I was getting upset recently when I kept seeing businesses all over town that were still flying their flags at half-mast. I figured the flags would have been raised after Reagan's funeral was over. When they were not I suspected some folks of making a political statement. ("We liked Reagan so much we are going to leave our flags at half-mast longer than anyone else", or something like that.)
Then I figured that maybe there had been some government edict come down to leave them at half-mast til the end of the month. But they were still down on July 2! Now I was really getting ticked!!
Well it turns out that I was wrong. The U.S. flag code says flags should be flown at half-mast for 30 days after the death of a president. So for Reagan that means through July 5. So I'm a little ashamed for thinking all those bad things of those people. As long as we have the same observances for all presidents then I have no right to complain. My apologies.
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Friday, July 02, 2004
Bill Cosby's "tirade"
Bill Cosby had some good advice for everybody the other day.
Unfortunately, the Associated Press labeled his comments as a “tirade” and the rest of the national media has jumped on that bandwagon to portray him as some kind of crank with nothing but “harsh words” for the black community.
Now, I’m sure that Cosby could have phrased his comments more delicately and he could have been more politically correct, but when you get to be his age I’m sure you start to lose patience with those kinds of niceties and you just cut to the chase.
Now I realize that Cosby was addressing the black community with his comments, but I believe that we could all benefit by listening to what he had to say. Pretending that his criticisms only apply to poor blacks really misses the point.
It is not like poor blacks are the only ones who have a problem with keeping their kids in school and out of prison, finding jobs and dealing with domestic violence.
I still believe that government has a role and a responsibility to help people who are down and out, but it makes that job a lot easier when the folks needing help are actively working to pick themselves up rather than sitting around blaming the system for all their problems.
Unfortunately, the Associated Press labeled his comments as a “tirade” and the rest of the national media has jumped on that bandwagon to portray him as some kind of crank with nothing but “harsh words” for the black community.
Now, I’m sure that Cosby could have phrased his comments more delicately and he could have been more politically correct, but when you get to be his age I’m sure you start to lose patience with those kinds of niceties and you just cut to the chase.
Now I realize that Cosby was addressing the black community with his comments, but I believe that we could all benefit by listening to what he had to say. Pretending that his criticisms only apply to poor blacks really misses the point.
It is not like poor blacks are the only ones who have a problem with keeping their kids in school and out of prison, finding jobs and dealing with domestic violence.
I still believe that government has a role and a responsibility to help people who are down and out, but it makes that job a lot easier when the folks needing help are actively working to pick themselves up rather than sitting around blaming the system for all their problems.
More evidence of Bush's economic leadership
Oh dear, it looks like Bush’s economic recovery, such that it is, is stalling once again. Such a shame.
“The nation's expanding economy produced 112,000 new jobs in June, the Labor Department reported today, far fewer than expected and well short of the numbers generated in the previous three months...
“The 112,000 job growth number was a bit of a shock to economists, who had predicted steady increases in the range of 240,000 for June. The most significant slowdown occurred in the manufacturing sector, which shed 11,000 jobs after four months of growth. Five thousand government jobs were lost and construction employment was flat.
All of June's job growth came in service industries.”
Oh goody! More service sector jobs!
As Atrios notes, it takes at least 140,000 jobs just to keep up with population growth in the job market.
“The nation's expanding economy produced 112,000 new jobs in June, the Labor Department reported today, far fewer than expected and well short of the numbers generated in the previous three months...
“The 112,000 job growth number was a bit of a shock to economists, who had predicted steady increases in the range of 240,000 for June. The most significant slowdown occurred in the manufacturing sector, which shed 11,000 jobs after four months of growth. Five thousand government jobs were lost and construction employment was flat.
All of June's job growth came in service industries.”
Oh goody! More service sector jobs!
As Atrios notes, it takes at least 140,000 jobs just to keep up with population growth in the job market.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
A president that conservatives can admire
Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis, has an Op-Ed in the NYTimes today that makes the obvious point that conservatives should rethink the Clinton presidency and admit that he was a better president than they have given him credit for.
Here are some of Clinton’s accomplishments (as summarized from the article) that should have pleased any fair-minded conservative:
*Bringing the federal budget into surplus is obviously an achievement. After inheriting a deficit of 4.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1992, Mr. Clinton turned this into a surplus of 2.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 — a remarkable turnaround...
*Clinton achieved his surplus in large part by curtailing spending. Federal spending fell to 18.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 from 22.2 percent in 1992. Although he raised taxes in 1993, he cut them in 1997. He even reduced the capital gains tax — something his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, tried but failed to accomplish.
*Clinton signed welfare reform into law in 1996, the only time in American history when an entitlement program was abolished.
*Clinton was also steadfast in his support for free trade. It is doubtful that anyone else could have persuaded Congress to approve the North American Free Trade Agreement.
*...he reappointed Alan Greenspan, a Republican, as chairman of the Federal Reserve, thereby helping to bring inflation down to its lowest sustained level in a generation.
By contrast, Mr. Clinton's Republican successor has caused the surplus to evaporate, raised total federal spending by 1.6 percent of G.D.P., established a new entitlement program for prescription drugs and adopted the most protectionist trade policy since Herbert Hoover.
I think he makes a very persuasive argument. If you want to go back to the good old days of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility... vote Democratic!
Here are some of Clinton’s accomplishments (as summarized from the article) that should have pleased any fair-minded conservative:
*Bringing the federal budget into surplus is obviously an achievement. After inheriting a deficit of 4.7 percent of gross domestic product in 1992, Mr. Clinton turned this into a surplus of 2.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 — a remarkable turnaround...
*Clinton achieved his surplus in large part by curtailing spending. Federal spending fell to 18.4 percent of G.D.P. in 2000 from 22.2 percent in 1992. Although he raised taxes in 1993, he cut them in 1997. He even reduced the capital gains tax — something his predecessor, George H. W. Bush, tried but failed to accomplish.
*Clinton signed welfare reform into law in 1996, the only time in American history when an entitlement program was abolished.
*Clinton was also steadfast in his support for free trade. It is doubtful that anyone else could have persuaded Congress to approve the North American Free Trade Agreement.
*...he reappointed Alan Greenspan, a Republican, as chairman of the Federal Reserve, thereby helping to bring inflation down to its lowest sustained level in a generation.
By contrast, Mr. Clinton's Republican successor has caused the surplus to evaporate, raised total federal spending by 1.6 percent of G.D.P., established a new entitlement program for prescription drugs and adopted the most protectionist trade policy since Herbert Hoover.
I think he makes a very persuasive argument. If you want to go back to the good old days of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility... vote Democratic!
Friday, June 25, 2004
Actors who sing vs singers who act
Why is it that we are more accepting of singers who try to become actors than we are of actors who try to become singers?
Look at all of the singers who have gone on to have successful acting careers, even going so far as to win Oscar recognition for their work:
Bing Crosby - Best Actor for “Going My Way”
Frank Sinatra - Best Supporting Actor for “From Here To Eternity”
Barbara Streisand - Best Actress for “Funny Girl”
Diana Ross - Oscar nominee for “Lady Sings the Blues”
Cher - Best Actress for “Moonstruck”
Will Smith - Oscar nominee for “Ali”
Queen Latifah - Oscar nominee for “Chicago”
And then there are others who went on to have solid film careers:
Dean Martin
Tina Turner
Dolly Parton
Olivia Newton John
Kris Kristofferson
Mark Wahlburg
Jennifer Lopez
Whitney Houston
Ice Cube
Even Elvis Presley and Madonna have had better film careers than most actors have had singing careers. Oh, you will have the occassional singer whose movie will bomb - like Maria Carey in Glitter or anything Britney Spears has been in so far. But given time they may eventually get a good role and suddenly they are respectable.
Now compare that with the derision and scorn that is heaped on actors who dare try to record their voices on anything other than a novelty record:
Eddie Murphy
Bruce Willis
David Hasselhoff
William Shatner
Leonard Nimoy
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Even the ones who avoid singing and opt to just play bass guitar with a band like Kenau Reeves and Russell Crowe are given no respect.
I can think of only one actor who went on to have any success as a singer. That would be Jim Nabors (i.e. Gomer Pyle) who became popular on the gospel circuit.
Am I leaving anyone out?
Why are we so picky about our singers, but not so much with acting?
I figure it is because we tend to listen to songs over and over again, but we don’t watch a particular perfromance in a movie with the same amount of repitition. I’m sure the first time most people heard Eddie Murphy’s song “Party All the Time” they probably thought it was pretty good, but by the 10th or 20th time it starts to wear thin.
Look at all of the singers who have gone on to have successful acting careers, even going so far as to win Oscar recognition for their work:
Bing Crosby - Best Actor for “Going My Way”
Frank Sinatra - Best Supporting Actor for “From Here To Eternity”
Barbara Streisand - Best Actress for “Funny Girl”
Diana Ross - Oscar nominee for “Lady Sings the Blues”
Cher - Best Actress for “Moonstruck”
Will Smith - Oscar nominee for “Ali”
Queen Latifah - Oscar nominee for “Chicago”
And then there are others who went on to have solid film careers:
Dean Martin
Tina Turner
Dolly Parton
Olivia Newton John
Kris Kristofferson
Mark Wahlburg
Jennifer Lopez
Whitney Houston
Ice Cube
Even Elvis Presley and Madonna have had better film careers than most actors have had singing careers. Oh, you will have the occassional singer whose movie will bomb - like Maria Carey in Glitter or anything Britney Spears has been in so far. But given time they may eventually get a good role and suddenly they are respectable.
Now compare that with the derision and scorn that is heaped on actors who dare try to record their voices on anything other than a novelty record:
Eddie Murphy
Bruce Willis
David Hasselhoff
William Shatner
Leonard Nimoy
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Even the ones who avoid singing and opt to just play bass guitar with a band like Kenau Reeves and Russell Crowe are given no respect.
I can think of only one actor who went on to have any success as a singer. That would be Jim Nabors (i.e. Gomer Pyle) who became popular on the gospel circuit.
Am I leaving anyone out?
Why are we so picky about our singers, but not so much with acting?
I figure it is because we tend to listen to songs over and over again, but we don’t watch a particular perfromance in a movie with the same amount of repitition. I’m sure the first time most people heard Eddie Murphy’s song “Party All the Time” they probably thought it was pretty good, but by the 10th or 20th time it starts to wear thin.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Top movie songs
The American Film Institute’s latest list purports to reveal the top 100 songs in movies during the past 100 years.
The top 10:
Over the Rainbow (THE WIZARD OF OZ)
As Time Goes By (CASABLANCA)
Singin' In The Rain (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN)
Moon River (BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S)
White Christmas (HOLIDAY INN/WHITE CHRISTMAS)
Mrs. Robinson (THE GRADUATE)
When You Wish Upon a Star (PINOCCHIO)
The Way We Were (THE WAY WE WERE)
Stayin' Alive (SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER)
The Sound of Music (THE SOUND OF MUSIC).
As always, I could quibble with the order. For instance, I would bump up Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas” ahead of “Moon River” and I wouldn’t include “The Way We Were” or “Stayin’ Alive” in my Top 10.
But my biggest gripe, as always, is with the blatant ommissions. Looking over the list of 400 nominated songs there are quite of few deserving tunes that didn’t make the cutoff for the Top 100. Most significantly, in my opinion, are the Disney and Pixar tunes:
Chim Chim Cher-ee (Mary Poppins)
The Bare Necessities (Jungle Book)
Friend Like Me (Aladdin)
Under the Sea (The Little Mermaid)
Whistle While You Work (Snow White and the Seven Dwarves)
You’ve Got A Friend In Me (Toy Story)
Then there are these shocking ommissions:
If I Only Had A Brain (Wizard of Oz)
Ghostbusters (Ghostbusters)
I Am A Man of Constant Sorrow (O Brother, Where Art Thou?)
Live and Let Die (Live and Let Die)
The Time Warp (Rocky Horror Picture Show)
You’re the One That I Want (Grease)
And finally, songs that were not even on the list of 400 nominees:
Spoonful of Sugar (Mary Poppins)
Oompa Loompa (Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory)
The Maladjusted Jester (The Court Jester)
Yellow Submarine (Yellow Submarine)
I’m sure I will think of more...
UPDATE:
Pink Elephants on Parade (Dumbo)
The top 10:
Over the Rainbow (THE WIZARD OF OZ)
As Time Goes By (CASABLANCA)
Singin' In The Rain (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN)
Moon River (BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S)
White Christmas (HOLIDAY INN/WHITE CHRISTMAS)
Mrs. Robinson (THE GRADUATE)
When You Wish Upon a Star (PINOCCHIO)
The Way We Were (THE WAY WE WERE)
Stayin' Alive (SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER)
The Sound of Music (THE SOUND OF MUSIC).
As always, I could quibble with the order. For instance, I would bump up Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas” ahead of “Moon River” and I wouldn’t include “The Way We Were” or “Stayin’ Alive” in my Top 10.
But my biggest gripe, as always, is with the blatant ommissions. Looking over the list of 400 nominated songs there are quite of few deserving tunes that didn’t make the cutoff for the Top 100. Most significantly, in my opinion, are the Disney and Pixar tunes:
Chim Chim Cher-ee (Mary Poppins)
The Bare Necessities (Jungle Book)
Friend Like Me (Aladdin)
Under the Sea (The Little Mermaid)
Whistle While You Work (Snow White and the Seven Dwarves)
You’ve Got A Friend In Me (Toy Story)
Then there are these shocking ommissions:
If I Only Had A Brain (Wizard of Oz)
Ghostbusters (Ghostbusters)
I Am A Man of Constant Sorrow (O Brother, Where Art Thou?)
Live and Let Die (Live and Let Die)
The Time Warp (Rocky Horror Picture Show)
You’re the One That I Want (Grease)
And finally, songs that were not even on the list of 400 nominees:
Spoonful of Sugar (Mary Poppins)
Oompa Loompa (Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory)
The Maladjusted Jester (The Court Jester)
Yellow Submarine (Yellow Submarine)
I’m sure I will think of more...
UPDATE:
Pink Elephants on Parade (Dumbo)
Monday, June 21, 2004
Rowland pays while Bush plays
The resignation of Connecticut Gov. John Rowland was probably inevitable and therefore not surprising. If anything, I was mostly surprised that he held on for so long in today’s media culture where the hint of a scandal can sometimes produce a feeding frenzy.
But this wasn’t really a feeding frenzy, at least not on a national level. The charges leveled against Rowland - that he lied about getting gifts and favors from friends, state contractors and state employees - didn’t get too many people excited outside of the Nutmeg State.
I had an inkling that it would come to this, however, because of my personal experience with the typical Connecticut Yankee’s intolerance for these types of scandals. In April of 1992, I was working as a young reporter for a chain of weekly papers along the Connecticut coastline.
Once I was called to fill in for a vacationing reporter at one of the papers and cover a legal hearing in the upscale community of Madison where the local chief of police was in the process of being drummed out of his job. His crime? When the department got new police cruisers from a local dealer (Three 1991 Ford Crown Victoria’s), the chiefs car came with a trunk-mounted, 10-disc compact disc player that the dealer had thrown in.
Now this was back when having a cd player in a car was still kind of unique, and a 10-disc changer was something out of Star Wars. At the hearing I covered, the prosecuting attorney grilled the local dealer about how much the 10-disc changer cost (he refused to say) at a time when AM/FM radios with cassette decks was the standard.
I remember sitting there watching this hearing unfold thinking ‘What’s the big deal’? But obviously folks in Connecticut took this kind of stuff very seriously.
So when I saw what Rowland was charged with I knew his days were numbered. Here is the NYTimes summary:
“(Rowland’s wealthy friends) fixed up his cottage in bucolic Litchfield, where Connecticut's movers and shakers summer, complete with a hot tub given to him by a state employee. The governor got thousands of dollars in Cuban cigars and French champagne, a vintage Ford Mustang convertible and free or discounted vacations at the estates of friends -- contractors who won substantial business from the state.”
So while I’m not trying to defend what Rowland did, I think I can say that a certain former Texas Governor should be thankful that the folks in the Lone Star State were much more lenient about such things.
But this wasn’t really a feeding frenzy, at least not on a national level. The charges leveled against Rowland - that he lied about getting gifts and favors from friends, state contractors and state employees - didn’t get too many people excited outside of the Nutmeg State.
I had an inkling that it would come to this, however, because of my personal experience with the typical Connecticut Yankee’s intolerance for these types of scandals. In April of 1992, I was working as a young reporter for a chain of weekly papers along the Connecticut coastline.
Once I was called to fill in for a vacationing reporter at one of the papers and cover a legal hearing in the upscale community of Madison where the local chief of police was in the process of being drummed out of his job. His crime? When the department got new police cruisers from a local dealer (Three 1991 Ford Crown Victoria’s), the chiefs car came with a trunk-mounted, 10-disc compact disc player that the dealer had thrown in.
Now this was back when having a cd player in a car was still kind of unique, and a 10-disc changer was something out of Star Wars. At the hearing I covered, the prosecuting attorney grilled the local dealer about how much the 10-disc changer cost (he refused to say) at a time when AM/FM radios with cassette decks was the standard.
I remember sitting there watching this hearing unfold thinking ‘What’s the big deal’? But obviously folks in Connecticut took this kind of stuff very seriously.
So when I saw what Rowland was charged with I knew his days were numbered. Here is the NYTimes summary:
“(Rowland’s wealthy friends) fixed up his cottage in bucolic Litchfield, where Connecticut's movers and shakers summer, complete with a hot tub given to him by a state employee. The governor got thousands of dollars in Cuban cigars and French champagne, a vintage Ford Mustang convertible and free or discounted vacations at the estates of friends -- contractors who won substantial business from the state.”
So while I’m not trying to defend what Rowland did, I think I can say that a certain former Texas Governor should be thankful that the folks in the Lone Star State were much more lenient about such things.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
The rich get richer...
There is at least one constituency group that has made out like gangbusters these last few years under President Bush, according to the Wall Street Journal:
Millionaires
The WSJ reported Tuesday that the number of millionaires in the U.S. is up 14 percent. The 2004 World Wealth Report revealed that the U.S. and Canada added more new millionaires last year than Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East combined.
“In the U.S., rising stock markets, strong real estate prices, wealth-friendly tax cuts and low interest rates combined to create strong returns for the wealthy.”
And needless to say, they aren’t exactly spreading this wealth around (except for their donations to the Bush election campaign). Meanwhile, the economy continues to lose jobs as it sputters along while the government racks up record deficits.
Millionaires
The WSJ reported Tuesday that the number of millionaires in the U.S. is up 14 percent. The 2004 World Wealth Report revealed that the U.S. and Canada added more new millionaires last year than Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East combined.
“In the U.S., rising stock markets, strong real estate prices, wealth-friendly tax cuts and low interest rates combined to create strong returns for the wealthy.”
And needless to say, they aren’t exactly spreading this wealth around (except for their donations to the Bush election campaign). Meanwhile, the economy continues to lose jobs as it sputters along while the government racks up record deficits.
Tortured reasoning
Here is an interesting article in Slate about President Bush’s chief legal counsel Alberto Gonzales.
Gonzales, a political appointee from Texas, was apparently the author and co-author, respectively, of two of the infamous memos that try to provide justifications of the torture of foreign prisoners.
The thing that caught my attention, though, was the headline Slate used for the story out on their front page:
Bush’s Execution-Lovin’, Torture-Denyin’, Treaty-Hatin’ Lawyer
It would be funny if it weren’t so true.
Gonzales, a political appointee from Texas, was apparently the author and co-author, respectively, of two of the infamous memos that try to provide justifications of the torture of foreign prisoners.
The thing that caught my attention, though, was the headline Slate used for the story out on their front page:
Bush’s Execution-Lovin’, Torture-Denyin’, Treaty-Hatin’ Lawyer
It would be funny if it weren’t so true.
Celebrity endorsements update
Time to update my running list of celebrity endorsements for this year’s presidential campaign.
Needless to say, John Kerry is the runaway favorite among most celebrities.
According to The Hill:
“A horde of celebrities has asked if they can help the Kerry campaign defeat Bush in November. There were so many requests, in fact, that it’s almost more celebrity help than the Kerry campaign needs or can use.”
Here are the latest additions to the Kerry celebrity endorsement list:
Jon Bon Jovi
James Gandolfini
Steve Buscemi
Richard Belzer
Robin Williams
Billy Crystal
Neil Diamond
Robert Redford
Tom Hanks
Danny DeVito
Dave Mathews Band
The Eagles
Sheryl Crowe
Bruce Springsteen
Emmylou Harris
Blink 182
Willie Nelson
John Mellencamp
Wyclef Jean
Whoopi Goldberg
Ben Affleck
Rhea Perlman
Ben Stiller
Dustin Hoffman
Richard Gere
Jessica Lange
John Williams (film score composer)
James Brolin
Ted Danson
Mary Steenburgen
Jason Alexander
Christina Applegate
Oliver Stone
Sharon Stone
Angelica Huston
Tobey Maguire
Brad Pitt
Christian Slater
Julia Louis-Dreyfus
Barry Manilow
Jack Nicholson
Martin Sheen
Maya Angelou
Michael Douglas
Wesley Snipes
Goldie Hawn
Sally Field
Christopher Reeve
John Travolta
Annette Bening
Kevin Spacey
Alan Cumming
Ed Begley Jr.
Steve Harvey
Leslie Ann Warren
And those previously mentioned:
Meg Ryan
Leonardo DiCaprio
Jennifer Aniston
Kevin Costner
Barbara Streisand
James Taylor
Larry David
Carole King
Dennis Hopper
Kathleen Turner
Kenneth “Babyface” Edmonds
Moby
Aaron Sorkin
Quincy Jones
Penny Marshall
Bette Midler
Jerry Seinfeld
Uma Thurman
Stephen Stills
Chevy Chase
Kevin Bacon
Paul Newman
Kate Hudson
Russell Crowe
Harvey Weinstein
Jennifer Garner
Robert DeNiro
Michael J. Fox
Peter Yarrow (of Peter, Paul & Mary)
As for the Bush campaign, the list is sparse by comparison. A web search only came up with three new names I had overlooked before:
Golfers Ben Crenshaw and Fuzzy Zoeller
and comedian Dennis Miller
Previously mentioned were:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Bruce Willis
Tom Selleck
I’m sure there are a few more out there but so far they aren’t making themselves too visible.
Needless to say, John Kerry is the runaway favorite among most celebrities.
According to The Hill:
“A horde of celebrities has asked if they can help the Kerry campaign defeat Bush in November. There were so many requests, in fact, that it’s almost more celebrity help than the Kerry campaign needs or can use.”
Here are the latest additions to the Kerry celebrity endorsement list:
Jon Bon Jovi
James Gandolfini
Steve Buscemi
Richard Belzer
Robin Williams
Billy Crystal
Neil Diamond
Robert Redford
Tom Hanks
Danny DeVito
Dave Mathews Band
The Eagles
Sheryl Crowe
Bruce Springsteen
Emmylou Harris
Blink 182
Willie Nelson
John Mellencamp
Wyclef Jean
Whoopi Goldberg
Ben Affleck
Rhea Perlman
Ben Stiller
Dustin Hoffman
Richard Gere
Jessica Lange
John Williams (film score composer)
James Brolin
Ted Danson
Mary Steenburgen
Jason Alexander
Christina Applegate
Oliver Stone
Sharon Stone
Angelica Huston
Tobey Maguire
Brad Pitt
Christian Slater
Julia Louis-Dreyfus
Barry Manilow
Jack Nicholson
Martin Sheen
Maya Angelou
Michael Douglas
Wesley Snipes
Goldie Hawn
Sally Field
Christopher Reeve
John Travolta
Annette Bening
Kevin Spacey
Alan Cumming
Ed Begley Jr.
Steve Harvey
Leslie Ann Warren
And those previously mentioned:
Meg Ryan
Leonardo DiCaprio
Jennifer Aniston
Kevin Costner
Barbara Streisand
James Taylor
Larry David
Carole King
Dennis Hopper
Kathleen Turner
Kenneth “Babyface” Edmonds
Moby
Aaron Sorkin
Quincy Jones
Penny Marshall
Bette Midler
Jerry Seinfeld
Uma Thurman
Stephen Stills
Chevy Chase
Kevin Bacon
Paul Newman
Kate Hudson
Russell Crowe
Harvey Weinstein
Jennifer Garner
Robert DeNiro
Michael J. Fox
Peter Yarrow (of Peter, Paul & Mary)
As for the Bush campaign, the list is sparse by comparison. A web search only came up with three new names I had overlooked before:
Golfers Ben Crenshaw and Fuzzy Zoeller
and comedian Dennis Miller
Previously mentioned were:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Bruce Willis
Tom Selleck
I’m sure there are a few more out there but so far they aren’t making themselves too visible.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Summing up the outrages
It is difficult to summarize all of the outrages of the Bush administration into just one paragraph, but Eric Alterman makes a good effort:
“It’s hard to say which is the best representation of what this war is doing to and has done to this country. Is it the lies that were told to get us into it? Is it the fact that we are picking up innocent people off the street and torturing them? Is it that we have suspended the most basic civil liberties in our own country? Is it that the work of professional intelligence agencies has been corrupted? Is it that we have drawn resources away from the fight against Al Qaida which has completely regrouped? Is it that we are creating more terrorists? Is it that more than 700 Americans have been killed and thousands have been seriously injured? Is it that thousands of Iraqis have been killed but nobody is keeping an account of the numbers of their deaths? Is it that we are now more hated around the world than we have ever been? Is it that we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars while actually decreasing our security? Is it that we are doing all this while starving the most crucial homeland security programs? Is it that everyone who told the truth about what was being planned has been dismissed and seen their characters attacked? The usually soft-spoken and moderate intelligence analyst and author Thomas Powers does not exaggerate when he notes that Bush and the neocons have "caused the greatest foreign policy catastrophe in modern U.S. history."
And that is just the foreign policy outrages.
“It’s hard to say which is the best representation of what this war is doing to and has done to this country. Is it the lies that were told to get us into it? Is it the fact that we are picking up innocent people off the street and torturing them? Is it that we have suspended the most basic civil liberties in our own country? Is it that the work of professional intelligence agencies has been corrupted? Is it that we have drawn resources away from the fight against Al Qaida which has completely regrouped? Is it that we are creating more terrorists? Is it that more than 700 Americans have been killed and thousands have been seriously injured? Is it that thousands of Iraqis have been killed but nobody is keeping an account of the numbers of their deaths? Is it that we are now more hated around the world than we have ever been? Is it that we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars while actually decreasing our security? Is it that we are doing all this while starving the most crucial homeland security programs? Is it that everyone who told the truth about what was being planned has been dismissed and seen their characters attacked? The usually soft-spoken and moderate intelligence analyst and author Thomas Powers does not exaggerate when he notes that Bush and the neocons have "caused the greatest foreign policy catastrophe in modern U.S. history."
And that is just the foreign policy outrages.
Monday, June 14, 2004
Emperor Bush has no clothes!
A group of 26 former diplomats and military officials have joined forces to oppose Bush's reelection campaign.
"Prominent members include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father; retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., ambassador to Britain under President Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan; and Jack F. Matlock Jr., a member of the National Security Council under Reagan and ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991."
"We agreed that we had just lost confidence in the ability of the Bush administration to advocate for American interests or to provide the kind of leadership that we think is essential," said William C. Harrop, the first President Bush's ambassador to Israel, and earlier to four African countries."
Finally more people are starting to come forward and admit that the emperor has no clothes. The group is supposed to issue a formal statement on Wednesday so I will link to that when it becomes available.
"Prominent members include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East during the administration of Bush's father; retired Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., ambassador to Britain under President Clinton and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan; and Jack F. Matlock Jr., a member of the National Security Council under Reagan and ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991."
"We agreed that we had just lost confidence in the ability of the Bush administration to advocate for American interests or to provide the kind of leadership that we think is essential," said William C. Harrop, the first President Bush's ambassador to Israel, and earlier to four African countries."
Finally more people are starting to come forward and admit that the emperor has no clothes. The group is supposed to issue a formal statement on Wednesday so I will link to that when it becomes available.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Too little, too late
After presiding over a miserable economy for the past three and a half years and watching a record surplus turn into record deficits, the Bush administration is now pointing to some long overdue good economic news as proof that they deserve a second term in office.
Is that the way it work in the real world? If CEO Bush went before his Board of Directors after producing such miserable results would he walk away with a big fat bonus and a contract extension?
But the real irony, as laid out in this Washington Post article is that Bush’s lousing up of our foreign policy is now overshadowing any positive news on the economy.
I still believe that a chief motivation for the Bush team’s headlong rush into war with Iraq was Karl Rove’s belief that it would take the public’s attention away from Bush’s inept mishandling of the economy. And guess what? It worked!
“Voters fixated on Iraq so far are not willing to see the improving economy through a positive prism, according to pollsters and Bush campaign aides.”
Is that the way it work in the real world? If CEO Bush went before his Board of Directors after producing such miserable results would he walk away with a big fat bonus and a contract extension?
But the real irony, as laid out in this Washington Post article is that Bush’s lousing up of our foreign policy is now overshadowing any positive news on the economy.
I still believe that a chief motivation for the Bush team’s headlong rush into war with Iraq was Karl Rove’s belief that it would take the public’s attention away from Bush’s inept mishandling of the economy. And guess what? It worked!
“Voters fixated on Iraq so far are not willing to see the improving economy through a positive prism, according to pollsters and Bush campaign aides.”
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
G'n'R + STP = Velvet Revolver?
This news makes me want to go out and buy a music CD for the first time in two years. The former members of Guns ‘N’ Roses - minus Axel Rose and Izzy Stradlin - have joined with former Stone Temple Pilots lead singer Scott Weiland to form a new group called Velvet Revolver. Their first album has gotten some good notice. Too bad there are no decent radio stations left where I can listen to it on air.
I’ve also heard that Van Halen has reunited with Sammy Hagar and released some new music. I never even heard anything from the last Van Halen album that featured some non-Roth, non-Hagar frontman.
I’ve also heard that Van Halen has reunited with Sammy Hagar and released some new music. I never even heard anything from the last Van Halen album that featured some non-Roth, non-Hagar frontman.
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Ronald Reagan dies
Former President Reagan died today at age 93.
I was in high school when Ronald Reagan was shot shortly after being elected president. It was one of those startling moments that shake you out of your day-to-day existence and force you to pay attention to the rest of the world. I remember the detailed diagrams in TIME magazine showing the path and trajectory of each bullet and where all the wounded people - Reagan, James Brady, the Secret Service agent and the police officer - were all standing. I remember thinking that Reagan could still die even though he survived the initial shooting and wondering what that would mean.
My family was pretty much apolitical when I was growing up. I used to tell my parents who they should vote for before I was old enough to vote myself. (I don't know if they actually took my advice.) In 1980, I told them to vote for Jimmy Carter, probably because he was the incumbent who I was familiar with. But by 1984, the first presidential election I was old enough to vote in, I had been completely won over by Reagan. I had a picture of Reagan and campaign bumper stickers in my dorm room at Texas A&M. I used to clip out cartoons that lauded Reagan and lampooned poor Walter Mondale. I couldn't understand why anybody would vote for Mondale over Reagan.
The landslide that year for Reagan meant I was pretty much in tune with the rest of the country. But during his second term a number of things happened that gave me second thoughts. I read a biography of Martin Luther King Jr. I became facinated by the Kennedy assassination conspiracy and became convinced that a shadowy right-wing cabal had gotten away with the murder of the century. And then the Iran-Contra scandal hit the news. At first I was willing to give Reagan the benefit of the doubt. I still liked Reagan and hadn't shifted my allegiance at that point. But I remember him coming on television shortly after the news of the scandal first broke and explaining that the arms that had been shipped to Iran were just a tiny shipment that could all fit on one airplane. It seemed reasonable to me, no big deal, no harm done. But then I found out that was not really the case. The arms sent to Iran were much more substantial than what Reagan had claimed. Was he lying? Was he misinformed? Either way my confidence in Reagan was shattered and I began to have a lot of second thoughts about my politics.
By 1988, I had done a complete turnaround and was supporting Dukakis for president (after voting for Jesse Jackson in the primary).
However, I still liked Reagan. He was just hard to dislike. He was so full of optimism and pride in America that he had become an icon for our country, not just for conservatives, but for everyone. Today I think Reagan was a great leader for our country who, unfortunately had some wrong-headed ideas that took us in bad directions, but for the most part his impact on the country was positive. He did leave us with a huge national debt, but he also helped to make the country stronger - in spirit if not materially.
By direct contrast, George W. Bush has made our country weaker. He has presided over a deep recession and a long jobless recovery and he has led us into a tar pit in the Middle East that has aggravated our friends and enemies alike. In many ways, Bush is the Republican version of Jimmy Carter. What the Democrats need - and I'm hoping John Kerry can be - is a Democratic version of Ronald Reagan. We need to restore our faith and pride in our country and repair our tarnished image around the globe. Rather than an aggressor nation that bullys smaller countries and conducts pre-emptive invasions, and then abuses foreign prisoners, we should be the "good guys" who are there to help and lead through example. If the Democrats can take those positive aspects of Reagan and apply them to good government policies, I think they will retake the White House for the next eight years.
I was in high school when Ronald Reagan was shot shortly after being elected president. It was one of those startling moments that shake you out of your day-to-day existence and force you to pay attention to the rest of the world. I remember the detailed diagrams in TIME magazine showing the path and trajectory of each bullet and where all the wounded people - Reagan, James Brady, the Secret Service agent and the police officer - were all standing. I remember thinking that Reagan could still die even though he survived the initial shooting and wondering what that would mean.
My family was pretty much apolitical when I was growing up. I used to tell my parents who they should vote for before I was old enough to vote myself. (I don't know if they actually took my advice.) In 1980, I told them to vote for Jimmy Carter, probably because he was the incumbent who I was familiar with. But by 1984, the first presidential election I was old enough to vote in, I had been completely won over by Reagan. I had a picture of Reagan and campaign bumper stickers in my dorm room at Texas A&M. I used to clip out cartoons that lauded Reagan and lampooned poor Walter Mondale. I couldn't understand why anybody would vote for Mondale over Reagan.
The landslide that year for Reagan meant I was pretty much in tune with the rest of the country. But during his second term a number of things happened that gave me second thoughts. I read a biography of Martin Luther King Jr. I became facinated by the Kennedy assassination conspiracy and became convinced that a shadowy right-wing cabal had gotten away with the murder of the century. And then the Iran-Contra scandal hit the news. At first I was willing to give Reagan the benefit of the doubt. I still liked Reagan and hadn't shifted my allegiance at that point. But I remember him coming on television shortly after the news of the scandal first broke and explaining that the arms that had been shipped to Iran were just a tiny shipment that could all fit on one airplane. It seemed reasonable to me, no big deal, no harm done. But then I found out that was not really the case. The arms sent to Iran were much more substantial than what Reagan had claimed. Was he lying? Was he misinformed? Either way my confidence in Reagan was shattered and I began to have a lot of second thoughts about my politics.
By 1988, I had done a complete turnaround and was supporting Dukakis for president (after voting for Jesse Jackson in the primary).
However, I still liked Reagan. He was just hard to dislike. He was so full of optimism and pride in America that he had become an icon for our country, not just for conservatives, but for everyone. Today I think Reagan was a great leader for our country who, unfortunately had some wrong-headed ideas that took us in bad directions, but for the most part his impact on the country was positive. He did leave us with a huge national debt, but he also helped to make the country stronger - in spirit if not materially.
By direct contrast, George W. Bush has made our country weaker. He has presided over a deep recession and a long jobless recovery and he has led us into a tar pit in the Middle East that has aggravated our friends and enemies alike. In many ways, Bush is the Republican version of Jimmy Carter. What the Democrats need - and I'm hoping John Kerry can be - is a Democratic version of Ronald Reagan. We need to restore our faith and pride in our country and repair our tarnished image around the globe. Rather than an aggressor nation that bullys smaller countries and conducts pre-emptive invasions, and then abuses foreign prisoners, we should be the "good guys" who are there to help and lead through example. If the Democrats can take those positive aspects of Reagan and apply them to good government policies, I think they will retake the White House for the next eight years.
Friday, June 04, 2004
From Bush - “Unprecedented Negativity”
From the Washington Post...
“Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising...
“...Scott Reed, who ran Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign that year, said the Bush campaign has little choice but to deliver a constant stream of such negative charges. With low poll numbers and a volatile situation in Iraq, Bush has more hope of tarnishing Kerry's image than promoting his own.”
Bush is currently running a nasty, negative campaign because he has nothing positive to run on - absolutely nothing. The economy has been lousy for his entire presidency, he is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs, he squandered the surplus on tax cuts for the rich which have failed to revive the economy and the Iraq war is without a doubt a complete and utter debacle.
Why would anyone want four more years of this?
“Scholars and political strategists say the ferocious Bush assault on Kerry this spring has been extraordinary, both for the volume of attacks and for the liberties the president and his campaign have taken with the facts. Though stretching the truth is hardly new in a political campaign, they say the volume of negative charges is unprecedented -- both in speeches and in advertising...
“...Scott Reed, who ran Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign that year, said the Bush campaign has little choice but to deliver a constant stream of such negative charges. With low poll numbers and a volatile situation in Iraq, Bush has more hope of tarnishing Kerry's image than promoting his own.”
Bush is currently running a nasty, negative campaign because he has nothing positive to run on - absolutely nothing. The economy has been lousy for his entire presidency, he is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs, he squandered the surplus on tax cuts for the rich which have failed to revive the economy and the Iraq war is without a doubt a complete and utter debacle.
Why would anyone want four more years of this?
Thursday, May 27, 2004
You tell 'em, Al!
Al Gore's speech the other day at New York University was the kind of no nonsense rhetoric that I would like to hear more of from Democrats in the coming months.
“From its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption." And what they meant by preemption was not the inherent right of any nation to act preemptively against an imminent threat to its national security, but rather an exotic new approach that asserted a unique and unilateral U.S. right to ignore international law wherever it wished to do so and take military action against any nation, even in circumstances where there was no imminent threat. All that is required, in the view of Bush's team is the mere assertion of a possible, future threat - and the assertion need be made by only one person, the President...
“President Bush said in his speech Monday night that the war in Iraq is "the central front in the war on terror." It's not the central front in the war on terror, but it has unfortunately become the central recruiting office for terrorists. The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States.”
I imagine this is just a taste of the kind of address Gore will be giving at the Democratic Convention this summer.
Apparently unable to rebut the substance of the speech, The Republican National Committee has tried to dismiss Gore's criticism by attacking MoveOn.org, the group that sponsored his speech. In a statement, the RNC opined that Gore’s credibility was undermined by his association with MoveOn.org. However, I would respond that the RNC’s credibility is greatly diminished by its association with George W. Bush.
A favorite tactic of the Republican spin machine recently has been to spread the lie that MoveOn.org sponsored ads comparing George W. Bush to Hitler. What actually happened was that the group sponsored a contest to find the best ads critical of the Bush administration and out of 150 submissions there were two that had made the Hitler analogy. These ads were rejected and were never used by the MoveOn.org. The organization addresses this smear here, not that it will make any difference to the lying liars who continue to spin this tale.
“From its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption." And what they meant by preemption was not the inherent right of any nation to act preemptively against an imminent threat to its national security, but rather an exotic new approach that asserted a unique and unilateral U.S. right to ignore international law wherever it wished to do so and take military action against any nation, even in circumstances where there was no imminent threat. All that is required, in the view of Bush's team is the mere assertion of a possible, future threat - and the assertion need be made by only one person, the President...
“President Bush said in his speech Monday night that the war in Iraq is "the central front in the war on terror." It's not the central front in the war on terror, but it has unfortunately become the central recruiting office for terrorists. The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States.”
I imagine this is just a taste of the kind of address Gore will be giving at the Democratic Convention this summer.
Apparently unable to rebut the substance of the speech, The Republican National Committee has tried to dismiss Gore's criticism by attacking MoveOn.org, the group that sponsored his speech. In a statement, the RNC opined that Gore’s credibility was undermined by his association with MoveOn.org. However, I would respond that the RNC’s credibility is greatly diminished by its association with George W. Bush.
A favorite tactic of the Republican spin machine recently has been to spread the lie that MoveOn.org sponsored ads comparing George W. Bush to Hitler. What actually happened was that the group sponsored a contest to find the best ads critical of the Bush administration and out of 150 submissions there were two that had made the Hitler analogy. These ads were rejected and were never used by the MoveOn.org. The organization addresses this smear here, not that it will make any difference to the lying liars who continue to spin this tale.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Campaigning on failures
I guess when you have nothing but failures to show for your four years in office you have to make the best of them. In this New York Times story from yesterday, the Bush administration is sending its minions out to campaign by touting programs that Bush tried to cutback or eliminate:
- Justice Department officials recently announced that they were awarding $47 million to scores of local law enforcement agencies for the hiring of police officers. Mr. Bush had just proposed cutting the budget for the program, known as Community Oriented Policing Services, by 87 percent, to $97 million next year, from $756 million.
- Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, announced recently that the administration was awarding $11.7 million in grants to help 30 states plan and provide coverage for people without health insurance. Mr. Bush had proposed ending the program in each of the last three years.
- The administration also announced recently that it was providing $11.6 million to the states so they could buy defibrillators to save the lives of heart attack victims. But Mr. Bush had proposed cutting the budget for such devices by 82 percent, to $2 million from $10.9 million.
In each case, the additional spending that is being touted represents a failure by the Bush administration to curtail or end a program that it was opposed to. They were unable to accomplish these cutbacks even with total Republican domination of all branches of the federal government. That is what I would call incompetent. Bush can’t even even lead within his own party, much less so on the world stage.
That brings us to another recent news story where the U.S. Faces Growing Fears of Failure in Iraq.
This really should not be a surprise to anyone who has followed Bush’s career over the years. He almost always fails in his various ventures and then sits back and waits for his daddy’s wealthy friends to come and bail him out. I’m just not sure who is supposed to bail us out this time, other than the U.S. taxpayers, of course, who get stuck with another $25 billion for Bush’s Iraqi Quagmire.
- Justice Department officials recently announced that they were awarding $47 million to scores of local law enforcement agencies for the hiring of police officers. Mr. Bush had just proposed cutting the budget for the program, known as Community Oriented Policing Services, by 87 percent, to $97 million next year, from $756 million.
- Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, announced recently that the administration was awarding $11.7 million in grants to help 30 states plan and provide coverage for people without health insurance. Mr. Bush had proposed ending the program in each of the last three years.
- The administration also announced recently that it was providing $11.6 million to the states so they could buy defibrillators to save the lives of heart attack victims. But Mr. Bush had proposed cutting the budget for such devices by 82 percent, to $2 million from $10.9 million.
In each case, the additional spending that is being touted represents a failure by the Bush administration to curtail or end a program that it was opposed to. They were unable to accomplish these cutbacks even with total Republican domination of all branches of the federal government. That is what I would call incompetent. Bush can’t even even lead within his own party, much less so on the world stage.
That brings us to another recent news story where the U.S. Faces Growing Fears of Failure in Iraq.
This really should not be a surprise to anyone who has followed Bush’s career over the years. He almost always fails in his various ventures and then sits back and waits for his daddy’s wealthy friends to come and bail him out. I’m just not sure who is supposed to bail us out this time, other than the U.S. taxpayers, of course, who get stuck with another $25 billion for Bush’s Iraqi Quagmire.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
"357 Channels and Nothing On"
It looks like I might still have a few programming options on next season’s television schedule - but not many.
The number of shows that I watch regularly has been slowly dwindling and the shift away from quality television programming to cheap, brainless “reality” shows means I will have that much more free time in the evenings.
With the series finales of “Friends” and “Frasier” now past and the finale of “Angel,” the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” spinoff, later tonight one might think the networks would be scrambling to come out with some worthy replacement shows. But on first glance at the new fall schedules being announced this week, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Other than the “Friends” spinoff “Joey,” while I will check out, the only new show on the schedule that even looks remotely interesting is “Lost” scheduled for Wednesdays on ABC. It is some kind of adventure series set on a deserted island and stars Matthew Fox of “Party of Five” fame as well as Dominic Monaghan who was a hobbit in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I’m sure ABC will axe the series after airing only a handful of episodes since I have shown some interest in it now.
Other than that, there are no shows on ABC that interest me (except possibly the “Wonderful World of Disney” depending on what is showing). I haven’t watched anything on Fox since I got bogged down with the second season of “24” and the cancellation of “Angel” means I won’t be wasting my time tuning into the WB Network again.
I understand that UPN has decided to renew “Star Trek: Enterprise” for one more season so I will continue to faithfully tune them in once a week as a devoted Trekee.
NBC still has “ER” on Thursday nights and CBS has renewed “Judging Amy” and “Joan of Arcadia,” and that is about it. There are a few others shows that I would normally find worthy but for various reasons I have not found the time or the desire to watch them regularly. They include “The Simpsons,” “West Wing,” and “Alias.”
I also watch “60 Minutes” on occasion depending on the topic.
Finally, I have a friend who is such a devoted fan of “The Amazing Race” that he has applied to be on the show for its sixth season. So I will probably break down and watch an episode or two next season to see what it is all about.
Here is my tentative viewing schedule for next fall:
Monday: Nothing
Tuesday: “Judging Amy”
Wednesday: “Lost”
Thursday: “Joey,” “E.R.”
Friday: “Star Trek: Enterprise,” “Joan of Arcadia”
Saturday: “Amazing Race”
Sunday: Nothing
The number of shows that I watch regularly has been slowly dwindling and the shift away from quality television programming to cheap, brainless “reality” shows means I will have that much more free time in the evenings.
With the series finales of “Friends” and “Frasier” now past and the finale of “Angel,” the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” spinoff, later tonight one might think the networks would be scrambling to come out with some worthy replacement shows. But on first glance at the new fall schedules being announced this week, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Other than the “Friends” spinoff “Joey,” while I will check out, the only new show on the schedule that even looks remotely interesting is “Lost” scheduled for Wednesdays on ABC. It is some kind of adventure series set on a deserted island and stars Matthew Fox of “Party of Five” fame as well as Dominic Monaghan who was a hobbit in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I’m sure ABC will axe the series after airing only a handful of episodes since I have shown some interest in it now.
Other than that, there are no shows on ABC that interest me (except possibly the “Wonderful World of Disney” depending on what is showing). I haven’t watched anything on Fox since I got bogged down with the second season of “24” and the cancellation of “Angel” means I won’t be wasting my time tuning into the WB Network again.
I understand that UPN has decided to renew “Star Trek: Enterprise” for one more season so I will continue to faithfully tune them in once a week as a devoted Trekee.
NBC still has “ER” on Thursday nights and CBS has renewed “Judging Amy” and “Joan of Arcadia,” and that is about it. There are a few others shows that I would normally find worthy but for various reasons I have not found the time or the desire to watch them regularly. They include “The Simpsons,” “West Wing,” and “Alias.”
I also watch “60 Minutes” on occasion depending on the topic.
Finally, I have a friend who is such a devoted fan of “The Amazing Race” that he has applied to be on the show for its sixth season. So I will probably break down and watch an episode or two next season to see what it is all about.
Here is my tentative viewing schedule for next fall:
Monday: Nothing
Tuesday: “Judging Amy”
Wednesday: “Lost”
Thursday: “Joey,” “E.R.”
Friday: “Star Trek: Enterprise,” “Joan of Arcadia”
Saturday: “Amazing Race”
Sunday: Nothing
Monday, May 10, 2004
Not an isolated incident
From a report
by the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC)
This is just chilling.....
“The agency said arrests allegedly tended to follow a pattern.
"Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other property," the report said.
"Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people," it said. "Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles."
I can understand that seeking out insurgents during the heat of battle can be a tense and hazardous duty and I would expect our soldiers to take every precaution to protect and defend themselves, but what is the purpose behind these gestapo tactics? What is that supposed to accomplish other than spread fear and resentment among the masses.
And when we are gathering our prisoners in this manner it is little wonder that -
“...some coalition military intelligence officers estimated that "between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake.”
Yes, innocent civilians. Not insurgents, not terrorists, but the very people we are supposed to be liberating and introducing to democracy.
And the worst part about the ICRC report aside from how their warnings were ignored by the Bush administration was the answer they got back from military officials in response:
“The ICRC report said the agency was told that in general that the prisoner abuse in Iraq by U.S. military personnel is "part of the process" during interrogation.”
That’s right. Just part of the process.
Here is the process...
“The report cites abuses - some "tantamount to torture" - including brutality, hooding, humiliation and threats of "imminent execution."
"These methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and extract information and other forms of cooperation from person who had been arrested in connection with suspected security offenses or deemed to have an 'intelligence value.'"”
So this was not just an isolated instance and court marshalling a few guards who had the misfortune and poor judgement to have their pictures taken during some of the abuses is not going to do anything to address the real problem.
“U.S. President George W. Bush said the mistreatment "was the wrongdoing of a few," but the Red Cross report backs up with detail the neutral agency's contention that the abuse was broad and part of a system, "not individual acts."”
More Bush lies. No surprise there.
by the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC)
This is just chilling.....
“The agency said arrests allegedly tended to follow a pattern.
"Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other property," the report said.
"Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people," it said. "Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles."
I can understand that seeking out insurgents during the heat of battle can be a tense and hazardous duty and I would expect our soldiers to take every precaution to protect and defend themselves, but what is the purpose behind these gestapo tactics? What is that supposed to accomplish other than spread fear and resentment among the masses.
And when we are gathering our prisoners in this manner it is little wonder that -
“...some coalition military intelligence officers estimated that "between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake.”
Yes, innocent civilians. Not insurgents, not terrorists, but the very people we are supposed to be liberating and introducing to democracy.
And the worst part about the ICRC report aside from how their warnings were ignored by the Bush administration was the answer they got back from military officials in response:
“The ICRC report said the agency was told that in general that the prisoner abuse in Iraq by U.S. military personnel is "part of the process" during interrogation.”
That’s right. Just part of the process.
Here is the process...
“The report cites abuses - some "tantamount to torture" - including brutality, hooding, humiliation and threats of "imminent execution."
"These methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and extract information and other forms of cooperation from person who had been arrested in connection with suspected security offenses or deemed to have an 'intelligence value.'"”
So this was not just an isolated instance and court marshalling a few guards who had the misfortune and poor judgement to have their pictures taken during some of the abuses is not going to do anything to address the real problem.
“U.S. President George W. Bush said the mistreatment "was the wrongdoing of a few," but the Red Cross report backs up with detail the neutral agency's contention that the abuse was broad and part of a system, "not individual acts."”
More Bush lies. No surprise there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)