The first presidential election I can remember being aware of was the one that pitted Gerald Ford against Jimmy Carter in 1976 when I was turning 11. I urged my parents to vote for Ford that year. I don’t know who they actually voted for.
The reason I liked Ford was that I had seen him on TV that summer presiding over the Bicentennial celebrations at the nation’s capitol. At some point he urged every American to go out and ring a bell to celebrate the nation’s 200th birthday. I was so excited that I rushed around the house looking for a bell. When I couldn’t find one I settled for clinking a glass with a spoon and I went outside happily ringing my makeshift bell.
Four years later when I was a freshman in high school my government class held a mock election between the incumbent President Jimmy Carter and his Republican challenger Ronald Reagan. I cast my “vote” for Carter. I had a thing about supporting incumbents back then, I guess. I urged my parents to vote for Carter, too. I don’t know who they voted for.
As you might surmise from this, my parents were pretty much apolitical when I was growing up. Politics was rarely discussed at home and I was not pushed to support or oppose either political party. My dad was a Vietnam veteran and both my parents worked in the oil and gas industry. But the world of politics rarely if ever invaded our little world as we moved from one small Texas town to another.
Reagan’s victory made little difference to me at first. I probably wouldn’t have thought much about it, but then came the assassination attempt the next year that riveted the entire nation’s attention. I remember being shocked that such a thing could happen in America. I anxiously read about and watched every update on the president’s condition and was impressed both with his courage and his good nature throughout the ordeal. It was hard not to like Reagan after that point and I certainly had no reason not to.
When the next election rolled around and I was finally old enough to vote I was firmly in the Reagan camp. I was a freshman in the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M where maintaining traditions was all important. The bulletin board in my dorm room was neatly decorated with pictures of Reagan and bumper stickers from his re-election campaign. A good friend of mine from back home told me he was planning to vote for Walter Mondale and I thought he was crazy. I didn’t know anything about Mondale, but I knew that I did not like him because he was daring to challenge my hero - Ronald Reagan.
I never attended a College Republicans meeting but my dorm was blanketed with their literature such as the flyers that said “Walter Mondale could be your next president. If that doesn’t scare you, it should.” When I cast my first ballot, I didn’t stop with voting for Reagan, I voted straight Republican down the line - Phil Gramm for Senate, Joe Barton for Congress, etc. There was no question that I was a Republican.
But something happened during the next four years that turned all of that on its head. By the time the next election rolled around I was rabidly anti-Republican and pro-Democrat. I voted for Jesse Jackson in the primary - just to make a statement - and then volunteered to work on the local Dukakis campaign in College Station against George H.W. Bush.
So what happened? How and why did I make such a dramatic leap in just four years? I’ve often wondered about that and I will try here as best as I can to explain it. I can’t recall precisely when each of these events occurred, so I can’t draw a neat little timeline that says this lead to that, but in total these are the things that most effected the direction of my political odyssey.
When I voted for Reagan in 1984 it was because I was enamored with Reagan the man. I had given little thought to the political ideologies that lay beneath the various candidates. I wasn’t really a conservative in the political sense. I remember getting into an argument at some point with my friend Eddie over whether or not the state should provide education for the children of illegal immigrants. I decided if they weren’t legal residents then they should not get any of the benefits of our society such as a free education. But Eddie (my former high school debate partner) made a passionate case in favor of educating everyone who lives within our borders regardless of their immigration status. Not only was it best for society to not have uneducated youths running around causing mischief, but we had a moral responsibility as a society to educate all human beings in our midst. I suddenly found myself unable to argue the position I had started out with and it made me question many of my other core beliefs. What did I really believe? I had to have some core principles to stand on and I wasn’t willing to just let those be dictated to me by some political party.
At some other point, and I can’t remember exactly when, I attended a symposium at Texas A&M on the death penalty by someone from Amnesty International. Of course, I was in favor of the death penalty. Who wasn’t? It just seemed like such an obvious thing and I had never given it a second thought, so the idea that someone would try and make a case against it was intriguing to me. Once again, I found myself feeling intellectually outmatched as I listened to the speaker go through the myriad reasons why the death penalty is wrong. He didn’t even go into all of the religious arguments against capital punishment. He just went over all the data showing that executions don’t deter crime. How the punishment is applied disproportionately to the poor and to minorities. How almost every other industrialized nation had eliminated capital punishment. How many times it has been used against people who were later proven to have been innocent. I remember walking out of that symposium wondering how many other political views I held that I could not defend.
These were both key occurrences that served to shake up my not-so-set-in-stone belief system back then. But there were two other events that were even more crucial to my transformation - the Iran-Contra scandal and the JFK assassination. More on those in the next installment.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Republicans defunding PBS
My little boy is just starting to get interested in some of the childrens’ shows on PBS like Barney, so imagine my delight when I saw this story in the NYTimes today.
A House Appropriations panel on Thursday approved a spending bill that would cut the budget for public television and radio nearly in half and eliminate a $23 million federal program that has provided some money for producing children's shows that include "Sesame Street," "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Between the Lions" and "Dragon Tales."
By a voice vote, the House Appropriations subcommittee adopted a measure that would reduce the financing of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the organization that directs taxpayer dollars to public television and radio, to $300 million from $400 million. The subcommittee also eliminated $39 million that stations say they need to convert to digital programming and $50 million for upgrading aging satellite technology that is the backbone of the PBS network.
The Republicans obviously see this as payback for public broadcasters who they deem to be too “liberal.” Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the Bush-appointed head of CPB who has been leading a Republican takeover of PBS programming, warned stations earlier this year that if they fail to cooperate with his plans to “balance” their programming it could prompt the Republican-controlled Congress to significantly reduce financing. Now we see that threat coming to fruition.
"It is clear the G.O.P. agenda is to control public broadcasting or to defund it," said Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. "House Republicans have gutted funding for public broadcasting stations across the country."
This is utterly contemptible. It’s clear that this administration cares nothing about running up budget deficits, so the argument that they are making these draconian cuts in such a tiny budget item to save money is ludicrous. This is just them being spiteful.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Bashing Perry
Gov. Rick Perry takes a beating today in the pages of the Wall Street Journal editorial section and, coincidentally, in the San Antonio Express-News.
The WSJ features an opinion column by J.R. Labbe of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that lampoons the “Godly Governor” for trying to focus on “political accomplishments” dealing with abortion and gay marriage while downplaying what was supposed to be the No. 1 issue - school finance reform.
Such social issues are more appealing to the governor than thorny problems like this term's lack of education reform. The failure of reform might point to Gov. Perry's own failed leadership, or worse. Quality of education was never the stumbling block in Austin; it was how to pay for the learning the kids do receive, which means uttering the word that dare not cross the lips of a Texas Republican if he or she wants to get re-elected in '06: TAXES.
The WSJ also writes an editorial today (not available online) titled:
What's the Matter With Texas?
The do-nothing GOP legislature.
“What was supposed to be the most productive session of the Texas legislature in history ended last week in a legislative version of the Alamo.”
The editorial points out that Republicans control “every lever of political power in Austin for the first time since Reconstruction” and still could not get anything done.
They cast their first stone at Democratic lawmakers for blocking a school voucher plan dear to right-wingers’ hearts. But after that they grudgingly admit that the “other failings of this legislature must be laid at the feet of the Republicans.”
Of course, what the WSJ editorial writers are upset about is that the Republicans steered away from making the kinds of budget cuts that would have placed Texas on par with a Third World nation. Now they are demanding that Gov. Perry call a special session and “announce that nobody leaves until they’ve approved his call for a cut of at least 20 percent in property taxes...”
That will happen about the same time that all the WSJ editorial board members take their children out of their fancy New York private schools and enroll them in underfunded public schools in Texas.
“...If property taxes aren’t cut meaningfully right now, the Republicans might not be coming back to Austin after the next election.”
We can certainly hope so!
The WSJ features an opinion column by J.R. Labbe of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that lampoons the “Godly Governor” for trying to focus on “political accomplishments” dealing with abortion and gay marriage while downplaying what was supposed to be the No. 1 issue - school finance reform.
Such social issues are more appealing to the governor than thorny problems like this term's lack of education reform. The failure of reform might point to Gov. Perry's own failed leadership, or worse. Quality of education was never the stumbling block in Austin; it was how to pay for the learning the kids do receive, which means uttering the word that dare not cross the lips of a Texas Republican if he or she wants to get re-elected in '06: TAXES.
The WSJ also writes an editorial today (not available online) titled:
What's the Matter With Texas?
The do-nothing GOP legislature.
“What was supposed to be the most productive session of the Texas legislature in history ended last week in a legislative version of the Alamo.”
The editorial points out that Republicans control “every lever of political power in Austin for the first time since Reconstruction” and still could not get anything done.
They cast their first stone at Democratic lawmakers for blocking a school voucher plan dear to right-wingers’ hearts. But after that they grudgingly admit that the “other failings of this legislature must be laid at the feet of the Republicans.”
Of course, what the WSJ editorial writers are upset about is that the Republicans steered away from making the kinds of budget cuts that would have placed Texas on par with a Third World nation. Now they are demanding that Gov. Perry call a special session and “announce that nobody leaves until they’ve approved his call for a cut of at least 20 percent in property taxes...”
That will happen about the same time that all the WSJ editorial board members take their children out of their fancy New York private schools and enroll them in underfunded public schools in Texas.
“...If property taxes aren’t cut meaningfully right now, the Republicans might not be coming back to Austin after the next election.”
We can certainly hope so!
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
San Antonio's new mayor
Well I called it wrong way back when this city election was just getting started. I assumed as many people probably did that Julian Castro would sweep to victory in the San Antonio mayoral contest. But late last night he fell short by 3,829 votes in a squeaker of an election.
One of those votes that put Phil Hardberger over the top was mine. While I had assumed that Castro would probably win, I remained undecided up until the fiasco involving the city manager candidate from Phoenix. Castro’s lead role in derailing Sheryl Sculley's bid for the city manager job at the last moment is the point where he lost my vote. By joining in with the short-sighted mob mentality that harangued over the trivial details of Sculley’s compensation package, I lost faith in Castro as someone with a big-picture view of San Antonio.
But Castro supporters should not despair. All they need to do is wait four years and thanks to San Antonio’s idiotic term limits policy he can take the mayor’s job then. That is unless he decides to run for the congressional seat that Henry Bonilla will be vacating when he runs for the Senate seat that Kay Baily Hutchison will be giving up to challenge Rick Perry in the 2006 governor's race.
In the meantime, we have a new mayor who has the distinction of being both a long-time San Antonio political figure and an outsider to city government. I wish him well and hope that he has a relatively scandal-free term in office.
Bush administration edits climate reports
This is absolutely outrageous! I can’t believe the Bush administration is getting away with this. Unbelievable!
A former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute with “no scientific training” is given free reign to “edit” government climate reports.
A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.
In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.
The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.
Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.
Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.
How anyone can continue to have any faith or trust in this administration is beyond me.
A former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute with “no scientific training” is given free reign to “edit” government climate reports.
A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.
In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.
The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.
Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.
Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.
How anyone can continue to have any faith or trust in this administration is beyond me.
Eat the Rich
This New York Times editorial is right on target about the ill effects of Bush’s tax cuts. It appears that even the modestly rich people are being screwed by this administration while the super-rich are making out like bandits.
With all of the debate about taxes, the economy and domestic spending, it is hard to imagine anyone supporting the notion of taking money from programs like Medicaid and college-tuition assistance, increasing the tax burden of the vast majority of working Americans, sending the country into crushing debt - and giving the proceeds to people who are so fantastically rich that they don't know what to do with the money they already have. Yet that is just what is happening under the Bush administration. Forget the middle class and the upper-middle class. Even the merely wealthy are being left behind in the dust by the small slice of super-rich Americans.
In last Sunday's Times, David Cay Johnston reported that from 1980 to 2002, the latest year of available data, the share of total income earned by the top 0.1 percent of earners more than doubled, while the share earned by everyone else in the top 10 percent rose far less. The share of the bottom 90 percent declined.
President Bush did not create the income gap. But the unheralded effect of his tax policy is its unequal impact on the modestly well to do. By 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will pay as much as 13.9 percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $400,000, assuming the tax cuts are made permanent. Below $80,000, most taxpayers will see their share of taxes rise slightly or stay the same....
The divide between rich and poor is unfortunately an old story, but income-class warfare among the top 20 percent of the scale is a newer phenomenon. One cause is that the further up the scale one goes, the more of one's income comes from investments, which under the Bush tax cuts enjoy about the lowest rates in the tax code. But many families making between $100,000 and $200,000 are not exactly on easy street. They don't face choices anywhere near as stark as those encountered further down the income ladder, but they face serious tradeoffs not experienced by the uppermost crust, particularly when hit with the triple whammy of college for the children, care for aging parents and preparing for their own retirement.
There is something deeply wrong about a system that calls into question a comfortable retirement or a top-notch education for people who have broken into the top 20 percent of income earners. It starts to seem politically explosive when you consider that in a decade, those making between $100,000 and $200,000 will pay about five to nine percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $1 million, assuming the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.
This is not about giving wealthy people more money to invest back into the economy. At this level, it's really about giving more money to those who have nothing to do with it except amass enormous estates for their heirs. Fixing the problem will require members of Congress to summon the courage to say no to a president who wants more for the richest of the rich at the expense of everyone else. We're not holding our breath.
With all of the debate about taxes, the economy and domestic spending, it is hard to imagine anyone supporting the notion of taking money from programs like Medicaid and college-tuition assistance, increasing the tax burden of the vast majority of working Americans, sending the country into crushing debt - and giving the proceeds to people who are so fantastically rich that they don't know what to do with the money they already have. Yet that is just what is happening under the Bush administration. Forget the middle class and the upper-middle class. Even the merely wealthy are being left behind in the dust by the small slice of super-rich Americans.
In last Sunday's Times, David Cay Johnston reported that from 1980 to 2002, the latest year of available data, the share of total income earned by the top 0.1 percent of earners more than doubled, while the share earned by everyone else in the top 10 percent rose far less. The share of the bottom 90 percent declined.
President Bush did not create the income gap. But the unheralded effect of his tax policy is its unequal impact on the modestly well to do. By 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will pay as much as 13.9 percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $400,000, assuming the tax cuts are made permanent. Below $80,000, most taxpayers will see their share of taxes rise slightly or stay the same....
The divide between rich and poor is unfortunately an old story, but income-class warfare among the top 20 percent of the scale is a newer phenomenon. One cause is that the further up the scale one goes, the more of one's income comes from investments, which under the Bush tax cuts enjoy about the lowest rates in the tax code. But many families making between $100,000 and $200,000 are not exactly on easy street. They don't face choices anywhere near as stark as those encountered further down the income ladder, but they face serious tradeoffs not experienced by the uppermost crust, particularly when hit with the triple whammy of college for the children, care for aging parents and preparing for their own retirement.
There is something deeply wrong about a system that calls into question a comfortable retirement or a top-notch education for people who have broken into the top 20 percent of income earners. It starts to seem politically explosive when you consider that in a decade, those making between $100,000 and $200,000 will pay about five to nine percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $1 million, assuming the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.
This is not about giving wealthy people more money to invest back into the economy. At this level, it's really about giving more money to those who have nothing to do with it except amass enormous estates for their heirs. Fixing the problem will require members of Congress to summon the courage to say no to a president who wants more for the richest of the rich at the expense of everyone else. We're not holding our breath.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Bunker Mulligan - R.I.P.
I just saw the sad news today about the passing of Mike Reed who ran the Corpus Christi-based blog Bunker Mulligan and who was the founder and inspiration behind Texas Bloggers, which serves as a neutral gathering area for Texas bloggers of all political stripes and persuasions.
My condolences to his friends and family.
My condolences to his friends and family.
Pining for Reagan
There was an op-ed in the HoustonChronicle Sunday which unfortunately I cannot link to but still want to comment on.
It was written by a recent high school graduate from Houston who is currently a freshman at Ohio University. It is essentially an ode to Ronald Reagan entitled “Reagan: We love the man we didn’t know; Why ex-president is an inspiration to young conservatives”.
I find the article interesting because it gives one a glimpse of the mindset of a young conservative today. The girl is obviously enamored with Reagan the same way I was when I was a freshman in college 20 years ago. The only difference is that Reagan was still president when I was in college and she wasn’t even born yet.
She begins the article by using some weak anecdotal evidence to try and establish that conservatives are slowly gaining ground on liberals, who she believes are still the dominant political force in the country. She attended a taping of CNN’s Crossfire - probably as part of a group of College Republicans - and notes that when asked who was their favorite president the audience cheered most loudly for Reagan. She also describes how Bush-Cheney campaign posters adorn “several bedroom doors” at her sorority house and how “one room was nearly wallpapered with them.”
Then she makes the following observation:
“When our parents were in college, students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Today, you won’t see many armbands, but you will see plenty of cars and backpacks adorned with yellow ribbons - a symbol of support for the troops.”
The only reason we aren’t seeing daily mass protests against the war is because we have an all-volunteer military doing the fighting. If we still had a draft that was forcibly sending young people from all walks of life to face the roadside bombings and snipers in Iraq you would see more than just black arm bands at this point.
But aside from that, one should not assume that yellow ribbon stickers equal unqualified support for Bush’s war. I have a yellow ribbon sticker on my truck (next to my Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker) because I too support the troops. But my idea of supporting the troops is to bring them home as soon as possible, not leave them hanging out to dry in some never-ending quagmire.
Next, she tries to explain why there has been this “generational turn to the right” by linking it to 9-11.
”In a post-9/11 nation, 1960s feel-good liberalism is no longer practical. As young people, my generation witnessed the most devastating attack ever to occur on American soil. It traumatized us. The peacnik vision of ‘Give Peace a Chance’ and disarming the enemy with love and kindness is a nice dream, but most of us reject it as not only foolish, but potentially deadly. We can’t deny the very real threat of terrorism.”
Wow. I guess I missed that plank in the Democratic Party platform about disarming the terrorists with love and kindness. I wonder too, what she would think if liberals had actually been in charge of things when 9/11 happened, instead of a Republican Congress and a Republican president who had repeatedly ignored the warnings of the top terrorism expert in the government.
But even though the Democrats in the last election nominated a Vietnam era war hero to go up against a guy who went AWOL from the National Guard, they are still viewed by young conservatives as the party of Flower Power Hippies handing out beads and chanting anti-war slogans at every opportunity.
Then we get into the favorite meme of today’s young conservatives - the everybody’s out to get us victimization syndrome. Conservatives were becoming dominant on college campuses back when I was in school. Republicans have controlled the White House for 24 of the last 36 years and currently control both Houses of Congress and have appointed 7 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court. And yet we get treated to the argument in this essay that young conservatives are under attack and are having to buck the system in order to get their views heard:
”It’s no secret that liberal thought dominates almost every aspect of the university - from the administration to the student newspapers. Like the campus leftists of the previous generation, conservative students are eager to ‘Question Authority.’ We argue with professors, write passionate letters to the local papers and join the College Republicans to meet other like-minded students. Our lack of representation fuels the fire. Talk to any conservative student and you’ll find that we often view ourselves as an oppressed minority constantly fighting to make our voices heard.”
Lack of representation?? An oppressed minority fighting to make our voices heard??? What planet is this girl living on?!?
It absolutely amazes me that in spite of controlling every aspect of our government for the past five years, Republicans can still persuade their impressionable youth that they are an oppressed minority fighting against a liberal establishment. What will it take for them to finally admit that they are in power and to start taking responsibility rather than blaming it all on “liberals” or whatever the current bogeyman of the day is?
Capping off her essay, the young conservative explains why her generation would rather embrace the late-Ronald Reagan than current President George W. Bush.
”Unlike George W. Bush - criticized even by conservatives for being too divisive - Reagan was the Great Communicator, speaking of America as the ‘shining city upon a hill’ and restoring hope to an entire nation. He led us out of the darkness of the late 1970s and into a decade of peace and prosperity...”
In Bush’s defense, Reagan was considered divisive during his tenure too. The difference perhaps is that Reagan actually had to work with a Democratic Congress to get things done, something that Bush has not been constrained to do. So Reagan came across as more amicable in some areas where Bush has been seen as very one-sided and partisan. But there was also a dark side to the Reagan administration that this young conservative has probably never been exposed to - such as the way they opted to use illegal channels to pursue their foreign policy goals when they could not get what they wanted through the Congress. With Iran-Contra, Reagan authorized the sale of weapons to the Ayatollahs in Iran and then funneled the profits down to Nicaragua to finance the anti-government insurgency there. When Reagan went on national television shortly after the scandal was exposed and lied about it I began to lose my faith in his presidency.
As for prosperity during the Reagan years, that was mostly financed with massive deficit spending on military programs that led to a tripling of the national debt. It was the next decade - the 1990s - where the country actually experienced what I would call ‘peace and prosperity’ under a Democratic president who balanced the budget for the first time in years and helped guide the country during an unprecedented boom time that far exceeded what we saw during the Reagan years. But that all came to an end when Bush the Younger came to power. Since then we have been mired in a never-ending economic stagnation, record deficits and a war in Iraq that was launched under false pretenses and now threatens to bog us down for years to come both militarily and financially.
It’s no wonder young conservatives today would rather pine for Ronald Reagan than laud George W. Bush.
It was written by a recent high school graduate from Houston who is currently a freshman at Ohio University. It is essentially an ode to Ronald Reagan entitled “Reagan: We love the man we didn’t know; Why ex-president is an inspiration to young conservatives”.
I find the article interesting because it gives one a glimpse of the mindset of a young conservative today. The girl is obviously enamored with Reagan the same way I was when I was a freshman in college 20 years ago. The only difference is that Reagan was still president when I was in college and she wasn’t even born yet.
She begins the article by using some weak anecdotal evidence to try and establish that conservatives are slowly gaining ground on liberals, who she believes are still the dominant political force in the country. She attended a taping of CNN’s Crossfire - probably as part of a group of College Republicans - and notes that when asked who was their favorite president the audience cheered most loudly for Reagan. She also describes how Bush-Cheney campaign posters adorn “several bedroom doors” at her sorority house and how “one room was nearly wallpapered with them.”
Then she makes the following observation:
“When our parents were in college, students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Today, you won’t see many armbands, but you will see plenty of cars and backpacks adorned with yellow ribbons - a symbol of support for the troops.”
The only reason we aren’t seeing daily mass protests against the war is because we have an all-volunteer military doing the fighting. If we still had a draft that was forcibly sending young people from all walks of life to face the roadside bombings and snipers in Iraq you would see more than just black arm bands at this point.
But aside from that, one should not assume that yellow ribbon stickers equal unqualified support for Bush’s war. I have a yellow ribbon sticker on my truck (next to my Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker) because I too support the troops. But my idea of supporting the troops is to bring them home as soon as possible, not leave them hanging out to dry in some never-ending quagmire.
Next, she tries to explain why there has been this “generational turn to the right” by linking it to 9-11.
”In a post-9/11 nation, 1960s feel-good liberalism is no longer practical. As young people, my generation witnessed the most devastating attack ever to occur on American soil. It traumatized us. The peacnik vision of ‘Give Peace a Chance’ and disarming the enemy with love and kindness is a nice dream, but most of us reject it as not only foolish, but potentially deadly. We can’t deny the very real threat of terrorism.”
Wow. I guess I missed that plank in the Democratic Party platform about disarming the terrorists with love and kindness. I wonder too, what she would think if liberals had actually been in charge of things when 9/11 happened, instead of a Republican Congress and a Republican president who had repeatedly ignored the warnings of the top terrorism expert in the government.
But even though the Democrats in the last election nominated a Vietnam era war hero to go up against a guy who went AWOL from the National Guard, they are still viewed by young conservatives as the party of Flower Power Hippies handing out beads and chanting anti-war slogans at every opportunity.
Then we get into the favorite meme of today’s young conservatives - the everybody’s out to get us victimization syndrome. Conservatives were becoming dominant on college campuses back when I was in school. Republicans have controlled the White House for 24 of the last 36 years and currently control both Houses of Congress and have appointed 7 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court. And yet we get treated to the argument in this essay that young conservatives are under attack and are having to buck the system in order to get their views heard:
”It’s no secret that liberal thought dominates almost every aspect of the university - from the administration to the student newspapers. Like the campus leftists of the previous generation, conservative students are eager to ‘Question Authority.’ We argue with professors, write passionate letters to the local papers and join the College Republicans to meet other like-minded students. Our lack of representation fuels the fire. Talk to any conservative student and you’ll find that we often view ourselves as an oppressed minority constantly fighting to make our voices heard.”
Lack of representation?? An oppressed minority fighting to make our voices heard??? What planet is this girl living on?!?
It absolutely amazes me that in spite of controlling every aspect of our government for the past five years, Republicans can still persuade their impressionable youth that they are an oppressed minority fighting against a liberal establishment. What will it take for them to finally admit that they are in power and to start taking responsibility rather than blaming it all on “liberals” or whatever the current bogeyman of the day is?
Capping off her essay, the young conservative explains why her generation would rather embrace the late-Ronald Reagan than current President George W. Bush.
”Unlike George W. Bush - criticized even by conservatives for being too divisive - Reagan was the Great Communicator, speaking of America as the ‘shining city upon a hill’ and restoring hope to an entire nation. He led us out of the darkness of the late 1970s and into a decade of peace and prosperity...”
In Bush’s defense, Reagan was considered divisive during his tenure too. The difference perhaps is that Reagan actually had to work with a Democratic Congress to get things done, something that Bush has not been constrained to do. So Reagan came across as more amicable in some areas where Bush has been seen as very one-sided and partisan. But there was also a dark side to the Reagan administration that this young conservative has probably never been exposed to - such as the way they opted to use illegal channels to pursue their foreign policy goals when they could not get what they wanted through the Congress. With Iran-Contra, Reagan authorized the sale of weapons to the Ayatollahs in Iran and then funneled the profits down to Nicaragua to finance the anti-government insurgency there. When Reagan went on national television shortly after the scandal was exposed and lied about it I began to lose my faith in his presidency.
As for prosperity during the Reagan years, that was mostly financed with massive deficit spending on military programs that led to a tripling of the national debt. It was the next decade - the 1990s - where the country actually experienced what I would call ‘peace and prosperity’ under a Democratic president who balanced the budget for the first time in years and helped guide the country during an unprecedented boom time that far exceeded what we saw during the Reagan years. But that all came to an end when Bush the Younger came to power. Since then we have been mired in a never-ending economic stagnation, record deficits and a war in Iraq that was launched under false pretenses and now threatens to bog us down for years to come both militarily and financially.
It’s no wonder young conservatives today would rather pine for Ronald Reagan than laud George W. Bush.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
The thorns in Bush's rosy scenario
Good analysis today in the Washington Post that cuts through all the rosy scenario nonsense coming from the Bush administration and gives us the cold hard truth about the situation in Iraq.
While Bush and Vice President Cheney offer optimistic assessments of the situation, a fresh wave of car bombings and other attacks killed 80 U.S. soldiers and more than 700 Iraqis last month alone and prompted Iraqi leaders to appeal to the administration for greater help. Privately, some administration officials have concluded the violence will not subside through this year.
I like how no one in the adminstration will level with us on the record, but privately, and off the record, they are letting us know that Bush is full of it.
The disconnect between Rose Garden optimism and Baghdad pessimism, according to government officials and independent analysts, stems not only from Bush's focus on tentative signs of long-term progress but also from the shrinking range of policy options available to him if he is wrong. Having set out on a course of trying to stand up a new constitutional, elected government with the security firepower to defend itself, Bush finds himself locked into a strategy that, even if it proves successful, foreshadows many more deadly months to come first, analysts said.
Watch out! Here comes some more off the record revelations...
Military commanders in Iraq privately told a visiting congressional delegation last week that the United States is at least two years away from adequately training a viable Iraqi military but that it is no longer reasonable to consider augmenting U.S. troops already strained by the two-year operation, said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). "The idea that the insurgents are on the run and we are about to turn the corner, I did not hear that from anybody," Biden said in an interview.
But,wait! That's according to Sen. Biden, a Democrat. Why should we believe him? Well, there is also the Republican Congressman saying the same thing...
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), who joined Biden for part of the trip, said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others are misleading Americans about the number of functional Iraqi troops and warned the president to pay more attention to shutting off Syrian and Iranian assistance to the insurgency. "We don't want to raise the expectations of the American people prematurely," he said.
So Rumsfeld and others are "misleading Americans" about the number of Iraqi troops. That's a pretty serious charge and its coming from a Republican.
And here is another Republican with not much good to say when asked to comment on Bush and Cheney's neverending stream of rosy updates...
"I cannot say with any confidence that that is accurate," said Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), a member of the House International Relations Committee. "I think it's impossible to know how close we are to the insurgency being overcome."
Our military is already strained to the limits and it may take another two years to get things to a point where we can pull out without the Iraqi government collapsing like a house of cards.
If this is not a quagmire, then I don't know what the term could possibly mean.
While Bush and Vice President Cheney offer optimistic assessments of the situation, a fresh wave of car bombings and other attacks killed 80 U.S. soldiers and more than 700 Iraqis last month alone and prompted Iraqi leaders to appeal to the administration for greater help. Privately, some administration officials have concluded the violence will not subside through this year.
I like how no one in the adminstration will level with us on the record, but privately, and off the record, they are letting us know that Bush is full of it.
The disconnect between Rose Garden optimism and Baghdad pessimism, according to government officials and independent analysts, stems not only from Bush's focus on tentative signs of long-term progress but also from the shrinking range of policy options available to him if he is wrong. Having set out on a course of trying to stand up a new constitutional, elected government with the security firepower to defend itself, Bush finds himself locked into a strategy that, even if it proves successful, foreshadows many more deadly months to come first, analysts said.
Watch out! Here comes some more off the record revelations...
Military commanders in Iraq privately told a visiting congressional delegation last week that the United States is at least two years away from adequately training a viable Iraqi military but that it is no longer reasonable to consider augmenting U.S. troops already strained by the two-year operation, said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). "The idea that the insurgents are on the run and we are about to turn the corner, I did not hear that from anybody," Biden said in an interview.
But,wait! That's according to Sen. Biden, a Democrat. Why should we believe him? Well, there is also the Republican Congressman saying the same thing...
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), who joined Biden for part of the trip, said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others are misleading Americans about the number of functional Iraqi troops and warned the president to pay more attention to shutting off Syrian and Iranian assistance to the insurgency. "We don't want to raise the expectations of the American people prematurely," he said.
So Rumsfeld and others are "misleading Americans" about the number of Iraqi troops. That's a pretty serious charge and its coming from a Republican.
And here is another Republican with not much good to say when asked to comment on Bush and Cheney's neverending stream of rosy updates...
"I cannot say with any confidence that that is accurate," said Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), a member of the House International Relations Committee. "I think it's impossible to know how close we are to the insurgency being overcome."
Our military is already strained to the limits and it may take another two years to get things to a point where we can pull out without the Iraqi government collapsing like a house of cards.
If this is not a quagmire, then I don't know what the term could possibly mean.
Friday, June 03, 2005
GOP embraces “terrorist”
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. That’s one of the problems with Bush’s “War on Terror,” deciding what terrorism is. The Bush State Department has determined that Yasith Chhun and his group the Cambodian Freedom Fighters is a terrorist organization. In 2000, Chhun took part in an attack on several government buildings in Phnom Penh that injured at least eight government officials. He was recently indicted on federal charges of plotting to overthrow the Cambodian government.
But none of this has dissuaded the National Republican Congressional Committee from embracing Chhun who has raised $6,550 for the GOP and sits on the group’s Business Advisory Council. Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher dismisses the State Department’s concerns about Chhun and applauds his efforts to topple the current government in Cambodia.
Gee. I wonder what would happen if the Democratic National Committee invited a known terrorist to sit on its Business Advisory Council?
But none of this has dissuaded the National Republican Congressional Committee from embracing Chhun who has raised $6,550 for the GOP and sits on the group’s Business Advisory Council. Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher dismisses the State Department’s concerns about Chhun and applauds his efforts to topple the current government in Cambodia.
Gee. I wonder what would happen if the Democratic National Committee invited a known terrorist to sit on its Business Advisory Council?
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Harmful Books
Note: I am supposed to be guest blogging this week over at The View From The Nest. Unfortunately, after logging in as a guest I've run into some kind of technical hangup where I cannot enter text into the introduction box or main body box in order to compile a post at the site. All I can do is enter text into the headline field which is kind of useless if that's all you can do. I've tried switching browsers from Safari to Internet Explorer with no luck. Could it be a Mac thing? If so, I'll have to wait until later this evening when I can access a PC.
In the meantime, posted below is what would have been my first post at the Nest.
Hello, I’m Mike Thomas and I run the San Antonio-based blog Rhetoric & Rhythm. I’ll be your token liberal guest blogger while Ranten N. Raven is on his sabattical. I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Raven for inviting me to participate in this endeavor along with Bill Crawford of All Things Conservative and Christina of Feisty Repartee.
I thought I would kick things off by calling attention to the list of the Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries as determined by a special panel of so called experts put together by the far right-wing magazine Human Events.
Their list starts off predictably enough with the right-wing’s No. 1 boogeyman Karl Marx and his notorious “Communist Manifesto.” I imagine that old Karl must haunt most right-wingers’ dreams like Freddie Krueger. Then we have Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” which would probably make any group’s list regardless of political persuasion, followed by “Quotations from Chairman Mao.”
After that, however, things start to get a little weird. No. 4 on the list is Alfred Kinsey’s Report on Sexual Behavior exposing this group’s obsessive fear of anything dealing with sex. Then we have “Democracy and Education” by the liberal educator and philosopher John Dewey, which they blame for all of our problems with public schools.
Karl Marx is back again at No. 6 with “Das Kapital,” which very few, if any, right-wingers have actually read. But, hey, it’s by Marx so it must be pretty scary!
Betty Friedan’s classic tome “The Feminine Mystique” is bashed for giving women the idea that they could occassionaly come out of the kitchen and put shoes on.
Capping off the Top 10 is “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” by John Maynard Keynes, the New Deal era economist whose policies helped bring the country out of the Depression and built up a solid Middle Class that still anchors our society to this day. But the Human Events panel blames Keynes for the nation’s multi-trillion dollar debt, conveniently ignoring the fact that most of that debt was added during the reign of very anti-Keynesian presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
This list of books that were given honorable mentions is also a hoot including:
“On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill; “Origin of the Species” by Charles Darwin; “Unsafe at Any Speed” by Ralph Nader; ”Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson;
“Introduction to Psychoanalysis” by Sigmund Freud; and “The Greening of America” by Charles Reich.
I just have to say that this list tells us more about the people that compiled it than anything else. It’s kind of sad really that they would feel threatened by so many books that essentially helped to stretch the bounds of liberty that had constrained so many people both culturally and intellectually throughout human history.
In the meantime, posted below is what would have been my first post at the Nest.
Hello, I’m Mike Thomas and I run the San Antonio-based blog Rhetoric & Rhythm. I’ll be your token liberal guest blogger while Ranten N. Raven is on his sabattical. I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Raven for inviting me to participate in this endeavor along with Bill Crawford of All Things Conservative and Christina of Feisty Repartee.
I thought I would kick things off by calling attention to the list of the Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries as determined by a special panel of so called experts put together by the far right-wing magazine Human Events.
Their list starts off predictably enough with the right-wing’s No. 1 boogeyman Karl Marx and his notorious “Communist Manifesto.” I imagine that old Karl must haunt most right-wingers’ dreams like Freddie Krueger. Then we have Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” which would probably make any group’s list regardless of political persuasion, followed by “Quotations from Chairman Mao.”
After that, however, things start to get a little weird. No. 4 on the list is Alfred Kinsey’s Report on Sexual Behavior exposing this group’s obsessive fear of anything dealing with sex. Then we have “Democracy and Education” by the liberal educator and philosopher John Dewey, which they blame for all of our problems with public schools.
Karl Marx is back again at No. 6 with “Das Kapital,” which very few, if any, right-wingers have actually read. But, hey, it’s by Marx so it must be pretty scary!
Betty Friedan’s classic tome “The Feminine Mystique” is bashed for giving women the idea that they could occassionaly come out of the kitchen and put shoes on.
Capping off the Top 10 is “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” by John Maynard Keynes, the New Deal era economist whose policies helped bring the country out of the Depression and built up a solid Middle Class that still anchors our society to this day. But the Human Events panel blames Keynes for the nation’s multi-trillion dollar debt, conveniently ignoring the fact that most of that debt was added during the reign of very anti-Keynesian presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
This list of books that were given honorable mentions is also a hoot including:
“On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill; “Origin of the Species” by Charles Darwin; “Unsafe at Any Speed” by Ralph Nader; ”Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson;
“Introduction to Psychoanalysis” by Sigmund Freud; and “The Greening of America” by Charles Reich.
I just have to say that this list tells us more about the people that compiled it than anything else. It’s kind of sad really that they would feel threatened by so many books that essentially helped to stretch the bounds of liberty that had constrained so many people both culturally and intellectually throughout human history.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Mark Felt: American Hero
“Follow the money”
So Deep Throat turns out to have been the associate director at the FBI.
It all makes sense now, I suppose. J. Edgar Hoover had his thumb over every U.S. president going back to Calvin Coolidge. But when he died in 1972 Nixon probably thought he was home free and able to do anything he wanted. But then the No. 2 guy at the Bureau, a career G-Man and Hoover protege, steps up and takes him down.
And what is really amazing is that he didn’t do it for money, or fame, or anything else other than that he believed it was the right thing to do for his country.
I’m glad his family pushed him to reveal his secret before he died so that we can salute him before he goes.
So Deep Throat turns out to have been the associate director at the FBI.
It all makes sense now, I suppose. J. Edgar Hoover had his thumb over every U.S. president going back to Calvin Coolidge. But when he died in 1972 Nixon probably thought he was home free and able to do anything he wanted. But then the No. 2 guy at the Bureau, a career G-Man and Hoover protege, steps up and takes him down.
And what is really amazing is that he didn’t do it for money, or fame, or anything else other than that he believed it was the right thing to do for his country.
I’m glad his family pushed him to reveal his secret before he died so that we can salute him before he goes.
Arthur Andersen is dead
Dead as a doornail, as Scrooge might say. And unlike Old Marley in Charles Dicken’s “A Christmas Carol”, it’s not about to come back and start spooking us in the middle of the night. That there was criminal behavior on the part of some Arthur Andersen executives is undeniable. What they did was show blatant disregard for the law in the midst of one of the worst corporate scandals in our nation’s history. The company paid the ultimate price as a result and there is no turning the clock back now.
But did everyone in the whole company deserve to lose their jobs as a result? Certainly not. All the people who worked on the top floor of my building here in San Antonio lost their jobs as a result of the scandal. It didn’t really matter whether criminal charges were ultimately upheld or overturned.
Since the Supreme Court decision was unanimous I would imagine there is not much room for arguing it. They say the jury instructions were flawed so I guess they were. But that doesn’t mean that the former Arthur Andersen executives are vindicated. Rather it is just one more glaring exampe of the gross incompetence of the Bush administration - in this case, the Bush Justice Department.
But did everyone in the whole company deserve to lose their jobs as a result? Certainly not. All the people who worked on the top floor of my building here in San Antonio lost their jobs as a result of the scandal. It didn’t really matter whether criminal charges were ultimately upheld or overturned.
Since the Supreme Court decision was unanimous I would imagine there is not much room for arguing it. They say the jury instructions were flawed so I guess they were. But that doesn’t mean that the former Arthur Andersen executives are vindicated. Rather it is just one more glaring exampe of the gross incompetence of the Bush administration - in this case, the Bush Justice Department.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Olin vs. Soros: A comparison
There was a bit of cheery news for liberals this weekend. The John M. Olin Foundation is closing its doors later this summer.
Why is this good news? Because it has been one of the biggest benefactors for right-wing causes for the past 30 years. Here is how the NYTimes article summarizes the Olin Foundation’s impact on the conservative movement:
Without it, the Federalist Society might not exist, nor its network of 35,000 conservative lawyers. Economic analysis might hold less sway in American courts. The premier idea factories of the right, from the Hoover Institution to the Heritage Foundation, would have lost millions of dollars in core support. And some classics of the conservative canon would have lost their financier, including Allan Bloom's lament of academic decline and Charles Murray's attacks on welfare.
John Olin was a manufacturing magnate who made his fortune selling ammunition to the military during World War II. For that I guess we can laud him. However, before his death he decided to funnel the remainder of his fortune into a foundation to support right-wing causes. The article says he was motivated to do this after armed students took over a building at his alma mater, Cornell University, in 1969.
So thanks to some radical hippies whose idiotic efforts resulted in zero change to the nation’s capitalistic structure, this right-wing millionaire dumped $145 million into his new foundation - which subsequently grew to $380 million thanks in large part to the Clinton Boom years - and was used to fuel the rise of numerous right-wing think tanks and foundations such as The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, The Manhattan Institute, The Federalist Society, The CATO Institute, The Hoover Institution, etc., etc.
What I find most ironic is that while the right-wing has had this extremely benevolent benefactor for the past 30 years dumping truckloads of money into their pet causes - along with the Sarah Scaife Foundation in Pittsburgh, the Smith Richardson Foundation in Westport, Conn., the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee, and Joseph Coors in Colorado, and so forth - they still act like whiny little children whenever someone like George Soros comes along and donates a measly $15 million toward liberal causes.
Here is what Soros did
that excited so much venom and hatred from the far right:
(He committed) $3 million over three years to an anti-Bush policy shop headed by ex-Clintonite John Podesta. He followed up with a $10 million grant to launch America Coming Together, a get-out-the-vote effort to help the Democratic presidential campaign. Next he promised $2.5 million to MoveOn.org, (a liberal advocacy group.)
So that is $15.5 million versus $145 million (or $380 million thanks to the Clinton Boom years). And yet if you listen to the rightwingers you might think Soros was dominating the ideological philanthropy efforts to the point that the scale has been sharply tilted to the left. Such is hardly the case.
To be fair, Soros is actually a much more prolific giver than Olin ever was. The difference is that while Olin targeted all of his money towards the narrow focus of promoting right-wing intellectual efforts, Soros has generously opened his wallet to support humanitarian causes as diverse as promoting democracy efforts in Russia to funding affordable housing projects in South Africa.
Just take a look at some of the things that Soros has spent his money on these past years:
$115 million after the fall of the Soviet Union to support Russian science. About $50 million went for stipends to scientists who had lost government support; the aim was to reduce the temptation to use their talents for destructive purposes.
$250 million in 2001 to found and endow Central European University; its main campus is in Budapest, Hungary.
$100 million to free education in the former Soviet Union from Marxist-Leninist dogma by buying new textbooks, training teachers and operating libraries.
$12 million to promote high school debate programs in the USA (1998-present).
$30 million to divide large public high schools in New York City into smaller, more manageable schools.
$13 million (with an additional $37 million commitment) to finance affordable housing and building projects for poor South Africans, most of whom previously lived in shantytowns.
$110 million over the past decade to Step by Step, an early childhood development program in 29 countries.
$200 million to promote peace, tolerance, reconciliation and democracy in southeastern Europe and to strengthen the rule of law and independent news media in that region.
$50 million in 1992 for humanitarian aid to the besieged Bosnian city of Sarajevo, including construction of a municipal water-filtration system and the restoration of electric power to the city's hospitals.
$50 million to the Emma Lazarus Fund to combat unfair treatment of, and discrimination against, legal immigrants in the USA (1996-2000).
$125 million to the After School Corporation for after-school programs (1997-present).
You might think for all this conservatives would be out building monuments to this guy and naming airports after him. Instead, he is vilified by the right because he had the audacity to go up against their Dear Leader, the estimable George W.
Such is the steel-trap closed mind mentality of what passes for conservatism these days.
Why is this good news? Because it has been one of the biggest benefactors for right-wing causes for the past 30 years. Here is how the NYTimes article summarizes the Olin Foundation’s impact on the conservative movement:
Without it, the Federalist Society might not exist, nor its network of 35,000 conservative lawyers. Economic analysis might hold less sway in American courts. The premier idea factories of the right, from the Hoover Institution to the Heritage Foundation, would have lost millions of dollars in core support. And some classics of the conservative canon would have lost their financier, including Allan Bloom's lament of academic decline and Charles Murray's attacks on welfare.
John Olin was a manufacturing magnate who made his fortune selling ammunition to the military during World War II. For that I guess we can laud him. However, before his death he decided to funnel the remainder of his fortune into a foundation to support right-wing causes. The article says he was motivated to do this after armed students took over a building at his alma mater, Cornell University, in 1969.
So thanks to some radical hippies whose idiotic efforts resulted in zero change to the nation’s capitalistic structure, this right-wing millionaire dumped $145 million into his new foundation - which subsequently grew to $380 million thanks in large part to the Clinton Boom years - and was used to fuel the rise of numerous right-wing think tanks and foundations such as The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, The Manhattan Institute, The Federalist Society, The CATO Institute, The Hoover Institution, etc., etc.
What I find most ironic is that while the right-wing has had this extremely benevolent benefactor for the past 30 years dumping truckloads of money into their pet causes - along with the Sarah Scaife Foundation in Pittsburgh, the Smith Richardson Foundation in Westport, Conn., the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee, and Joseph Coors in Colorado, and so forth - they still act like whiny little children whenever someone like George Soros comes along and donates a measly $15 million toward liberal causes.
Here is what Soros did
that excited so much venom and hatred from the far right:
(He committed) $3 million over three years to an anti-Bush policy shop headed by ex-Clintonite John Podesta. He followed up with a $10 million grant to launch America Coming Together, a get-out-the-vote effort to help the Democratic presidential campaign. Next he promised $2.5 million to MoveOn.org, (a liberal advocacy group.)
So that is $15.5 million versus $145 million (or $380 million thanks to the Clinton Boom years). And yet if you listen to the rightwingers you might think Soros was dominating the ideological philanthropy efforts to the point that the scale has been sharply tilted to the left. Such is hardly the case.
To be fair, Soros is actually a much more prolific giver than Olin ever was. The difference is that while Olin targeted all of his money towards the narrow focus of promoting right-wing intellectual efforts, Soros has generously opened his wallet to support humanitarian causes as diverse as promoting democracy efforts in Russia to funding affordable housing projects in South Africa.
Just take a look at some of the things that Soros has spent his money on these past years:
$115 million after the fall of the Soviet Union to support Russian science. About $50 million went for stipends to scientists who had lost government support; the aim was to reduce the temptation to use their talents for destructive purposes.
$250 million in 2001 to found and endow Central European University; its main campus is in Budapest, Hungary.
$100 million to free education in the former Soviet Union from Marxist-Leninist dogma by buying new textbooks, training teachers and operating libraries.
$12 million to promote high school debate programs in the USA (1998-present).
$30 million to divide large public high schools in New York City into smaller, more manageable schools.
$13 million (with an additional $37 million commitment) to finance affordable housing and building projects for poor South Africans, most of whom previously lived in shantytowns.
$110 million over the past decade to Step by Step, an early childhood development program in 29 countries.
$200 million to promote peace, tolerance, reconciliation and democracy in southeastern Europe and to strengthen the rule of law and independent news media in that region.
$50 million in 1992 for humanitarian aid to the besieged Bosnian city of Sarajevo, including construction of a municipal water-filtration system and the restoration of electric power to the city's hospitals.
$50 million to the Emma Lazarus Fund to combat unfair treatment of, and discrimination against, legal immigrants in the USA (1996-2000).
$125 million to the After School Corporation for after-school programs (1997-present).
You might think for all this conservatives would be out building monuments to this guy and naming airports after him. Instead, he is vilified by the right because he had the audacity to go up against their Dear Leader, the estimable George W.
Such is the steel-trap closed mind mentality of what passes for conservatism these days.
Down sick
Sorry for the lack of posting.
I’ve been down these last few days with a particularly nasty virus which has still left me with a sore throat and general achiness. I hope to be back up to full speed here very soon.
And yes, I do blame Bush for this.
I’ve been down these last few days with a particularly nasty virus which has still left me with a sore throat and general achiness. I hope to be back up to full speed here very soon.
And yes, I do blame Bush for this.
Friday, May 27, 2005
National Treasure
The Washington Post reports today that the Smithsonian Institution, which houses many of our nation’s most precious artifacts, is in severe need of repair.
A leak at the National Air and Space Museum caused rust on the wing of the first plane to hit Mach 2. Plaster walls are weeping in the Renwick Gallery. Some buildings and exhibits on the Mall and at the National Zoo have closed because of disrepair, and more leaks threaten the Smithsonian's historic collections and irreplaceable objects, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office.
The cost to fix all of these problems is estimated to be about $2.3 billion over nine years. But we are unlikely to spend that amount of money which is currently 13 times greater than the Smithsonian’s facility budget.
The Smithsonian's repairs-and-maintenance budget for fiscal year 2004 is $184.4 million of its $904 million operating budget for 18 public museums and galleries, 10 science centers, the zoo and other facilities. There are 660 buildings altogether that display, study and safeguard 143.7 million precious objects and specimens and 166.3 million archived documents and photographs.
The GAO report goes on to detail how "structural deterioration" and "chronic leaks" have closed some buildings, restricted access to others and damaged some collections.
Among the casualties are the landmark 1881 Arts and Industries Building on the Mall and the zoo's sloth bear building and birds-of-prey flight cage, which have been shut down pending repairs. The Old Patent Office Building at Seventh and F streets NW, home to the National Portrait Gallery and Smithsonian American Art Museum, has been closed since 2000 for revitalization for reroofing, but is scheduled to reopen in July 2006.
Some precious objects have also been damaged. At Air and Space, the pioneering Lilienthal Hang Glider that influenced the Wright Brothers' flight designs has been blemished by a leak, and the Douglas Skyrocket D558, the first airplane to break Mach 2, has some visible rust. As stopgaps, Smithsonian conservators have had to drape plastic sheeting over valuable artifacts.
This is inexusable that Smithonian curators have been reduced to covering our national artifacts with plastic sheeting to keep them from being damaged by leaky roofs and faulty plumbing. So why isn’t the Bush administration doing something about this? Are we really that poor and cash-strapped?
Not when it comes to nation building in Iraq! This year alone the Bush administration is spending $21 billion on reconstruction projects in Iraq of which $3.3 billion has been allocated just for security.
The head of the U.S. reconstruction effort in Iraq said Saturday that as much as 16 percent of the $21 billion reconstruction budget would be spent on providing security for its projects and workers -- roughly double the original estimate...
His office also disclosed that 295 civilian contractors had been killed in Iraq as of April 30...
So remember that the Smithsonian repairs would cost 2.3 billion over nine years - and that is more than we are willing to pay - but we are spending more than $1 billion than that this year alone just on security for Iraqi reconstruction projects.
As one side note, I should also point out that the GAO study concluded that the disrepair at the Smithsonian facilities is not due to neglect or mismanagement, but is instead due to the fact that they have been ”strapped by staffing reductions and a tight budget.”
A leak at the National Air and Space Museum caused rust on the wing of the first plane to hit Mach 2. Plaster walls are weeping in the Renwick Gallery. Some buildings and exhibits on the Mall and at the National Zoo have closed because of disrepair, and more leaks threaten the Smithsonian's historic collections and irreplaceable objects, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office.
The cost to fix all of these problems is estimated to be about $2.3 billion over nine years. But we are unlikely to spend that amount of money which is currently 13 times greater than the Smithsonian’s facility budget.
The Smithsonian's repairs-and-maintenance budget for fiscal year 2004 is $184.4 million of its $904 million operating budget for 18 public museums and galleries, 10 science centers, the zoo and other facilities. There are 660 buildings altogether that display, study and safeguard 143.7 million precious objects and specimens and 166.3 million archived documents and photographs.
The GAO report goes on to detail how "structural deterioration" and "chronic leaks" have closed some buildings, restricted access to others and damaged some collections.
Among the casualties are the landmark 1881 Arts and Industries Building on the Mall and the zoo's sloth bear building and birds-of-prey flight cage, which have been shut down pending repairs. The Old Patent Office Building at Seventh and F streets NW, home to the National Portrait Gallery and Smithsonian American Art Museum, has been closed since 2000 for revitalization for reroofing, but is scheduled to reopen in July 2006.
Some precious objects have also been damaged. At Air and Space, the pioneering Lilienthal Hang Glider that influenced the Wright Brothers' flight designs has been blemished by a leak, and the Douglas Skyrocket D558, the first airplane to break Mach 2, has some visible rust. As stopgaps, Smithsonian conservators have had to drape plastic sheeting over valuable artifacts.
This is inexusable that Smithonian curators have been reduced to covering our national artifacts with plastic sheeting to keep them from being damaged by leaky roofs and faulty plumbing. So why isn’t the Bush administration doing something about this? Are we really that poor and cash-strapped?
Not when it comes to nation building in Iraq! This year alone the Bush administration is spending $21 billion on reconstruction projects in Iraq of which $3.3 billion has been allocated just for security.
The head of the U.S. reconstruction effort in Iraq said Saturday that as much as 16 percent of the $21 billion reconstruction budget would be spent on providing security for its projects and workers -- roughly double the original estimate...
His office also disclosed that 295 civilian contractors had been killed in Iraq as of April 30...
So remember that the Smithsonian repairs would cost 2.3 billion over nine years - and that is more than we are willing to pay - but we are spending more than $1 billion than that this year alone just on security for Iraqi reconstruction projects.
As one side note, I should also point out that the GAO study concluded that the disrepair at the Smithsonian facilities is not due to neglect or mismanagement, but is instead due to the fact that they have been ”strapped by staffing reductions and a tight budget.”
Thursday, May 26, 2005
The Bush Oligarchy
Here is an excellent analysis from the Washington Post about how Republicans have been consolidating power in the executive branch in order to push through their radical right agenda.
The campaign to prevent the Senate filibuster of the president's judicial nominations was simply the latest and most public example of similar transformations in Congress and the executive branch stretching back a decade. The common theme is to consolidate influence in a small circle of Republicans and to marginalize dissenting voices that would try to impede a conservative agenda.
House Republicans, for instance, discarded the seniority system and limited the independence and prerogatives of committee chairmen. The result is a chamber effectively run by a handful of GOP leaders. At the White House, Bush has tightened the reins on Cabinet members, centralizing the most important decisions among a tight group of West Wing loyalists. With the strong encouragement of Vice President Cheney, he has also moved to expand the amount of executive branch information that can be legally shielded from Congress, the courts and the public.
Now, the White House and Congress are setting their sights on how to make the judiciary more deferential to the conservative cause -- as illustrated by the filibuster debate and recent threats by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and others to more vigorously oversee the courts.
"I think we have used the legislative and executive branch as well as anybody to achieve our policy aims," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). "It is a remarkable governing instrument."
Pretty scary, if you ask me. Historians will probably refer to this period as the Bush Oligarchy.
The campaign to prevent the Senate filibuster of the president's judicial nominations was simply the latest and most public example of similar transformations in Congress and the executive branch stretching back a decade. The common theme is to consolidate influence in a small circle of Republicans and to marginalize dissenting voices that would try to impede a conservative agenda.
House Republicans, for instance, discarded the seniority system and limited the independence and prerogatives of committee chairmen. The result is a chamber effectively run by a handful of GOP leaders. At the White House, Bush has tightened the reins on Cabinet members, centralizing the most important decisions among a tight group of West Wing loyalists. With the strong encouragement of Vice President Cheney, he has also moved to expand the amount of executive branch information that can be legally shielded from Congress, the courts and the public.
Now, the White House and Congress are setting their sights on how to make the judiciary more deferential to the conservative cause -- as illustrated by the filibuster debate and recent threats by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and others to more vigorously oversee the courts.
"I think we have used the legislative and executive branch as well as anybody to achieve our policy aims," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). "It is a remarkable governing instrument."
Pretty scary, if you ask me. Historians will probably refer to this period as the Bush Oligarchy.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
The filibuster fight in perspective
There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, May 23, that I just got around to reading that put the whole judicial filibuster controversy into perspective. The gist of the article is that the extreme political views of Bush’s nominees is not the issue so much as which courts they are going to.
Many of the nation’s circuit courts today are precariously balanced on either a partisan or ideological level. The Bush administration has carefully selected judicial nominees with extremist views and matched them with circuit courts where they could wreak the most havoc. For example, Janice Rogers Brown, who likes to compare the government’s regulatory authority to slavery, is poised to take a seat on the D.C. Circuit court that handles the majority of appeals of government agency rulings.
Then there is William Myers, a long-time lobbyist for cattlemen and mining interests who has a long history of attacking environmental groups who is nominated for a seat on the 9th Circuit which deals with most land-use cases.
And William Pryor, the former Alabama attorney general who thinks the Voting Rights Act needs to be overhauled and gutted, is nominated for a seat on the 11th Circuit court which has jurisdiction over a large portion of the south.
But why shouldn’t Bush be allowed to tip the balance on these courts? After all, he won the election so he should be allowed to do what he wants, right? Well, yes and no. That brings us to the final point of the article and the one that sticks the deepest in the craw of the Democrats. Many of these court vacancies that Bush is trying to fill first became vacant during the Clinton administration. Yes, that’s right. They should currently be filled with Clinton appointees, but Republicans used Senate rules to block Clinton’s nominees and then once Bush came into office they changed the rules so that Democrats couldn’t do the same thing and now they are trying to push through hard right nominees to fill seats that by all rights should have gone to Democratic appointees. And remember that Republicans have controlled the White House for 17 of the last 25 years, so they have had ample opportunity to get their own nominees in place making it all the more unfair for them to be stealing away Democratic spots.
Many of the nation’s circuit courts today are precariously balanced on either a partisan or ideological level. The Bush administration has carefully selected judicial nominees with extremist views and matched them with circuit courts where they could wreak the most havoc. For example, Janice Rogers Brown, who likes to compare the government’s regulatory authority to slavery, is poised to take a seat on the D.C. Circuit court that handles the majority of appeals of government agency rulings.
Then there is William Myers, a long-time lobbyist for cattlemen and mining interests who has a long history of attacking environmental groups who is nominated for a seat on the 9th Circuit which deals with most land-use cases.
And William Pryor, the former Alabama attorney general who thinks the Voting Rights Act needs to be overhauled and gutted, is nominated for a seat on the 11th Circuit court which has jurisdiction over a large portion of the south.
But why shouldn’t Bush be allowed to tip the balance on these courts? After all, he won the election so he should be allowed to do what he wants, right? Well, yes and no. That brings us to the final point of the article and the one that sticks the deepest in the craw of the Democrats. Many of these court vacancies that Bush is trying to fill first became vacant during the Clinton administration. Yes, that’s right. They should currently be filled with Clinton appointees, but Republicans used Senate rules to block Clinton’s nominees and then once Bush came into office they changed the rules so that Democrats couldn’t do the same thing and now they are trying to push through hard right nominees to fill seats that by all rights should have gone to Democratic appointees. And remember that Republicans have controlled the White House for 17 of the last 25 years, so they have had ample opportunity to get their own nominees in place making it all the more unfair for them to be stealing away Democratic spots.
Our fundamentalist president
There is a picture of President Bush on the front page of the New York Times today kissing a baby. The carefully staged photo-op was done to support Bush’s plan to veto bi-partisan legislation that would lift some restrictions on scientific research into embryonic stem cells. The baby in the picture is one that came from a donated embryo left over from a fertility clinic.
I think it is wonderful that some family was able to have a baby using a donated embryo. But we also need to consider that there are far more of these excess embryos left over from fertility treatments than can be used and about 90 percent of them are discarded on a routine basis.
The bill that Bush is threatening to veto would allow scientists to study these embryos that are going to be discarded anyway in hopes of finding cures for certain diseases. Why is this such a problem for religious fundamentalists? You have something sitting in a petri dish that could possibly be used to save countless lives and improve the quality of life for many more people and yet we are just going to continue to toss them into the trash bin because a small group of fundamentalists - including our president - believe as GOP Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that "an embryo is a person.” That’s like saying an acorn is a tree. If you sweep up a bunch of acorns off your driveway and throw them in the trash, is that the equivalent of going out with a chainsaw and chopping down several acres of Live Oak trees?
So let’s be perfectly clear here. While President Bush may seem like he cares about “life” because he is kissing that baby, the truth is that he cares more about the contents of a petri dish than about the millions of people out there suffering from debilitating diseases and genetic conditions. Notice how they were careful not to show Bush standing next to any children suffering from multiple sclerosis or spinal bifida.
I think it is wonderful that some family was able to have a baby using a donated embryo. But we also need to consider that there are far more of these excess embryos left over from fertility treatments than can be used and about 90 percent of them are discarded on a routine basis.
The bill that Bush is threatening to veto would allow scientists to study these embryos that are going to be discarded anyway in hopes of finding cures for certain diseases. Why is this such a problem for religious fundamentalists? You have something sitting in a petri dish that could possibly be used to save countless lives and improve the quality of life for many more people and yet we are just going to continue to toss them into the trash bin because a small group of fundamentalists - including our president - believe as GOP Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that "an embryo is a person.” That’s like saying an acorn is a tree. If you sweep up a bunch of acorns off your driveway and throw them in the trash, is that the equivalent of going out with a chainsaw and chopping down several acres of Live Oak trees?
So let’s be perfectly clear here. While President Bush may seem like he cares about “life” because he is kissing that baby, the truth is that he cares more about the contents of a petri dish than about the millions of people out there suffering from debilitating diseases and genetic conditions. Notice how they were careful not to show Bush standing next to any children suffering from multiple sclerosis or spinal bifida.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Filibuster compromise
Ahhhh, the sweet smell of compromise! It’s what makes our form of government work. Without it we would find ourselves constantly bogged down in these kinds of partisan fights. The reason we have had so many during these past four years is because President Bush has been one of the most obnoxiously partisan presidents in recent memory and has refused to compromise at almost every turn. In this case, however, it was up to the Senate to strike a deal and that is what they do best.
So this means we will likely wind up with three more awful judges on the federal bench (although there is still a chance that one or more could be voted down), but the rest will be stopped dead in their tracks and the filibuster rule remains intact. This is good because requiring a 60-vote supermajority in some cases forces the administration to nominate judges who can meet that higher standard of acceptability on all sides. Thus we end up with fewer extremist judges on the left or right in the long run.
So this means we will likely wind up with three more awful judges on the federal bench (although there is still a chance that one or more could be voted down), but the rest will be stopped dead in their tracks and the filibuster rule remains intact. This is good because requiring a 60-vote supermajority in some cases forces the administration to nominate judges who can meet that higher standard of acceptability on all sides. Thus we end up with fewer extremist judges on the left or right in the long run.
Monday, May 23, 2005
All-Time 100 Movies
Time Magazine’s movie critics are coming out with their ALL-TIME 100 Movies this week. Their list is filled with obscure foreign films I’ve never seen and probably never will.
A better effort, in my opinion, is the American Film Institute’s 100 YEARS...100 MOVIES series.
Following is my personal list of the All-Time 100 Movies based on my obviously limited exposure to mostly American-made films of the past 40 years.
My only criteria for including movies on the list was that I have actually seen them in their entirety and if they were to come on TV right now the liklihood that I would drop whatever I was doing and watch them again.
Abyss, The
Adventures of Robin Hood
African Queen, The
Aladdin
Amadeus
Annie Hall
Apollo 13
Arsenic and Old Lace
Arthur
Author, Author
Back to the Future
Batman
Ben-Hur
Beverly Hills Cop
Birds, The
Blazing Saddles
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Casablanca
Chariots of Fire
Citizen Kane
Conan the Barbarian
Cool Hand Luke
Court Jester, The
Dirty Dozen, The
Dirty Harry
Dr. Strangelove
Duck Soup
Emperor’s New Groove, The
Fish Called Wanda, A
French Connection, The
Fugitive, The
General, The
Ghost
Ghostbusters
Godfather, The I & II
Gold Rush, The
Gone With the Wind
Good, the Bad and the Ugly, The
Graduate, The
Grease
Great Escape, The
Groundhog Day
Hard Day’s Night, A
Harry Potter series
High Noon
It’s a Wonderful Life
James Bond series
Jerry Maguire
JFK
Jurassic Park
Karate Kid, The
King and I, The
Koyaanisqatsi
LA Confidential
Lawrence of Arabia
Lethal Weapon
Lord of the Rings trilogy
Maltese Falcon, The
Mary Poppins
MASH
Matrix, The
Men in Black
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Notting Hill
Philadelphia Story, The
Pirates of the Caribbean
Planet of the Apes
Platoon
Poltergeist
Princess Bride, The
Pulp Fiction
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Road to Morocco (and Singapore, Utopia, Rio, Zanzibar, etc.)
Road Warrior, The
Searchers, The
Silverado
Singin’ In the Rain
Some Like it Hot
Sound of Music, The
Spiderman I and II
Stagecoach
Star Trek series
Star Wars trilogy
Take the Money and Run
Taxi Driver
Ten Commandments, The
Terminator I & II
This is Spinal Tap
Time Bandits
To Kill a Mockingbird
Total Recall
Toy Story I & II
True Grit
Unforgiven
Vertigo
Westworld
What’s Up, Doc?
Witness
Wizard of Oz
Working Girl
Update:
Because 100 is such an arbitrary number, here are a few more movies that would make my All-Time Best list.
The Sting
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Braveheart
Little Big Man
True Lies
Godzilla (the original)
Monster's Inc.
Giant
Guys and Dolls
The Quiet Man
Seabiscuit
2001 A Space Odyssey
Die Hard
The Breakfast Club
Apocalypse Now
Going My Way
An American in Paris
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Pink Panther series
Oh God!
Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness
Contact
Bowfinger
Omega Man
Crimson Tide
A better effort, in my opinion, is the American Film Institute’s 100 YEARS...100 MOVIES series.
Following is my personal list of the All-Time 100 Movies based on my obviously limited exposure to mostly American-made films of the past 40 years.
My only criteria for including movies on the list was that I have actually seen them in their entirety and if they were to come on TV right now the liklihood that I would drop whatever I was doing and watch them again.
Abyss, The
Adventures of Robin Hood
African Queen, The
Aladdin
Amadeus
Annie Hall
Apollo 13
Arsenic and Old Lace
Arthur
Author, Author
Back to the Future
Batman
Ben-Hur
Beverly Hills Cop
Birds, The
Blazing Saddles
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
Casablanca
Chariots of Fire
Citizen Kane
Conan the Barbarian
Cool Hand Luke
Court Jester, The
Dirty Dozen, The
Dirty Harry
Dr. Strangelove
Duck Soup
Emperor’s New Groove, The
Fish Called Wanda, A
French Connection, The
Fugitive, The
General, The
Ghost
Ghostbusters
Godfather, The I & II
Gold Rush, The
Gone With the Wind
Good, the Bad and the Ugly, The
Graduate, The
Grease
Great Escape, The
Groundhog Day
Hard Day’s Night, A
Harry Potter series
High Noon
It’s a Wonderful Life
James Bond series
Jerry Maguire
JFK
Jurassic Park
Karate Kid, The
King and I, The
Koyaanisqatsi
LA Confidential
Lawrence of Arabia
Lethal Weapon
Lord of the Rings trilogy
Maltese Falcon, The
Mary Poppins
MASH
Matrix, The
Men in Black
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Notting Hill
Philadelphia Story, The
Pirates of the Caribbean
Planet of the Apes
Platoon
Poltergeist
Princess Bride, The
Pulp Fiction
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Road to Morocco (and Singapore, Utopia, Rio, Zanzibar, etc.)
Road Warrior, The
Searchers, The
Silverado
Singin’ In the Rain
Some Like it Hot
Sound of Music, The
Spiderman I and II
Stagecoach
Star Trek series
Star Wars trilogy
Take the Money and Run
Taxi Driver
Ten Commandments, The
Terminator I & II
This is Spinal Tap
Time Bandits
To Kill a Mockingbird
Total Recall
Toy Story I & II
True Grit
Unforgiven
Vertigo
Westworld
What’s Up, Doc?
Witness
Wizard of Oz
Working Girl
Update:
Because 100 is such an arbitrary number, here are a few more movies that would make my All-Time Best list.
The Sting
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Braveheart
Little Big Man
True Lies
Godzilla (the original)
Monster's Inc.
Giant
Guys and Dolls
The Quiet Man
Seabiscuit
2001 A Space Odyssey
Die Hard
The Breakfast Club
Apocalypse Now
Going My Way
An American in Paris
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Pink Panther series
Oh God!
Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness
Contact
Bowfinger
Omega Man
Crimson Tide
A biased and misleading headline
After reading the New York Times report of the brutal treatment of two Afghan detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan in late 2002, I was curious to see how the story would be played in the local paper. Some local critics of the paper would have you believe that such a story would get major coverage in order to shed a poor light on the U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
But what we got instead was a severely truncated AP story (here is a slightly fuller version from another paper) buried on page 4A of Saturday's paper that gives only the barest details of the story surrounded by official pronouncements from military and White House spokesmen saying that such mistreatment of prisoners is never tolerated.
And whoever put this story in the local paper gave it one of the most outrageously misleading and biased headlines I think I have ever seen:
Military bristles at newspaper's abuse report:
New York Times tale alleges prisoners repeatedly were abused
So from this headline you first get the impression that the military is denying the published reports - which they are not since the report is simply relaying information from the military's own investigation of the event. Next, it gives the impression that the story is based on an investigation by the New York Times and not the military itself - which is clearly untrue. And to top it off, it tries to make the reader think the abuses may not really have happened - it is a "tale" by the NYTimes that "alleges" that there was abuse.
The story itslelf was also conveniently edited in the local paper so that someone reading only this version would not even learn that the taxi driver who was abused died as a result of his mistreatment or that his interrogators believed that he was innocent.
The paper would have done better to just close its eyes and ignore this story than to run something as shamelessly misleading and inaccurate as this piece.
Whoever edited this story and wrote that headline clearly has an agenda to push. That should make some of the paper's noisiest critics very happy. It means they are staring to win their battle to turn the local media into a propaganda mill that does little more than churn out fluff pieces that have been officially approved by the Bush administration.
Perhaps this is a reaction to the harsh criticism leveled at the media as a result of the sloppy Newsweek story on Koran desecration, but it is a major disservice to the readers.
But what we got instead was a severely truncated AP story (here is a slightly fuller version from another paper) buried on page 4A of Saturday's paper that gives only the barest details of the story surrounded by official pronouncements from military and White House spokesmen saying that such mistreatment of prisoners is never tolerated.
And whoever put this story in the local paper gave it one of the most outrageously misleading and biased headlines I think I have ever seen:
Military bristles at newspaper's abuse report:
New York Times tale alleges prisoners repeatedly were abused
So from this headline you first get the impression that the military is denying the published reports - which they are not since the report is simply relaying information from the military's own investigation of the event. Next, it gives the impression that the story is based on an investigation by the New York Times and not the military itself - which is clearly untrue. And to top it off, it tries to make the reader think the abuses may not really have happened - it is a "tale" by the NYTimes that "alleges" that there was abuse.
The story itslelf was also conveniently edited in the local paper so that someone reading only this version would not even learn that the taxi driver who was abused died as a result of his mistreatment or that his interrogators believed that he was innocent.
The paper would have done better to just close its eyes and ignore this story than to run something as shamelessly misleading and inaccurate as this piece.
Whoever edited this story and wrote that headline clearly has an agenda to push. That should make some of the paper's noisiest critics very happy. It means they are staring to win their battle to turn the local media into a propaganda mill that does little more than churn out fluff pieces that have been officially approved by the Bush administration.
Perhaps this is a reaction to the harsh criticism leveled at the media as a result of the sloppy Newsweek story on Koran desecration, but it is a major disservice to the readers.
Friday, May 20, 2005
We’re supposed to be the good guys
The New York Times has a report today based on a 2,000 page Army investigative report on prisoner abuses at the Bagram Collection Point in Afghanistan back in late 2002.
The picture it paints is truly horrific and brings to mind images of Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags and Vietnamese POW camps. Here is an excerpt:
Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.
The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.
Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.
"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"
At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.
"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.
Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.
When I hear about radical Islamists taking innocent people hostage and cutting their heads off on video I console myself in the thought that we are morally superior to that and would never stoop to such grusome and barbaric behavior. But then I read something like this and I have to wonder if we really deserve to consider ourselves morally superior.
The good news here is that the Army did conduct an investigation and seven people have been charged with abusing prisoners in this case. Does that mean everything is fine now and there are no more problems? I don’t know. I don’t understand how something like this could have happened in the first place. Why didn’t anybody stop it when it was happening? Aren’t we supposed to be the good guys here? Did 9/11 somehow give us the right to go around the world torturing people? Nobody deserves this kind of treatment ever, not even Osama bin Laden himself. It is morally repugnant and should be beneath us as a civilized nation.
The story goes on to say that many of the interrogators who were responsible for these atrocities went on later to work their craft at Abu Gharib. It seems incredible that we are having an argument about Koran desecration these past few days, as if the guards and interrogators involved in these crimes would have thought twice about it.
I know that many people will object to this story because it makes our military look bad and hurts morale. They may even deny the reports like they did with the Abu Gharib abuses - up until the point where those infamous pictures surfaced. But I think it is important that we be made fully aware of what happened. We need to have our collective noses rubbed in this or surely it will happen again and again. This wasn’t just a case of a few bad apples. It could have happened with anybody in that position and that is the scariest part. We lost part of our souls after 9/11 and we desperately need to regain it. You don’t get it back by seeking vengeance - this is what the radical Islamists preach. You get it back by taking the other route toward forgiveness and mercy.
The picture it paints is truly horrific and brings to mind images of Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags and Vietnamese POW camps. Here is an excerpt:
Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him.
The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.
Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.
"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"
At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.
"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.
Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.
When I hear about radical Islamists taking innocent people hostage and cutting their heads off on video I console myself in the thought that we are morally superior to that and would never stoop to such grusome and barbaric behavior. But then I read something like this and I have to wonder if we really deserve to consider ourselves morally superior.
The good news here is that the Army did conduct an investigation and seven people have been charged with abusing prisoners in this case. Does that mean everything is fine now and there are no more problems? I don’t know. I don’t understand how something like this could have happened in the first place. Why didn’t anybody stop it when it was happening? Aren’t we supposed to be the good guys here? Did 9/11 somehow give us the right to go around the world torturing people? Nobody deserves this kind of treatment ever, not even Osama bin Laden himself. It is morally repugnant and should be beneath us as a civilized nation.
The story goes on to say that many of the interrogators who were responsible for these atrocities went on later to work their craft at Abu Gharib. It seems incredible that we are having an argument about Koran desecration these past few days, as if the guards and interrogators involved in these crimes would have thought twice about it.
I know that many people will object to this story because it makes our military look bad and hurts morale. They may even deny the reports like they did with the Abu Gharib abuses - up until the point where those infamous pictures surfaced. But I think it is important that we be made fully aware of what happened. We need to have our collective noses rubbed in this or surely it will happen again and again. This wasn’t just a case of a few bad apples. It could have happened with anybody in that position and that is the scariest part. We lost part of our souls after 9/11 and we desperately need to regain it. You don’t get it back by seeking vengeance - this is what the radical Islamists preach. You get it back by taking the other route toward forgiveness and mercy.
Lions and Tigers and ...
My friend Robert at Beginner's Mind had an interesting visitor the other night.
It seems a hungry bear wandered up to his back porch (he lives in Vermont) and started snacking on his bird feeders.
I think he needs to just break down and put out a couple of bear feeders.
It seems a hungry bear wandered up to his back porch (he lives in Vermont) and started snacking on his bird feeders.
I think he needs to just break down and put out a couple of bear feeders.
There goes the neighborhood...
My friend Alamo City Commando has launched a new local blog called All Things Conservative where he promises to discuss all the hot topics of the day and foster intelligent debate between the left and the right. I'm sure the name is meant to be a nice homage to the best news program on the radio.
Commando has also taken this occasion to reveal his true identity! Check it out!
Commando has also taken this occasion to reveal his true identity! Check it out!
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Rules are for suckers
The Republican hegemony in Washington depends on bending, breaking and ignoring rules that have bound our democracy together these many years.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is a prime example of someone who sees rules as being non-binding when it comes to asserting his own authority.
Now the Republicans in the Senate are preparing to break the rules there in order to give President Bush an unprecedented 100 percent approval of all his judicial nominees. I mean, why settle for just 95 percent when you can break the rules and get whatever you want?
This article from the Christian Science Monitor explains the rules that will be broken if the Republicans pull the trigger on their “nuclear option.”
The debate revolves around three related provisions: the Constitution's advice and consent clause, the congressional rules clause, and Senate Rule V.
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says in part that the president shall have the power to nominate and appoint judges "by and with the advice and consent" of the Senate.
While the same clause requires a two-thirds Senate vote to ratify treaties, it sets no specific requirement for judicial confirmation.
That suggests that it takes a simple majority of 51 votes to confirm a judge, which has been the historic practice. But some legal analysts say that nothing in the Constitution prevents the Senate from setting a higher standard.
The Constitution also says in Article I, Section 5: "Each House [of Congress] may determine the rules of its proceedings." Senate rules permit members to engage in filibusters to stall judicial confirmation votes. Under Senate Rule XXII, even though only 51 votes are needed to confirm a nominee, it takes at least 60 votes to end a filibuster. In addition, the rule says any attempt to change a Senate rule requires the support of two-thirds of the senators "present and voting" (67 votes if all 100 senators are participating).
It is those higher vote requirements that are the intended target of the nuclear option. Under that option, the Republicans would use a majority vote (rather than 67 votes) to change the filibuster rule from 60 votes to 51 votes.
That would implicate Senate Rule V, which says that the Senate's rules shall continue from one Senate to the next "unless they are changed as provided in these rules."
Republicans say the combination of Rule V and open-ended Democratic filibusters of judges can result in unconstitutional entrenchment, rendering Rule V invalid. This is why some Republicans are calling it the "constitutional option." Democrats say the rules are clear and fair, and should not be unilaterally changed in the middle of a heated dispute.
So, summing up. The Republicans will disregard Senate Rule XXII and Rule V in order to change Senate rules with a simple majority vote because they think that anything less than 100 percent approval of all Bush judicial nominees is somehow unconstitutional.
But the real truth is that they just don’t think rules should ever apply to them.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is a prime example of someone who sees rules as being non-binding when it comes to asserting his own authority.
Now the Republicans in the Senate are preparing to break the rules there in order to give President Bush an unprecedented 100 percent approval of all his judicial nominees. I mean, why settle for just 95 percent when you can break the rules and get whatever you want?
This article from the Christian Science Monitor explains the rules that will be broken if the Republicans pull the trigger on their “nuclear option.”
The debate revolves around three related provisions: the Constitution's advice and consent clause, the congressional rules clause, and Senate Rule V.
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says in part that the president shall have the power to nominate and appoint judges "by and with the advice and consent" of the Senate.
While the same clause requires a two-thirds Senate vote to ratify treaties, it sets no specific requirement for judicial confirmation.
That suggests that it takes a simple majority of 51 votes to confirm a judge, which has been the historic practice. But some legal analysts say that nothing in the Constitution prevents the Senate from setting a higher standard.
The Constitution also says in Article I, Section 5: "Each House [of Congress] may determine the rules of its proceedings." Senate rules permit members to engage in filibusters to stall judicial confirmation votes. Under Senate Rule XXII, even though only 51 votes are needed to confirm a nominee, it takes at least 60 votes to end a filibuster. In addition, the rule says any attempt to change a Senate rule requires the support of two-thirds of the senators "present and voting" (67 votes if all 100 senators are participating).
It is those higher vote requirements that are the intended target of the nuclear option. Under that option, the Republicans would use a majority vote (rather than 67 votes) to change the filibuster rule from 60 votes to 51 votes.
That would implicate Senate Rule V, which says that the Senate's rules shall continue from one Senate to the next "unless they are changed as provided in these rules."
Republicans say the combination of Rule V and open-ended Democratic filibusters of judges can result in unconstitutional entrenchment, rendering Rule V invalid. This is why some Republicans are calling it the "constitutional option." Democrats say the rules are clear and fair, and should not be unilaterally changed in the middle of a heated dispute.
So, summing up. The Republicans will disregard Senate Rule XXII and Rule V in order to change Senate rules with a simple majority vote because they think that anything less than 100 percent approval of all Bush judicial nominees is somehow unconstitutional.
But the real truth is that they just don’t think rules should ever apply to them.
A sobering new assessment in Iraq
The only gauge that matters in determining how well things are going in Iraq is the one that will determine when we can bring our troops back home. Right now it is not looking so good.
American military commanders in Baghdad and Washington gave a sobering new assessment on Wednesday of the war in Iraq, adding to the mood of anxiety that prompted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to come to Baghdad last weekend to consult with the new government.
In interviews and briefings this week, some of the generals pulled back from recent suggestions, some by the same officers, that positive trends in Iraq could allow a major drawdown in the 138,000 American troops late this year or early in 2006. One officer suggested Wednesday that American military involvement could last "many years."
Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American officer in the Middle East, said in a briefing in Washington that one problem was the disappointing progress in developing Iraqi police units cohesive enough to mount an effective challenge to insurgents and allow American forces to begin stepping back from the fighting.
American military commanders in Baghdad and Washington gave a sobering new assessment on Wednesday of the war in Iraq, adding to the mood of anxiety that prompted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to come to Baghdad last weekend to consult with the new government.
In interviews and briefings this week, some of the generals pulled back from recent suggestions, some by the same officers, that positive trends in Iraq could allow a major drawdown in the 138,000 American troops late this year or early in 2006. One officer suggested Wednesday that American military involvement could last "many years."
Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American officer in the Middle East, said in a briefing in Washington that one problem was the disappointing progress in developing Iraqi police units cohesive enough to mount an effective challenge to insurgents and allow American forces to begin stepping back from the fighting.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Canceling Amy
CBS’ decision to cancel “Judging Amy” and “Joan of Arcadia” leaves me with just two shows that I watch regularly - “ER” and “Lost.”
A little over a year ago my viewing schedule looked like this:
Monday: None
Tuesday: Frasier; Judging Amy
Wednesday: Star Trek: Enterprise
Thursday: Friends; ER
Friday: Joan of Arcadia
Saturday: None
Sunday: None
Now all of those shows are defunct with the exception of “ER” which is probably in its next to last season.
Since then I’ve become a devoted fan of “Lost” and I may watch the “Friends” spinoff “Joey” on occasion, but not much else has changed.
The only new show I’ve heard about that I’m likely to check out next season is the new “Kolchak” series on ABC but I won’t have high hopes for it. I loved the old Kolchak: The Night Stalker series when I was a kid. It was a precursor to X-Files and starred an ink-stained wretch of a reporter who was always in trouble with his editors and the police. I imagine for the new series they will update the character to be a TV news reporter since that is the only kind people are familiar with anymore. But I will reserve judgment until I see it.
As for “Judging Amy,” at least this season is on an arc that could make for a good end to the series. They have had some story lines lately that have been irritating like having Amy dump her latest boyfriend (again) after suffering a miscarriage. Amy is currently considering leaving the bench to pursue a U.S. Senate seat. Maybe after the series is cancelled she can make guest appearances on “West Wing.” Also, they may finally let Amy’s mom, played by Tyne Daly, be happy for once and let her get married to the gardener played by Cheech Marin. I really like the characters that Cheech has been playing recently on this show and the old “Nash Bridges” show that I used to watch.
A little over a year ago my viewing schedule looked like this:
Monday: None
Tuesday: Frasier; Judging Amy
Wednesday: Star Trek: Enterprise
Thursday: Friends; ER
Friday: Joan of Arcadia
Saturday: None
Sunday: None
Now all of those shows are defunct with the exception of “ER” which is probably in its next to last season.
Since then I’ve become a devoted fan of “Lost” and I may watch the “Friends” spinoff “Joey” on occasion, but not much else has changed.
The only new show I’ve heard about that I’m likely to check out next season is the new “Kolchak” series on ABC but I won’t have high hopes for it. I loved the old Kolchak: The Night Stalker series when I was a kid. It was a precursor to X-Files and starred an ink-stained wretch of a reporter who was always in trouble with his editors and the police. I imagine for the new series they will update the character to be a TV news reporter since that is the only kind people are familiar with anymore. But I will reserve judgment until I see it.
As for “Judging Amy,” at least this season is on an arc that could make for a good end to the series. They have had some story lines lately that have been irritating like having Amy dump her latest boyfriend (again) after suffering a miscarriage. Amy is currently considering leaving the bench to pursue a U.S. Senate seat. Maybe after the series is cancelled she can make guest appearances on “West Wing.” Also, they may finally let Amy’s mom, played by Tyne Daly, be happy for once and let her get married to the gardener played by Cheech Marin. I really like the characters that Cheech has been playing recently on this show and the old “Nash Bridges” show that I used to watch.
Jane Fonda: Banned in Kentucky!
The highest grossing film in America right now is Monster-in-Law which I have zero interest in ever seeing.
But now it has the distinction of being banned in America - or at least at one theater in Kentucky.
The owner of two Kentucky theaters has refused to show the new Jane Fonda film "Monster-in-Law" because of the activist role the actress took during the Vietnam War....
"I think when people do something, they need to be held responsible for their actions," says Ike Boutwell, who trained pilots during the Vietnam War....
Boutwell also banned previous Jane Fonda films, as well as Michael Moore's film, "Fahrenheit 9/11."
What a moroon! This guy would fit in well over in China where banning films is practicallly an industry in itself.
But now it has the distinction of being banned in America - or at least at one theater in Kentucky.
The owner of two Kentucky theaters has refused to show the new Jane Fonda film "Monster-in-Law" because of the activist role the actress took during the Vietnam War....
"I think when people do something, they need to be held responsible for their actions," says Ike Boutwell, who trained pilots during the Vietnam War....
Boutwell also banned previous Jane Fonda films, as well as Michael Moore's film, "Fahrenheit 9/11."
What a moroon! This guy would fit in well over in China where banning films is practicallly an industry in itself.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Bill Moyers responds
Bill Moyers has stepped out of retirement briefly to respond to the right-wing campaign to turn PBS into a clone of Fox News.
“...news is what people want to keep hidden, and everything else is publicity.... investigative journalism could not be a collaboration between the journalist and the subject. Objectivity was not satisfied by two opposing people offering competing opinions, leaving the viewer to split the difference. I came to believe that objective journalism means describing the object being reported on, including the little fibs and fantasies, as well as the big lie of people in power.
In no way – in no way does this permit journalists to make accusations and allegations. It means, instead, making sure that your reporting and your conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence.
This is always hard to do, but it’s never been harder. Without a trace of irony, the powers that be have appropriated the Newspeak vernacular of George Orwell’s 1984. They give us a program vowing no child will be left behind, while cutting funds for educating disadvantaged children; they give us legislation cheerily calling for clear skies and healthy forests that give us neither, while turning over our public lands to the energy industry. In Orwell’s 1984 the character Syme, one of the writers of that totalitarian society’s dictionary, explains to the protagonist, Winston, “Don’t you see? Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050 at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we’re having right now. The whole climate of thought,” he said, “will be different. In fact, there will be no thought as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking, not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
Hear me: an unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions and be skeptical. And just as a democracy can die of too many lies, that kind of orthodoxy can kill us, too.”
Powerful stuff. Worth reading the whole thing.
“...news is what people want to keep hidden, and everything else is publicity.... investigative journalism could not be a collaboration between the journalist and the subject. Objectivity was not satisfied by two opposing people offering competing opinions, leaving the viewer to split the difference. I came to believe that objective journalism means describing the object being reported on, including the little fibs and fantasies, as well as the big lie of people in power.
In no way – in no way does this permit journalists to make accusations and allegations. It means, instead, making sure that your reporting and your conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence.
This is always hard to do, but it’s never been harder. Without a trace of irony, the powers that be have appropriated the Newspeak vernacular of George Orwell’s 1984. They give us a program vowing no child will be left behind, while cutting funds for educating disadvantaged children; they give us legislation cheerily calling for clear skies and healthy forests that give us neither, while turning over our public lands to the energy industry. In Orwell’s 1984 the character Syme, one of the writers of that totalitarian society’s dictionary, explains to the protagonist, Winston, “Don’t you see? Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050 at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we’re having right now. The whole climate of thought,” he said, “will be different. In fact, there will be no thought as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking, not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
Hear me: an unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions and be skeptical. And just as a democracy can die of too many lies, that kind of orthodoxy can kill us, too.”
Powerful stuff. Worth reading the whole thing.
Oil-for-Food complicity
After all the right-wing carping about the United Nations oil for food program, it now looks like the Bush administration was every bit as complicit in providing kickbacks to Saddam Hussein as any of the other nations that have been tarred by this scandal.
The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.
The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.
Kevin Drum sums it up well saying “None of this excuses the sordid behavior of UN officials in all this, but it does show that they were hardly acting alone. Every country on the Security Council played a part in this scandal, including us.”
The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.
The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.
Kevin Drum sums it up well saying “None of this excuses the sordid behavior of UN officials in all this, but it does show that they were hardly acting alone. Every country on the Security Council played a part in this scandal, including us.”
Monday, May 16, 2005
Comic influences
Ever wonder who or what shaped your sense of humor? Not counting family and friends - who would no doubt top the list of everyone’s comic influences - who are the people who most influenced what you find funny today? Everyone has a slightly different sense of humor that is almost as distinct as a fingerprint. What makes some people guffaw at pie-in-the-face slapstick while others quietly smirk at highbrow satire?
I’ve compiled a list of the 35 top comic influences on my sense of humor. They are in no particular order other than how quickly they came to mind, which in itself may be some indication.
Steve Martin - Before the movies and books and plays and New Yorker essays, I was a big Steve Martin fan having practically memorized his Wild and Crazy Guy comedy album in junior high school.
Robin Williams - First there was Mork. Then there was the “Reality... What a Concept” comedy album. He could have stopped there and earned his spot on the list.
Richard Pryor - His double album “Wanted - Richard Pryor” was the other comedy record along with the above two that dominated my high school years.
Groucho Marx and the Marx Brothers - The Rosetta Stone of comedy in America influencing everyone from Bugs Bunny to Alan Alda’s Hawkeye Pierce character on MASH.
Bob Hope and Bing Crosby - The Road pictures established the kind of wry, wink-at-the-camera type of comedy that continues to influence comedy films to this day.
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy - Classic slapstick by two of the masters of the genre.
Woody Allen - I like his early movies best - “Take the Money and Run”, “Bananas”, “Sleeper” but also appreciate his later work.
Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck - My two favorites of the Warner Brothers stable.
Donald Duck and Goofy - Ditto with Disney.
Charlie Chaplin - I saw “The Gold Rush” as part of a film appreciation class in college and have apprecidated Chaplin ever since.
Buster Keaton - The same with “The General”.
The Three Stooges - They took slapstick humor to a new level that has never been equalled.
Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, John Belushi, Gilda Radner - The core of the original Saturday Night Live team.
Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis - I haven’t seen all of their movies yet but I intend to.
Eddie Murphy - Dominant comedian of the 1980s with “48 Hours” and “Beverly Hills Cop”
George Burns and Gracie Allen - I snag copies of their TV and radio shows at every opportunity.
Bud Abbott and Lou Costello - The “Who’s On First” routine would have been enough to merit entry.
Jack Benny - Armed Robber: “You’re money or you’re life!” (long pause) Benny: “I’m thinking it over.”
Danny Kaye - “The Court Jester” is one of my all time favorite movies along with “The Inspector General”
Bill Cosby - From Fat Albert to the Cosby Show he never stopped being wise and funny.
George Carlin - I don’t usually find foul language funny, but when George Carlin compiles a list of the Things You Can’t Say on Television you can’t help but laugh.
Johnny Carson and Jay Leno - Their topical late-night routines have defined what is funny for most Americans these past several decades.
Billy Crystal - “Running Scared” “When Harry Met Sally” “City Slickers” and his Academy Award hosting all helped cement his place on the list.
Jim Carrey - Not always my style of humor, but no denying his vast influence on comedy today.
Weird Al Yankovic - The thing I miss most about MTV music videos are his parodies of current hits. In fact, in many cases I enjoy his parody version of songs better than the original.
Lucille Ball - I grew up watching her in re-runs.
Carol Burnett - The Carol Burnett Show was a staple of my life growing up.
Monty Python - See, the British really do have a sense of humor.
Benny Hill - And a risque one, at that.
Tim Conway and Don Knotts - I wish they had done more Apple Dumpling Gang-type movies together.
Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong - Comic geniuses of the stoned age.
Peter Sellers - Pink Panther and Dr. Strangelove - quite a career span.
Red Skelton - Set the standard for comedy shows on television.
The Smothers Brothers - Yo-Yo Man!
Mel Brooks - “Blazing Saddles” is one of the funniest films of all-time.
UPDATE
Mark Harden suggests I consider adding Andy Kaufman. I do not disagree. Although I was not a regular viewer of Taxi in its hey day, I have seen enough to know that Kaufman was a major talent behind the scenes.
Some further additions. I should not overlook the funny pages as a constant source of my sense of humor and some of the folks who made it so:
Charles Schulz - Peanuts
Berke Breathed - Bloom County, Opus
Scott Adams - Dilbert
Gary Larson - The Far Side
Bill Watterson - Calvin and Hobbes
Bill Amend - Fox Trot
Also, it would have been difficult for anyone from my generation to have avoided being influenced for good or bad by
Mad Magazine
and
Cracked Mazagine
And let’s not forget Jim Henson and Frank Oz, the creators of Sesame Street and The Muppet Show.
D’Oh! I almost forgot The Simpsons!
I’ve compiled a list of the 35 top comic influences on my sense of humor. They are in no particular order other than how quickly they came to mind, which in itself may be some indication.
Steve Martin - Before the movies and books and plays and New Yorker essays, I was a big Steve Martin fan having practically memorized his Wild and Crazy Guy comedy album in junior high school.
Robin Williams - First there was Mork. Then there was the “Reality... What a Concept” comedy album. He could have stopped there and earned his spot on the list.
Richard Pryor - His double album “Wanted - Richard Pryor” was the other comedy record along with the above two that dominated my high school years.
Groucho Marx and the Marx Brothers - The Rosetta Stone of comedy in America influencing everyone from Bugs Bunny to Alan Alda’s Hawkeye Pierce character on MASH.
Bob Hope and Bing Crosby - The Road pictures established the kind of wry, wink-at-the-camera type of comedy that continues to influence comedy films to this day.
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy - Classic slapstick by two of the masters of the genre.
Woody Allen - I like his early movies best - “Take the Money and Run”, “Bananas”, “Sleeper” but also appreciate his later work.
Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck - My two favorites of the Warner Brothers stable.
Donald Duck and Goofy - Ditto with Disney.
Charlie Chaplin - I saw “The Gold Rush” as part of a film appreciation class in college and have apprecidated Chaplin ever since.
Buster Keaton - The same with “The General”.
The Three Stooges - They took slapstick humor to a new level that has never been equalled.
Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, John Belushi, Gilda Radner - The core of the original Saturday Night Live team.
Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis - I haven’t seen all of their movies yet but I intend to.
Eddie Murphy - Dominant comedian of the 1980s with “48 Hours” and “Beverly Hills Cop”
George Burns and Gracie Allen - I snag copies of their TV and radio shows at every opportunity.
Bud Abbott and Lou Costello - The “Who’s On First” routine would have been enough to merit entry.
Jack Benny - Armed Robber: “You’re money or you’re life!” (long pause) Benny: “I’m thinking it over.”
Danny Kaye - “The Court Jester” is one of my all time favorite movies along with “The Inspector General”
Bill Cosby - From Fat Albert to the Cosby Show he never stopped being wise and funny.
George Carlin - I don’t usually find foul language funny, but when George Carlin compiles a list of the Things You Can’t Say on Television you can’t help but laugh.
Johnny Carson and Jay Leno - Their topical late-night routines have defined what is funny for most Americans these past several decades.
Billy Crystal - “Running Scared” “When Harry Met Sally” “City Slickers” and his Academy Award hosting all helped cement his place on the list.
Jim Carrey - Not always my style of humor, but no denying his vast influence on comedy today.
Weird Al Yankovic - The thing I miss most about MTV music videos are his parodies of current hits. In fact, in many cases I enjoy his parody version of songs better than the original.
Lucille Ball - I grew up watching her in re-runs.
Carol Burnett - The Carol Burnett Show was a staple of my life growing up.
Monty Python - See, the British really do have a sense of humor.
Benny Hill - And a risque one, at that.
Tim Conway and Don Knotts - I wish they had done more Apple Dumpling Gang-type movies together.
Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong - Comic geniuses of the stoned age.
Peter Sellers - Pink Panther and Dr. Strangelove - quite a career span.
Red Skelton - Set the standard for comedy shows on television.
The Smothers Brothers - Yo-Yo Man!
Mel Brooks - “Blazing Saddles” is one of the funniest films of all-time.
UPDATE
Mark Harden suggests I consider adding Andy Kaufman. I do not disagree. Although I was not a regular viewer of Taxi in its hey day, I have seen enough to know that Kaufman was a major talent behind the scenes.
Some further additions. I should not overlook the funny pages as a constant source of my sense of humor and some of the folks who made it so:
Charles Schulz - Peanuts
Berke Breathed - Bloom County, Opus
Scott Adams - Dilbert
Gary Larson - The Far Side
Bill Watterson - Calvin and Hobbes
Bill Amend - Fox Trot
Also, it would have been difficult for anyone from my generation to have avoided being influenced for good or bad by
Mad Magazine
and
Cracked Mazagine
And let’s not forget Jim Henson and Frank Oz, the creators of Sesame Street and The Muppet Show.
D’Oh! I almost forgot The Simpsons!
Friday, May 13, 2005
The Governor’s Race
Former Congressman Chris Bell had a conference call with a bunch of Democratic and progressive bloggers the other day. Charles Kuffner has the details and Sean-Paul live blogged the event at The Agonist.
While I’m glad to see there is still some life in the Party, I can’t say I am all that optimistic about the Democrats’ chances in the next governor’s race. Gov. Rick Perry would seem to be in bigger danger of being knocked off in the Republican primary than losing to a Democratic challenger next year. U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison would seem to be the biggest threat to Perry with Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn serving more as a minor irritant. The big question is whether Hutchison would really want to give up her Senate seat for the governor’s mansion unless she has aspirations of making a presidential bid at some point in the future.
Perry is not really a bad guy. Let’s just say he could be much worse. And he is the first Texas Aggie to take the top job in Austin which should count for something in my book. However, I’ve always felt that he was the wrong Aggie to take that job. It was a role that should have gone to John Sharp, the former Texas Comptroller who lost a close race to Perry for Lt. Gov. a few years ago. Partisanship aside, I don’t think there is any question that Sharp was the superior politician in that race and Texas lost a lot when it went the wrong way. Perry and Sharp were both in the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M at the same time. Perry was a Yell Leader while Sharp was Student Body President.
I thought John Sharp should have ran against Perry the last time instead of Tony Sanchez, but the statewide appeal of a wealthy Hispanic candidate was too much for the Democrats to pass up. I don’t know if Sharp is seriously considering a race this time either. Chris Bell is apparently making the most noise about a potential candidacy but I just can’t see him winning the race in this political environment. As a one-term Congressman from Houston who lost his seat as a result of Tom DeLay’s re-redistricting coup, I think he will have a difficult time raising money and building name recognition. Sharp, at least, already has some name recognition and some established credentials as a statewide officeholder.
Of course I would love to see Chris Bell or any Democrat win the governor’s race this next time around, but I can’t help but feel a bit put off by the whole thing. After seeing Ann Richards, Garry Mauro and the hapless Tony Sanchez all go down to ignomious defeat in recent years, I am very tempted to just throw my support this time to Kinky Friedman. In fact, maybe the Democrats might consider cross-endorsing Kinky this time while they continue to rebuild the party at the grassroots level for the next few years.
While I’m glad to see there is still some life in the Party, I can’t say I am all that optimistic about the Democrats’ chances in the next governor’s race. Gov. Rick Perry would seem to be in bigger danger of being knocked off in the Republican primary than losing to a Democratic challenger next year. U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison would seem to be the biggest threat to Perry with Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn serving more as a minor irritant. The big question is whether Hutchison would really want to give up her Senate seat for the governor’s mansion unless she has aspirations of making a presidential bid at some point in the future.
Perry is not really a bad guy. Let’s just say he could be much worse. And he is the first Texas Aggie to take the top job in Austin which should count for something in my book. However, I’ve always felt that he was the wrong Aggie to take that job. It was a role that should have gone to John Sharp, the former Texas Comptroller who lost a close race to Perry for Lt. Gov. a few years ago. Partisanship aside, I don’t think there is any question that Sharp was the superior politician in that race and Texas lost a lot when it went the wrong way. Perry and Sharp were both in the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M at the same time. Perry was a Yell Leader while Sharp was Student Body President.
I thought John Sharp should have ran against Perry the last time instead of Tony Sanchez, but the statewide appeal of a wealthy Hispanic candidate was too much for the Democrats to pass up. I don’t know if Sharp is seriously considering a race this time either. Chris Bell is apparently making the most noise about a potential candidacy but I just can’t see him winning the race in this political environment. As a one-term Congressman from Houston who lost his seat as a result of Tom DeLay’s re-redistricting coup, I think he will have a difficult time raising money and building name recognition. Sharp, at least, already has some name recognition and some established credentials as a statewide officeholder.
Of course I would love to see Chris Bell or any Democrat win the governor’s race this next time around, but I can’t help but feel a bit put off by the whole thing. After seeing Ann Richards, Garry Mauro and the hapless Tony Sanchez all go down to ignomious defeat in recent years, I am very tempted to just throw my support this time to Kinky Friedman. In fact, maybe the Democrats might consider cross-endorsing Kinky this time while they continue to rebuild the party at the grassroots level for the next few years.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Nobody said it would be "quick and easy"
Oh, is that so?
My friend Alamo City Commando is doing Herculean work to try and put a postive spin on the quagmire in Iraq, where a neverending string of bombings have brought daily reports of new mass casualties.
But when he made the statement that “nobody said it would be quick and easy,” he was either being a bit too literal or has forgotten a few things that happened more than two years ago.
So lets take a step back in history and meet a few “nobodies.”
Ken Adelman, former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2002:
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.
Richard Perle, former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, in a PBS interview July 11, 2002:
"Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991."
"But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy on Feb. 7, 2003: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters on March 4, 2003: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. ... Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.
Vice President Dick Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press on March 16, 2003: "I think it will go relatively quickly, ... (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard ... are likely to step aside."
This administration went into Iraq totally unprepared for a multi-year conflict that still has no end in sight. They may not have used the words “quick and easy,” but that is the kind of operation they prepared for.
My friend Alamo City Commando is doing Herculean work to try and put a postive spin on the quagmire in Iraq, where a neverending string of bombings have brought daily reports of new mass casualties.
But when he made the statement that “nobody said it would be quick and easy,” he was either being a bit too literal or has forgotten a few things that happened more than two years ago.
So lets take a step back in history and meet a few “nobodies.”
Ken Adelman, former U.N. ambassador, in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2002:
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps.
Richard Perle, former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, in a PBS interview July 11, 2002:
"Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991."
"But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy on Feb. 7, 2003: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters on March 4, 2003: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. ... Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.
Vice President Dick Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press on March 16, 2003: "I think it will go relatively quickly, ... (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard ... are likely to step aside."
This administration went into Iraq totally unprepared for a multi-year conflict that still has no end in sight. They may not have used the words “quick and easy,” but that is the kind of operation they prepared for.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Summer Movie Glut
Just finished going through the Summer Movies section from this Sunday’s New York Times and my head is still spinning.
Lots of interesting films coming out which I would consider seeing. Whether I would ever actually get around to seeing them is an entirely different story. My movie watching these days is pretty much relegated to films I pick up in the discount bin at Hollywood Video, and even then it takes awhile before I find the time to actually sit down and watch them. The last film I saw in a theater was National Treasure only because we happened to have grandparents available for babysitting duty that weekend. My little boy is 20 months old and not ready for prime-time movie watching yet.
Nevertheless, we still make special exceptions for some movies and the latest Star Wars installment will most likely fall into that category. And while I may not see them anytime soon here are some other movies that have caught my interest on first glance:
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: Read this series by Douglas Adams when I was in high school. Not expecting anything big here. If it as at least as good as the Star Trek spook Galaxy Quest I will be happy.
Kingdom of Heaven: I still haven’t seen Troy or Alexander so this one will just have to get in line. The fact that Ridley (Gladiator) Scott is directing is a good sign and Ebert and Roeper gave it thumbs up.
Madagascar: The latest computer-animated cartoon (the only kind there is now) from Dreamworks. I wasn’t all that impressed with Ice Age but I’m always a sucker for these films so I’ll probably see it eventually.
Cinderella Man: Russell Crowe and Renee Zellwegger star in the latest movie from the talented Ron Howard. How can it miss?
Batman Begins: Trying to resurrect the Batman franchise by going back to its roots (The same tack they will eventually take with Star Trek). Directed by Christopher Nolan who did the weird thriller Memento should add some needed darkness to the franchise.
Bewitched: Starring Nicole Kidman and Will Ferrell (who seems to be everywhere these days). I’ll probably get around to seeing this one after I finally see the Flintstones movie and the Beverly Hillbillies movie (i.e. never).
Dukes of Hazzard: This one will be hard to resist with Burt Reynolds and Willie Nelson in key supporting roles. The TV series was a big hit when I was in high school. Then again, I still haven’t seen the Starsky and Hutch movie either so it might be awhile before I see this one.
Herbie: Fully Loaded: My wife loves the old Herbie movies so we will be sure to catch this Lindsey Lohan remake eventually. Besides that they did a pretty good job remaking Freaky Friday so there is hope that it will be decent.
War of the Worlds: The last time Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise teamed up we got the excellent Minority Report. So I am expecting good things here as well.
Fantastic Four: It could be very good like Spiderman, very bad like the Incredible Hulk or just mediocre like Daredevil.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: I like Tim Burton movies and I’m a big fan of Johnny Depp so I have high anticipation for this project.
The Brothers Grimm: Terry Gilliam of Monty Python fame is always coming up with interesting films like Brazil and Twelve Monkeys so this one has potential. Plus Matt Damon is pretty good about picking his films.
The Pink Panther: I’ve loved Steve Martin since his Wild and Crazy Guy days although he hasn’t always picked good films to star in. I also love the Pink Panther series and own the collection on DVD so this could be a big disappointment.
Lots of interesting films coming out which I would consider seeing. Whether I would ever actually get around to seeing them is an entirely different story. My movie watching these days is pretty much relegated to films I pick up in the discount bin at Hollywood Video, and even then it takes awhile before I find the time to actually sit down and watch them. The last film I saw in a theater was National Treasure only because we happened to have grandparents available for babysitting duty that weekend. My little boy is 20 months old and not ready for prime-time movie watching yet.
Nevertheless, we still make special exceptions for some movies and the latest Star Wars installment will most likely fall into that category. And while I may not see them anytime soon here are some other movies that have caught my interest on first glance:
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: Read this series by Douglas Adams when I was in high school. Not expecting anything big here. If it as at least as good as the Star Trek spook Galaxy Quest I will be happy.
Kingdom of Heaven: I still haven’t seen Troy or Alexander so this one will just have to get in line. The fact that Ridley (Gladiator) Scott is directing is a good sign and Ebert and Roeper gave it thumbs up.
Madagascar: The latest computer-animated cartoon (the only kind there is now) from Dreamworks. I wasn’t all that impressed with Ice Age but I’m always a sucker for these films so I’ll probably see it eventually.
Cinderella Man: Russell Crowe and Renee Zellwegger star in the latest movie from the talented Ron Howard. How can it miss?
Batman Begins: Trying to resurrect the Batman franchise by going back to its roots (The same tack they will eventually take with Star Trek). Directed by Christopher Nolan who did the weird thriller Memento should add some needed darkness to the franchise.
Bewitched: Starring Nicole Kidman and Will Ferrell (who seems to be everywhere these days). I’ll probably get around to seeing this one after I finally see the Flintstones movie and the Beverly Hillbillies movie (i.e. never).
Dukes of Hazzard: This one will be hard to resist with Burt Reynolds and Willie Nelson in key supporting roles. The TV series was a big hit when I was in high school. Then again, I still haven’t seen the Starsky and Hutch movie either so it might be awhile before I see this one.
Herbie: Fully Loaded: My wife loves the old Herbie movies so we will be sure to catch this Lindsey Lohan remake eventually. Besides that they did a pretty good job remaking Freaky Friday so there is hope that it will be decent.
War of the Worlds: The last time Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise teamed up we got the excellent Minority Report. So I am expecting good things here as well.
Fantastic Four: It could be very good like Spiderman, very bad like the Incredible Hulk or just mediocre like Daredevil.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: I like Tim Burton movies and I’m a big fan of Johnny Depp so I have high anticipation for this project.
The Brothers Grimm: Terry Gilliam of Monty Python fame is always coming up with interesting films like Brazil and Twelve Monkeys so this one has potential. Plus Matt Damon is pretty good about picking his films.
The Pink Panther: I’ve loved Steve Martin since his Wild and Crazy Guy days although he hasn’t always picked good films to star in. I also love the Pink Panther series and own the collection on DVD so this could be a big disappointment.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Star Trek down for the count
The last episode of Enterprise, the fifth Star Trek series, is set to air next week and after that there will be no new Star Treks in the space dock for the first time in 18 years.
Both the New York Times and the Washington Post have published their obituaries for the long running series.
UPN pulled the plug on Enterprise after just four seasons, which is still better than the three seasons that NBC grudgingly allotted to the original Star Trek series, but it falls far short of the standard seven-season run established by ST: The Next Generation, ST: Deep Space Nine and ST: Voyager.
Combine that with the measly $40 million box office take of the last Star Trek movie “Insurrection”, which cost more than $100 million to produce (the first “bomb” of the movie franchise) and we find the Star Trek universe suddenly run aground with no immediate prospects for the near-term future.
Well, I am disappointed but not surprised. Enterprise had its faults and weak spots, but it was still better than most of the dreck that passes for entertainment on TV today. And I also would not count the franchise out just yet. You can bet there will be another movie out eventually and I’d bet another TV series will come along as well. This will be a temporary hiatus.
Both the New York Times and the Washington Post have published their obituaries for the long running series.
UPN pulled the plug on Enterprise after just four seasons, which is still better than the three seasons that NBC grudgingly allotted to the original Star Trek series, but it falls far short of the standard seven-season run established by ST: The Next Generation, ST: Deep Space Nine and ST: Voyager.
Combine that with the measly $40 million box office take of the last Star Trek movie “Insurrection”, which cost more than $100 million to produce (the first “bomb” of the movie franchise) and we find the Star Trek universe suddenly run aground with no immediate prospects for the near-term future.
Well, I am disappointed but not surprised. Enterprise had its faults and weak spots, but it was still better than most of the dreck that passes for entertainment on TV today. And I also would not count the franchise out just yet. You can bet there will be another movie out eventually and I’d bet another TV series will come along as well. This will be a temporary hiatus.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Investigating Henry Cisneros
Ten years and $21 million later the independent counsel investigation of former San Antonio Mayor and HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros is still trucking right along. This in spite of the fact that its chief target plead guilty to the crime being investigated six years ago and paid a $10,000 fine, and was subsequently pardoned four years ago.
As recently as last year, David Barrett’s ongoing probe of Henry Cisneros billed taxpayers $1.26 million during the six months ending Sept. 30, 2004. The never-ending investigation has been spending about $2 million annually.
Now, finally, the U.S. Senate is planning to shutoff the money spigot for this fiasco.
The Senate agreed Thursday to cut off money to the decade-long investigation of former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros, which has cost nearly $21 million.
``This is the most unbelievable waste of taxpayers money I've ever seen,'' said Sen. Byron Dorgan, who sponsored the bill to pull the plug. ``It's been 10 years since the investigation started, six years since the subject of the investigation pleaded guilty and four years since the subject was pardoned.''
But rather than applauding this fiscally conservative effort to save taxpayers’ money, Republicans are suddenly squealing about a cover-up. They insist that Barrett has spent all this time investigating an unrelated charge of corruption and political manipulation within the IRS.
It seems that some right-wing critics of the Clinton administration were audited at some point in the past - proof of a vile conspiracy to intimidate them and shut them up! (Too bad it apparently didn’t work.)
They also whine that the reason the investigation has taken this long is because Cisneros has insisted on defending himself with court appeals!! The nerve!!!!
As the Wall Street Journal noted in an April 22 editorial, “any blame for this delay lies mainly with Mr. Cisneros’ lawyers at Williams and Connolly, who have filed more than 190 motions and appeals; one single appeal took some 18 months to deal with.
Perhaps the appeals have been holding up Barrett’s investigation because they actually have some merit? Nah! I’m sure it must be liberal judges trying to shield the Clinton’s and keep their grand liberal conspiracy from being uncovered. I’m sure Barrett only needs a few more years and several million more dollars to wrap things up.
As recently as last year, David Barrett’s ongoing probe of Henry Cisneros billed taxpayers $1.26 million during the six months ending Sept. 30, 2004. The never-ending investigation has been spending about $2 million annually.
Now, finally, the U.S. Senate is planning to shutoff the money spigot for this fiasco.
The Senate agreed Thursday to cut off money to the decade-long investigation of former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros, which has cost nearly $21 million.
``This is the most unbelievable waste of taxpayers money I've ever seen,'' said Sen. Byron Dorgan, who sponsored the bill to pull the plug. ``It's been 10 years since the investigation started, six years since the subject of the investigation pleaded guilty and four years since the subject was pardoned.''
But rather than applauding this fiscally conservative effort to save taxpayers’ money, Republicans are suddenly squealing about a cover-up. They insist that Barrett has spent all this time investigating an unrelated charge of corruption and political manipulation within the IRS.
It seems that some right-wing critics of the Clinton administration were audited at some point in the past - proof of a vile conspiracy to intimidate them and shut them up! (Too bad it apparently didn’t work.)
They also whine that the reason the investigation has taken this long is because Cisneros has insisted on defending himself with court appeals!! The nerve!!!!
As the Wall Street Journal noted in an April 22 editorial, “any blame for this delay lies mainly with Mr. Cisneros’ lawyers at Williams and Connolly, who have filed more than 190 motions and appeals; one single appeal took some 18 months to deal with.
Perhaps the appeals have been holding up Barrett’s investigation because they actually have some merit? Nah! I’m sure it must be liberal judges trying to shield the Clinton’s and keep their grand liberal conspiracy from being uncovered. I’m sure Barrett only needs a few more years and several million more dollars to wrap things up.
The myth of liberal bias at PBS
So where are all the liberal advocacy programs on PBS? If you listen to conservatives rant about how liberal public television is you might assume the programming is chock full of liberal advocacy programs. But where are they?
Someone please check out the programming schedule at KLRN and show me where they are.
Where is “This Week with Noam Chomsky” or “The Nation Magazine Editorial Roundtable” or “Women’s Issues with Gloria Steinem and Barbara Ehrenreich” or “The Nightly Labor Report”?
These programs don’t exist, obviously. So what shows are considered so liberal that they constantly excite conservatives into a frenzy of media bashing? The best that liberals had was the investigative news program NOW with Bill Moyers, which has now been effectively neutralized by the CPB’s Republican activist chairman.
I almost conceded that the Tavis Smiley show might qualify, but then I looked at his guest lineup for the week:
Rosanna Arquette; Goldie Hawn, Martin Short, Henry Winkler...
This isn’t a liberal advocacy show, it’s a celebrity interview program.
The one politician in the lineup is Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. Real biased programming there.
Compare that to the new Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered program which is featuring an interview this week with the teletubby-bashing religious right icon James Dobson.
Or The Journal Editorial Report. There is no comparison.
This may not make PBS a conservative media bastion, but it goes a long way to dispel the myth that PBS is the liberal equivalent of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
Someone please check out the programming schedule at KLRN and show me where they are.
Where is “This Week with Noam Chomsky” or “The Nation Magazine Editorial Roundtable” or “Women’s Issues with Gloria Steinem and Barbara Ehrenreich” or “The Nightly Labor Report”?
These programs don’t exist, obviously. So what shows are considered so liberal that they constantly excite conservatives into a frenzy of media bashing? The best that liberals had was the investigative news program NOW with Bill Moyers, which has now been effectively neutralized by the CPB’s Republican activist chairman.
I almost conceded that the Tavis Smiley show might qualify, but then I looked at his guest lineup for the week:
Rosanna Arquette; Goldie Hawn, Martin Short, Henry Winkler...
This isn’t a liberal advocacy show, it’s a celebrity interview program.
The one politician in the lineup is Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. Real biased programming there.
Compare that to the new Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered program which is featuring an interview this week with the teletubby-bashing religious right icon James Dobson.
Or The Journal Editorial Report. There is no comparison.
This may not make PBS a conservative media bastion, but it goes a long way to dispel the myth that PBS is the liberal equivalent of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)