Random Observations on Movies & Politics

Exorbitant Executive Pay - Lee Raymond is NOT the only greedy CEO bastard!

2006-05-04T08:32:00.000-04:00

"It is not good for our society for one class of workers to become an aristocracy at the expense of everyone else." - Jerry Goldberg

An April 24th column by A. J. Carter in New York Newsday focused on an accountant, Jerry Goldberg, who "dealt with his insomnia by counting compensation for the top five executives at each of the Fortune 500 companies - and what he found was eye-opening."

"At 87 of the companies - more than one in six - the top execs' compensation packages (salaries, bonuses, stock options), combined, came out to a figure equal to or greater than 10 percent of that firm's profits (or losses, whichever were applicable). That's a pretty hefty drain on the corporate treasury for only five employees."

"The raw numbers of the group Goldberg calls the Fortunate 2500 were just as startling: an average of $5.7 million a person. That's 127 times the $45,000 salary of the average worker in 2004, the year in which the numbers are based."

So while the media and the public are focusing on the truly obscene (over $400,000,000) retirement package given to one retiring CEO, Exxon/Mobil's Lee Raymond, Goldberg's analysis makes clear that excessive executive compensation is far more widespread than most people suspect. It's the main reason why the economy may be doing "well" statistically but from the perspective of the average worker the economy "sucks."

Visit Goldberg's website, where he's got his spreadsheet, a "Hall of Fame," and some recommended solutions.

http://www.jgfortunate2500list.com

Dubai Ports World Selling Their U.S. Operations To Halliburton?

2006-03-10T09:10:00.000-05:00

Is Dubai Ports World considering selling their U.S. operations To Halliburton?

Think Progress (link below) reports that on last night's PBS News Hour Norm Ornstein discussed that very matter. Here's his take:

If this is done now through the backdoor, where D.P. [Dubai Ports World] has any role at all, Congress is going to go ballistic, and it’s going to be a disaster, I think, for the administration.

They have got a dilemma now, because there simply aren’t American companies that have the know-how and the breadth to do this. Interestingly, and perhaps ironically, what I had heard earlier in the day, as they were looking at those that have the — the kind of resources, Halliburton was a name that came up.

Of course ... Halliburton ... truly "mission accomplished!"

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/09/dpworld-halliburton/

Is John McCain "Bush"-whipped?

2006-03-03T08:46:00.000-05:00

Here's a shocker. When Bush said "we don't do torture" he wasn't telling the truth, because now the Justice Department is making it clear that we CAN torture detainees so long as those detainees are being held in the "black hole" known as Guantanamo.

In an article in today's Washington Post, "U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban: McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison":

Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.

In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."

Government lawyers have argued that another portion of that same law, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, removes general access to U.S. courts for all Guantanamo Bay captives. Therefore, they said, Mohammed Bawazir, a Yemeni national held since May 2002, cannot claim protection under the anti-torture provisions.

This is certainly a slap in the face to John McCain. Now we're going to find out if McCain really has the political "balls" to challenge Bush on this issue or if McCain is really, as many suspect, "Bush"-whipped.

Here's the link to the WaPo article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030202054.html

George W. Bush ... caught on tape ... AGAIN!

2006-03-02T13:09:00.000-05:00

Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing column, which appears Monday through Friday only on the Washington Post website (generally around 1PM EST), has become one of my essential daily reads.

In today's column, one of his best to date, which he has titled "Caught on Tape, " Froomkin opens with a discussion of the devastating video released by the AP:

* * *
A newly leaked video from Aug. 28 shows President Bush sitting passively as he is briefed on the killer storm heading directly for the Gulf Coast. Senior officials voice dire predictions including the distinct possibility of severe flooding in New Orleans.

He asks no questions. And when he spoke it was to offer what turned out be unfounded assurances.

* * *

... Bush's quote about not anticipating the breach has become a symbol of his lackluster response to the hurricane.

Even a report from House Republicans recently found that "earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response" because he alone could have cut through all bureaucratic resistance.

Apparently as a rejoinder to the new video, the White House yesterday suddenly sent around a transcript that it previously said didn't exist, from a conference call on the following day. It includes a second-hand account of Bush's activities from Michael Brown, the Bush-appointed FEMA director who later resigned in disgrace, describing the president as engaged, watching TV and asking questions.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said this yesterday: "I hope people don't draw conclusions from the president getting a single briefing. He received multiple briefings from multiple officials, and he was completely engaged at all times."

But where, then, is the first-hand evidence of this engagement? Where is the evidence of Bush's leadership?

The government's response to Hurricane Katrina was (and continues to be) a massive failure. The new videotape offers a visceral illustration of how some, if not a lot of the blame, lay in a leader who saw his job as expressing unjustified confidence and making empty promises, rather than taking action to make sure his people were safe.

* * *

OK, all of these are excellent points, but then Froomkin proceeds do something that, to my knowledge, no other writer has yet done - link this new videotape to other, older video footage of Bush that none of us will never forget.

* * *
Hurricane Katrina (as I wrote as early as Aug. 31 was the second great challenge of Bush's presidency.

Which inevitably makes me think of how Bush responded, in a moment also "caught on tape," to his first. After finding out that the nation was under attack on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush remained frozen in his seat in a Florida classroom for seven minutes.

The grainy video from that classroom, a hallmark of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," can be found at The Memory Hole.

A staff report from the 9/11 commission described that morning:

"The President was seated in a classroom of second graders when, at approximately 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.' The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis."

But even after he left the classroom, he didn't call the Pentagon. He didn't ask if there were other aircraft hijacked or missing. Instead, he and his staff worked on a statement to the press.

Faced with challenges like these -- an attack on our nation or a natural disaster bearing down on our shores -- we can reasonably expect that our presidents will stand up, demand answers and options, and lead.

If the White House insists that Bush did that with Hurricane Katrina, it is incumbent upon them to back up that claim up with evidence. Otherwise, the image of him mouthing platitudes threatens to become defining of his presidency.

* * *

The linking of the Katrina footage to that of the "My Pet Goat" 9/11 footage ... a slam dunk!

George W. Bush ... worst ... President ... EVER!

Email reveals the "scary" mindset of some in the F.B.I.

2006-03-01T09:57:00.000-05:00

Given that The Patriot Act might be renewed today, I was reminded of an article which appeared in the Sunday New York Times back on December 11th which is very revealing of the mindset of some of those who have been given the responsibility of "protecting" us from the terrorists.

The article, "At F.B.I., Frustration Over Limits on an Antiterror Law" by Eric Lichtblau, is unfortunately only available now to "Times Select" subscribers. Here's the link for those of you who are:

http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=frustration%20%22an%20antiterror%20law%22&date_select=full&srchst=nyt

For those who aren't subscribers, let me quote some segments:

* * *

Some agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been frustrated by what they see as the Justice Department's reluctance to let them demand records and to use other far-ranging investigative measures in terrorism cases, newly disclosed e-mail messages and internal documents show.

Publicly, the debate over the law known as the USA Patriot Act has focused on concerns from civil rights advocates that the F.B.I. has gained too much power to use expanded investigative tools to go on what could amount to fishing expeditions.

But the newly disclosed e-mail messages offer a competing view, showing that, privately, some F.B.I. agents have felt hamstrung by their inability to get approval for using new powers under the Patriot Act, which was passed weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

One internal F.B.I. message, sent in October 2003, criticized the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review at the Justice Department, which reviews and approves terrorist warrants, as regularly blocking requests from the F.B.I. to use a section of the antiterrorism law that gave the bureau broader authority to demand records from institutions like banks, Internet providers and libraries.

''While radical militant librarians kick us around, true terrorists benefit from OIPR's failure to let us use the tools given to us,'' read the e-mail message, which was sent by an unidentified F.B.I. official. ''This should be an OIPR priority!!!''

* * *

Hmmm ... those damn "militant librarians" who believe in such "radical" ideas as The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. Why, those librarians might even expect that our President himself would be required to obey the laws, even those he doesn't like, such as FISA!

Folks, we're living in "1984" ... thanks to George W. Bush!

Hello? Mainstream media? The UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports, not just 6!

2006-03-01T09:30:00.000-05:00

Last week (February 24) UPI reported that, contrary to repeated assertions by the Bush Administration that the UAE deal was for 6 US ports, the deal would actually extend to 21 ports:

A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.

So its really 21 ports, not 6. As I would expect, Keith Olbermann (MSNBC's "Countdown") covered this on his show that Friday evening, and it was all over the bloggs. But last Sunday's talk shows totally ignored this important new information. And the mainstream media (newspapers and TV) continue to claim it is only 6 ports.

Why? Is Karl Rove pressuring the media to stay away from reporting this because it makes the deal sound even worse?

Here's the link to the full article.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r

How many Republicans does it take to screw in a light bulb?

2006-03-01T08:45:00.000-05:00

Found on the Internet. Author unknown.

----------------------------------

How many Republicans does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Answer : Ten

1. One to deny that the light bulb needs to be changed.

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed.

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb.

4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or they are for darkness.

5. One to give a billion dollar no bid contract to Halliburton for a new light bulb.

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush dressed as a janitor standing on a step ladder under a huge banner: "Light bulb change accomplished!"

7. One administration insider to resign and write about documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark.

8. One to viciously smear number 7.

9 One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along.

10. And finally one to confuse the American people about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

Jack Cafferty goes after President - NOT King - George Bush

2005-12-19T14:51:00.000-05:00

On CNN's "The Situation Room" host Blitzer is generally more "lap dog" than Wolf when it comes to covering [for] the Bush Administration's latest abuses of power. But, fortunately for us, cranky show regular Jack Cafferty exhibits no such deference.

Last Friday, the New York Time's story about Bush's unilateral - and illegal - authorization of domestic spying activities really set Jack off!

Here, in his uniquely sarcastic fashion, is how Cafferty describes the Bush Administration's core dismissive attitude towards our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the balance of powers, International agreements, etc.:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares if the Patriot Act get's renewed. Want to abuse our civil liberties-Just do it!

Who cares about the Geneva conventions? Want to torture prisoners-Just do it!

Who cares about rules concerning the identity of CIA gents. Want to reveal the name of a covert operative? Just do it!

Who cares about whether the intelligence concerning WMD's is accurate. You want to invade Iraq? Just do it.

Who cares about qualifications to serve on the nation's highest court. Want to nominate a personal friend with no qualifications? Just do it.

And the latest outrage, which I read about in "The New York Times" this morning, who cares about needing a court order to eavesdrop on American citizens. Want to wiretap their phones conversations? Just do it.

What a joke. A very cruel, very sad joke.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've got to see the video. Go to the invaluable Crooks and Liars website:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/16.html#a6350

Great articles on Judy Miller in VANITY FAIR and THE NEW YORKER

2005-12-18T12:51:00.000-05:00

Given the revelations this week of even more ways in which George W. Bush considers himself above the law - we've known for a long time that his administration's actions were based on faith, ignoring the facts, and now we're learning they've been ignoring the constitution as well - and the recent twists and turns in the CIA leak case (Bob Woodward, Viveca Novack) , articles and discussions about Judy "Miss Run Amock" Miller and The New York Times have largely disappeared from both the MSM and the blogs.

But if you have been following the "Judy/Times" story there are two fascinating articles you won't want to miss:

1. Seth Mnookin's piece in the January 2006 issue of VANITY FAIR, entitled "Unreliable Sources," which the magazine intros as follows: "A rogue reporter named Jayson Blair brought down The New York Times' top editors. Could a rogue reporter named Judith Miller bring down its publisher? The times own investigation of Miller's role in the Valerie Plame scandal raises new questions about the judgment of Arthur Sulzberger Jr."

Here is just one choice excerpt:

"Miller had been controversial for as long as she'd been wielding a notebook. She was relentless, indefatigable, ultra-competitive, and extremely well connected. (She dated Steve Rattner, one of Sulzberger's best friends when the three of them worked at the Times' Washington bureau, and had even, for a time, shared a vacation home with Sulzberger.) She had a reputation for sleeping with her sources (in the 1980s, she both lived with then congressman Les Aspin and quoted him in her dispatches); for bigfooting her way onto other people's beats; for raining down torrents of abuse on clerks, travel agents, and drivers; and for cutting down her colleagues. "

The article is as much about Arthur Sulzbereger Jr. and Bill Keller as it is about Judy. For the complete article go to:
http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/051212roco04

2. Ken Auletta's article in "The Inheritance" in THE NEW YORKER is focused on publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and contains many details on the Judy story which were new to me. Here's an excerpt:

"In Robert Bennett’s view, Sulzberger caused problems for his client. “I don’t know what advice he got from his lawyers, but he was very gung-ho,” Bennett said of Sulzberger. “He was pushing Judy”—to not bend on principle. “When I raised issues—‘Shouldn’t we check on the waiver thing?’ ”—that is, on whether Libby genuinely had no objection to Miller’s revealing her source—“they were resistant to raising that issue.” Bennett was astonished that Keller and Sulzberger had not inspected Miller’s notebook. He said, “How could the Times have embarked on this venture without knowing all of the facts?” Floyd Abrams, the newspaper’s attorney, rejects the suggestion that he and the Times and Miller were swept up by a righteous stand on behalf of an abstract principle; he said that he had briefed Keller and Sulzberger on the notebook’s contents. “The first time I met Judy on this case, the first thing she said was ‘Somebody has to fight back against Fitzgerald,’ ” Abrams said. “I’m not trying to escape responsibility, but Judy was a very active client. It seems to me that if you don’t continually ask, ‘What is the principle you’re trying to establish?,’ there is nothing left to defend.”"

For the full article go to:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051219fa_fact

NOTE: If I haven't been posting on my blog for several months it's not because I haven't been sufficient outraged by recent events. In mid September I learned that, as a result of a clerical error, I being given the opportunity to once again teach an Adult Ed course on American Movie Comedy ... starting the following week! I was very happy to be teaching the course but the time required to pre-screen and select films, write program notes and prepare my intros and discussion notes left me no spare moments to post to my blog. Since my course ends next week I hope to be posting here on a regular basis once more ... or at least til my next course starts in February, which will be an overview of TV Comedy of the 1950s.

Dubya and his dad on vacation in New Orleans

2005-09-21T13:19:00.000-04:00

Who is Bush putting in charge of the recovery effort? Karl Rove!

2005-09-16T08:34:00.000-04:00

Dan Froomkin had a must-read column in yesterday's Washington Post, entitled "Who's in Charge? Karl Rove!" Here are the opening paragraphs:

All you really need to know about the White House's post-Katrina strategy -- and Bush's carefully choreographed address on national television tonight -- is this little tidbit from the ninth paragraph of Elisabeth Bumiller and Richard W. Stevenson 's story in the New York Times this morning:

"Republicans said Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, was in charge of the reconstruction effort."

Rove's leadership role suggests quite strikingly that any and all White House decisions and pronouncements regarding the recovery from the storm are being made with their political consequences as the primary consideration. More specifically: With an eye toward increasing the likelihood of Republican political victories in the future, pursuing long-cherished conservative goals, and bolstering Bush's image.

That is Rove's hallmark.

Rove, Bush's long-time political adviser and the "architect" of Bush's ascendancy, was rewarded after the 2004 election with a position at the White House with overt policy responsibilities. But whereas in some previous White Houses, governance took precedence over campaigning once the election was safely over, Rove has shown no sign of ever putting policy goals above political ones.

Tonight's speech promises two classic features of the Rove approach.

Bush will take advantage of powerful imagery -- the Associated Press reports the speech will be held in historic Jackson Square, with the famous St. Louis Cathedral as a backdrop -- and he won't risk having anyone around who might disagree with him or ask an impertinent question. In fact, the AP says, there won't be a live audience at all. (And even the journalists covering the event are being told they won't be allowed to stray from their press vans.)

As for the speech itself, it will inevitably seek to answer any naysaying about Bush by recasting him in the heroic, leadership role he played after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- while advocating a range of measures that are dear to the conservative political agenda.

It will, on the other hand, feature one very unRovian tactic. Typically, it is the Democrats who are blamed for wanting to solve problems by throwing money at them. But tonight, Bush will be the one throwing the money around.

Here's the link to Froomkin's complete column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

I saw Bush's speech last night. I think his willingness to finally admit that he bears at least some responsibility for the failed federal response will actually help him, not hurt him, with the general public. But I wonder if the exposure - once again - of this administration's incompetence (first in Iraq and now in response to Katrina) will finally cause the public to see that Bush is, to use a Texas expression, "all hat and no cattle."

The Blame Game? How about taking RESPONSIBILITY for your actions, Mr. Bush!

2005-09-08T08:40:00.000-04:00

The latest Rovian tactic to deflect any criticism of the horrific consequences of the Bush administration's "too little and too late" response to Hurricane Katrina is to have Republicans charge that their critics are playing "The Blame Game." Jon Stewart showed several examples last night on "The Daily Show"

The Blame Game? No ... it's called TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS, a--holes!

Every time these bastards f--kup - and that's happening with greater frequency during the second term - they attempt to blame it on Bill Clinton, and if that's not possible they claim that the disastrous results of their actions - or in this case in-action - is something that no one could have possibly predicted, as in Donald Rumsfeld's common refrain "Who knows?" or George Bush's recent claim that no one could have predicted that levees would give way.

In the Bush Administration the "Buck" doesn't stop, it just gets passed!

Bare in mind that if Bush's father hadn't been President there is NO WAY this guy would EVER have been considered Presidential material.

WORST ... PRESIDENT ... AND ADMINISTRATION .... EVER!

Katrina Relief: FEMA Urges Donations to Pat Robertson!!!!

2005-09-06T16:45:00.000-04:00

More evidence of the total incompetence of the "faith-based" Bush administration came to me today in an email from the NJDC. Would you believe that FEMA was urging donations be made to Evangelist - and assassination advocate - Pat Robertson? Below is the text of NJDC's email in its entirety; I certainly couldn't say it any better, and I wanted to share this as quickly as possible. Hopefully all the internal links will work.:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
As Republicans and Democrats alike continue to decry the slow federal response and lack of initial assistance to those profoundly affected by this disaster -- many of them impoverished -- an additional facet of FEMA's mishandling of this calamity has come to light.

We are now learning that in the hours following Katrina's landfall, FEMA -- the Federal Emergency Management Agency, now a part of the Department of Homeland Security -- rightly encouraged Americans to make charitable donations, but wrongly placed Pat Robertson at the top of that list.
Making matters worse is that as soon as this insult came under scrutiny, after millions of Americans had already been urged by FEMA to give to Robertson, FEMA began covering its tracks -- erasing any sign of its actions from its Internet site.

On August 29th, FEMA encouraged Americans to donate to three central charities on its web site -- the Red Cross, Operation Blessing, and America's Second Harvest. So what is Operation Blessing, and who are its leaders? A visit to Operation Blessing's web site lists "M.G. Robertson" as the Chairman, and Dede Robertson as Vice President. Who is "M.G. Robertson?" None other than Pat Robertson himself; Robertson's personal website identifies him as "M.G. Pat Robertson." And Dede? That's his wife.

This is of course the same Pat Robertson who urged the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez... the same Pat Robertson who intoned that God will judge Israel's leaders harshly for withdrawing from Gaza -- bringing sharp rebukes from the Anti-Defamation League and many, many others.

Operation Blessing tries to hide more than just its leadership, though; they would also be happy if we forgot some of what they've done. As reported two years ago, "...Operation Blessing's tax-exempt cargo planes were used almost exclusively for Roberton's diamond-mining operation [in Zaire], not for humanitarian purposes. A subsequent investigation by Virginia authorities turned up evidence for charging Operation Blessing with violations of the state's charitable solicitation law."
But within hours of Internet blogs reporting on FEMA's outrageous call to help Katrina's victims by donating to Pat Robertson, FEMA pulled the references to Robertson's group from their website. Not so fast: a snapshot of FEMA's central Katrina donation page, still live as of August 31st , can be viewed by clicking here.

Has the Press finally developed a backbone?

2005-09-06T14:02:00.000-04:00

Judging from last Sunday's talk shows (ABC's This Week and NBC's Meet the Press) and the editorials and stories in newspapers across the country, it seems that the media may finally have the guts to hold the Bush administration accountable for their incompetance.

This article, Officials Deal With Political Fallout by Pointing Fingers by Jim VandeHei, which appeared in yesterday's Washingtom Post, touches upon two of the most devastating moments from those shows (Senator Mary Landreau on This Week and Aaron Broussard on Meet the Press.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/04/AR2005090401337_pf.html

Of course it's only a matter of time before the Republicans will start to blame Bill Clinton for this!

Bush and the Republicans certainly have their priorities!

2005-09-06T13:38:00.000-04:00

Given that the public is outraged by the Bush administration's tardy, poorly co-ordinated, "catastrophic" response to Hurricane Katrina, it is really politically wise for the Republicans to focus this week on repealing the estate tax?

The quote of the day, from today's Newsday:

"'Whether a millionaire gets to pass his wealth on to his heirs ... doesn't play well in the face of black people floating face down dead in the water,' said Bruce Buchanan, a University of Texas political science professor."

A "true" conservative is outraged by the right-wing smear machine's attacks on Cindy Sheehan

2005-08-12T12:25:00.000-04:00

Ever since its launch earlier this year The Cunning Realist has been offering some of the wisest posts to be found in blog world; the writer is a reality-based "true" conservative, not one of the "faith-based" reactionary wackos who control the Republican party now.

His post today, entitled "Decency Is Not In Them" is one of his best - today's must read!

Some excerpts:

Even when something really outrages me, usually that outrage gives way to a bit of calm, measured thinking. With the Cindy Sheehan story, that's not the case. If one needed any further proof that this incarnation of "Republicans" and alleged conservatives includes a faction that has gone completely and tragically over the edge, the smear campaign against Cindy Sheehan is it.

[snip]

Something ... about this story that infuriates me is the vision of feckless, smarmy smearsters and cowards hiding behind keyboards in cities like Washington and New York (and yes, Miami), punching out electronic missives in a pathetic and desperate attempt to impugn the integrity of a woman sitting in the dust and August heat of Texas---a woman who, along with her dead son, embodies everything that's right about this country. The growing division between the professional class of spinning punditry and the vast expanse of Middle America that actually does the working, the fighting and the dying so the pundits can spend their time chattering has never been more clear than with this story.

[snip]

... it behooves the rest of us to do our part and engage in some "outing" of our own. That includes identifying and relentlessly shaming those who have become so unmoored from morality that not only have they abandoned the uniquely American ideals of accountability and sacrifice, they openly ridicule them.

LINK to the whole article:
http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/08/decency-is-not-in-them.html

Members of media should be shot, says Republican Congressman Peter King

2005-07-13T19:18:00.000-04:00

Republican Congressman Peter King of Long Island is one of the "flying monkeys" sent out by the Bush White House to go on as many TV and radio talk shows as possible and smear Valerie Plame's husband (aka Joe Wilson) in an effort to save Karl Rove's lying ass. King, Newt "Mr. Integrity" Gingrich, Ken "Little Roy" Mehlmann and others been poluting the airwaves for several days with the RNC's talking points (aka LIES) about Wilson. I have no time to cite or refute them here but I encourage you to visit AmericaBlog, DailyKos, Raw Story and other sites (see link to the left of this post) for the details.

Last night King appeared on Joe Scarborough's show on MSNBC. (I'd like to note here that this was actually quite a change of pace for the show, as for the last few weeks "Scarborough Country" could more properly be titled "Aruba;" Scarborough has shown incredible investigative zeal for getting to the bottom of the mysterious disappearance of the young woman. I wonder if he'd welcome a similar investigation into the mysterious death of a young woman in his own office several years ago when he was a Florida Congressman?) Although most of the time Scarborough and King were in agreement, simply regurgitating the "official" RNC talking points, at one point even Scarborough seemed taken aback by some extremely "over the top" comments by King, which I've highlighted in bold. (For the full transcript of the show go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8551822 ) Here's some excerpts:

SCARBOROUGH: It's a fascinating case. And I just got to start by saying, you and I served together during the Clinton administration. We attacked the Clinton administration for not taking national security more seriously. I got to just tell you, I mean, bottom line is, if Clinton's chief of staff or top adviser had leaked the identity of a CIA agent, you and I would be up in arms and say, Clinton had to fire that person immediately.

Should Karl Rove be treated at the same standard?

REP. PETER KING: No, in fact, I think Karl Rove should get a medal, Joe. I really mean that.

I think this is much do about nothing, because let's look at the facts very clearly.

SCARBOROUGH: For revealing a CIA agent's identity?

KING: First of all, it's only a crime if she was undercover, if he knew she was undercover, and he did it deliberately.

I think, Joe, this thing was such a hoax. Joe Wilson was a shameless self-promoter. Everything about his story was either a lie or a hoax or he was incompetent. And when Karl Rove - even just looking at the e-mail. If you are talking to a reporter and you have someone like Joe Wilson, who was totally discrediting the president of the United States, unfairly and untruthfully, and you say, how come this guy was sent over to do this?

And to say, you know, looking at the fact that he is - was sent over by his wife, who was in the CIA.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, Congressman. Hold on. Let me just stop you right there, Congressman King. [snip] .... That still doesn't justify Karl Rove or anybody - and we don't know if Rove did it for sure - but justify the outing of CIA agent, does it?

KING: It's only wrong if he knew that she was undercover and that the CIA was making every attempt to keep her undercover. He didn't give her name. He didn't know she was undercover.

[snip]

SCARBOROUGH: A White House official should not reveal the identity of a CIA agent. And if that White House official had done it, or let's say they had done it in the Clinton administration, you and I would be calling for the resignation of that official, would we not?

KING: No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't, Joe, because I think this is important.

If we are in time of war and you want to know what the president said, what the president didn't say, whether it's accurate or not, and you have someone who says, I am sent over there by the vice president of the United States and George Tenet to investigate this, and instead it turns out, he was sent over at the recommendation of his wife, that to me became a key element.

It's not just because you're outing her or you're saying she was in the CIA to take a shot at Joe Wilson. You are taking it to undermine the credibility of his case, which was attempting to undermine the president of the United States in time of war about a key allegation that was made. I think once...

SCARBOROUGH: But, Peter, what I would say if I were a Democratic...

KING: Yes.

SCARBOROUGH: If I were a Democratic senator, what I would say was, the last thing you want to do, because you keep talking about the fact we are at a time of war.

KING: Right.

SCARBOROUGH: The last thing you want to do at a time of war is reveal the identity of undercover CIA agents.

KING: No.

Joe Wilson, she recommended - his wife recommended him for this. He said the vice president recommended him. To me, she took it off the table. Once she allowed him to go ahead and say that, write his op-ed in "The New York Times," to have Tim Russert give him a full hour on "Meet the Press," saying that he was sent there as a representative of the vice president, when she knew, she knew herself that she was the one that recommended him for it, she allowed that lie to go forward involving the vice president of the United States, the president of the United States, then to me she should be the last one in the world who has any right to complain.

And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they're the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove. Listen, maybe Karl Rove was not perfect. We live in an imperfect world. And I give him credit for having the guts.

And I really - I tell you, Republicans are running for cover. They should be out attacking Joe Wilson. We should throw this back at them with all the nonsense that has been said about George Bush and all the lies that have come out.

SCARBOROUGH: Well...

KING: Let's at least stand by the guy. He was trying to set the record straight for historical purposes and to save American lives. And if Joe Wilson's wife was that upset, she should have come out and said that her husband was a liar, when he was.

--- end of edited/partial transcript ---

King's comments reminded me of a June 30th article about him, "Fightin' words from King: Rep. Peter King takes gloves off in replies to angry voters" which appeared in Long Island Newsday. http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usking0630,0,663691.story?coll=ny-nation-big-pix

King apparently has no problem with writing insulting letters to his constituents when they disagree with his positions. Here's his reply to one constituent:

"I understand that you recently contacted my office requesting that I vote to censure President Bush. I disagree with you in every respect. You are morally, intellectually and politically wrong. President Bush is an outstanding leader of outstanding integrity. Like Ed Koch, I thank God every night that he is our president. You should do the same."

Another constituent wrote a letter to King saying, "I think you underestimate the knowledge of your constituents on Social Security" and asked the Congressman, "do you have the courage to hold a Town Meeting so that we may hear your opinion on plan?" King's response?

"I am in receipt of your March 5th e-mail and regret that you don't know as much about social security as you pretend.... Frankly it is truly unfortunate that you chose to resort to adolescent-like name-calling against the president rather than attempt to discuss the issue intelligently."

When King was questioned by a reporter about the abusive tone of his letters to the latter, who claimed she was not only insulted but also frightened because whereas she had simply sent an email to King the Congressman chose to mail his response to her home ("He knows where I live") King response was,"I would say she should take a tranquilizer," King said with a chuckle. "I'm the one in public life; I should be scared. I don't know anyone who goes around assassinating constituents."

Gee, if King really thinks that Tim Russert and others in the media who criticize George Bush themselves - or who simply provide a forum for people who disagree with the Administration - should be shot, then maybe his constituents have every right to be afraid that someday they might be targeted for assassination if they differ with their Congressman.

Columnist Jay Bookman goes after Karl Rove

2005-06-30T13:29:00.000-04:00

Jay Bookman, deputy editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, has a great opinion piece in today's paper entitled Liberally use Rove's rules against Rove, in which he writes:

... [Rove's] charge that [liberals] hope to get U.S. troops killed is an outrageous and remarkably ugly piece of business. Yet the White House defended Rove, and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said the remarks weren't slander, they were the truth.

Fair enough, I say. Let's play Rove's game by Rove's rules.

If someone really did want to get U.S. troops killed, or if you didn't particularly care one way or the other, you would start by getting us involved in an unnecessary war that diverted us from our real purpose. Then you would ignore the advice of military officers and force our troops to fight that war with insufficient manpower and equipment, under incompetent civilian leadership that paid little or no attention to the aftermath. That way, you could ensure that withdrawal from that war would become impossible and that it would slog on month after bloody month.

Of course, nobody would ever be foolish enough to start such a war. But if they did, you could probably get at least 1,700 Americans killed, don't you think?

Now, is that analysis brutal, harsh and unfair? Yup. But it's no more harsh than Rove's crass attempt at bullying, and it has the added virtue of being accurate.

Because when you're savagely attacked out of the blue, you don't offer your attackers therapy. You fight back hard.

Here's a link to the column:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/2005/063005.html

The results of the Terri Schiavo brain autopsy are in - and they disprove the parents' claims!

2005-06-15T12:30:00.000-04:00

On April 28th I had the following post:

Terri Schiavo's brain autopsy - what were the results?
Terri Schiavo died on March 31. If you will recall, Michael Schiavo promised that he would share the results of the autopsy performed on Terri Schiavo to give the public full knowledge of the extent her brain damage. Supposedly it was to take about 2 weeks for the results to be known. Well, it's been almost a month. I've neither seen nor heard any word about the results of the autopsy in the mainstream media. I've searched the Internet in vain. Does anyone out there know the status of those results?

Well, today we learned the results of the autopsy via CBS News/AP:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/14/national/main701909.shtml

An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband's contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had massive and irreversible brain damage and was blind, the medical examiner's office said Wednesday. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused.

Thogmartin also said she did not appear to have suffered a heart attack and there was no evidence that she was given harmful drugs or other substances prior to her death.

She died from dehydration, Thogmartin said.

He said she would not have been able to eat or drink if she had been given food by mouth as her parents' requested. "Removal of her feeding tube would have resulted in her death whether she was fed or hydrated by mouth or not," Thogmartin told reporters.

He also said she was blind, because the "vision centers of her brain were dead."

These results disprove virtually all of the parents' claims, including that Terri could recover with the right therapy, and that Terri was able to follow balloons with her eyes.

So ... do you think the parents will ever apologize to Michael Schaivo?

Sign Congressman John Conyers' letter RE: The Downing Town Minutes

2005-06-14T08:56:00.000-04:00

Although the mainstream media, including the New York Times, have been trying downplay the revelations to be found in the Downing Street Minutes - that by July of 2002 the Bush Administration had already decided to attack Iraq and were already working to "fix" the facts and intelligence around the policy - the "blogs" have been keeping this story on the "front burner."

As of Monday over 540,000 people have signed Congressman John Conyers' letter to George W. Bush demanding a response from the Administration to the charges set forth in the Downing Street Minutes. Conyers wants the administration to respond to the following questions:

1)Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

Congressman Conyers has a hearing on this matter scheduled for this Thursday and the more signatures he has the greater will be the pressure on Bush to stop stonewalling.

So if you haven't done so already, I urge you to sign John Conyers' letter. Go to

http://www.johnconyers.com/

15 Similarities Between the Vietnam War and the War in Iraq

2005-06-14T08:40:00.000-04:00

One of my favorite blogs is The Cunning Realist: An Oasis for the Intellectually Honest in a World of Hired Spin. Although the writer describes himself as a "lifelong Conservative with a strong independent streak" I find myself in agreement with most of his posts, which are in general very critical of the actions of George W. Bush, particularly with respect to Bush's conduct of the Iraq War.

Today he has a must-read post listing 15 similarities between the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq.

Here's point number 12:

12. As the casualties increased year after year in Vietnam, defenders of the war protested that pulling out would "dishonor the sacrifice" of those troops who had already died. We're now beginning to hear that withdrawing from Iraq too early would mean those who have died would have done so in vain. Both wars have given rise to a perverse logic by which death is only valid and honorable if it's followed by more death.

For the whole article go to:
http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/06/historys-rhyme.html

Margaret Carlson goes after Robert Novak

2005-06-07T08:46:00.000-04:00

During a discussion of Deep Throat and the use of secret sources on last Saturday's Capital Gang, Margaret Carlson very cleverly brought up the Valerie Plame case, in which a source provided a journalist with the information that Plame was an undercover CIA agent, the exposure of which is likely a criminal act. Carlson obviously intended this as a slam at fellow panelist Robert Novak, who published this information in an attempt to silence Plame's husband Joe Wilson, a Bush critic. Novak was not happy, to put it mildly. You can see a clip of this exchange on the in valuable Crooks and Liars website:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/04.html

Spin this, Scott McClellan! Today's New York Times quotes brutal details of Afghan prisoner deaths ... from US Army investigation.

2005-05-20T08:30:00.000-04:00

Could the Bush administration's blatant attempt to seemingly blame all of the recent Islamic resistance and violence on a brief piece in Newsweek be backfiring? Or did the Bushies somehow learn that the following sickening stories were going to be coming out very soon and figure that by making a pre-emptive strike on a major news source they could undermine the media's credibility enough to somehow defuse these bombshells?

First read this shocking piece by Tim Golden in today's New York Times, "In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=8701738ac057aebe&hp&ex=1116561600&partner=homepage

Then read this Press Release from the ACLU website which reveals more cases of abuse from Department of Defense documents including:

• Sworn statement of civilian interrogator stepping on Koran to disorient detainee
• Army memo detailing use of "Star of David" to taunt Iraqi detainee
• Detainee claimed soldiers ordered military dog to pick up the Koran in its mouth
• Detainee claims soldiers threw the Koran on the floor and stepped on it

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18279&c=206

Now ask yourself ... "Why do they hate us?"

To quote a comment I saw by "braindead" on AmericaBlog:

"I strongly suspect that the GOP will soon make talking points about how the democrat minority misled or rather lied! leading the majority and our president the pentagon and the state department and took our nation to war illegally pre-emptively against the presidents and majorities wishes ....... ya think people will buy into it?......I do."

Today's must read - Keith Olbermann on Newsweekgate

2005-05-17T08:40:00.000-04:00

Whenever I hear Scott McClellan talking about ‘media credibility,’ I strain to remember who it was who admitted Jeff Gannon to the White House press room and called on him all those times.

Whenever I hear this White House talking about ‘doing to damage to our image abroad’ and how ‘people have lost lives,’ I strain to remember who it was who went traipsing into Iraq looking for WMD that will apparently turn up just after the Holy Grail will - and at what human cost.

These are just a few excerpts from Keith Olbermann's "must read" post on Bloggermann today, entitled "The resignation of Scott McClellan":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7873141/#050516b

Olbermann's story on "Newsweekgate" on last night's COUNTDOWN was the first coverage I've seen in the mainstream media to have the courage to point out that "something smells here." His blog posting is both a partial recap and an extension of last night's coverage, although I seriously doubt that we'll be seeing McClellan's resignation anytime soon. Here's more:

Last Thursday, General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Donald Rumsfeld’s go-to guy whenever the situation calls for the kind of gravitas the Secretary himself can’t supply, told reporters at the Pentagon that rioting in Afghanistan was related more to the on-going political reconciliation process there, than it was to a controversial note buried in the pages of Newsweek claiming that the government was investigating whether or not some nitwit interrogator at Gitmo really had desecrated a Muslim holy book.

... if stuff like the Newsweek version of a now two-year old tale about toilets and Qu’rans is enough to set off rioting in the streets of countries whose nationals were not even the supposed recipients of the ‘abuse’, then weren’t those members of the military or the government with whom Newsweek vetted the plausibility of its item, honor-bound to say “you can’t print this”?

Or would somebody rather play politics with this? .... this one went similarly to the way the Killian Memos story evolved at the White House. The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet - or has its proxies do it for them.

That’s beyond shameful. It’s treasonous.

It’s also not very smart. While places like the Fox News Channel (which, only today, I finally recognized - it’s the newscast perpetually running on the giant video screens in the movie “1984”) ask how many heads should roll at Newsweek, it forgets in its fervor that both the story and the phony controversy around it are not so cut-and-dried this time.

Check it out!

Did the Bush administration use the terror alerts for political purposes?

2005-05-12T08:45:00.000-04:00

The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.

As Gomer Pyle would say, "surprise, surprise, surprise."

Former head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, who once claimed that "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security" - in spite of his many meeting with pollster Frank Luntz during the campaign - now admits "that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or 'high' risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled."

Here's the link to the article in USA Today, which was posted late Tuesday night.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-10-ridge-alerts_x.htm

During his appearance at a Washington forum:

Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.

"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "

Could one of those "some people" be Karl Rove?

I refer you to this chart on Juliusblog
http://img57.exs.cx/img57/7638/aproval_vs_alert_chart.gif
which tracks Bush's falling approval ratings with the terror alerts.

Of course, aside from the USA Today article the mainstream media has apparently ignored this story. But if this had happened on Clinton's watch ...

From Atrios: Bush proposes Social Security benefit cuts of 16% to 42% for most workers

2005-04-29T08:58:00.002-04:00

Atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_04_24_atrios_archive.html#111478037565395248) points out the real impact of Bush's proposal to "save" Social Security by reducing future Social Security benefits for all but low-income retirees.

Let's be clear, by "low income" we're really talking about "low income." Everyone else gets big benefit cuts. Here's the CBPP analysis of the Pozen plan, which is basically what Bush is embracing.

A "medium" earner, one earning $36,507 in 2005, would see benefits cut by 16% in 2045 and 28% in 2075.

A "high" earner, one earning $58,411 in 2005, would see benefits cut by 25% in 2045, and 42% in 2075.

By 2100, basically everyone earning above $20,000 would earn exactly the same benefit, no matter how great their tax contribution was. You think Social Security provides a poor rate of return now? Just wait.

This turns the system into a modest welfare program.

And, let me add, for most workers this is worse in the long run than the "do nothing" plan - the one which assumes given current projects benefits would have to be cut 28% or so starting somewhere between 2040-2050.

"The American Times" offers the best of the blog world

2005-04-29T08:49:00.000-04:00

I just came across this great website which you might want to check out.

The American Times is a daily newspaper, constantly assembled from the best of the blog world. Stories are automatically categorized (Politics, Film, Religion, for instance) and searchable.

Very interesting. I'm adding it to my links to the left.

The finale to George W. Bush's Social Security bamboozle-palooza tour - in prime time!

2005-04-28T21:45:00.000-04:00

George W. Bush's Press Conference was, as expected, simply the final performance of his 60 day "I'm gonna save Social Security by killin' it" tour ... you know, the "town hall meetings" at which Bush appears before a hand-picked crowd of supporters to pitch his program ... no ... wait ... he says he hasn't yet proposed a program ... he's just gettin' us to focus on the crisis ... everything's on the table ... except it isn't ... PRIVATE ACCOUNTS ... PRIVATE ACCOUNTS ... PRIVATE ACCOUNTS! These events are about as spontaneous as a production of Thornton Wilder's "Our Town."

The best single analysis I've seen which tears apart tonight's Social Security talking point bulls**t is this DailyKos dairy by Tunesmith entitled "Bush's Social Security - unlacing the talking points" (
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/28/212031/759)

He points out what to me was one of Bush's most obvious contradictions:

Bush mentioned that one of our investment options would be to invest in US Treasury Bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. But he says that our surplus is just a file cabinet full of IOUs, not a bank account. He omitted that these IOUs are US Treasury Bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. At one point he made those two points within fifteen seconds.

The Democrats have wisely jumped all over this point and are slamming Bush with it on all of the post-Press Conference commentary I've seen (MSNBC, ABC). Yea!

Terri Schiavo's brain autopsy - what were the results?

2005-04-28T20:57:00.000-04:00

Terri Schiavo died on March 31.

If you will recall, Michael Schiavo promised that he would share the results of the autopsy performed on Terri Schiavo to give the public full knowledge of the extent her brain damage.

Supposedly it was to take about 2 weeks for the results to be known.

Well, it's been almost a month. I've neither seen nor heard any word about the results of the autopsy in the mainstream media. I've searched the Internet in vain.

Does anyone out there know the status of those results?

Always essential reading - The Daily Howler

2005-04-28T13:55:00.000-04:00

In the past five years, our major press organs have done something remarkable. During Campaign 2000, they worked for two years to make [Al] Gore seem crazy; now they’re working to make [Ann] Coulter seem sane.

This is a quote from today's edition of Bob Somerby's invaluable The Daily Howler (http://dailyhowler.com/), one of my favorite websites.

Somerby is convinced - and I totally agree with him - that it is the SCLM (co-called Liberal Media) that must take on much of the blame for our current mess. It is "the way these organs behaved during the event that transformed our politics, the twenty-month press corps War Against Gore that decided Election 2000. Everything liberals rail at today exists because of that twenty-month war.

Somerby repeats this point like a mantra in virtually every article, and I'm glad he does. Even many of my Liberal friends who have "gotten over" the 2000 election still don't "get it" - that is, in 2000 the Liberal media was NOT "fair and balanced," they played a very important part in undermining Gore's credibility - through the SCLM's distortions and sometimes outright lies about Gore's statements or his record - while at the same time giving Bush what by comparison amounted to a free pass by rarely reporting on the Bush campaign's many distortions and sometimes outright lies. And the SCLM is STILL not doing their job today!

If you've not yet visited The Daily Howler, today's article could serve as an excellent introduction. Read it, and then check out his archives, especially his recent pieces detailing the many lies of Ann Coulter. It could become addictive!

An answer to my previous post aka The Microsoft - Ralph Reed connection

2005-04-28T13:02:00.000-04:00

As a followup - and I guess an answer - to my previous post, we now know - thanks to the investigations by AmericaBlog - that Microsoft has been paying Ralph Reed, the founder and former head of the Christian Coalition and a close ally of the Bush Administration, $20,000 a month for some time.

To quote an article by columnist Robert L. Jamieson Jr in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/221805_robert27.html):

The man dubbed "The Right Hand of God" has fingerprints all over Microsoft. Still.

Ralph Reed is more than a Friend of Bill -- he is a paid GOP consultant, getting $20,000 a month from Microsoft to help shape the software behemoth's image in the global marketplace.

Judging from Reed's past -- he was the former head of the evangelical Christian Coalition -- that means serving up vitriolic viewpoints about gays and lesbians.

Judging from Microsoft's actions -- the company just yanked its support of a legislative bill in Olympia to protect gays -- the Reed brand of insight is shining through.

Finally some national news outlets in the mainstream media (The New York Times, The Washington Post) plus Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" on MSNBC and Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central are starting to cover this story.

Maureen Dowd even took a dig a Microsoft in her column yesterday, suggesting that Bill Gates hire John Bolton (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/opinion/27dowd.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fMaureen%20Dowd):

If John Bolton is unfairly denied a chance to ply his diplomatic talents at the U.N., maybe he can work for Bill Gates.

After Mr. Gates shamefully backed down from supporting gay rights legislation - a Washington State preacher had threatened to boycott the company - Microsoft could use a feral muscleman to face down the evangelical bully.

That's a job - or an ankle - Mr. Bolton could really sink his teeth into.

For the most complete coverage, including links to all of the media articles, I urge you to go to AmericaBlog (http://americablog.blogspot.com/)

What is Microsoft afraid of? One evangelical minister who threatened them with a boycott? Or might it be something else?

2005-04-24T18:17:00.000-04:00

Apparently Microsoft was going against the will of Washington State residents when it changed its position on the Anderson Murray Anti-Discrimination Bill from "support" to "neutral."

A recent poll reveals that an overwhelming majority of voters (71%) supported the bill's passage. For a Press Release and a link to the Poll go to
http://equalrightswashington.org/releases/1515poll.html

Wow ... 71%-22% ... that's a whole lot bigger than George W. Bush's supposed "mandate" of 51%-48%.

The Press Release also notes that the Anderson Murray Anti-Discrimination Bill had already passed in the state's House of Representatives by an overwhelmingly favorable vote of 61-37.

So why did Microsoft chicken out? Was it simply the threats from one evangelical minister that caused them to turn tail and run? Or was there some other reason.

Some bloggers are now wondering - and I want to emphasize that this is merely speculation at this point - if perhaps the pressure to back down on the bill may have come not from within Washington State but from Washington DC. Some have pointed out the following link between Tom Delay and Bill Gates, Microsoft's founder, etc, etc.:

1. Tom Delay is currently in hot water because of a seemingly infinite number of ethics violations he may have committed, many of them in connection with the lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

2. At the time many of these violations reportedly occurred, Abramoff was working for a Seattle-based law firm - Preston, Gates, Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds.

3. The "Gates" in that law firm's name is none other than Bill Gates' father, William Gates II, who is a partner at the law firm.

So is there some Delay connection to Microsoft's change of heart?

Who knows? If there were to be some such scandal, do you think could we call it GatesGate?

Great Maureen Dowd column reveals what new Pope and Dick Cheney have in common ... and the cowardice of Bill Gates

2005-04-23T12:45:00.000-04:00

If you saw "Real Time with Bill Maher" last night, on which Maureen Dowd was one of the guests, you got a sneak preview of today's New York Times column, entitled "Uncle Dick and Papa," in which she points out the many similaries between the new Pope (the Vatican's Cardinal No) and Dick Chaney (Washington's Dr. No.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/23/opinion/23dowd.html?

Here's just a sample: "Mr. Cheney wants to dismantle the New Deal and go back to 1937. Pope Benedict XVI wants to dismantle Vatican II and go back to 1397."

Maureen, bless her, even slips in a reference to a major story that seems to have been almost totally ignored by the national media: "... fundamentalism marches on - even Bill Gates seems to have caved to a preacher on gay rights legislation because of fear of a boycott..."

Unless you read Friday's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/national/22gay.html), it's likely that you have no idea what she's talking about. The background: recently Microsoft backed off from their support of a gay rights bill coming up for a vote in Washington State due to pressure from an evangelical preacher. Unfortunately, the bill lost by one vote. From what I've read in Washington State media sources it is generally believed that if Microsoft had supported the bill it would have passed. According to the Times' article, "Microsoft officials denied any connection between their decision not to support the bill and the church's opposition." But the sponsor of the bill claims that Microsoft's denial is "an absolute lie," a charge is supported by various sources.

The best coverage on this subject can be found on John Aravosis' Americablog http://americablog.blogspot.com. Since John's been posting regular updates you'll need to scroll down the page to find the earlier posts giving the full story.

Microsoft is trying desperately to spin this story away from the truth of their cowardice. But now, in a smart and wonderfully gutsy move, the LA Gay and Lesbian Center, which in 2001 gave Microsoft an award for being "a leader in opposing anti-gay initiatives," is asking Microsoft for its award back!:

The following, thanks to Americablog, is the text of the organization's Press Release:
_ _ _

In response to Microsoft's withdrawal of support for legislation that would have outlawed discrimination against gay and lesbian people in Washington, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, which presented Microsoft with its Corporate Vision Award in 2001, is asking the company to return the award.

"We honor companies that, among other things, set a high standard for others by exhibiting leadership in advancing the cause of lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual equality," said L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center Chief of Staff Darrel Cummings. "Because of Microsoft's apparent capitulation to the demands of anti-gay extremists and withdrawal of support for a bill that would do nothing more than protect gay and lesbian people from discrimination, we believe it's no longer worthy of our highest corporate honor."

At the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center's 30th Anniversary Gala in 2001, Microsoft was honored because the company had been a leader in opposing anti-gay initiatives, was one of the first companies to offer domestic partnership benefits and include sexual orientation in its corporate non-discrimination policy, and has supported AIDS and GLBT organizations across the country. Center leaders are concerned about the company's apparent shift in its support of civil rights legislation for the GLBT community. Phone calls from the Center to Microsoft have not been returned.

"One of the most basic civil rights is protection from discrimination," said Cummings. "By withdrawing support for legislation that would protect the GLBT community from discrimination -- especially in its home state -- we're very concerned about the direction Microsoft is headed. It sends a dangerous message to the rest of corporate America, and to society in general, and may be cause for our community to evaluate its support of Microsoft."

* * *

Speaking of "Real Time with Bill Maher," Maher's shows this season have generally been very disappointing. Bill now believes that perhaps ... just maybe ...the Iraq War (George W. Bush's Big Adventure) might have been a wise decision even if, as Bill is always quick to add, we got into it for all the wrong reasons, on the basis of lies by Bush Administration. OK, Bill, you re certainly entitled to your opinion, but must you repeat your position seemingly 10 to 20 times in every show? And this season he often seems to lose control of the panel, allowing one of the guests to take over the discussion. For example, last night's panel consisted of former Rep Joe Scarborough, Maureen Dowd and former Senator Alan Simpson, two conservatives and a liberal. As if it were his own show, Joe Scarborough took control of the panel from the very beginning, using it as his personal soapbox, virtually monopolising the conversation. Occasionally Alan Simpson was able to jump in with his own refreshingly honest, often quite amusing, observations; Simpson even appologised to Bill for the extremely prickly "attitude" he displayed in his post-election appearance on "Real Time" last seaon. But Maureen Dowd seemed to be totally locked out from making a contribution, unable to get out more than a few clever comments before being drowned out by blunderbuss Joe. For that I fault the host, Bill Maher.

During all the years he hosted "Politically Incorrect," first on Comedy Central and then on ABC, Maher always seemed to be able to manage/massage/manipulate the egos of the often widely disparate guests on his panel so that everyone was able to "hold the floor" for a while, to get nearly equal attention, if not time. Such was not the case last night. I tuned in to watch "Real Time with Bill Maher" but instead I got "The Real Deal with Joe Scarborough."

Barry Goldwater takes on the American Taliban aka the religious right

2005-04-23T11:10:00.000-04:00

There are two great quotes currently making the rounds on the internet. Both warrant the widest possible circulation, especially on a weekend when Senator/Dr. Bill "cat killer" Frist will be claiming that by implementing the "nuclear option" the Republicans will be doing the work of Christ. (Could someone please direct me to any passage in the New Testament where Jesus ever mentioned the filibuster, let alone attacked it?) I am posting the quotes in their entirety here but I urge you to visit the sites where I learned about them, where you'll find additional commentary.

The first, from Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, I learned about via Hunter 's diary "On Religious Extremism" on DailyKos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/22/15152/3881. Hunter doesn't site the source in his post, but I did a little research and found that it comes from the Congressional Record, September 16, 1981.

"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "

The second quote, from John F. Kennedy, I found on Andrew Sullivan 's blog:
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_04_17_dish_archive.html#111419510907957371 . Sullivan does not cite the source, but I discovered that it comes from September 12, 1960 address the then-Presidential candidate gave to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant clergy who were suspicious of Kennedy's Catholicism.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference ... I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials."

As Sullivan adds: "At the time, the speech was regarded as an attempt to refute anti-Catholic prejudice. Today, wouldn't the theocons regard it as an expression of anti-Catholic prejudice? Wouldn't Bill Frist see president Kennedy as an enemy of "people of faith"? Just asking."

Just when you thought the wingnuts at FOX News couldn't be any more wacko ...

2005-04-20T13:29:00.000-04:00

FOX News is reporting that some victim's families believe that Iraq was behind the Oklahoma City bombing, and that there is a book coming out about it. (I'm guessing it'll probably be published by the same folks who gave us the Swift Boat LIARS screed.)

According to John Gibson, host of FOX's "The Big Story" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153966,00.html):

The whole thing stinks of Iraq. Ramzi Yousef, an Iraqi agent that was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and his associates were allegedly talking to Terry Nichols in 1994 about how to build a fertilizer bomb.

Now any intelligent person would ask, if it such a claim were true and evidence supporting it does exist, why has the federal government ignored it, or tried to keep it a secret?

Are you sitting down? Here's Gibson's explanation:

The fear that the McVeigh execution might have been an error — and a mistaken execution — could put the federal death penalty itself in jeopardy. The fear of losing the federal death penalty could explain why the U.S. government does not appear to be anxious to act on evidence it has that Iraq may have been involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.

... yeah ... sure ... that could explain it ...

TIME MAGAZINE destroys its credibility with cover story/whitewash of Ann Coulter

2005-04-20T12:38:00.000-04:00

Obviously, for those of us who live in the "reality-based" community - as opposed to the "faith-based" community/theocracy - TIME is certainly NOT on our side.

I hate to give crazy Ann any more publicity by posting about the cover story in this week's TIME MAGAZINE. But I had to bring the following to your attention:

1. TIME used a photo of fake group in their Ann Coulter cover story

According to AmericaBlog http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/04/time-mag-publishes-fake-photo-of.html it turns out that one of the photos used in the story, supposedly of a group protesting Ann Coulter, was actually one of "a GOP group pretending to be 'communists for Kerry' in order to make Kerry and the Dems look bad."Apparently this group fooled Fox News at the time. And now it has apparently deceived those "crack researchers" at TIME.

2. "The Daily Howler:" Ann Coulter makes “errors” like other scribes breathe

Bob Somerby has a must read article today ( http://dailyhowler.com/dh042005.shtml.)

Some excerpts:

Let’s pity poor store-bought reporter John Cloud, who searched and searched for mistakes by Ann Coulter but just couldn’t seem to find any (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/19/05). In his current Time magazine cover piece, Cloud offers a 5800-word profile of Coulter, the painfully crackpot pseudo-conservative who is clearly our craziest living pundit. But poor Cloud! He’d heard that Coulter makes lots of mistakes. But when he conducted his tireless search, he just flat-out couldn’t find them:

CLOUD (4/25/05): Coulter has a reputation for carelessness with facts, and if you Google the words "Ann Coulter lies," you will drown in results. But I didn't find many outright Coulter errors. Amazing, isn’t it? But then, at a time when reactionary power is buying your “press corps,” trying to roll back progressive advances, store-bought boys—store-bought boys like John Cloud—can be surprisingly hapless.

Good Lord! How hard can it be to find Big Mistakes by a complete, total fraud like Ann Coulter? In 2002, when her best-selling Slander made Coulter a star, we began our own search in an obvious place—on page one of her kooky, cracked book. And yes, the fakery started up instantly; Coulter’s groaning “mistakes” began on page one, and continued right on to the end of her volume. Indeed, we reported on Slander for three straight weeks, finally stopping from sheer, total boredom—and Coulter’s “mistakes” simply littered the book, from page one right to its conclusion. Somehow, though, for all his striving, Cloud couldn’t seem to find them. He wracked his brain, and searched high and low. But they were nowhere around.

Coulter claims that liberals are “savagely cruel bigots who hate ordinary Americans and lie for sport.” Well, speaking of sports, for Somerby finding Coulter's lies is like shooting fish in a barrel; he believes that Coulter's penchant for lying is pathological. In his opinion "Coulter is plainly our craziest writer—a woman who openly seems to be ill" and I totally agree.

Watch "The Daily Show" expose Bush's FAKE town hall meetings ... with the "help" of Republican strategist Frank Luntz

2005-04-20T08:57:00.000-04:00

If you missed Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" last night and thus didn't see their devastatingly funny expose of just how fake George W. Bush's town hall meeting really are... don't despair ... just go to the invaluable Crooks and Liars website http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/04/19.html. They've got the clip!

Amazingly, "reporter" Samantha Bee has the help of Republican strategist Frank Luntz (a key creator/promoter of the Republicans' "Contract ON America") in laying bare just how carefully every single element of these "events" is crafted and staged for maximum impact; absolutely nothing is left to chance.

Of course we now know from both local news reports and recent polls that these town halls are simply "singing to the choir" and totally failing to win over any support for Bush's plan to destroy Social Security. I guess it's just like George W. Bush himself has said: "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

* * *
An amusing aside: Before publishing my posts I always run them through Spellcheck. This time, whenever "Luntz" came up, Spellcheck suggested that I replace it with "lunatic." That, in my opinion, would be a very sensible substitution, but I'm sure the Powerline boys would complain that it's just another example of "that damn Liberal Spellcheck!"

Air Force Cadets Face Religious Harassment from Evangelical Christians

2005-04-19T13:54:00.000-04:00

RawStory.com found this AP story which went up on Yahoo just a few minutes ago: http://beta.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050419/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/academy_religion&printer=1

* * *

Air Force Cadets See Religious Harassment
Less than two years after it was plunged into a rape scandal, the Air Force Academy is scrambling to address complaints that evangelical Christians wield so much influence at the school that anti-Semitism and other forms of religious harassment have become pervasive.

There have been 55 complaints of religious discrimination at the academy in the past four years, including cases in which a Jewish cadet was told the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus and another was called a Christ killer by a fellow cadet.

The 4,300-student school recently started requiring staff members and cadets to take a 50-minute religious-tolerance class.

[snip]

More than 90 percent of the cadets identify themselves as Christian. A cadet survey in 2003 found that half had heard religious slurs and jokes, and that many non-Christians believed Christians get special treatment.

"There were people walking up to someone and basically they would get in a conversation and it would end with, 'If you don't believe what I believe, you are going to hell,'" Vice Commandant Col. Debra Gray said.

Critics of the academy say the sometimes-public endorsement of Christianity by high-ranking staff has contributed to a climate of fear and violates the constitutional separation of church and state at a taxpayer-supported school whose mission is to produce Air Force leaders.

[snip]

"They are deliberately trivializing the problem so that we don't have another situation the magnitude of the sex assault scandal. It is inextricably intertwined in every aspect of the academy," said Mikey Weinstein of Albuquerque, N.M., a 1977 graduate who has sent two sons to the school. He said the younger, Curtis, has been called a "filthy Jew" many times.

[snip]

The board chairman, former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore, warned [superintendent] Rosa that changing things could prove complicated. He said evangelical Christians "do not check their religion at the door."

* * *

Gee, so "changing things" might be a little "complicated," eh? What would Gilmore suggest? Does he think posting the Ten Commandments will solve the problem?

The full article has some revealing details, but the capper is this: "Two of the nation's most influential evangelical Christian groups, Focus on the Family and New Life Church, are headquartered in nearby Colorado Springs. Tom Minnery, an official at Focus on the Family, disputed claims that evangelical Christians are pushing an agenda at the academy, and complained that 'there is an anti-Christian bigotry developing' at the school."

Yeah ... that's it ... anti-Christian bigotry! I'm sure THAT's the real problem!

What's next? Maybe Tom Delay can get Congress to pass a special law to "protect" the roughly 2,600 Protestant and 1,300 Roman Catholic cadets from the "threat" of those 121 Mormons, 44 Jews, 19 Buddhists and a handful of Muslims, Hindus and others.

God forbid if you're an atheist cadet!

Bob Schieffer - fair and balanced host ... NOT!

2005-04-18T08:58:00.000-04:00

Anyone catch last Sunday's "Face the Nation?"

The topics were "Majority Leader Tom DeLay's Ethics Issues" and "The Role Of The Filibuster In The Senate."

The guests were Representatives David Dreier (Chairman, Rules Committee, R- CA) and Charles Rangel (Ranking Member, Ways And Means Committee, D-NY)

The discussion went as follows:

Host Bob Schieffer asked a question of David Drier, who was given a few minutes to respond. Then Schieffer directed a similar question to Charles Rangel. But as soon as Rangel started to answer, he was rudely - and repeatedly - interrupted by Drier, who challenged him on every point, effectively turning it into a debate, and thus stealing half of Rangel's time.

Then Schieffer directed another question to Drier. Drier responded with absolutely no interruption from Rangel. But when Schieffer asked a question of Rangel, as soon as Rangel started to reply Drier once again rudely jumped in.

It went on like this throughout the segment. Drier and Rangel often appear on CNN's Late Edition and other shows to debate and while their discussions on those shows are often very heated, Drier and Rangel nearly always end up with equal time, thanks to an effective refiree/moderator. Rangal can certainly defend himself.

But on "Face the Nation" Schieffer made no effort whatsoever to ask Drier to refrain from his rude interruptions. Admittedly Drier and Rangel were not in the same room, Rangel being off-site. But Drier was in the studio with Schieffer and Schieffer could very easilly have asked Drier to refrain from his interruptions. But he didn't say a thing!

I don't think this has anything to do with Schieffer being a "gentleman." Rather, it is another example of Schieffer letting his bias show. When Condi Rice was on "Face the Nation" a few months ago Schieffer was so fawning it was embarrasing, worse than Chris Matthews.

* * *

The Roy Blunt/Barney Frank discussion of the same topics on "Meet the Press" that same day was much better. Although Russert is generally tougher on Democrats than on Republicans, he does at least make an effort to enforce a kind of "equal time" rule when he has two guests debating (which is more than Schieffer did.)

Barney Frank certainly had an effective rejoinder to Roy Blunt whenever Blunt tried to interrupt him: "I thought you Republicans were against the fillibuster!"

And he made a great point concerning how Tom DeLay has been dealing with his ethical problems: "I, 15 years ago, had a problem because I behaved inappropriately. The ethics committee stepped in," said Frank. "Newt Gingrich had a problem. He was reprimanded; the ethics committee stepped in. The difference between us and Mr. DeLay is, I think, we changed our behavior. Mr. DeLay changed the ethics committee."

Want to get George. W. Bush to speak for you?

2005-04-18T08:15:00.000-04:00

You don't have to be a wealthy contributor, a leader of the religious right, or part of the neocon cabal to get George W. Bush to speak for you.

To put words in his mouth all to have to do is go to the George Says website (http://george.says-it.com/), tell George what to say - or think - by tying in your text, pick one of 30 possible poses, select a background (the choices: US Flag, Grand Canyon, aircraft carrier, Presidential seal or coffins), press GO to generated your picture, and then right click to save your new creation to your computer.

This is not a new site, as is evidenced by this person's other sites, John Says (John Kerry) and Arnold Says (Arnold Schwarzenegger.)

This guy also has a link to The Jesus Dance (http://www.jesusdance.org/)

Parody of Elizabeth Bumiller column hard to distinguish from the "real thing"

2005-04-15T08:38:00.000-04:00

Yesterday Atrios linked this piece http://www.etc3dot.com/Bumiller.htm under the heading

Bumiller
She gets worse and worse...

Given that header, I have to assume that either Atrios decided to celebrate April Fools Day a week late or he himself was fooled.

At first glance it, this article entitled "I Scream, You Scream, President Bush Screams for 'Ice Cream!'" seems to be just another one of Elizabeth Bumiller's "White House Letters, " those horrible weekly puff pieces she writes for the New York Times, in which she basically just writes whatever she's been told by Bush's PR staff.

For me it was only the source link - etc3dot.com and not nytimes.com - that gave away that this was a gag. It certainly wasn't the topic and content, because this article seems to fit right in with Bumiller's other recent "White House Letters," like "President Bush's iPod" and "President Bush's New Public Face: Confident, Comfortable and 'Impishly Fun.'" Bob Somerby of TheDailyHowler (see link to the left) has accurately described Bumiller's pieces as "a weekly tongue-bath for Bush."

Florida NRA Bill Would Allow People To Kill Others In Public

2005-04-07T12:39:00.000-04:00

In the last week or so I've had very little spare time to devote to my blog. One of the articles I've considered writing for some time is a post which would be titled simply "F**K THE NRA." In it I would point out that the overwhelming majority of the Americans favor more stringent gun control laws, but that the leadership and lobbyists of the National Rifle Association have so successfully intimidated Congressmen that they've almost always been able to get their way, such as in allowing the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban. Just as in the Terri Schiavo case, where Congress and the President obviously believed that the public would be overwhelmingly behind their efforts to "save" Terri but ALL the polls showed that the public was 70% to 80% AGAINST that effort, so too I'm sure that there is a similar discrepancy between what Congress surely believes is widespread public support for the NRA's positions and the reality of the public being against most - if all - of the NRA's goals. On a personal note, my father has been an avid hunter and gun collector all his life, but just like me he believes that the NRA was taken over years ago by extremist wackos more interested in serving the financial interests of the gun manufacturers than the needs and interests of legitimate hunters. What do "cop killer bullets" and AK-47 rifles have to do with hunting deer or ducks?

Now today, from Florida - land of the 2000 recount ... Elian Gonzalez ... Terri Schiavo ... and the President's brother Jeb - comes this story: "Florida NRA Bill Would Allow People To Kill Others In Public" (http://www.nbc6.net/politics/4355373/detail.html)

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday he intends to sign a bill that would allow people who feel threatened -- even on the street or at a baseball game -- to "meet force with force" and defend themselves without fear of prosecution.

The bill would make a significant change in Florida law. Previously "people attacked anywhere else [were] supposed to do what they can to avoid escalating the situation and can use deadly force only after they've tried to retreat." Now with this new law, apparently, people would be under no obligation to look for ways to avoid the conflict. "The bill said a person has 'the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.' " In other words ...Florida will become like the wild West, as it will be perfectly legal to shoot first and ask questions later.

Actually, when you think about it, wasn't that essentially George W. Bush's approach to Iraq?

Update: 4/8/09 9am

I'd like to thank both Oliver Willis (http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/2286) and Mike's Blog Roundup at Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/categories/mikeSBlogRoundup/) for picking up and linking my post. They have generated additional traffic to my blog and, more importantly, responses to my article, so please check out both of their sites. There have been 14 comments on my post so far on OliverWillis' site, as many people have posted their responses to my post there rather than below. And on Mike's Blog Roundup you will find interesting articles from many "unsung" blogs which are worthy of a visit.

I'm working on a followup post on this Florida story, the CCW (Carrying Concealed Weapons) laws which the NRA gun lobby has been aggressively pushing through state legislatures, and the subject of gun control in general. It requires a bit of research so it may be a few days before it appears, but it didn't take me very long to find statistics which contradict the "facts" some of the respondents posted on OliverWills.

News Flash! - Investigation into who outed Valerie Plame as CIA agent essentially complete ... in October 2004!

2005-04-07T08:40:00.000-04:00

Yesterday an Associated Press story revealed that US Attorney Patrick Fitgerald's investigation into who in the Bush Administration outed Valerie Plame as being an undercover CIA agent in apparent retribution for Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, publicly criticising Bush's claim that Iraq had sought Uranium in Niger, was, to use Fitzgerald's words, "for all practical purposes complete" in October 2004.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050406/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_1

Gee ... October 2004 ... that was BEFORE we voted for President! Why are we learning this now, 6 months later?

"Fitzgerald said the refusal of Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times to divulge their sources has stalled his probe." So what! As the story says "Neither Cooper nor Miller wrote the original story that revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame."

By refusing to testify Cooper and Miller have risked going to jail. Now personally I wouldn't mind seeing Judith Miller be punished in some way, but NOT for the Valerie Plame case. She's been a promoter of the neocon agenda at least as far back as 1990 when she co-authered "Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf" with the nutty neocon guru Laurie Mylroie. Because of the influence and reputation of the NY Times, Miller's front page stories during the lead up to the war - in which she was essentially channeling the WMD lies of Bush Administration neocons, Achmed Chalabi and his cronies - had a major impact on building public support for the war among the educated elite. As such I feel that Miller bears some of the responsibility for all the blood that has been shed in order to fulfill the neocon's agenda. But I certainly don't see the rational for sending either Miller or Cooper to jail for something they didn't do when the perpetrator, Robert "Prince of Darkness" aka "Novacula" Novak, the person who actually wrote the story outing Plame and COULD identify the Administration leakers, is still running free.

Two questions:

1. If the investigation was "for all practical purposes complete" in October 2004, why didn't we hear anything about it then, before the election?

2. Why has this story gotten so little play in the media? Not surprisingly it was reported on Air America Radio, but I'm not aware of any coverage on any of the network or cable news programs, and in print media if it has been buried deep the the newspaper (like Newsday) if it has been covered at all.

We're learning now that virtually of all the many investigations critical of the actions - or inaction - of the Bush Administration (the flawed intelligence about Iraq's WMDs, the torture of Iraqui prisoners, etc.) had been completed weeks - if not months - before last November's election but the reports are just dribbling out now, after it is too late to have any political impact.

Where is the outrage?

Terri Schiavo and THE BIG CARNIVAL, starring Kirk Douglas as Randall Terry

2005-04-01T13:27:00.000-05:00

To quote Tim Grieve of Salon http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/03/31/schiavo/index.html:

... the biggest loser in the Terri Schiavo case has to be Schiavo herself. The Florida courts decided that she would have wanted to die rather than live the life she endured. The right and the left may forever disagree over that conclusion, and the Republican Party may well find itself caught in the middle. But everyone ought to be able to agree on this: Whatever Terri Schiavo might have wanted out of her life and her death, it wasn't what she got.

About a week ago James Wolcott had a "Helpful Suggestion" for the media.
http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/03/helpful_suggest.php

Here's something the cable news outfits could do that would rilly rilly rilly be useful, given that they got all those cameras down there in Florida and all.

Just for the kooky hell of it, why don't they provide us with one wide shot or overview of the protestors and vigil-holders in Pinellas Park just so we can see how big the gathering is? Is it a big, swelling group, or is it like the jubilant Iraqis surrounding Hussein's razed statue, a seeming mass revealed in long wideout as a motley get-together? And what is the ratio of Schiavo deathwatchers to media deathwatchers? Are there as many reporters there as sign-holders, or what?

Because whenever there's a ground-level view of the vigil, it seems to be the same scraggly-looking characters and showboating Franciscan friars moving back and forth across the screen, clogging the view.

The images evoked by his comments led me to remember Billy Wilder 's THE BIG CARNIVAL, a movie which is probably unknown to anyone but film buffs but one which I think perfectly captures the Terri Schiavo situation.

By the early 50's Billy Wilder had already written and directed such classics as THE LOST WEEKEND, DOUBLE INDEMNITY and SUNSET BOULEVARD, all of which were both critically and financially successful. But his next film, originally titled ACE IN THE HOLE, would be neither. The plot concerns a down-on-his-luck reporter (Kirk Douglas) for a small New Mexico newspaper, who, upon learning that a man is trapped in a nearby mine, decides to exploit the rescue effort - even to prolong it - so as to further his own career. The media frenzy he generates with his "sensational" story of human suffering ends up turning the area surrounding the mine into a literal fairground (hence the movie's ultimate release title.) In the process Wilder not only exposes how virtually everyone involved in this media event - particularly the press and the politicians - has been corrupted by power and profit, but also how easily the ghoulish instincts of the general public can be manipulated.

Gee, a personal/family tragedy, which is exploited for political gain ... an event in which the media is by no means simply just a "witness"....

Of course in the Terri Schiavo case it is not a newspaperman who is manipulating a life-and-death situation to further his career but primarilly the so-called "pro-lifers" who are using Terri's life - and now death - to promote their idealogical agenda. So just think of it as Kirk Douglas in the role of Randall Terry!

ACE IN THE HOLE is undoubtedly one of the most cynical, bitter movies ever made by Hollywood; before its title was changed to the supposedly more commercial THE BIG CARNIVAL some industry heads were referring to it as "Ass in the Wringer." Given its downbeat subject matter and the lack of any sympathetic characters for viewers to identify with, the film held little appeal for movie goers and was, not surprisingly, a financial failure. Even critics of the time were largely turned off by its relentless focus on the dark side of humanity. Wilder's career soon bounced back with a string of hits, including such classics as STALAG 17, SABRINA, THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH, WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, SOME LIKE IT HOT, THE APARTMENT and THE FORTUNE COOKIE, all of which are widely available on video.

Unfortunately ACE IN THE HOLE is one of the few Billy Wilder films not currently available on video in any format (DVD or VHS) but should it turn up on AMC or TCM it's definitely worth watching and taping.

May Terri Schiavo finally find peace

2005-03-31T12:57:00.000-05:00

"The Culture of Life" will certainly be a much discussed and written about topic in the coming days.

Whatever your religious beliefs - or lack thereof - I urge you to read this great post from BlondeSenseBlog, which I learned about through CrooksandLiars.com

New Rules: The culture of life applies to all life. If you claim to be christian then act like it. Especially in public
http://blondesense.blogspot.com/2005/03/new-rules-culture-of-life-applies-to.html

Although written from a Christian perspective, I think the moral points it raises are universal.

Here are the Rules, each of which is expanded upon in the full post:

No more hypocrisy. You cannot be selective about whose life you want to defend. All life is sacred in a culture of life.

The culture of life also covers lives of those who are not Americans.

The culture of life means no wars.

The culture of life also includes birth mothers and children who are already born just as much, if not more so than embryos.

A culture of life does not tolerate the death penalty.

The culture of life includes proper education.

The culture of life means feeding the poor.

The last rule, which I'm quoting in its entirety because the explanation is essential to sense its meaning, is:
The culture of life also includes the after life. End tax cuts to the wealthy to save their souls. Their camels won't fit through the eye of the needle if we keep enabling them to amass more wealth. Baby Jesus cries every time a rich person takes another tax cut or finds another loop hole therefore not pulling his weight in society and furthering himself from everlasting life.

Schindler's List

2005-03-29T13:05:00.000-05:00

OK, it was bad enough that Terri Schiavo was being used by Republicans to shore up their religious-right "base," and particularly by Tom DeLay in an attempt to save his ethically challenged ass.

But this is absolutely disgusting! "List of Schiavo Donors Will Be Sold by Direct-Marketing Firm," by David D. Kirkpatrick and John Schwartz in today's New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/politics/29donate.html?pagewanted=print&position=

The parents of Terri Schiavo have authorized a conservative direct-mailing firm to sell a list of their financial supporters, making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by her plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups.

"These compassionate pro-lifers donated toward Bob Schindler's legal battle to keep Terri's estranged husband from removing the feeding tube from Terri," says a description of the list on the Web site of the firm, Response Unlimited, which is asking $150 a month for 6,000 names and $500 a month for 4,000 e-mail addresses of people who responded last month to an e-mail plea from Ms. Schiavo's father. "These individuals are passionate about the way they value human life, adamantly oppose euthanasia and are pro-life in every sense of the word!"

... and we're going to exploit the Hell out of them, milking them for every dollar they've got!

According to this article, even conservative-GOP fundraising guru Richard Viguerie finds the Schinder's actions in this case to be, shall we say, in questionable taste: "I think it sounds a little unusual right now because of the situation where she is in the process of dying .... If you came across this information six months or a year from now, I don't think you would give it too much thought."

To quote a poster, Lorraine, on DailyKos:

Let's start a pool to see how long it is before:
parents sell movie rights to "terri's story"
parents sell licensing rights to "terri tee-shirts and other accessories"
parents sell rights to Terri museum
and finally, how long it is before internet hucksters start selling Terri's bedsheets and stuff as memorabilia--sort of like Medieva hucksters used to sell pieces of the true cross or drops of Mary's breast milk

Are those tasteless comments? They are no more tasteless than this action by the Schlinders. Well, when you lie down with dogs like Randall Terry ...

Programming Note

2005-03-29T12:49:00.000-05:00

Based upon what I've read, the following two shows should be worthy of your time:

TONIGHT (Tuesday March 29) on NBC at 9:30PM ET/PT

"The Office" - Steve Carell stars in this US version of the acclaimed BBC series. Unlike NBC's previous attempt to remake a BBC series, "Coupling," which was both a critical and ratings disaster a few years back, "The Office" is reportedly a successful transplant, maintaining the original's politically incorrect tone and black humor. Carell is an extremely talented comedian, who should be a familiar face from his frequent contributions as a correspondent on “The Daily Show” and his performances in BRUCE ALMIGHTY and ANCHOR MAN. The series had a preview showing of the pilot last Thursday, tonight is the official premiere. According to a review by Alexandra Stanley in "The New York Times" the NBC series, though it pales in comparison [to the BBC original starring Ricky Gervais], is still funnier than any other new network sitcom.

THURSDAY (March 31, 2004) on HBO March 31 at 8:00pm ET/PT with repeat showings (of course) throughout the month of April.

LEFT OF THE DIAL - This week Air America Radio is celebrating its first year of broadcasting. At this point the network can certainly be deemed a success. They are adding local affiliate stations left and ... left, and on April 1st Jerry Springer (yes, THAT Jerry Springer, who happens to be an articulate liberal) is being added to the lineup. But the network's early months were very touch and go, as is revealed in this documentary. Certainly seems worth checking out! Here's the description from HBO's website: Alarmed by the growing multitude of conservative talk-radio shows, a group of investors set out to launch a liberal radio network for those whose opinions skewed more to the "Left of the Dial." The result was Air America Radio. This engaging, fast-paced film charts the long-anticipated rise, scandalous near-fall, and subsequent salvation of the liberal-leaning radio network. Told through verite footage shot at the New York-based station over the course of nine months, the film follows the network's evolution and features interviews including TV satirist and author Al Franken, liberal radio host Randi Rhodes, stand-up comics Marc Maron and Janeane Garofalo, National Public Radio pioneer Katherine Lanpher, and radio personalities Mark Riley and Rachel Maddow.

Monday Morning Treats

2005-03-28T08:30:00.000-05:00

To start your week with a smile, read DemocraticUnderground.com's weekly

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/index.html

And check out this week's Ironic Times http://ironictimes.com/index.html

Here are some headlines:

CAMILLA CAN BECOME QUEEN, SAYS BRITISH LAWMAKER
“Over my dead body,” says current Queen

US NEWS - Congress Passes Bill to Reinsert Dead Woman's Feeding Tube
Rejects bill to send food to millions starving in Africa.

TOYS - New George Bush Action Figure Goes On Sale
As superhero in U.S., supervillain abroad.

Ralph Nader continues to destroy his legacy

2005-03-25T17:25:00.000-05:00

Apparently Ralph Nader is agressively working to destroy his legacy.

In the 2000 Presidential election, Nader attracted enough votes away from Al Gore in tight states like Florida and New Hampshire so as to put George W. Bush in the White House. In the last Presidential election his campaign could only be regarded as an ego trip.

Now, Nader has jumped into the Terri Schiavo mischigas. Via RawStory.com we learn that, according to a Press Release:

Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith, author of the award winning book "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America" call upon the Florida Courts, Governor Jeb Bush and concerned citizens to take any legal action available to let Terri Schiavo live.

A profound injustice is being inflicted on Terri Schiavo," Nader and Smith asserted today. "Worse, this slow death by dehydration is being imposed upon her under the color of law, in proceedings in which every benefit of the doubt - and there are many doubts in this case - has been given to her death, rather than her continued life."

So Ralph has effectively aligned himself with ... Randall Terry!

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=44858

Jon Stewart takes on the media whores again

2005-03-25T12:10:00.000-05:00

If you didn't watch THE DAILY SHOW last night you missed Jon Stewart taking on the media whores again in a segment almost as memorable as his CROSSFIRE appearance. This time his target was the exploitation of the Terri Schiavo matter by FOX News, CNN and MSNBC, and the ill-informed if not downright idiotic comments of the worst offenders: Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan.

Thanks to the invaluable website Crooks and Liars you can see the "Culture of Strife" segment.

Here's the link: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/03/25.html#a2137
* * *

One of the things that's distressing me about the media coverage of the protestors is that it suggests widespread and spontaneous public support of Terri. The reality, however, is simply that Randall Terry got his troops together; they are the ones exploiting Terri Schiavo to further their anti-abortion agenda. The media is not pointing this out, just as they never informed their viewers that in the 2000 Presidential election the so-called "spontaneous" riots which disrupted the Florida recount were actually organized and staffed by Tom DeLay's office.

Molly Ivens on Terri Schiavo

2005-03-24T15:50:00.000-05:00

Some choice excerpts from today's column by Molly Ivens, "Congress should stay out of private family matters,"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0503240101mar24,1,1408368.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

... while he was governor of Texas, Bush signed the Advance Directives Act in 1999, which gives hospitals the right to remove life support in cases where there is no possibility of revival or when the family cannot pay, no matter what the family's wishes are in the matter. If Bush is so concerned about the right to life, why didn't he give Texas Death Row inmate Karla Faye Tucker, executed in 1998, more than 10 minutes' consideration and some cheap mockery?

* * *

I am indebted to the blogger called Digby for the following points: Those who passed this bill are the same politicians who want to put financial limitations on medical malpractice suits like the one that provided the care for Terri Schiavo for many years while she was in "a persistent vegetative state." They are the same politicians who have just finished changing bankruptcy law so that it is now much harder for families hit by tragedies like this one to get out from under the staggering medical bills. How dare they talk about morality?

Tom DeLay, Terri Schiavo, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and WEEKEND AT BERNIE'S

2005-03-24T12:00:00.000-05:00

The great Spanish filmmaker Luis Bunuel was once quoted as saying "Thank God I'm an athiest."

There are three worthwhile columns available from the New York Times today, two of which take on Tom DeLay and the Republican alliance with the religious Right.

* * *

In recent days have you been wondering if any pundit would have the balls to risk being charged with "bad taste" and compare the Republicans' exploitation of Terri Schiavo to the movie WEEKEND AT BERNIE'S? Well, wonder no more! Read Maureen Dowd's column, "DeLay, Deny and Demagogue," in my opinion her best one yet, which opens with:

Oh my God, we really are in a theocracy.

Are the Republicans so obsessed with maintaining control over all branches of government, and are the Democrats so emasculated about not having any power, that they are willing to turn the nation into a wholly owned subsidiary of the church?

The more dogma-driven activists, self-perpetuating pols and ratings-crazed broadcast media prattle about "faith," the less we honor the credo that a person's relationship with God should remain a private matter.

As the Bush White House desperately maneuvers in Iraq to prevent the new government from being run according to the dictates of religious fundamentalists, it desperately maneuvers here to pander to religious fundamentalists who want to dictate how the government should be run.

Maybe President Bush should spend less time preaching about spreading democracy around the world and more time worrying about our deteriorating democracy.

Truly a must read! For the rest go to http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/opinion/24dowd.html.

* * *

The religious Right and Tom DeLay are also the subject of Frank Rich's column, "The God Racket, From DeMille to DeLay," which, although it won't be published until Sunday's Arts & Leisure section, is already available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/arts/27Rich.html?incamp=article_popular_3&amp;amp;pagewanted=print&position=

In a section which takes on the President, he writes: The same Mr. Bush who couldn't be bothered to interrupt his vacation during the darkening summer of 2001, not even when he received a briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," flew from his Crawford ranch to Washington to sign Congress's Schiavo bill into law. The bill could have been flown to him in Texas, but his ceremonial arrival and departure by helicopter on the White House lawn allowed him to showboat as if he had just landed on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Within hours he turned Ms. Schiavo into a slick applause line at a Social Security rally. "It is wise to always err on the side of life," he said, wisdom that apparently had not occurred to him in 1999, when he mocked the failed pleas for clemency of Karla Faye Tucker, the born-again Texas death-row inmate, in a magazine interview with Tucker Carlson.

"Culture of life," my ass! What about the "Circle of Life?"

* * *

The third Times column of note today is Thomas Friedman's "George W. to George W.," http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/opinion/24friedman.html, in which Freidman expresses outrage that the March 16 report in the Times that "at least 26 prisoners have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 - in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide" has apparently been shrugged off by the very same Congress that has gone "into overdrive to protect the sanctity of Terri Schiavo's life."

On Terri Schiavo - Part 3

2005-03-24T11:53:00.000-05:00

ITEM #1 -Wall Street Journal Online Poll

As we all know by now, the Congressional action last week was less about saving Terri Schiavo life than rescuing Tom DeLay, by taking attention away from the gathering ethics charges nipping at his heals. But the Republicans' efforts have obviously backfired, given the universally negative poll numbers (ABC News, CBS News, etc.)

The Wall Street Journal took an online poll on the question: "How will Republicans' role in the Schiavo case affect the party?" Online polls are considered to be less reliable than traditional polling methods but given the conservative readership of the Wall Street Journal I was pleased to see the following results.

As of 3/24/2005 8:46 am, based upon 8935 people voted so far:
It will help: 1340 votes (15%)
It will hurt: 5777 votes (65%)
It won't make a difference: 1818 votes (20%)
http://discussions.wsj.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=wsjvoices&tid=3456&vote=2&submit=Vote

Voters were invited to comment after their vote. I thought the following was one of the best.

Where to begin. As a life long Republican, I am appalled that Congress would spend tax-payers money to return to Washington and attempt to usurp States' rights by injecting their opinion into a private, family, decision-making process. Furthermore, Dr. Frist violated his own medical ethics by making a diagnosis from a 4 year old video; since when can a physician make a diagnosis without physically examining the patient. The actions by the Republican leadership and congretional members are nothing more than political pandering to a special interest group. If, as the President states, we must focus on life, then how does the Republican party justify the death penalty, sending military personnel to war, and support abortion. This hypocrisy in the name of political grand standing is appalling and provides an impetus for my voting to support Democratic Party members in the future elections. - William Craig, Dallas, TX

* * * * *

ITEM #2 - Keith Olbermann on the Schiavo case

In my very first post on the Terri Schiavo matter I recommended a recent article in the Orlando Sentinel, "Terri's Husband Isn't the Enemy," by Mike Thomas, in which he interviewed University of South Florida professor Jay Wolfson, Terri's court-appointed guardian for much of 2003. In fulfilling his obligation to produce a report for Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Wolfson not only reviewed all of the court files, depositions and medical records, he spent considerable time with the husband, the parents and with Terri herself, even holding her hand.

Wolfson tried - but ultimately failed - to bring both parties (the husband and the parents) together. His report (available as a pdf) is probably about as fair and balanced as anyone could possible be given such a sensitive situation. He is obviously more knowledgeable about this case than 99.9% of the people appearing on the various talk shows.

Therefore I was very happy to see Wolfson being interviewed last night on Keith Olbermann's COUNTDOWN. To give you an idea of his objectivity, here is how he responded when Keith asked him for his opinion as to how this matter should be resolved:

WOLFSON: My opinion doesn't count. I'm just a guy. You know, I just attempted to use the modest legal skills and clinical and technical skills and scientific skills I have. And I brought to the table the issue of using good medicine, good science and good law. This is not about me. It's not about anybody else. It's really about Terri.

Keith has a transcript of the interview with Wolfson last night in his blog, Bloggermann (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/). In that same post Keith has a transcript of his interview with Glenn McGee, director of the New York Institute For Bioethics, who explains "how Terry Schiavo's parents have been able to survive literally millions of dollars worth of legal bills over the years they have fought their son-in-law."

Want a laugh? Read Bloggermann today.

2005-03-22T16:55:00.000-05:00

In my very first post (which you can access using the March 2005 archives link to your left) I praised Keith Olbermann 's COUNTDOWN on MSNBC. His show is not only one of most truly "fair and balanced" news programs on TV - cable or broadcast - but also certainly the funniest.

Keith has his own blog, Bloggermann, at MSNBC's web site. Unfortunately ever since his February 22 entry entitled "Why I stopped blogging about politics so much” all of his posts have been focused on the steroids controversy, not a subject I care about..

But today Keith has a new post "More Sponge Bob from Jim Dob" in which, among other things, he treats us to a sampling of recent emails he's received from the supporters of Dr. James Dobson and his “Focus On The Family” organization.

The emails are hilarious. Here's just one:

-- Kirtie from Oxford, Pennsylvania, apparently wrote after a struggle with the cat: “Please try a litter harder to get your facts straight.”

You can check out Keith's blog at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/ .

More importantly, please watch his show (8PM EST, repeated at Midnight EST, Monday through Friday. I'm sure he could use the ratings!

Interesting Article on DVD Pricing vs. CD Pricing

2005-03-22T16:47:00.000-05:00

Found via Atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com/), here's an early look at an article by Barry L. Ritholtz on the differences in pricing strategies between DVDs and CDs, from his blog The Big Picture - Macro perspectives on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics (with a dash of film & music)

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/03/dynamic_pricing.html

Among the many points made is the fact that nowadays it often costs more to buy a movie's soundtrack CD than the movie itself on DVD!

Movies AND Politics

2005-03-22T16:30:00.000-05:00

If you've been reading my blog, "Random Reflections on Movies & Politics," you've undoubtedly noticed that the overwhelming majority of my posts have been about politics, with only a few about movies. The reason is simple: although I am equally passionate about both subjects, the political matters have been more urgent to write about and/or share.

Well, this morning's post is about movies AND politics.

ITEM #1 - I just became aware of this story which was in last Tuesday's New York Times: A New Screen Test for Imax: It's the Bible vs. the Volcano
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/national/19imax.html

The fight over evolution has reached the big, big screen.

Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject - or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures

* * *

People who follow trends at commercial and institutional Imax theaters say that in recent years, religious controversy has adversely affected the distribution of a number of films, including "Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.

The Fort Worth Museum of Science and History showed the IMAX film "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea" to a sample audience. According to Carol Murray, their director of marketing: 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous." In their written comments, she explained, they made statements like "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact," or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence."

One theater owner was quoted as saying "We have definitely a lot more creation public than evolution public."

So apparently the jury is still out on the Scopes trial. I guess if Gallileo were alive today he'd fare no better with this crowd than he did 500 years ago.

* * * * *

ITEM #2 - Terri Schivao and the Kuleshov Experiment

In thinking about my post from yesterday, about how the widely circulated 5 minute video showing Terri Schivao's supposed "reactions" to social stimulai was actually edited down from about 4 1/2 hours in which virtually nothing happened I was reminded of the famous Kuleshov experiment.

In 1991 the Russian filmmaker Lev Kuleshov performed an experiment to prove that by simply juxtaposing two unrelated images through montage (editing) he could create meaning. Kuleshov created a brief film in which he alternated footage of various things (a bowl of soup, a smiling child, and a dead body) with an archive clip of an actor (Ivan Mozhukhin); the clip of the actor was carefully chosen to be one in which the actor's face was totally expressionless, not conveying any emotion whatsoever. The shots were edited as follows: bowl of soup ... actor's face ... smiling child ... actor's face ... dead body ... actor's face. When this film was shown to an audience everyone felt that the actor was conveying a different emotion (hunger, love, grief) with each combination even though it was in fact the very same shot; they were reading a different meaning into Mozhukhin's expression with each combination. This experiment demonstrated the power and effectiveness of film editing.

It's relevance to the Terri Schiavo case is that, as in the experiment, context determines our interpretation of images. Terri has but one facial expression. Though careful editing of the video it is suggested that Terri has a range of emotions or reactions. But it is merely our perception, not the reality.

From Salon - George W. Bush, Man of Action

2005-03-21T16:45:00.000-05:00

Great piece today in the always interesting "The War Room" on Salon.com. Here's the beginning:

George W. Bush, Man of Action

On Aug. 6, 2001, George W. Bush was given a Presidential Daily Brief that carried the headline: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." The president went fishing. On Sept. 11, 2001, Andy Card told Bush: "America is under attack." The president continued to listen to a second-grade class read "The Pet Goat." On Dec. 26, 2004, Bush learned that a massive tsunami had caused unimaginable devastation all around the Indian Ocean. The president waited three days before making any public comment.

But let the record show, when important issues demand presidential action, George W. Bush is a man of action. The House of Representatives passed emergency legislation in the Terri Schiavo case just after midnight this morning, and the president was on it immediately.

For the rest, you've got to go to http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=. NOTE: To get a free one day pass to Salon you've got to watch an ad; it's alway's worth it.

On Terri Schiavo - Part 2

2005-03-21T15:45:00.000-05:00

According to an ABC News poll released a little while ago: Americans broadly and strongly disapprove of federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, with sizable majorities saying Congress is overstepping its bounds for political gain.

Here are some of the results:

The public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case. Congress passed such legislation and President Bush signed it early today.

That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more -- 70 percent -- call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.

In addition to the majority, the intensity of public sentiment is also on the side of Schiavo's husband, who has fought successfully in the Florida courts to remove her feeding tube. And intensity runs especially strongly against congressional involvement."

Regardless of their preference on the Schiavo case, about two-thirds of conservatives and evangelicals alike call congressional intervention inappropriate. And majorities in both groups, as in others, are skeptical of the motivations of the political leaders seeking to extend Schiavo's life.

For complete details on this poll and a link to a pdf version of full questionaire and results go to http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=599622

So it seems the American public is not as gullible as the Republicans think they are. Maybe this could be punch #2 against the Repubs (punch #1 is Bush's quickly tanking plan to "save" Social Security by destroying it.)

* * *

I certainly feel out of my depth talking about life and death issues, but there is some exceptional writing out there. Some of the best I've seen is on the blog "Respectful of Otters," written by a psychologist working in HIV research, which I learned about via OliverWillis.com

http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_respectfulofotters_archive.html#111120735448873570

In "Terri Schiavo, Part II: The Ethical Post" I want to bring this passage to your attention, and please note that it was written from the perspective of someone strongly opposed to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide:

The natural course of life ends with death. To allow that natural process to take its course is profoundly different than hastening it along. Asking others to refrain from interfering with nature is profoundly different from asking them to make, or be complicit in, the decision that nature is not progressing quickly enough - as in euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia asks the physician to play God, to decide whether another person's life is sufficiently without value that it should be actively terminated. The cessation of life support asks the physician to stop playing God, to refrain from intervening further in a disease process which has its natural terminus in death.

In an earlier post "Terri Schiavo, Part I: The Medical Post" this same blogger, who has read all 17 of the medical affidavits introduced by Terri's parents claiming that "new evaluation and therapeutic technologies can significantly impact brain damaged and disabled persons," reveals that...

None of the 17 affidavits are by providers who examined Schiavo. Only one of the 17 providers claims to have reviewed her medical records. The remaining 16 providers apparently based their statements primarily on six snippets of videotape, totalling 4 minutes and 20 seconds, which have been posted on Schiavo's parents' website and broadcast repeatedly on the news.

Now about that videotape....

Oh, yes. All you need to know to illuminate the question is that the six snippets of video were selected from 4 1/2 hours of tape. As do most people with PVS, Schiavo emits random behaviors and noises. If a person gives enough commands or makes enough interaction attempts over the course of several hours, by sheer coincidence some of Schiavo's random behaviors will appear to coincide with their commands. Both the trial court and the appeals court viewed the entire 4 1/2 hour tape, and both concluded that her responses were indeed random.

In my earlier post "On Terri Schiavo" I linked to a report submitted to Governor Jeb Bush. If you seek further information on this case I urge you to read it.

* * *
FYI: A little know fact - little known because to my knowledge the only media source reporting it was the Washington Post - was that when the Senate approved the Schiavo bill on Sunday there were only three Senators on the floor. In other words, this bill was voted on and passed by 3 - out of 100 - Senators! Your Government in action!

On Terri Schiavo

2005-03-19T17:21:00.000-05:00

The Terri Schiavo case is turning into a political circus, like the Elias Gonzales matter.

For an update check out ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=595905, which has this little nugget:

ABC News has obtained talking points circulated among Republican senators explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them: "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited..." and "This is a great political issue... this is a tough issue for Democrats."

When asked about these talking points on "Good Morning America," DeLay said, "I don't know where those talking points come from, and I think they're disgusting."

How dare anyone September 11th accuse the Republicans September 11th of exploiting September 11th a tragic situation September 11th for political gain!

Of course Tom DeLay, who we all know is such an ethical individual, won't deny that these talking points have been circulated. He just doesn’t know, apparently, who sent them out.

For more on the recent Republican shenanigans I recommend the following post from the blog Adventus entitled "Where Ignorant Armies Clash by Night":

http://rmadisonj.blogspot.com/2005/03/where-ignorant-armies-clash-by-night.html

* * *

"The bad information going out on this case is amazing. What is real and what is not?"

This is a quote from a Fen 25th column, "Terri’s Husband Isn’t the Enemy," by Mike Thomas in the Orlando Sentinel:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/orl-locmiket25022505feb25.story

Thomas interviewed University of South Florida professor Jay Wolfson, Terri’s court-appointed guardian for much of 2003. Wolfson, prepared a report for Florida Governor Jeb Bush "based on court files, depositions, medical records and interviews with everyone involved." Thus I’m sure he is far more knowledgable about the facts of the case than, say, Senator (Dr?) Bill Frist.

The column address such allegations as "Did Michael try to kill Terri?", "Has Michael withheld treatment?" , "Is Michael after her insurance settlement?" and "Can Terry recover?"

But I’m most outraged by Wolfson’s response to the question, "Why doesn't Michael simply turn Terri over to her family?"

From the report: "Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive . . . at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open-heart surgery. Within the testimony, as part of the hypothetical presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it."

Wolfson told me that when Michael heard this, he said: "That's it. I'm never going to let that happen to her."
Wolfson says the Schindlers later recanted their testimony.

If you wish, you can read the entire report, in pdf form, at http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2005-02/16435770.pdf

In Praise of Flavia Colgan and Lawrence O'Donnell

2005-03-17T11:57:00.000-05:00

We’ve got to give credit to the conservatives in at least one area: they are extremely well organized. Every week Grover Norquist gets the troops together so they can plan a coordinated message and distribute the talking points, around which conservative talk show hosts can build their shows.

We liberals have some great spokespeople, but unfortunately the guest lists on the talk show circuit are skewed heavily to Republicans and conservatives: the typical talk show’s idea of balance is to have ONE person (a Democrat or a moderate/liberal or a journalist who in theory represents the “liberal” media but who is more likely a centrist) on a panel with THREE right-wingers (seemlying the more far-right the better.) And that doesn’t count the (generally) conservative host! Even when we get our opportunities it’s evident that many of our people are not quite ready for Prime Time because they don’t really know how to play the talk show game (“Don’t answer the question, just use it as an opportunity to get your talking points out,” “Continually interrupt your opponent,” “Run out the clock towards the end of the segment so you are sure to get the last word,” etc.) Robert Reich and Katrina Vanden Huvel know how to play and win this game. Ever since his abortive campaign for President Wesley Clark has done quite well for himself in these situations, and Paul Krugman has really gotten it together in the last year.

But as is pointed out virtually every day by Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler, we still lag behind the conservatives and our spokespeople/pundits rarely fully capitalize on the few opportunities offered to us.

But there are two liberal Democrats out there who near always acquit themselves well and I wish had wider exposure: Flavia Colgan and Lawrence O’Donnell, political analysts for MSNBC. Especially last Fall they were turning up regularly on many MSNBC shows, most often on Hardball and on Scarborough Country, a show which I find hard to watch unless one of them is on. Flavia and Lawrence can also occasionally can be heard on Air America Radio (she on Majority Report, he on Al Franken.) O’Donnell can also been seen periodically on The McLaughlin Group,

Joe Scarborough obviously likes to have Flavia Colgan on because she’s both articulate and attractive – which makes for “good TV.” (Actually there are quite a few conservative bloggers who find Flavia “hot” and wish she were on their side; I’m not aware of any liberals – and, no, I don’t count Bill Maher as one - who consider Anne Coulter to be “hot” – and certainly none would want that wacko on our side!)

On Scarborough Country Flavia always acquits herself quite well, and she’s especially good when attacking the usual conservative charges of liberal bias in the media. as the did in this memorable appearance on January 15th which Bob Somerby immortalized in a recent Daily Howler (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh030805.shtml)

COLGAN: Well, I think that there is a bias sometimes, but I think there’s a bias on the Republican side, too.

I mean, when the Judith Millers of the world were impersonating stenographers, taking the Bush line hook—everything they gave them and just printing it, were these people “liberal biased?” When 60 Minutes went after Bob Kerrey, Democratic senator, a couple years ago in a complete hit piece, showing him to be a war criminal, with only one person saying as such, was that “liberal bias?”

I think it goes both ways. And I think it’s too simplistic to say that.

[Later in the program]

SCARBOROUGH: Did you not see the interview with Dan Rather with George Bush Sr.?

COLGAN: I did see it. And I also saw mainstream media lacerating Clinton, going after Gore, story after story that he “invented the Internet.” I saw them putting Swift Boat veterans —the New York Times reported that the day after the ad dropped, when the vast majority of that stuff in those ads were discredited by documentary evidence

Wow! In a few brief minutes she brings up Judith Miller, Dan Rather, Al Gore and the Swift Boat LIERS, all liberal hot buttons. And later, when the segment is wrapping up, Joe has to admit that Flavia has over taken control of the conversation.

COLGAN: I am just saying, a lot of stories go on the air that are not checked and rechecked the way that they should be. And the hypocrisy of this is that this is some sort of “unprecedented scandal,” while we have the president of the United States spending my tax dollars—

SCARBOROUGH: We`re talking about media, not the president. Fight about the president tomorrow night.

COLGAN: Of course, because you want to talk about—that`s what Republicans do. You stonewall and you talk about the issues you want.

SCARBOROUGH: I stonewall? You know what you are doing? You are changing the subject. Flavia, this is starting to sound like Crossfire. And Crossfire is getting canceled, so we better leave it there.

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH: We`ll see you, Flavia. Thanks for your time.

I wish more people had witnessed that appearance. And I especially want to thank Somerby for continually bringing it up as an example of how our people should be handling themselves on TV.

In a similar vein, Lawrence O’Donnell has been doing quite well lately on the McLaughlin Group, occupying the “guest” or “liberal #2” chair; one wishes he could become a regular like Pat, Tony and Elizabeth. In the last year or so the McLaughlin Group has become one of the few TV talk shows on which the liberal side gets equal time. Host/moderator John McLaughlin has been opening critical of many of Bush’s policies and actions. In fact last week it seemed like John was commiserating with Lawrence against Tony and Pat!

I’m happy Lawrence is getting more airtime. After his shouting match on the October 21 2004 Scarborough Country with Swift Boat Vet John O’Neill, I’m amazed that he’s gotten out of the woodshed. Substitute host Pat Buchanan was openly horrified when Lawrence started to go ballistic and call O’Neill a “liar” and a “creep.” It’s been estimated that Lawrence used the words "lies" "liar" or "lying" a total of 46 total times in a little over 10 minutes (much of which he was not talking) Check out the video at Crooks and Liars http://www.crooksandliars.com/2004/10/23.html. Like the Colgan appearance cited above it was “good TV” and made several points for our side.

A quick search at the Daily Howler website will turn up numerous examples of TV appearances in which Flavia Colgan and Lawrence O’Donnell not only defended themselves against the conservative bullies, but effectively and concisely expressed our beliefs.

We need more like them!

But seriously, folks! - Interviews with three "DVD Makers" in this week's "The Onion"

2005-03-17T11:31:00.000-05:00

"The Onion" is one of the funniest regular publications in print and on the internet. But in addition to the humor, it also offers, in its "AV Club" section, inciteful reviews of new movies along with coverage of selected DVD releases; each week a DVD is singled out for special treatment in their "commentary tracks of the damned" sidebar.

If you are interested in learning more about the process of releasing movies on DVD, how titles are selected and why certain classics are not yet available, you should definitely read this week's feature article "The DVD Makers" http://www.theonionavclub.com/feature/index.php?issue=4111&f=&page=1 which has interviews with three individuals "working to bring classic films out of the archives and into living rooms:" George Feltenstein (Senior VP in charge of Warner Home Video's classic catalog) , Lee Ferdinand (a producer for Home Vision Entertainment) and Mike Vraney (founder of Something Weird Video.) These guys truly are "heroes," dedicated movie lovers who are working in the industry - and, I'm sure, sometimes fighting the "suits" - to keep the virtual flood of great DVD releases flowing.

* * * * *

While on the subject of "The Onion", if you've never read it you definitely should check out their classic article "Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over" from their January 18, 2001 issue. Supposedly about George W. Bush's first inaugual address, at the time the writers believed they were writing a humorous, absolutely worst-case scenario for actions Bush would be taking as President. Unfortunately, the article has become eerily prophetic.

As an example, here's a brief excerpt: "During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years. 'You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration,' said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. 'Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?'"

Although the article is no longer available for free on their web site, there's an annotated version by Dan Chak (via DailyKos) which you can find at http://chak.org/pages/onion/bush_nightmare.html with all of the (unfortunately) fullfilled promises linked to the reality.

What has the world come to when there is more truth to be found in "The Onion" and on "The Daily Show" than in the mainstream media.?

C-SPAN's weird idea of "balance" - only allow a Holocaust scholar on your show if you can "balance" him or her with a Holocaust denier!

2005-03-15T16:06:00.000-05:00

I generally don't care for Richard Cohen's Washington Post column. Although he's one of the WaPo's "liberals" I find him too wishy-washy "liberal-lite" for my taste.

But he's written a fascinating column today, entitled "C-SPAN's Balance of the Absurd", about an incident of which I was totally unaware.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35346-2005Mar14.html

To quote the opening paragraph and some excerpts: "You will not be seeing Deborah Lipstadt on C-SPAN. The Holocaust scholar at Emory University has a new book out ('History on Trial'), and an upcoming lecture of hers at Harvard was scheduled to be televised on the public affairs cable outlet. The book is about a libel case brought against her in Britain by David Irving, a Holocaust denier, trivializer and prevaricator who is, by solemn ruling of the very court that heard his lawsuit, 'anti-Semitic and racist.' No matter. C-SPAN wanted Irving to 'balance' Lipstadt ..... [with] Irving's rebuttal that it never happened -- no systematic killing of Jews, no Final Solution and, while many people died at Auschwitz of disease and the occasional act of brutality, there were no gas chambers there. 'More women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz,' Irving once said."

Lipstadt declined to appear under those conditions, of course, because, to quote Cohen, " it was asking [her] to balance truth with a lie or history with fiction."

Read the whole article. This is outrageous!

Some Iraqis see 'joke' in Bush rebuke of Syrians

2005-03-15T12:01:00.000-05:00

Have you felt that some of Bush's recent demands that Syria get out of Lebanon were awfully ironic given our own actions?

Well, apparently the Iraqis share that feeling, per this story in today's Omaha World Herald (http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=54&u_sid=1360180) found via Americablog. Here's the opening paragraph:

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Some Iraqis have found bitter irony in President Bush's insistence that Syria must withdraw its troops from Lebanon before Lebanese elections. Iraqis, they say, have lived with American tanks in their streets for two years and voted barely a month ago.
'He must have forgotten that his army is occupying Iraq,' said Sa'ad Abdul Aziz, 21, an engineering student at Baghdad University. 'What about the Republican Palace that they are using as a U.S. Embassy?'"

And another choice quote: " Some Iraqis who have long demanded an immediate U.S. withdrawal found themselves quoting Bush, a man they never thought they would agree with."

A must read: The Spoils of War

2005-03-15T11:52:00.000-05:00

To continue the topic from my previous post, over the last few months I've read quite a bit about the US Army Corps of Engineers whistleblower Bunnatine Greenhouse and, separately, about the complaints of truckers who had worked for KPR.

All of those stories come together in this excellent article written by Michael Shnayerson entitled "The Spoils of War," in the current issue of Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/050307roco02) which gives even more details about how the Dick Cheney-linked company has been stealing from the taxpayers.

Gee, I wonder if the mainstream media will take enough of an interest in this outrage to cover this story. Or, like Abu Garib, will they consider it "old news," not worthy of coverage?

Halliburton billed us $27 million to transport fuel purchased for $82,000

2005-03-15T11:34:00.000-05:00

From an article in today's New York Times, "Excess Fuel Billing by Halliburton in Iraq Is Put at $108 Million" (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/15/politics/15halliburton.html):

"Excess billing for postwar fuel imports to Iraq by the Halliburton Company totaled more than $108 million, according to a report by Pentagon auditors that was completed last fall but has never been officially released to the public or to Congress. In one case, according to the report, the company claimed that it had paid more than $27 million to transport liquefied petroleum gas it had purchased in Kuwait for just $82,000 - a fee the auditors tartly dismissed as "illogical."

There is a word for this - PROFITEERING! Halliburton and its subsidiaries have been ripping off us, the taxpayers, while our young men and women have been sacrificing their lives. Because the Halliburton deals were "cost-plus" they really didn't care how much they (over) paid their subcontractors - the more something cost, the more profit for Halliburton.

The Bush Administration likes to say "It's OUR money!" Well, WE are the ones being robbed by these bastards. Where is the outrage?

This report was completed last October, a month before the presidential election but, per this story, "the administration has kept all of them confidential despite repeated requests from both Republican and Democratic members of Congress. Excerpts were released yesterday by the office of Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, minority leader of the House Committee on Government Reform, which said it had obtained the audit through 'unofficial channels.'"

So technically this report was NEVER officially released. It apparently escaped with the help of a whistleblower.

For "techies" only! - converting PAL to NTSC

2005-03-12T16:02:00.000-05:00

Anyone with a serious interest in movies who collects films on DVD soon becomes aware that many important and/or interesting films (US and foreign) that are not currently available in the US have been released in other countries. A quick search on ebay or on the foreign Amazon websites will amaze you with the riches available.

Unfortunately, due to TV format differences (the US uses NTSC, much of the world uses PAL) and the industry's Region Code system most of these foreign DVDs are not playable in standard US DVD players. There are all-region DVD players which can handle the job. Or, if you have a DVD burner and are computer savvy you can try converting a foreign DVD to be US compatible.

Converting a DVD from PAL to NTSC format is not a simple task and the image quality often suffers. But recently there has been a lot of activity at the Doom9 and VideoHelp forums that, just maybe, a "Holy Grail" software has been created that can make the conversion process from Pal to NTSC much easier and produce quality results. If this topic interests you I urge you to check out this forum topic using the link below - be sure to read the whole thing, it's several pages long - and test the software program.

http://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=261056

Need a Gannon/Guckert fix?

2005-03-12T15:52:00.000-05:00

Here's a great cartoon about an "upcoming White House Press Conference" from the Seattle-Post Intelligencer:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/print.asp?id=1173

Let's keep the Gannon/Guckert story alive! Remember, Watergate would have been merely a "third-rate burglary" without the persistence of two young reporters, Woodward and Bernstein.

Brit Hume Must Resign --- Day 30 - American Truth Under Siege

2005-03-12T14:41:00.000-05:00

Oliver Willis (http://www.oliverwillis.com) has been carrying on a campaign to get Fox News' Brit Hume to resign. He's been leading off his blog every day with the graphic below - today is day 30 - and I want to add my name to the list.

For those of you who may not know what this is all about, here is some background excerpted from Oliver's website http://www.oliverwillis.com/resignhume:

Brit Hume is the anchor of Fox News Channel's prime time news report, Special Report with Brit Hume, and he makes things up. On February 3rd, Hume intentionally manipulated the words of the 32nd president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to make it appear as if FDR supported privatization of social security. This is a brazen falsehood. President Roosevelt's grandson, James Roosevelt Jr., describes Hume's journalistic malfeasance as an "an outrageous distortion". We agree.

To intentionally twist the words of the father of social security in order to support a political plan to destroy it is disgusting. Hume has offered no apology nor explanation for his intentional deception. For this fraudulent act, Hume should resign.

If YOU agree, please go to Oliver's website and sign his petition. Of course the chance of it having any impact on Hume's job is virtually nil. FOX NEWS obviously has no problem with commentators who tell lies - heck, they have no problem with a President and an Administration that lies! But signing the petition takes only a minute, it doesn't cost a thing, and it may even give you a few seconds of satisfaction knowing that you've struck at least a tiny blow for "truth, justice, and the American way." Remember, Oliver promotes his website as being "like Kryptonite to Stupid." Thanks!

FYI - Keith Olbermann (of course) had James Roosevelt, Jr. on COUNTDOWN to discuss Hume's intentional misrepresentation of his grandfather's words. Keith is always on top of the story.

New Blog debuts with GREAT post on Social Security

2005-03-12T13:28:00.000-05:00

Busy week, hence no time to post.

Anyway, now that I'm back I want to point out an excellent piece on Bush's scam to "reform" Social Security, which is actually the inaugural post of a new blog: The Cunning Realist - An Oasis for the Intellectually Honest in a World of Spin.

TCR, an asset manager who defines himself as "a lifelong conservative with a strong independent streak", offers some anecdotal evidence that the real reason for Bush pushing private accounts, his promotion of an "ownership society," is "to transfer risk from the 'owners' to the public." The following are some excerpts:

Talking about one colleague: "Make no mistake about it: This executive wants private accounts that invest in the stock market and his stock in particular. He sees private accounts as transferring risk from him to the public--risk, he surely knows, that is already being transferred through instruments such as IRA's, 401K's, and the explosion of mutual funds over the past decade. He's profited handsomely from that transfer of risk. From a corporate perspective he wants that transfer to continue, and from a personal one he needs it to continue to support his lifestyle."

And another: "...This week I also spoke to a former co-worker of mine, who works at one of the largest investment banks in the world. We had a brief conversation about the private accounts issue. Predictably, there was no beating around the bush here; executives of investment banks and brokerages are known for direct, often crass language. He said: 'I want that dumb public money coming across my desk.'"

Here's a link to the full post.
http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/03/some-opening-comments-and-bit-about.html

Since that initial post TCR has added two other equally interesting pieces, "Where Have You Gone, Accountability? A Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes too You" and "The Financial Revivalists: Once Bad for Me, But Now Good for You ... and Your Nest Egg." Both are well worth reading. So I'd suggest bookmarking his blog:
http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com

Dubya as Norman Bates from PSYCHO

2005-03-07T16:04:00.000-05:00

Some of today's cleverest cartoons come from the pen of Charles Pugsley Fincher.

Here's just one recent example you'll find at his web site, the Illustrated Daily Scribble. George Bush's statement that: "This notion that I'm getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table," reminded Fincher of Norman Bates in PSYCHO. The result is a great cartoon.

Here is the link:

http://www.theillustrateddailyscribble.com/daily.scribble.pages.05/02.23.05.html

Be sure to check out the other cartoons in his archive. As usual, Fincher proves the background and/or inspiration for each.

Monday Morning Treats

2005-03-07T11:30:00.000-05:00

To start your week with a smile, read DemocraticUnderground.com's weekly

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/index.html

and if you want to get an overview of what happened on the Sunday talk shows (Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, The McLaughlin Group, Face The Nation) be sure to check out their weekly feature

Pundit Pap (American Politics Journal)
http://www.americanpolitics.com/punditpap.html

Finally, you should go over to Ironic Times. It's not as well-known as The Onion but it's always extremely funny. A special treat are the very clever scrolling HEADLINES.

The link:
http://ironictimes.com/index.html

From this week's issue of The Ironic Times:

POLITICS - Top Executives Barnstorm for Bush's Social Security Plan Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, and Dennis Kozlowski promote investing in stock market rather than current system.

ENTERTAINMENT - TV: Fake News NetworkShakes Up Schedule
FNN's New Lineup for Sunday Nights:
8 - 9: Armstrong Williams Reports
9 -10: Hardball, with Jeff Gannon
10-11: For Non-Gay Married People Only, with Maggie Gallagher

Check out this eBay auction: DICK CHENEY on BLACK VELVET!

2005-03-03T11:55:00.000-05:00

You absolutely MUST check out this auction I just discovered on eBay:

DICK CHENEY on BLACK VELVET, Tijuana VELVET PAINTING
An All-Pro Neo-Con Collectible Limited-Issue Republican
eBay item # 3960337416

Here's a link to the auction, which ends March 5 at 19:30 Pacific Time:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;category=39723&item=3960337416&rd=1

Look at what this guy is selling (he offers a choice of frames.) I assume since I'm plugging his auction that he'd be OK with me posting this image.

A few choice excerpts from his eBay listing:

"This is an original black velvet painting of Dick Cheney: "DICK CHENEY All-Pro Neo-Con & Vice President For Life" hand-painted in the fall of 2004 for indignity Inc.'s newest line of Patriot Portrait collectively: The 2004 ~ "The ALL-NEW Anything-Goes Re-Election Collection," Limited-Issue presidential-style Velvet Republican portraiture on Black Velvet by RAMIREZ, one of the freshest young professional velvet Elvis painters painting Elvis in Tijuana today."

About the artist: "This particular presidential-style velvet painting of Dick Cheney marks only the second Limited-Issue Velvet Republican Ramirez has ever painted for The Patriot Portrait Collectibles--his first was Vice-President Dick Cheney's trusty side-kick, George W. Bush"

About the painting: "Ramirez catches Dick Cheney looking past us, or through us, shooting a wary glance out from under the side of his glasses at some peril in the periphery, a danger in the distance that only he can see. Ramirez elegantly reveals the inner Cheney and unmasks the power-mad paranoia of the madman behind the bifocals. "

This seller's listing is a riot! You simply MUST read the whole thing. And bid, of course, if you are so inclined.

Surprise! New Poll Finds Bush Priorities Are Out of Step With Americans

2005-03-03T11:50:00.001-05:00

As Gomer Pyle would say, "surprise, surprise, surprise!"

Per an article in todays New York Times, "Americans say President Bush does not share the priorities of most of the country on either domestic or foreign issues, are increasingly resistant to his proposal to revamp Social Security and say they are uneasy with Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the retirement program, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll."

Here's the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/politics/03poll.html?ei=5094&en=1b7c8514d044e85b&amp;hp=&ex=1109912400&partner=
homepage&pagewanted=print&position=
In what should be encouraging news for the Democrats for the 2006 elections, "63 percent of respondents say the president has different priorities on domestic issues than most Americans. Asked to choose among five domestic issues facing the country, respondents rated Social Security third, behind jobs and health care. And nearly 50 percent said Democrats were more likely to make the right decisions about Social Security, compared with 31 percent who said the same thing about Republicans." Hopefully the Democrats will take advantage of this, like discouraging "Bush-lite" Democrats like Joe Lieberman from compromising with the Republications on piratizing Social Security.

For those of us in the reality-based community - the 49% of the voters who opposed the (re)-election of Bush - the only negative finding in this poll is that the Bush Administration lie that Social Security is rapidly approaching bankruptcy seems to be taking hold. "Two-thirds of respondents say the system will be bankrupt by 2042 if nothing is done to repair it. "

Then again, according to another recent poll (I've forgotten which one) a majority of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11. Which only proves that if you tell a lie often enough ...

While on the subject of polls, I'm sure you are totally unaware of the results of a Zobgy Poll in January which found, and I quote, "a higher percentage of Americans saying that they are ashamed that Mr. Bush is their president; three-in-ten (31%) Americans now hold that view, as compared to one-in-four (26%) a month ago. However, the survey did show an up-tick in Mr. Bush’s personal approval numbers. In November, 55% said they approved of Mr. Bush personally; now, 57% say the same. 'The President has managed to hold his numbers fairly steady since the election,' said pollster John Zogby. 'But the rise in the number saying they’re ashamed to have him as president is noteworthy, especially with his job approval still stuck below 50%—where it was throughout the campaign. Clearly, the divisiveness of the fall campaign continues to affect a sizeable portion of the electorate.'”

Gee, I wonder why this particular finding of this poll was totally ignored by the media? Check it out at:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=953

Great Frank Rich piece on Gannon and Gonzo

2005-03-03T11:12:00.000-05:00

Get your Frank Rich "fix" early. In case you don't know it, the Frank Rich column which runs every Sunday in the New York Times' Arts *& Leisure section is usually available online the Thursday before.

Here's the link to this weekend's column entitled "Gonzo Gone, Rather Going, Watergate Still Here" which ties together Dan Rather, Hunter Thompson and Jeff Gannon.

Read and enjoy!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/arts/06rich.html?pagewanted=print&position=

From AmericaBlog: GOP wants to censor Cable and Satellite Radio now, too

2005-03-02T16:30:00.000-05:00

AmericaBlog covers the Reuters story that those oh-so "moral" Republicans in Congress are not satisfied with just scaring local TV stations into refraining from airing SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and pushing Public Television to edit out "foul" language from a documentary film about our brave soldiers in Iraq. Now they want to go after Cable TV and Satellite Radio.

These are channels we PAY for! Gee, whatever happened to the free market!

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/03/gop-wants-to-censor-cable-and.html

Walt Disney's SONG OF THE SOUTH coming to DVD?

2005-03-02T15:25:00.000-05:00

According to Jim Hill Media.com there are plans for Disney to release SONG OF THE SOUTH on DVD in the Fall of 2006!

To quote the website:

"The Academy Award winning film that former Disney Feature Animation head Thomas Schumacher once told Roger Ebert was on "permanent moratorium" has reportedly been greenlit for release late next year. A special 60th anniversary edition that -- thanks to a plethora of extra features -- will try & put this somewhat controversial motion picture in historial context."

Go to the link below for more information.

http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb/articles/showarticle.php?ID=1313

John Wayne classic THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY coming to DVD!

2005-03-02T15:20:00.000-05:00

Since it is not widely known, I wanted to share the good news that the John Wayne classic THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY (1954) is finally coming to home video, around May or June of this year, from Paramount Home Video. Reportedly the DVD will be created from a restored print, have Stereo 5.1 sound and will have bonus features (unannounced but could be behind-the-scenes footage, new interviews and commentaries. )

Below is a link to the most complete information I've found - at Newt's John Wayne Site - which has details about the pact signed last year by Batjac and Paramount and a reprint of the original News Release. The other Wayne-starring movies to be released on DVD will be ISLAND IN THE SKY (1953), HONDO (1953) and McLINTOCK! (1962) [this will be an "official" release] plus five Batjac-produced films in which Wayne did not appear: TRACK OF THE CAT (1954) [a very interesting experiment in color directed by William Wellman and starring Robert Mitchum], SEVEN MEN FROM NOW (1956) [the first Randolph Scott/Budd Boetticher western], MAN IN THE VAULT (1956), PLUNDER OF THE SUN (1953), and RING OF FEAR (1954).

http://www.jwaynefan.com/paramount.html

The Frank Luntz Strategy Report

2005-03-02T12:14:00.000-05:00

Want to read the Frank Luntz Strategy Report for Republicans?

Below is a link to the DailyKos website where one can download "scans of a 160-page briefing book by Frank Luntz on the lessons learned from 2004 as the GOP seeks to extend its winning streak in 2006."

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/2/23/3244/72156

Watch COUNTDOWN with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC

2005-03-02T12:00:00.000-05:00

COUNTDOWN is in my opinion the best news show on US television. It's the only show which really tries to be fair and balanced and not merely be another outlet for that day's Bush Administration talking points. Of course like any TV news show they must cover the "hot" (but truly unimportant in the grand scheme of things) stories like the Michael Jackson trial, which Olbermann often undercuts with his cynical sense of humor. But Olbermann is not afraid to cover issues which the so-called liberal media is apparently unwilling - or too afraid - to cover, like the Ohio voting story or the ongoing Jeff Gannon scandal, which Keith has mentioned almost every night since it first broke. He and/or his writers/reporters obviously read all of the major liberal bloggs (DailyKos, Atrios, AmericaBlog, etc.) and are willing to at least touch upon many of the major issues discussed on the internet every day. In fact, if you watch COUNTDOWN you almost don't need to read the bloggs to get the gist of what's being discussed "out there."I used to put my trust in the New York Times (for print) and PBS' The New Hour (for TV) as my primary news sources, but in the last few years I've come to realize how "filtered" their news is. Now I get my daily news "fix" from the internet (from The Washington Post more often than the NY Times, various bloggs), from COUNTDOWN and, of course, THE DAILY SHOW.