as millionaires or billionaires, without similar labels for President Bush or Vice President Cheney."

As the site points out, the Bush campaign has been "hammering away with talking points casting Kerry as out of the mainstream because of his wealth, hoping to influence press coverage." The campaign isn't claiming that Mr. Kerry's policies favor the rich - they manifestly don't, while Mr. Bush's manifestly do. Instead, we're supposed to dislike Mr. Kerry simply because he's wealthy (and not notice that his opponent is, too). Republicans, of all people, are practicing the politics of envy, and the media obediently go along.

In short, the triumph of the trivial is not a trivial matter. The failure of TV news to inform the public about the policy proposals of this year's presidential candidates is, in its own way, as serious a journalistic betrayal as the failure to raise questions about the rush to invade Iraq.

This land is made for you and me

Night Three of the Democratic National Convention.

Smart move to put on Sharpton (as if you could keep him off). I once did not think much of him, but on the campaign trail he began showing a lot of humor. Who would have thought that he would last longer than Dean! But bottomline, we needed someone to say the things we all have been wanting to say, and to stir up the black vote. The black vote could turn this election around for us, particularly in states like Florida and Missouri. There is no reason for us to lose Missouri!

{Plus, it gives FOX and their horde of extreme right pundits something to focus on and hate).

Meanwhile, Woody Guthrie's best establishment-shattering song takes on a new meaning with: (click on the headline and turnup the volume!)

Sidebar: Bush Gets Shitty Paper

Interesting story from the wire services:

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka - A Sri Lankan company that made personalized stationery for President Bush from paper made of elephant dung is asking people to use its products to help the country's dwindling elephant population.

Former Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had presented Bush with a box of elephant dung writing paper, envelopes and name cards in a visit to Washington in July 2002.

The elephant is the symbol of Bush's Republican Party, but it was not immediately known whether he has used the paper. Sheets have a unique color and texture, depending on the diet, age and dental health of the elephant that has produced the dung, said Rohan Martis, a marketer for the company, Maximus.

"We produce the paper using 75 percent elephant dung," Martis told The Associated Press on Monday. "Fully digested fiber gives the paper a smooth finish, while half digested fiber makes the paper coarser."

"The elephant is the symbol of Bush's Republican Party"? I thought shit was.

Should Bush clean up his own mess?

An interesting perspective. This from the Washington Monthly talking about a column in the Economist. Hmmm, does this make me having a column about a Washington Monthly column about an Economist column? At any rate, read on and give me an answer:

THE NEXT FOUR YEARS....The Economist's John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge write in the LA Times today that some conservatives might be secretly hoping that George Bush loses the election this year.

No, that's not quite right, actually. Despite the headline writer's liberties, what they really said was merely that "in a few years, some on the right might look on a John Kerry victory as a blessing in disguise."

Why? They've got a laundry list of reasons: Bush has expanded government, he's already won his foreign policy point anyway, conservatives like gridlock, Republicans need a timeout to rethink the party, and a Kerry presidency would bring them roaring back like nobody's business in 2008.

This list is, to say the least, unconvincing. But they might be right anyway for a reason that they only fleetingly allude to in their fifth bullet: Bush has dug the country into such a godawful hole that the next four years are going to be hell no matter who's president.

The economy is the most obvious example. The fiscal reality is that we can't keep running enormous deficits forever, and the only way to get rid of the deficit is to raise taxes. Wouldn't it be nice if it were a Democrat who was forced to do that? And Social Security and Medicare need reforming, but any real reform is almost certain to enrage a significant number of people. How about letting a Democrat catch some of that grief?

And foreign affairs? Iraq is pretty much a no-win proposition at this point. We can either pull American soldiers out next year and watch the country spiral into chaos, or else we can stay the course and watch them get killed at the rate of a hundred a month or so. All the time knowing that leaving them there prevents us from credibly threatening force anywhere else in the world — and that our enemies know it.

Bottom line: during sleepless nights there's a small voice in my head that agrees with Micklethwait and Wooldridge — but in mirror image. What happens if Kerry wins and has to take over the economic and foreign policy mess that Bush has bequeathed him? Is it a poisoned chalice no matter who takes it up?

Maybe Bush should be required to clean up his own mess — and suffer the consequences that go along with it.

Re-Defeat Bush

Quick, take a guess: when was the last time the Democratic Party was truly unified?

1936? Maybe. A successful first term by FDR, but the Solid South was already starting to worry about his civil rights tendencies.

Actually, I think there has been no time since the present that the Democrats have been so united. Who would have thought that George W. Bush would do the party such a favor?

The second night of the Democratic Convention, pre-billed as the weakest "entertainment" night, actually proved quite enlightening.

0 Ted Kennedy got the opportunity to dust off the old 60s liberal speech again. It had a quaintness that, admitted, I enjoyed, but Teddy has long ago lost his effectiveness. Are there any other Kennedy's in the wings?

0 Ron Reagan got to take his shot at the Bush Aministration (did his mom put him up to this) by calling for stem cell research and pledging to vote for Kerry because of his position on the issue. The Republicans poo-poo'ed his presence, but they are having a hard time explaining why Mrs. Reagan has refused to come to the GOP convention where they plan to honor the former president.

0 The best speech of the night was by the Illinois senatorial candidate Barak Obama. He was phenomenal and played the audience well. He reminds me of a young Julian Bond when we all thought that Julian was going to be the dominant black leader well into this century. We were wrong, but I do hope we hear more from Barak. Bill Clinton's speech is still my favorite, but I have to admit that my prejudice for the man might be coloring my perception some. An interesting point (and unless you grew up in the south, you will miss it): Barak is the offspring of a Kenyan and a caucasian. When I was growing up in Texas, there were laws on the books against blacks and whites marrying each other. Southern senators were warning that if blacks were allowed to go to school with whites, then the next thing would be "mass miscegenation." Frankly, Barak could very well be our first black presidential candidate. . . in 2012.

0 Teresa Kerry - she does have a nice personality, she is not goofy, and her speech was well delivered. I had concerns about her earlier. Now, I'm totally convinced that she will make the most interesting, exciting First Lady since Barbara Ford. (OK, Hillary, you were interesting, but a little . . . bitchy, if you know what I mean. I still love you and would vote for you, but you made a fairly average First Lady).

It's great to have great speeches, but what does it really mean? Are the Democrats making an impact?

I haven't seen any polls, and admittedly the TV audience is probably quite small since there is no controversy and the outcome is already determined, but I do think we have the Republicans nervous. This morning I was watching CNN, and on the floor of the empty convention hall, they were "interviewing" James Carville and Bob Novak (I love it when reporters interview other reporters to "get the story")

Carville made a favorable comment and then Bob Novak launched into one of his pissy tirades that Obama was really over-rated and a liberal "even more liberal than Kerry" and on and on. Carville, laughing, tried to get a word in edge-wise and Novak rambled on an on. Carville, if he wants to, can dominate any conversation. He does not back off, but this time he just let Novak continue while he stood by the side laughing. His only comment: "well if we have Bob Novak upset and nauseated, then I guess we are doing quite well."

I think that comment really puts it in perspective. Fox News commentators are almost having strokes about the goings-on, producing Republicans to claim that the Democrats are trying to "remake" Kerry and that Teresa Kerry is "really weird." The Right is very, very nervous. And they should be.

For the first time, I truly feel we are going to win this election.

Four More Additional Years!

Republicans, be afraid - be very afraid.

Since you are so excited about rewriting the Constitution (at least when you are not trying to have Ashcroft change it to look like the Third Reichs), how about changing the number of terms that a president can serve?

As much as you bitch, admit it: FDR was a great president. And the American people elected him for four terms. Let's open it up. Maybe Dubya has what it takes to win three, four or more terms.

But of course, if you do, then you face having Bill Clinton as president AGAIN. Man, he does have the way with people. His speech before the Democratic National Convention has to be one of the all time great convention speeches, and I guarantee if it were possible, the delegates that night would have ushered him in as their standard bearer by acclamation. And he would be elected. Bye Dubya. Don't let the door hit you on the butt as you head out the door.

I thought about including the whole speech, but without Bill giving it, the words do not do its impact justince. So I am including on the highlights. And man, were there some great ones. It left the pundits speechless.

Bill, we miss you. Four More Additional Years!

My friends, after three conventions as a candidate or a president, tonight I come to you as a citizen, returning to the role that I have played for most of my life as a foot soldier in our fight for our future, as we nominate in Boston a true New England patriot for president. Now this state, who gave us in other times of challenge John Adams and John Kennedy, has now given us John Kerry, a good man, a great senator, a visionary leader. And we are all here to do what we can to make him the next president of the United States.

My friends, we are constantly being told that America is deeply divided. But all Americans value freedom and faith and family. We all honor the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the world. We all want good jobs, good schools, health care, safe streets, a clean environment. We all want our children to grow up in a secure America leading the world toward a peaceful and prosperous future. Our differences are in how we can best achieve these things, in a time of unprecedented change.

Therefore, we Democrats will bring the American people this year a positive campaign, arguing not who's good or a bad person, but what is the best way to build the safe and prosperous world our children deserve.

The 21st century is marked by serious security threats, serious economic challenges and serious problems from AIDS to global warming to the continuing turmoil in the Middle East. But it is also full of amazing opportunities - to create millions of new jobs in clean energy and biotechnology, to restore our manufacturing base and reap the benefits of the global economy through our diversity and our commitment to decent labor and environmental standards for people all across the world, and to create a world where we can celebrate our religious, our racial, our ethnic, our tribal differences, because our common humanity matters most of all.

To build that kind of world we must make the right choices - and we must have a president who will lead the way. Democrats and Republicans have very different and deeply felt ideas about what choices we should make. They're rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our role in the world. We Democrats want to build a world and an America of shared responsibilities and shared benefits. We want a world with more global cooperation, where we act alone only when we absolutely have to. We think the role of government should be to give people the tools and to create the conditions to make the most of their own lives, and we think everybody should have that chance.

On the other hand, Republicans in Washington believe that America should be run by the right people, their people, in a world in which America acts unilaterally when we can, and cooperates when we have to. They believe the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their economic, political and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on important matters like health care and retirement security.

Now, since most Americans aren't that far to the right, our friends have to portray us Democrats as simply unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America. But we don't.

Americans long to be united. After 9/11, we all just wanted to be one nation. Not a single American on Sept. 12, 2001, cared who won the next presidential election. All we wanted to do was to be one country, strong in the fight against terror, helping to heal those who were wounded and the families of those who lost their loved ones, reaching out to the rest of the world so we could meet these new challenges and go on with our democratic way of life. The president had an amazing opportunity to bring the county together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism, and to unite the world in the struggle against terror.

Instead, he and his Congressional allies made a very different choice. They chose to use that moment of unity to try to push the country too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors had finished their work, but in withdrawing American support for the Climate Change Treaty and the International Court on war criminals, and for the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and from the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Now at a time when we're trying to get other people to give up nuclear and biological and chemical weapons, they are trying to develop two new nuclear weapons, which they say we might use first.

At home, the president and the Republican Congress have made equally fateful choices, which they also deeply believe in. For the first when America was on a war footing in our whole history, there were two huge tax cuts, nearly half of which went to the top 1 percent. Now, I'm in that group now for the first time in my life and you might remember that when I was in office, on occasion, the Republicans were kind of mean to me. But as soon as I got out and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. It was amazing. I never thought I'd be so well-cared for by the president and the Republicans in Congress. I almost sent them a thank-you you note for my tax cuts - until I realized that the rest of you were paying the bill for it and then I thought better of it.

Now, look at the choices they made, choices they believed in. They chose to protect my tax cut at all costs, while withholding promised funding for the Leave No Child Behind Act, leaving over 2.1 million children behind. They chose to protect my tax cut while cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of job training programs, 100,000 working families out of their child care assistance, and, worst of all, while cutting 300,000 poor children out of after-school programs when we know it keeps them off the streets, out of trouble, in school learning, going to college and having a good life.

They chose to protect my tax cuts while dramatically raising out of pocket costs of health care to our veterans and while weakening or reversing very important environmental measures that Al Gore and I put into place, everything from clean air to the protection of our forests.

Now, in this time everyone in America had to sacrifice except the wealthiest Americans, and most of us, almost all of us, from Republicans to independents and Democrats, we want to be asked to do our part too, but all they asked us to do was to expend energy necessary to open the envelopes containing our tax cuts. Now, if you like these choices and you agree with them, you should vote to return them to the White House and the Congress. If not, take a look at John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats. . . .

Now, let me tell you what I know about John Kerry. I've been seeing all the Republican ads about him. Let me tell you what I know about him. During the Vietnam War, many young men - including the current president, the vice president and me - could have gone to Vietnam and didn't. John Kerry came from a privileged background. He could have avoided it too. But instead he said, send me.

When they sent those Swift boats up the river in Vietnam, and they told them their job was to draw hostile fire - to wave the American flag and bait the enemy to come out and fight - John Kerry said, send me.

And then, on my watch, when it was time to heal the wounds of war and normalize relations with Vietnam - and to demand an accounting of the POW's and MIA's we lost there - John Kerry said, send me.

Then when we needed someone to push the cause of inner-city children struggling to avoid a life of crime, or to bring the benefits of high technology to ordinary Americans, or to clean the environment in a way that created new jobs, or to give small businesses a better chance to make it, John Kerry said, send me.

So tonight my friends, I ask you to join me for the next 100 days in telling John Kerry's story and promoting his ideas: let every person in this hall and like-minded people all across America say to him what he has always said to America: send me.

Animal Righters Steal Page from Anti-Abortionists

Finally, the Democrats go to convention. I'm going to get some popcorn and a big icy coke for the main attaction tonight in prime time: Bill Speaks! Maybe the Democrats have learned the error of their ways. People still love Bill. They should have involved him in 2000. But . . . who knows.

However in the meantime, let's digress into a wonderful story from our former colonial masters:

Kill scientists, says animal rights chief

Jamie Doward, social affairs editor
Sunday July 25, 2004
The Observer

A top adviser to Britain's two most powerful animal rights protest groups caused outrage last night by claiming that the assassination of scientists working in biomedical research would save millions of animals' lives.
To the fury of groups working with animals, Jerry Vlasak, a trauma surgeon and prominent figure in the anti-vivisection movement, told The Observer: 'I think violence is part of the struggle against oppression. If something bad happens to these people [animal researchers], it will discourage others. It is inevitable that violence will be used in the struggle and that it will be effective.'

Vlasak, who likens animal experimentation to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews, said he stood by his claim that: 'I don't think you'd have to kill too many [researchers]. I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac), which campaigns for the closure of Huntingdon Life Sciences, has close links with Vlasak. He has also advised Speak, the organisation that last week forced out the contractor building an £18 million primate research laboratory in Oxford.

David Martosko, research director at the Centre for Consumer Freedom, which monitors activist groups on behalf of business interests, responded by saying Vlasak was 'one of the most dangerous animal rights zealots on the planet'. He added: 'He's not making bombs, but he is making bombers.'

Vlasak will address an animal rights conference organised by Shac and Speak in September. Legal experts warned that, if he uses his speech to promote violence, he could be charged with incitement.

Vlasak has made a series of incendiary claims that will alarm moderates in the animal rights movement and reinforce claims that Shac and Speak are fronts for extremists.

Three months ago, he told a US television audience that violence was a 'morally justifiable solution'. Earlier this month, he gave a speech in Virginia in which he said: 'It won't ruin our movement if someone gets killed in an animal rights action. It's going to happen sooner or later.'

Vlasak meets Shac leaders regularly. He has played a big part in writing speeches, directing its strategy and advancing scientific arguments against animal experimentation. He also worked with Speak in its successful effort to prevent the building of a primate research centre in Cambridge and says he plans to work with the group on its Oxford campaign.

Other animal rights groups have distanced themselves from him. Until recently he was a member of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a group funded by the powerful lobbying group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) and endorsed by Shac.

But a PCRM spokeswoman told The Observer: 'He is not a member of the organisation.' Vlasak confirmed he was not working with the PCRM 'at the moment'.

While acknowledging that his views might alienate some people, Vlasak, who claims animal experimentation 'wastes billions of pounds a year', said more and more people in the animal rights movement were drawn to violent action. 'The grass roots are tired of writing letters. The polite approach has not worked,' he said.

Interesting thinking. It has always puzzled me that the anti-abortionists can be so worked up about the elimination of a few cells from a woman's body and still support those who have used bombs and other assassination attempts on doctors. And what about the death penalty, Herr Ashcroft? Isn't that REALLY about taking a life.

Are we polled out?

I feel a tirade against the news media coming . . .

Actually, my old profession is not that much different from when I was a reporter and perhaps the only major change is that I find it incredibly shocking to realize the American public is a lot more stupider than 30 years ago. Maybe not stupid. Perhaps just more credulous. No, stupid is the right word. How else do you explain the popularity of the FOX network.

But, back to my tirade. Actually, it's about the media's dependence on polls for news. Frankly, all reporters are a little lazy. That's human nature. And they like to be fed easy stories. It fills space and gets editors off their backs. That is primarily why the Vietnam War went on for a decade (but that's another matter).

So back to polls. They continue to show Kerry slightly ahead, or slightly behind, and in effect, shows that the race is a dead heat. But invaribly, some reporter adds that it is surprising that Kerry is not pulling away, and thus insinuates that his candidacy is doomed.

However, please note this from - of all people - the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ calls it Bush 47, Kerry 45, but adds a very interesting point that all the other pollsters and pundits seem to miss:

"John Kerry enters next week's Democratic Convention in a better position than any presidential challenger in a generation -- but still needing to show more strength on the national-security issues that underpin President Bush's support.

"A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows the Massachusetts senator in a virtual dead heat with Mr. Bush as Democrats gather here to nominate him as their presidential candidate in the Nov. 2 election. Not since Ronald Reagan's 1980 bid to oust President Carter, according to Gallup, has a challenger approached his nominating convention even with or ahead of a White House incumbent."

Let me restate that. "John Kerry enters next week's Democratic Convention in a better position than any presidential challenger in a generation."

THAT is what the polls are telling us, and no one seems to pick up on it other than the WSJ. For those of you following my rantings, I have told you on several occasions that the KEY figure to watch in polls is not "who you will vote for," but rather the NEGATIVE a candidate carries. Bush's is very high (anything over 30 percent is considered a major drawback for any canidate). But Cheney's is astronomical, close to nearly 50 percent. Ampong the two most despised politicians in America is Cheney and Hillary. Hillary's numbers are also up in that region. If we ever hope to have Hillary as a bonafide candidate, she will have to lower that negative by a lot.

Why are poll negatives important? The negatives ALWAYS vote. There is nothing like hate to send you to the polls. Think about Bush!-and now you know I'm right.

AmeriKa the Beautiful

Let's hear it for Linda Ronstadt. Totally absent from the publicity pages for nearly a decade and in one fell swoop a Las Vegas casino has elevated her to heroine status. Free speech, you nitwits. It's in the Constitution, except in certain Sin City gambling establishments.

When the Dixie Chicks came forth to out Bush as an idiot, I went out and bought their new CD in support of them, even though I had never heard them actually play and sing. I'm glad that my political statements sometimes do produce good results. I found I liked their style and sound, again broadening my music awareness.

I don't think I will do the same with Ronstadt. Frankly, I already have too many of her albums. I will just relate a story about her.

I had this, uh, thing for Linda Ronstadt ever since she first appeared with Buffalo Springfield. In 1969, while editor of Panorama, the monthly magazine of The Daily Texas (the University of Texas' student newspaper which is BETTER than the Austin American Statesman), I appointed myself and a couple of others to do a "culture" issue which focused on the Lewisville Pop Festival (first major music festival following Woodstock). Using my "journalist" credentials, I engineered a spot in the hay bales directly in front of the main stage. I still have some great negatives of all the acts that I shot with my Nikon, and No. 1 in my heart was Ronstadt, backlit and beautiful. I tried to work my way backstage to meet her, but even "journalist" credentials have their limits.
So the meeting didn't happen.

Until later.

Six years later I am a reporter with United Press International based in Dallas and writing feature stories about death row inmates (all of them are innocent, but the way), Kennedy Conspiracy advocates (they came to Dallas by the hundreds) and rural muleshoers (the New York desk loved stories about "real" people living in the country doing rural things!). I also engineered an interview with John Henry Faulk, a great Texas humorist, a one-time national radio actor, and a major blacklisted writer. In the 1950s, he was labeled a fellow traveler by the Commie hunters because he WOULD NOT NAME NAMES! He was blacklisted, and for almost a dozen years, was not allowed to earn a living by writing or acting. Remember the Constitution? The Republicans had a tough time seeing him as a patriot. Sound familar to today? The only difference Tailgunner Joe McCarthy and John Ashcroft have is that JM has a nickname.

But I digress. This story really is about Linda Ronstadt.

Anyway, John Henry didn't take it lying down. He took it to court, and eventually worked his case all the way to the Supreme Court. The Earl Warren Court did not quite see things the same way as Joe McCarthy and his GOP fellow travelers did. He won, and it cost CBS Radio big time for firing him. His story is wonderfully told in a book called Fear on Trial.   Go to Amazon this very moment and buy it.      http://www.amazon.com

There is a point to this story. Keep reading. Believe me, Linda will soon make an appearance. But you need some context, because text without context is pretext.

So, I was interviewing John Henry, and we were having such a good time, that we decided to adjourn to a local bar - the Knox Street Pub - where so many of my interviews often adjourned to. It was, to be exact, a kind of hang out that I and many of my writing compadres frequented, as did my famous softball team, Doctor Darkness and the Night Writers (but that's another story).

John Henry and I were having the first of many beers to come, laughing and telling stories, when up steps this slinky, doe-eyed, dark-haired young lady with bangs that barely covered the top edge of her brows. It was Linda alive and in the flesh.

"Hey John Henry, it's good to see you again," she said, and sat down beside him.  Turns out that Faulk had often been the lead-in country comic for some of her tours. His folksy humor fit well with the style of music she was using in those days (Silver threads and golden needles cannot fix this heart of mine, etc.)

John Henry, the good gentleman that he was, properly introduced me as a UPI reporter who "thanks to many beers actually finds my life worth writing about." I actually SHOOK hands with Linda Ronstadt. My life had been fulfilled (or at least to that moment). But before I could say anything - probably dumb - she excused herself saying she did not want to interrupt the interview and disappeared with her entourage out the door.

That's as close as I ever got to Linda Ronstadt. I love her still. And now after this Las Vegas incident, I see that my undying love has not been misplaced. 

  

 

In case you are really interested, and in fact are invited to one of Bush's alleged town meetings, keep in mind that they are for the most part love fests. Here is one quote from the most recent "grilling" in Cedar Rapids. This can be found on the White House website. You would think they would edit . . . but they don't.

"AUDIENCE MEMBER: What kind of pets do you have in the White House?

"THE PRESIDENT: I can't stand these tough questions. (Laughter.) What kind of pets we got in the White House. (Laughter.) Thank you for asking that question. We have got two. We had three, and unfortunately, little Spot has passed on. It was a sad moment. She is -- interestingly enough, Spot was born in the White House, when Mother and Dad were there. And curiously enough, Spot passed away in the White House, a happy dog. (Laughter.) She was happy. We were sad. We loved her dearly -- 15 years old, I want you to know. Now, we have -- we got two left. The cat has got about nine lives and nine names. (Laughter.) I just call it Willie. Is that all right? Yes. The girls love Willie. And then the all-time great dog, Barney. (Laughter.) Barney -- Barney is a near four-year-old Scottish terrier. Gosh, I'm glad you asked. (Laughter.) He's a fabulous little guy."

Barney, of course, has his own Web site. The cat's official name, by the way, is India.

In these desperate times, we do need an occasional smile. This indepth reporting just in from the New Yorker:

NEW DETAILS SURFACE
by PAUL SIMMS


Vice President Dick Cheney cursed at Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, in a confrontation on the Senate floor while members were having their annual group picture taken earlier this week. . . . According to [an] aide, Mr. Cheney . . . responded with a barnyard epithet, urging Mr. Leahy to perform an anatomical sexual impossibility. —The Washington Times.

After Mr. Cheney successfully delivered the epithet and started to walk away, Mr. Leahy—sotto voce—referred to the Vice-President using a term more often heard in taverns and locker rooms than in the august Senate chamber, a term that refers to a sexual act commonly acknowledged as taboo among all cultures that proscribe incestuous contact between a mother and a son.

Mr. Cheney—apparently hearing Mr. Leahy’s remark—stopped, turned, and invited his colleague from across the aisle to engage in a sexual act that is considered a felony in some states, and which involves oral-genital contact.

Mr. Leahy then suggested that the president of the Senate take his gavel and use it to perform an act that, while not technically impossible in anatomical terms, would certainly be considered both unseemly and unhygienic, and which would require an unusual combination of single-minded ambition and physical relaxation.

Mr. Cheney wasted no time in informing Mr. Leahy that he should feel free to perform yet another anatomical impossibility—this one involving aviation, a standard sexual act, and a rolling doughnut.

At this point, according to observers, both statesmen decided—by seemingly unspoken mutual consent—to abandon the gutter patois of the common carnival worker and to resort instead to an eminently more quotable (but, to those not versed in the vagaries of hip-hop idiom, more confusing) exchange of viewpoints.

“Oh, it’s like that?” Mr. Cheney queried.

“Whut? Whut?” Mr. Leahy shot back.

“Once again,” Mr. Cheney replied (quite obviously quoting a lyric from Ice Cube’s 1990 album, “AmeriKKKa’s Most Wanted”), “it’s on.”

As a quick-thinking senatorial aide switched on the Senate’s public-address system and cued up the infamous “Seven Minutes of Funk” break, Mr. Leahy and Mr. Cheney went head-to-head in what can only be described as a “take no prisoners” freestyle rap battle.

Most of the rhymes kicked therein cannot be quoted in a family publication, but observers gave Mr. Cheney credit for his deceptively laid-back flow. Mr. Leahy was applauded for managing to rhyme the phrases “unethical for certain,” “crude oil spurtin’,” and “like Halliburton.”
Despite the fact that both participants brought their A-game and succeeded in dropping mad scientifics, the bout seemed to end in a draw.

Unfortunately, as other senators (along with assorted aides and support-staff members) were casting their votes to decide the winner, using the admittedly subjective but generally accepted “Make some noise up in here!” protocols, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Leahy took the proceedings to what one aide accurately described as “the next level.”

Edward M. Kennedy (D.-Mass.) was the first to notice that the two men were circling each other, Mr. Cheney brandishing a switchblade and Mr. Leahy the jagged neck of a broken bottle.
“Oh, snap!” Mr. Kennedy recalls thinking at the time. “It’s getting kind of hectic up in this piece.”

But before either of the aggrieved public servants could bust a potentially injurious move on his rival, cooler heads prevailed: a veteran Capitol Hill security guard pacified the bloodthirsty white men (Mr. Leahy first, then Mr. Cheney) with a shot from a tranquillizer gun. He then had them returned to their cages in the sub-basement of the Old Executive Office Building, where both men are kept and fed during non-business hours under the watchful eye of a volunteer from Washington’s National Zoo.

(In a related story, an AM talk-radio host in Billings, Montana, who expressed his disappointment with the behavior of Mr. Cheney and Mr. Leahy—on the air, he asked his listeners, “Do we taxpayers really have time for this kind of crap?”—was fined five hundred thousand dollars for violating the F.C.C.’s recent, Senate-approved guidelines prohibiting explicit references to human excrement.) 

 

Jesus Jihad

Let's stray a little afield of politics for the moment, though not far afield because the subject - religious faith - carries political baggage in this crazy new decade.
 
Nicholas Kristof had a column while I was golfing in North Carolina, and it hit a subject that continues to bug me, and that for some reason doesn't seem to bother friends and associates who call themselves Christian. It's this whole Second Coming thing, and specifically, RAPTURE. Kristof writes:
 

If the latest in the "Left Behind" series of evangelical thrillers is to be believed, Jesus will return to Earth, gather non-Christians to his left and toss them into everlasting fire:

"Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and a yawning chasm opened in the earth, stretching far and wide enough to swallow all of them. They tumbled in, howling and screeching, but their wailing was soon quashed and all was silent when the earth closed itself again."

These are the best-selling novels for adults in the United States, and they have sold more than 60 million copies worldwide. The latest is "Glorious Appearing," which has Jesus returning to Earth to wipe all non-Christians from the planet. It's disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety.

If a Muslim were to write an Islamic version of "Glorious Appearing" and publish it in Saudi Arabia, jubilantly describing a massacre of millions of non-Muslims by God, we would have a fit. We have quite properly linked the fundamentalist religious tracts of Islam with the intolerance they nurture, and it's time to remove the motes from our own eyes. very surprised I have not seen anyone else voice a similar opinion.

If you would like to read the whole piece (and I recommend it), then do so here  http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/17/opinion/ 17KRIS.html
 
Why does this bug me that so many people think Jesus will return to earth like an Arnold Schwartznegger clone and begin cleaving and gutting, and melting nonevangelicals into dust? Actually, it doesn't bug me. It scares me.
 
I don't like the idea that there are vast numbers of reality-challenged people (recent polls showed 42 percent of the people think of themselves as evangelicals) wandering around waiting to be siphoned up the heaven highway in one great RAPTURE! Actually, that sounds like a good idea and one way the rest of us could get on with our lives without their interference.
 
But it ain't going to happen. What scares me is if some of them want to help the End Times along by ridding us of all those heathens. Though technically an Episcopalian, I suspect I fall into that category.
 
But I digress.
 
Kristof hit it on the nose. If a couple of Moslem writers had created the Going Home series with a grand finale of offing the infidels, our president and the rest of the so-called Christian world would be screaming their heads off. But instead, we make movies of it and put the books all over our libraries. Tell me, isn't that a little strange?
 
Not in this crazy decade. Frankly, I thought we had left all the End Times shit behind in 1999 when nothing dreadful happened other than Bush stealing the election (Bush . . . hmmm, the anti-Christ? That bears future contemplation.) But unfortunately, we did not. Now we have evangelicals embracing the Israelis so some long-lost rich cousin, even while Sharon practices media-acceptable genocide.
 
First of all, this whole RAPTURE thing is entirely made up. It does not exist anywhere in the Bible, even in that ludicrously written Revelations of St. John. But if you mention that to an evangelical, they will argue long and hard that "even though it's not in the Bible, there are plenty of references to it." My brother used to have this bumper sticker on the back of his car: "In Case of Rapture, This Vehicle Will be Unmanned." Hey, I know my brother. Yeah, he would probably be a candidate if such an event ever did occur. Well, he would if arrogance and self-righteousness is not a sin. I thought it stank of self-righteousness.
 
The sad thing is that Kristof is right. We can't get the motes out of our eyes. We think of ourselves as the sole moral authority in the world and that we have ever right to use force to clean things up. Invade Iraq. Imprison Iraqis. Abuse and belittle them. And if need arises, kill a dozen or so in bombing raids that may also kill a bad guy or two. And we can do all this because they are less they human. They are, afterall, non-believers. Infidels.
 
So, if Jesus is going to kick butt sometime in the future, why are we so concerned with helping him out ahead of time? This is a subject that sickens me, and unfortunately, as much as I try to laugh at it and satirize it, it just won't go away.
 
I think evangelicals are a greater threat to our nation than any number of terrorists. It seems most appropriate that George Bush likes to include himself in that movement.
 




 

This is my 100th post, a milestone of sorts in that I frankly did not think I would have more than a half dozen points to get across in this campaign year. But, I underestimated the Bush administration and the GOP. Their ability to create outrage is far beyond any prior administration in my albeit half century of political awareness.
 
Had you queried me on this point a few years back, I would have given this list:
 
Most Disappointing: Jimmie Carter (perhaps closely followed by Eisenhower)
Most Devastating to our Republic: Richard Nixon
Most Outrageous: Ronald Reagan (did he really believe trees were causing pollution?)
Most Devious: Lyndon B. Johnson (I won't use the E-word, but in truth at the time
                when I and all my friends were of draft age and he was sending thousands
                to die in Vietnam, it did cross my mind)
Biggest Joke: Gerald Ford (But I liked him. Truthfully, he was just a bookmark
               until the next election and he didn't do anything really bad except pardoning Nixon.)
Most Totally Out-to-Lunch: George Herbert Bush (a candidate for most devious if he was
               for real. Who could tell with that syntax.)
 
Hero Status: JFK. (Johnson could have achieved this if he had focused on domestic policy
               instead of being led astray by the neo-Liberals and ur-meister Roloff.)
 
But now we have Dubya. He may be in an entire class of his own. Certainly not outrageous, though he causes much outrage. Not devious since we all question whether he's just a well manipulated idiot. Most devastating to our republic? Now that definitely has potential. When you add the Patriot Act, the destruction of the environment, playing the Fear Factor card, his homophobic "family values, " . . . well the list starts getting endless. Then add idiocy and the fact that he never won the election.
 
Holy shit. He has displaced Richard Nixon. I never thought I would live to see that happen. Holy shit.
 
And now, for something completely different:
 
UNDECIDED....Conventional wisdom suggests that undecided voters usually break for the challenger in a presidential race. As Ryan Lizza puts it:

"If these voters haven't decided to support the guy they know best, the theory goes, there must be a reason they are holding out and will therefore end up supporting the challenger if he or she is an acceptable alternative. "

Ryan then goes on to report on a recent poll suggesting that this is true in spades this year: undecided voters in battleground states are very unhappy with George Bush and seem likely to break decisively for Kerry over the next couple of months. Go read. Maybe there is hope.

I love Republicans. They never can take a joke. Get upset by someone taking a stand? Out 'em as an undercover CIA operative. Or question their sexual preferences. Or, theaten to boycott the products they endorse.

This from the New York Post:

"Some Republican activists are launching a boycott of SlimFast diet products to protest SlimFast spokeswoman Whoopi Goldberg's X-rated rant against President Bush at a New York fund-raiser for Democrat John Kerry last week.

"Chat pages on pro-Bush Web sites like FreeRepublic.com are posting links for complaints to SlimFast or parent company Unilever, along with reports from angry consumers about what they wrote in their complaints.

"A typical one: 'Realize that when Goldberg insults our president, particularly in such a vulgar fashion, she alienates half the country . . . Can SlimFast really afford to lose half of their potential market?'"

I didn't know fascist pigs even took SlimFast. You learn something new every day.

I have on order a bumper sticker that reads: "Somewhere in Texas a village has lost its idiot."

Here is why the least kept secret in Washington is that Bush is a blithering idiot.

(From the Washington Post's White House column)

At the Ask the President event on Friday, one of the questions was about whether Bush has any thoughts about his memoirs.

This is one example of what happens when Bush gets a question that he hasn't anticipated.

"Q Thank you -- I was wondering, there's a lot of talk right now about memoirs being written with the former President. After you are elected in 2004, what will your memoirs say about you, what will the title be, and what will the main theme say?

"THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. (Laughter.) There is a painting on my wall in the Oval -- first of all, I don't know. I'm just speculating now. I really haven't thought about writing a book. My life is too complicated right now trying to do my job. (Laughter.) But if -- there's a painting on the wall in the Oval Office that shows a horseman charging up a steep cliff, and there are at least two other horsemen following. It's a Western scene by a guy named W.H.S. Koerner called 'A Charge to Keep.' It's on loan, by the way, from a guy named Joe O'Neill in Midland, Texas. He was the person, he and his wife Jan, introduced -- reintroduced me and Laura in his backyard in July of 1977. Four months later, we were married. So he's got a -- I'm a decision-maker and I can make good decisions. (Applause.)

"And so we sang this hymn -- this is a long story trying to get to your answer. (Laughter.) This is not a filibuster. (Laughter.) That's a Senate term -- particularly on good judges. (Applause.) The hymn was sung at my first inaugural church service as governor. Laura and I are Methodists. One of the Wesley boys wrote the hymn. The painting is based upon the hymn called, 'A Charge to Keep.' I have. The hymn talks about serving something greater than yourself in life. I -- which I try to do, as best as I possibly can. (Applause.)

"The book -- I guess one way, one thing to think about it is -- one of the themes would be, I was given a charge to keep. And I gave it all my heart, all my energy, based upon principles that did not change once I got into the Oval Office. (Applause.)"

Now that's a rambling response.

And I have to wonder: Did he forget that he already has a memoir called "A Charge to Keep"?

That was the name of his "autobiography" -- ghost-written by adviser Karen Hughes in 1999.

Humor without comment. Despite the seriousness of this campaign - and its importance to our nation's future - we can still find something in it to laugh about.

Sneak Preview! The Cheney-Edwards Debate
By ANDY BOROWITZ

PLANNING for the 2004 vice presidential debate is already under way. In an attempt to level the playing field, Senator John Edwards's image will be digitally altered to make him 40 percent less "hot looking," and Vice President Dick Cheney will be on a five-second delay. Finally, each man has submitted a wish list of questions to ask the other during the high-stakes face-off.

QUESTIONS FOR DICK CHENEY

1. Former Senator Alfonse D'Amato has suggested President Bush dump you from the ticket. What's your response to him, in two words?

2. If Halliburton and the Carlyle Group both invited you to the movies on the same night, who would you go with?

3. Over the past four years, how many days would you say you spent above ground?

4. Describe in detail your favorite high-impact aerobics routine.

5. Didn't "Fahrenheit 9/11" totally rock?

6. Exactly when did you remove Kenneth Lay from your online buddy list?

7. If there really are no plans to reinstitute the draft, why did you just request a sixth deferment?

8. Is it true that you wept during Darth Vader's death scene?

9. If anything happened to you while serving a second term, would George Bush be fit to be president?

10. Here's something I've always wondered: Does the other side of your mouth work?

QUESTIONS FOR JOHN EDWARDS

1. Who made the final out in the 1954 World Series?

2. What do you have that Dick Gephardt doesn't have, besides eyebrows?

3. Agree/disagree with the following statement: "Litigators are opportunistic leeches who are sucking the lifeblood from our nation's economy."

4. On average, how many times a day do you check yourself out in shiny surfaces?

5. Is it true that your son, Jack, said of Senator Kerry, "Daddy, please don't make me play with that weird old guy anymore"?

6. On the night Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon, which pajamas were you wearing, the ones with the cowboys or the ones with the ducks?

7. What's your secret to remaining fully conscious when Senator Kerry is speaking?

8. What's Malibu Barbie really like?

9. If, as you say, there are two Americas, which one is your vacation home in?

10. Do you have any idea how late it is? This is a school night.

No reason to even make a comment. You think what you want . . .

Ralph Blumenthal writes in the New York Times today about a surprising disclosure regarding military records that journalists were hoping could settle the controversy over President Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air National Guard.

The Pentagon says they've been inadvertently destroyed.

A letter from the Pentagon "said the payroll records of 'numerous service members,' including former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it added in notices dated June 25.

"The destroyed records cover three months of a period in 1972 and 1973 when Mr. Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question. . . .

"The loss was announced by the Defense Department's Office of Freedom of Information and Security Review in letters to The New York Times and other news organizations that for nearly half a year have sought Mr. Bush's complete service file under the open-records law."

Where is the outrage?

I was reviewing my postings from Month One to see how far we have come. My second posting was on "still no WMDs." Today we have this story breaking:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The key U.S. assertions leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was working to make nuclear weapons -- were wrong and based on false or overstated CIA analyses, a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report asserted Friday.

Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican who heads the committee, told reporters that assessments that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and could make a nuclear weapon by the end of the decade were wrong.

"As the report will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence," he said.

"This was a global intelligence failure."

The report repeatedly blasts departing CIA Director George Tenet, accusing him of skewing advice to top policy-makers with the CIA's view and elbowing out dissenting views from other intelligence agencies overseen by the State or Defense departments.

It faulted Tenet for not personally reviewing Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, which contained since-discredited references to Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium in Africa.

White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, traveling with President Bush on a campaign trip Friday, said the committee's report essentially "agrees with what we have said, which is we need to take steps to continue strengthening and reforming our intelligence capabilities so we are prepared to meet the new threats that we face in this day and age."

Tenet has resigned and leaves office Sunday.

So, where is the outrage? If this is all about Tenet, why wasn't he fired. Why isn't he being thrown out of his office.

Where is the outrage from our sitting president? Why would he not be totally outraged that he was let into a war on false information? Why isn't he outraged about the 1,000 coalition deaths and the thousands of maimed men and women?

And why isn't the American public totally outraged that they have once again been lied to, and put in danger, all because of false information.

I am very puzzled, and troubled, about the collective intelligence and wisdom in this country.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said today thatAl Qaeda plans a large-scale attack on the United States "in an effort to disrupt the democratic process" before November's elections. Ridge said U.S. officials have no precise knowledge of the time, place or method of attack, but said they are "actively working to gain that knowledge."

Uh, why are we holding national news conferences on this? Oh, forgot. I am supposed to be frightened and vote in Bush-Chaney to protect me. Ooooooooooooo.

These guys are idiots.

Frankly, this totally astounds me. Does he think they will throws eggs at him?

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- President Bush declined an invitation to speak at the NAACP's annual convention, the group said.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People expects more than 8,000 people to attend the convention, which opens on Saturday.

Democratic challenger John Kerry accepted an invitation to speak next Thursday on the final day of the convention, the NAACP said.

Bush spoke at the 2000 NAACP convention in Baltimore when he was running for president.

NAACP spokesman John White said Wednesday that Bush has declined invitations in each year of his presidency -- becoming the first president since Herbert Hoover not to attend an NAACP convention.

The NAACP received a letter from the White House three weeks ago declining the invitation because of scheduling conflicts and thanking them for understanding.

The letter was signed by presidential scheduler Melissa Bennett.

White House spokesman Jim Morrell said Wednesday that the president has spoken about "equal opportunity and equal rights for all Americans" in many public places.

We've apparently underestimated the usurper. Bush is right in trend with the dumbing of America. Read on:

NEW YORK (AP) — The reading of books is on the decline in America, despite Harry Potter and the best efforts of Oprah Winfrey.
A report released Thursday by the National Endowment for the Arts says the number of non-reading adults increased by more than 17 million between 1992 and 2002.

Only 47% of American adults read "literature" (poems, plays, narrative fiction) in 2002, a drop of 7 points from a decade earlier. Those reading any book at all in 2002 fell to 57%, down from 61%.

NEA chairman Dana Gioia, himself a poet, called the findings shocking and a reason for grave concern.

"We have a lot of functionally literate people who are no longer engaged readers," Gioia said in an interview with The Associated Press. "This isn't a case of 'Johnny Can't Read,' but 'Johnny Won't Read.'"

The likely culprits, according to the report: television, movies and the Internet.

"I think what we're seeing is an enormous cultural shift from print media to electronic media, and the unintended consequences of that shift," Gioia said.

The word evil gets tossed around a little too lightly by Republicans. The recently deceased Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union evil, ironically at a time when we as a nation were supporting dictators across much of the Third World and turning our head to their bloody suppressions. Bush uses it even more promiscuously.

We Episcopalian come across it sometimes in our prayer book, and assuming we do subscribe to belief in the devil, it is usually the adjective most often linked to him. Even Judas rarely merits the word. But Republicans like it a lot. I do not.

But I have one exception. My wife who rarely uses superlatives, admitted the other night that when she thinks of Dick Chaney, the word evil as a description seems to fit. That is totally out of character for her. But I fervently agree. That man is truly evil. As much as I hated Richard Nixon, I never considered him evil. But Chaney?-he's a devil of a man, that is for sure.

And hopefully, others are seeing it to. Recent events:

June 29 at the New York Yankees game where the VP decided to hang out with his rich friend Steinbrenner. During the singing of "God Bless America" in the seventh inning, an image of Cheney was shown on the scoreboard. It was greeted with booing, so the Yankees quickly removed the image.

Is that not cool? That's probably evil of me to think that.

Then there was the interview with Ron Reagan in the New York Times regarding how his mom fared at the Rotunda live-in for the late President Reagan:

How did your mother feel about being ushered to her seat 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 80's, 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.

And there's more. Here is what Newsweek has on the "walking dude", as Stephen King likes to portray to devil:

June 28, 2004 issue - America was under attack, and somebody had to make a decision. Dick Cheney, huddled in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center under the White House, had just urged the traveling George W. Bush not to return to Washington. The president had left Florida aboard Air Force One at 9:55 a.m. on 9/11 "with no destination at take-off," as last week's 9-11 Commission report noted. Nor had Bush given any known instructions on how to respond to the attacks. Now Cheney faced another huge decision on a morning in which every minute seemed monumental. The two airliners had already crashed into the Twin Towers, another into the Pentagon. Combat air patrols were aloft, and a military aide was asking for shoot-down authority, telling Cheney that a fourth plane was "80 miles out" from Washington. Cheney didn't flinch, the report said. "In about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing," he gave the order to shoot it down, telling others the president had "signed off on the concept" during a brief phone chat. When the plane was 60 miles out, Cheney was again informed and again he ordered: take it out.

Then Joshua Bolten, after what he described in testimony as "a quiet moment," spoke up. Bolten, the White House deputy chief of staff, asked the veep to get back in touch with the president to "confirm the engage order." Bolten was clearly subordinate to Cheney, but "he had not heard any prior conversation on the subject with the president," the 9/11 report notes. Nor did the real-time notes taken by two others in the room, Cheney's chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby—who is known for his meticulous record-keeping—or Cheney's wife, Lynne, reflect that such a phone call between Bush and Cheney occurred or that such a major decision as shooting down a U.S. airliner was discussed. Bush and Cheney later testified the president gave the order. And national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice and a military aide said they remembered a call, but gave few specifics. The report concluded "there is no documentary evidence for this call."
But the question of Cheney's behavior that day is one of many new issues raised in the remarkably detailed, chilling account laid out in dramatic presentations by the 9-11 Commission. NEWSWEEK has learned that some on the commission staff were, in fact, highly skeptical of the vice president's account and made their views clearer in an earlier draft of their staff report. According to one knowledgeable source, some staffers "flat out didn't believe the call ever took place."

Hmmmmm. The vice president is a liar as well as evil. But there's more. The Newsweek article continues:

This week the 9-11 commissioners find themselves engaged in another testy dispute, especially with Cheney, over the ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. For the Bush team, making the case that Saddam and bin Laden were linked is one of its most sensitive credibility issues, a key justification for following its assault on Al Qaeda with a much costlier and bloodier war in Iraq. The vice president insisted in short-tempered public remarks last week that the commission had agreed the Iraq-Qaeda links were extensive. But commission vice chair Hamilton acknowledged to NEWSWEEK the commissioners had differences with the administration. "We didn't have any evidence of collaboration or cooperation," Hamilton said flatly. He added that bin Laden's ties "to Iran and Pakistan were certainly stronger than any tie he had to Iraq." Despite Cheney's comments, Bartlett said the White House did not officially raise any questions about the report's conclusions on Qaeda-Iraq ties.

Cheney has now challenged the commission point blank. Asked in a CNBC interview whether he had more information about Iraq-Qaeda links than the commission, Cheney remarked, "Probably." This comment stunned Kean and Hamilton, who asked Cheney to pass that extra intel on to them. (Administration spokesmen had previously said they gave the commission whatever it needed to do its job.) The vice president also reasserted his belief that a long-alleged meeting between 9/11 hijacker Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi intel agent on April 9, 2001, in Prague might have occurred. Some 9/11 staffers said they were astonished by this: their report, citing cell-phone records, concludes unambiguously that Atta could not have been in Prague on that date; he was in Florida. (NEWSWEEK has also learned that Czech investigators and U.S. intelligence have obtained corroborated evidence which they believe shows that the Iraqi spy who allegedly met Atta was away from Prague on that day.)

On several occasions since 9/11, in speeches before the Iraq war and since, Cheney has run ahead of Bush on policy, only to be lassoed back in by the White House. In August 2002, he dismissed U.N. inspections just before Bush called for them in a speech. Later that fall the veep suggested in another speech that Iraq might have had a hand in 9/11, forcing Bush to deny later that it did. And some staffers thought it was interesting that Bush and Cheney insisted on testify-ing before the commission together. (Sources say much of their testimony focused on the shoot-down issue.) So far the two are staying on message in asserting Qaeda-Iraq links.

Well, let's not stop there. The Washington Post notes a recent NBC interview where Chaney once again lies, and in a very arrogant way. From the Washington Post:

June 17, 2004. Vice President Cheney talking to CNBC's Gloria Borger.

Borger: "Well, let's go to MohamedAtta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed.' "

Cheney: "No, I never said that."

Borger: "Okay."

Cheney: "Never said that."

Borger: "I think that is . . . "

Cheney: "Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down."

On Dec. 9, 2001. Cheney talking to NBC's Tim Russert.

Cheney: "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that -- it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point, but that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue."

One final word: The New York Times/CBS poll finds Cheney with 21 percent approval rating. A rabid, junkyard dog would command about the same about of approval, but would certainly be more physically appealing than Chaney.

Here is the latest concern by our overly imaginative home land defense brain trust: coke cans.

Specially rigged Coke cans, part of a summer promotion, contain cell phones and global positioning chips. That has officials at some installations worried the cans could be used to eavesdrop, and they are instituting protective measures.

Coca-Cola Co. says such concerns are nothing but fizz.

Mart Martin, a Coca-Cola spokesman, said no one would mistake one of the winning cans from the company's "Unexpected Summer" promotion for a regular Coke.

"The can is dramatically different looking," he said. The cans have a recessed panel on the outside and a big red button. "It's very clear that there's a cell phone device."

Winners activate it by pushing the button, which can only call Coke's prize center, he said. Data from the GPS device can only be received by Coke's prize center. Prizes include cash, a home entertainment center and an SUV.

"It cannot be an eavesdropping device," he said.

Nonetheless, military bases, including the U.S. Army Armor Center at Fort Knox, Ky., are asking soldiers to examine their Coke cans before bringing them in to classified meetings.

And these guys are supposed to be brave, intelligent and resourceful? We are in deep trouble. Thank gawd for the National Guard.

Can someone please explain to me why I continually hear that Ronald Reagan "made us all feel better about ourselves?" I heard that from yet another TV anchor this morning. Did I miss something in the '80's that I should have been more aware of. I still find that stupid decade one of the worst in our history, trailing just behind the 20s and the 60s.

A friend in New York sent me a Bill Moyers speech, and it deserves to be posted here. It further explains why I think we are living in one of the darker moments of our republic. It also shows you what an idiot Bill Cosby is. From his rich perspective, he rails against his fellow blacks for their inability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And he thinks it's diction, slang and an attitude.

Bill, you now join my growing list of idiots, headed up by George Bush.

Happy Fourth of July!

Excerpts from Bill Moyers' keynote speech at New York University, "This Is the Fight of Our Lives," delivered on June 3, 2004:
> >

Nothing seems to embarrass the political class in Washington today. Not the fact that more children are growing up in poverty in America than in any other industrial nation; not the fact that millions of workers are actually making less money today in real dollars than they did twenty years ago; not the fact that working people are putting in longer and longer hours and still falling behind; not the fact that while we have the most advanced medical care in the world, nearly 44 million Americans -- eight out of ten of them in working families -- are uninsured and and cannot get the basic care they need.

Astonishing as it seems, no one in official Washington seems embarrassed by the fact that the gap between rich and poor is greater than it's been in 50 years -- the worst inequality among all western nations. Or that we are experiencing a shift in poverty. For years it was said those people down there at the bottom were single, jobless mothers. For years they were told work, education, and marriage is how they move up the economic ladder. But poverty is showing up where we didn't expect it--among families that include two parents, a worker, and a head of the household with more than a high school education. These are the newly poor. Our political, financial and business class expects them to climb out of poverty . . on an escalator moving downward.

By the end of the decade most Americans were running harder but slipping behind, and the gap between them and prosperous America was widening.

What turns their personal tragedy into a political travesty is that the vast majority of them are very patriotic. They love this country. But they no longer believe they matter to the people who run the country. Yet, by the end of the decade most of them were no longer paying attention to politics. They don't see it connecting to their lives. They don't think their concerns will ever be addressed by the political, corporate, and media elites who make up our dominant class.

They are not cynical, because they are deeply religious people with no capacity for cynicism, but they know the system is rigged against them. They know this, and we know this. For years now a small fraction of American households have been garnering an extreme concentration of wealth and income while large corporations and financial institutions have obtained unprecedented levels of economic and political power over daily life. In 1960, the gap in terms of wealth between the top 20% and the bottom 20% was 30-fold. Four decades later it is more than 75-fold.

VCRs and television sets are cheap, but higher education, health care, public transportation, drugs, housing and cars have risen faster in price than typical family incomes. And life has grown neither calm nor secure for most Americans, by any means. You can find many sources to support this conclusion. I like the language of a small outfit here in New York called the Commonwealth Foundation/Center for the Renewal of American Democracy. They conclude that working families and the poor "are losing ground under economic pressures that deeply affect household stability, family dynamics, social mobility, political participation, and civic life."

We could prevent the polarization between the very rich and the very poor that poisoned other societies. We could provide that each and every citizen would enjoy the basic necessities of life, a voice in the system of self-government, and a better chance for their children. We could preclude the vast divides that produced the turmoil and tyranny of the very countries from which so many of our families had fled.

Historically, through a system of checks and balances we Americans were going to maintain a safe, if shifting, equilibrium between wealth and commonwealth. We believed equitable access to public resources is the lifeblood of any democracy. So early on, primary schooling was made free to all. States changed laws to protect debtors, often the relatively poor, against their rich creditors. Charters to establish corporations were open to most, if not all, white comers, rather than held for the elite. The government encouraged Americans to own their own piece of land, and even supported squatters' rights. The court challenged monopoly -- all in the name of we the people.

But then class war was declared, a generation ago, in a powerful polemic by William Simon, who was soon to be Secretary of the Treasury. He called on the financial and business class, in effect, to take back the power and privileges they had lost in the depression and new deal. They got the message, and soon they began a stealthy class war against the rest of society and the principles of our democracy. They set out to trash the social contract, to cut their workforces and wages, to scour the globe in search of cheap labor, and to shred the social safety net that was supposed to protect people from hardships beyond their control. Business Week put it bluntly at the time: "Some people will obviously have to do with less....it will be a bitter pill for many Americans to swallow the idea of doing with less so that big business can have more."

The middle class and working poor are told that what's happening to them is the consequence of Adam's "Invisible Hand." This is a lie. What's happening to them is the direct consequence of corporate activism, intellectual propaganda, the rise of a religious orthodoxy that in its hunger for government subsidies has made an idol of power, and a string of political decisions favoring the powerful and the privileged who bought the political system right out from under us.

"When powerful interests shower Washington with millions in campaign contributions, they often get what they want. But its ordinary citizens and firms that pay the price and most of them never see it coming. This is what happens if you don't contribute to their campaigns or spend generously on lobbying. You pick up a disproportionate share of America's tax bill. You pay higher prices for a broad range of products from peanuts to prescriptions. You pay taxes that others in a similar situation have been excused from paying. You're compelled to abide by laws while others are granted immunity from them. You must pay debts that you incur while others do not. You're barred from writing off on your tax returns some of the money spent on necessities while others deduct the cost of their entertainment. You must run your business by one set of rules, while the government creates another set for your competitors.

"In contrast, the fortunate few who contribute to the right politicians and hire the right lobbyists enjoy all the benefits of their special status. Make a bad business deal; the government bails them out. If they want to hire workers at below market wages, the government provides the means to do so. If they want more time to pay their debts, the government gives them an extension. If they want immunity from certain laws, the government gives it. If they want to ignore rules their competition must comply with, the government gives its approval. If they want to kill legislation that is intended for the public, it gets killed."

I'm not quoting from Karl Marx's Das Kapital or Mao's Little Red Book. I'm quoting Time magazine. Time's premier investigative journalists -- Donald Bartlett and James Steele -- concluded in a series last year that America now has "government for the few at the expense of the many." Economic inequality begets
> > political inequality, and vice versa.

That's why many Americans are turned off by politics. It's why we're losing the balance between wealth and the commonwealth. It's why we can't put things right. And it is the single most destructive force tearing at the soul of democracy.
> >
Thomas Edsall of The Washington Post wrote: "During the 1970s, business refined its ability to act as a class, submerging competitive instincts in favor of joint, cooperate action in the legislative area." Big business political action committees flooded the political arena with a deluge of dollars. And they built alliances with the religious right -- Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition -- who mounted a cultural war providing a smokescreen for the class war, hiding the economic plunder of the very people who were enlisted as foot soldiers in the cause of privilege.

Look at the spoils of victory: Over the past three years, they've pushed through $2 trillion dollars in tax cuts -- almost all tilted towards the wealthiest people in the country.

Cuts in taxes on the largest incomes.
> >
>Cuts in taxes on investment income.
> >
>And cuts in taxes on huge inheritances.
> >
More than half of the benefits are going to the wealthiest one percent. You could call it trickle-down economics, except that the only thing that trickled down was a sea of red ink in our state and local governments, forcing them to cut services for and raise taxes on middle-class working America.
> >
Now the Congressional Budget Office forecasts deficits totaling $2.75 trillion over the next ten years.
> >
These deficits have been part of their strategy. Some of you will remember that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan tried to warn us 20 years ago, when he predicted that President Ronald Reagan's real strategy was to force the government to cut domestic social programs by fostering federal deficits of historic dimensions. Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, admitted as such. Now the leading rightwing political strategist, Grover Norquist, says the goal is to "starve the beast" -- with trillions of dollars in deficits resulting from trillions of dollars in tax cuts, until the United States Government is so anemic and anorexic it can be drowned in the bathtub.
> >
There's no question about it: The corporate conservatives and their allies in the political and religious right are achieving a vast transformation of American life that only they understand because they are its advocates, its architects, and its beneficiaries. In creating the greatest economic inequality in the advanced world, they have saddled our nation, our states, and our cities and counties with structural deficits that will last until our children's children are ready for retirement, and they are systematically stripping government of all its functions except rewarding the rich and waging war.
> >
And they are proud of what they have done to our economy and our society. If instead of practicing journalism I was writing for Saturday Night Live, I couldn't have made up the things that this crew have been saying. The president's chief economic adviser says shipping technical and professional jobs overseas is good for the economy. The president's Council of Economic Advisers report that hamburger chefs in fast food restaurants can be considered manufacturing workers. The president's Federal Reserve Chairman says that the tax cuts may force cutbacks in social security - but hey, we should make the tax cuts permanent anyway. The president's Labor Secretary says it doesn't matter if job growth has stalled because "the stock market is the ultimate arbiter."
> >
You just can't make this stuff up. You have to hear it to believe it. This may be the first class war in history where the victims will die laughing. What we have here is a nationwide scheme to rip off the government and the poor.
> >
Let's face the reality: If ripping off the public trust; if distributing tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the poor; if driving the country into deficits deliberately to starve social benefits; if requiring states to balance their budgets on the backs of the poor; if squeezing the wages of workers until the labor force resembles a nation of serfs -- if this isn't class war, what is?
> >
It's un-American. It's unpatriotic. And it's wrong.
> >
What we need is a mass movement of people like you. Get mad, yes -- there's plenty to be mad about. Then get organized and get busy. This is the fight of our lives!

Amen.

The Bush Gulag needs to stop the spin. This from yesterday's press briefing at the White House regarding the Supreme Court's decisions slapping the Administration across its collective face regarding the unconscionable, the unconstitutional detentions.

Gulag press secretary Scott McClellan:

"Certainly, in terms of the Supreme Court decision, we're pleased that Supreme Court recognized the authority of the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to exercise his constitutional responsibility in a time of war. The President's most solemn obligation is to protect the American people. We also recognize that the court had some concerns, and we respect those concerns. So the National Security Council and the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice and others are discussing these issues. They're working expeditiously to move forward to put a process in place to address these concerns. And that is where things stand at this point."

Is not McClellan the worst mush-mouth press secretary since the Nixon days? I'm talking specifically about Ron Zigler, who could put a positive spin a story even hours away from his boss' resignation to avoid impeachment.

Hey, McClellen, in case you missed it:

"The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive."

Scalia.

"The defining characteristic of American constitutional government is its constant tension between security and liberty."

Souter:

"We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."

O'Connor

"At stake in this case (Padilla's) is nothing less than the essense of a free society. Unconstrained Executive detention for the purpose of investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the Star Chamber."

Et. al.

McClellen, you idiot.