|
|
|
Demagoguery |
|
|
|
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Candidates - Give 'Em $25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, May 16, 2003 |
|
|
|
The Free Congress Foundation Supports Child Murderers
Today, Paul Weyrich released another of his insightful commentaries, this time linking the Human Rights Campaign to the National Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
How does he make that connection, you might ask. Well, it takes some twisted logic
Go to the Human Rights Campaign webpage and punch in NAMBLA, the group's acronym. There is not one news release that pops up presenting NAMBLA as a group that deserves widespread condemnation for its reprehensible activities. But there is a news release when the phrase `man-boy love' is punched in that pops up in which they try to distance themselves from NAMBLA in a defensive manner. Nor do they have a section in their 'issues" section that makes clear in no uncertain terms that they take exception to this awful organization and its agenda.
In my book, for such a group as the Human Rights Campaign, a leading spokesgroup for the homosexual movement, to be essentially silent about such a group like NAMBLA is to be complicit with it.
Judging by Weyrich's own standard, the Free Congress Foundation supports the actions of Gengis Kahn, John Wayne Gacy, Leopold and Loeb, Jim Jones, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and the Hutus who committed genocide in Rwanda, because not once has the FCF spoken out against such individuals, groups or atrocities.
Contact the Free Congress Foundation and tell Weyrich that he is an idiot.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did You Know ...
... that the Bush administration has shut down the US Army War College's Peacekeeping Institute? As the "only government agency devoted to studying how to secure peace in failed nations or post-conflict situations" it had a staff of 10 and an annual budget of $200,000?
It makes sense I guess - its not like we have a need for such things anymore. As Condoleezza Rice said during Bush's presidential campaign, "We don't need to have the Eighty-Second Airborne escorting kids to kindergarten"
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$817 Million Well Spent
The Pentagon has ordered 11 new Osprey aircraft for the bargain price of $817 million. How many people does this machine have to kill before the progam itself is killed? Apparently more than 23.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Heroes' Welcome
Texas Democrats returned to Austin this morning, and it is now evident that what pollsters and political consultants refer to as the "issue environment" has turned solidly in their favor. Here's the beginning of an AP story that is on the national wire. To read the whole story, go here.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -
Runaway Texas Democrats returned to a heroes' welcome at the Capitol on Friday after their self-imposed exile in Oklahoma killed a redistricting bill they hated. Legislative business in the House of Representatives resumed.
"Welcome home, Texas heroes," one sign read as the lawmakers stepped up to the Capitol to cheers and applause from like-minded citizens. The Democrats stood momentarily, smiling and waving at the exuberant crowd, some wearing yellow ribbons.
"We've weathered a few things. We've weathered some troopers; we've weathered a tornado, and we weathered Denny's," said Democrat Jim Dunnum, who emerged as the group's ringleader. "No matter what happens, democracy won in this event."
posted by
Tyler at 11:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Confederacy of Flimflammery
There's a pattern developing here....
Back in October, when Bush asked Congress to authorize use of force in Iraq, the administration sat on evidence that North Korea had restarted its nuclear weapons program, fearing that this "distraction" would weaken Congress' resolve to take out Saddam.
In February, Colin Powell presented what he called "irrefutable and undeniable evidence" of Saddam Hussein's continuing weapons programs, in defiance of UN resolutions. It was clear, even before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, that much of this evidence was hokum, but that didn't stop the administration from moving forward, nor did it prompt so much as a squeak of protest from Congressional Democrats.
Today, CongressDaily offers this report [subscription required] on the Bush tax plan:
The Bush administration has calculated that President Bush's proposed 10-year, $726 billion tax cut would return approximately 30 percent of its value to Treasury coffers, as increased economic activity causes new revenues to flow back in, according to sources knowledgeable about the analysis.
Nevertheless, Bush aides have decided not to release the study, which was mostly completed about five or six weeks ago. At least part of the reason is that, as the analysis was finalized, it became clear that Congress would likely pass a smaller and somewhat different tax cut. Nevertheless, Bush continues to travel the country pushing for his entire tax cut, even as the new analysis of that tax cut has been put on ice.
Sadly, this information has only come to light the day after the Senate approved--by one vote, mind you--a slightly slimmed-down version of the Bush tax plan. Once again, the administration has employed chicanery to get support from Congress and the public for a questionable proposal that couldn't pass on the merits.
Perhaps it's time that someone call Bush on this public policy bait and switch.
Oh well, at least this unfortunate chain of events provides me with the opportunity to use the terms "flimflammery," "hokum," "chicanery" and "bait and switch" all in the same post.
posted by
Noam Alaska at 10:48 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now This is Coordination!
While I was sleeping peacefully, Talking Points Memo was up late last night cutting through the layers of crap in the Who Called the Feds? drama. Surprise, surprise, DeLay and Craddick's stories just don't line up.
posted by
Helena Montana at 9:43 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Style Over Substance
The New York Times has a good article on the Bush administration's coordinated efforts to have Bush deliver speeches in flattering locations, like his May 1 speech aboard the USS Lincoln. The Times details the thought and planning that goes into controlling the image
On Tuesday, at a speech promoting his economic plan in Indianapolis, White House aides went so far as to ask people in the crowd behind Mr. Bush to take off their ties, WISH-TV in Indianapolis reported, so they would look more like the ordinary folk the president said would benefit from his tax cut.
For the prime-time television address that Mr. Bush delivered to the nation on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House rented three barges of giant Musco lights, the kind used to illuminate sports stadiums and rock concerts, sent them across New York Harbor, tethered them in the water around the base of the Statue of Liberty and then blasted them upward to illuminate all 305 feet of America's symbol of freedom. It was the ultimate patriotic backdrop for Mr. Bush, who spoke from Ellis Island.
For a speech that Mr. Bush delivered last summer at Mount Rushmore, the White House positioned the best platform for television crews off to one side, not head on as other White Houses have done, so that the cameras caught Mr. Bush in profile, his face perfectly aligned with the four presidents carved in stone.
And on Monday, for remarks the president made promoting his tax cut plan near Albuquerque, the White House unfurled a backdrop that proclaimed its message of the day, "Helping Small Business," over and over. The type was too small to be read by most in the audience, but just the right size for television viewers at home.
The most famous, the USS Lincoln speech, is described below
The most elaborate — and criticized — White House event so far was Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of major combat in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people, including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.
Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.
But the Times goes on to sum up the Lincoln speech by noting
The trip was attacked by Democrats as an expensive political stunt, but White House officials said that Democrats needed a better issue for taking on the president. A New York Times/CBS News nationwide poll conducted May 9-12 found that the White House may have been right: 59 percent of those polled said it was appropriate, and not an effort to make political gain, for Mr. Bush to dress in a flight suit and announce the end of combat operations on the aircraft carrier.
Perhaps 59% thought it was appropriate because the media hasn't been too interested in explaining to them how phony it was. What else could this have been, other than a political stunt? Was there some pressing national security issue that necessitated Bush flying in a jet, wearing a high-altitude flight suit, to an aircraft carrier a mere 30 miles off the coast of California to deliver a national televised speech during the "magic light hour" that I was unaware of? He couldn't have waited until the Lincoln docked the following morning to greet the troops? He couldn't have taken a helicopter out to the ship? The whole thing was nothing but an elaborate photo-op/re-election campaign spectacle. And maybe if the media bothered to explain it that way, instead of swooning over it like a bunch of adolescent girls, the American people could see it for what it was - a blatant, calculated, cynical political stunt.
I think White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett explains it nicely
"We pay particular attention to not only what the president says but what the American people see," Mr. Bartlett said. "Americans are leading busy lives, and sometimes they don't have the opportunity to read a story or listen to an entire broadcast. But if they can have an instant understanding of what the president is talking about by seeing 60 seconds of television, you accomplish your goals as communicators. So we take it seriously."
To translate: "We don't have a very articulate president, so we put him in pretty settings, hoping to distract the American public from his inability to formulate a coherent sentence and cover for his extremely low IQ. Since we know that most Americans don't really pay much attention to the news, if we can get the media to show the president in a good light we don't have to worry so much about the substance of the message, or lack thereof. And so we work to co-opt the media, which willingly plays along, so that the American people will be fooled long enough to accidentally re-elect us for another 4 years. Thanks media ... suckers."
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, May 15, 2003 |
|
|
|
Office of Strategic Influence
The French are a little miffed about what they perceive to be a campaign of disinformation that is being waged against them and have fired off a 2 page letter documenting a series of false anti-France stories that have appeared in the US media - like this one in the Washington Times that alleged that "the French government secretly supplied fleeing Iraqi officials with passports in Syria that allowed them to escape to Europe."
According to the Times, they got this info from "US intelligence officials" and that reminds me ... does anyone remember when Rumsfeld created the Office of Strategic Influence so that the Pentagon could disseminate lies, propaganda and disinformation globally that would be helpful to the United States? I wonder if they had any role in this? But wait, it can't be that because Rumsfeld promised to shut it down.
Hummm ... it must all be a coincidence then.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 7:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hottie Alert
It looks like another conservative columnist, Suzanne Fields, gets all weak in the knees at the thought of our commander-in-chief [Helena and I discussed similar hormone eruptions last week]:
The president has to meet a testosterone standard that appeals to women but does not offend men. George W. Bush succeeds with both and that drives Democrats crazy. They've made fools of themselves with their churlish criticism of his landing on the deck of the USS Lincoln, but they can't let it go. George W. was a hottie in his flight suit. He was the victorious commander, and most of all, he looked at home with himself. He glowed with the pride born of authenticity, declaring the war over and thanking all those appreciative sailors on the decks of the Lincoln. In contrast to a certain predecessor, George W. has the sexiness of a faithful husband. He appreciates women without the leer.
A good provider and a hunk in a flight suit. What a dreamboat!
posted by
Noam Alaska at 2:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Real Soul of the Democratic Party
Here is the entire DLC memo, in which they seek to debunk "the five most dangerous myths about the Democratic nominating process"
Myth #1: Real Democrats Always Turn Left Myth #2: Candidates on the Left Have the Inside Track Myth #3: The Primary Calendar Is Stacked Against New Democrats Myth #4: Democrats Are a Mushy Bunch of Wimps with Nothing to Say Myth #5: Democrats Can't Win in 2004
The thing that I find most amazing is their willingness to openly proclaim their disdain for "liberals." Repeatedly, the DLC asserts that "Not only is the activist wing out of line with Democratic tradition, but it is badly out of touch with the Democratic rank-and-file" and "Real Democrats who champion the mainstream values, national pride, and economic aspirations of middle-class and working people are the real soul of the Democratic Party, not activists and interest groups with narrow agendas."
Where does the DLC think these "liberal" votes are going to go in 2004? To Lieberman or Edwards? Didn't the Democrats just lose an election because 3 million people voted for Nader? Shouldn't they at least be trying to keep them in the fold, instead of officially cutting them loose? Maybe Nader voters will never vote for a DLC candidate, but antagonizing and alienating a substantial portion of your likely supporters does not seem to be a solid election strategy. Never have the Republicans told the right-wing of their party to get lost - in fact, they do the opposite, actively reaching out to them and working to keep them happy. How the DLC plans to win the White House by giving the finger to liberal activists is beyond me.
And finally, why is the DLC trying to prove that the party base does not consist of liberals by saying "No wonder that when the New Yorker recently asked Karl Rove to describe the Democratic base, he said, 'somebody with a doctorate.'"? Is Rove working as a consultant to the DLC now? Am I supposed to care what he thinks? Am I missing something?
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 2:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
War on Terrorism Aids GOP Redistricting Plan
The Web site Common Dreams.org has posted a very disturbing article reporting that the Bush administration's Homeland Security Department (HSD) was used to help track down Democratic members of the Texas House of Representatives who abruptly left the state earlier this week to protest GOP attempts to pass a new, Draconian redistricting bill. Even though the Texas Legislature already passed a law redrawing its Congressional districts to reflect the 2000 Census, Republican legislators want another bite at the apple -- this time hoping to grab more districts for their party since they control both houses of the Legislature. Bear in mind that Americans were told that HSD would never be used for domestic political purposes. Besides, this is a state issue, and there is no indication that the Democratic state legislators have broken any federal laws. The Common Dreams article by Glenn W. Smith is worth a read.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 12:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Few Good Men
The cover story on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that was published in Sunday's New York Times Magazine is having unexpected fallout and causing the staff of a Georgia senator to make clumsy and ridiculous statements. The article mentioned a telephone call between Frist and Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.
During the phone call, Chambliss asked Frist to see to it that one of Chambliss' major campaign contributors was appointed to an ambassadorship to an economic development organization. The conversation reveals the sleazy nature of how Washington works, a practice which (let's be honest, here) has infected both of the major political parties. In this case, the GOP was caught with its hand in the cookie jar.
After Chambliss asked Frist to use his power to secure this appointment for Chambliss' big-donor friend, Frist asks, "He has lots of dollar figures down there?"
"That's exactly right," Chambliss said. "And he did raise a chunk of money for me."
"All right," Frist said. "You're a good man." (The context of Frist's closing statement reveals what makes someone "good" in the parlance of GOP insiders -- you're connected with high-rollers who have deep pockets and can finance the party's campaigns and other operations. These days, Republicans have an interesting standard for assessing goodness in others. Last December, in the immediate days after Trent Lott praised the 1948 segregationist candidacy of Strom Thurmond, Senator Orrin Hatch called Lott "a very good man." But I digress....)
When reporters began calling Senator Chambliss' office, the responses they got were pretty bizarre. According to a Newsday article, Chambliss spokeswoman Angie Lundberg "said the senator didn't know there was a reporter in the room." No kidding. Is that relevant? Does it change the fact that Chambliss is clearly asking his party's most powerful senator to effectively trade a federal post for a hefty campaign contribution? Saying that your boss "didn't know there was a reporter" overhearing a phone conversation is like an armed robber saying he had no idea there was a police stakeout at the liquor store he tried to rob.
Then Newsday added this gem from Chambliss' spokeswoman: "Although the [Frist-Chambliss remarks] were accurately quoted, Lundberg said, they shouldn't be perceived as an attempt to trade influence for political donations. 'Someone's political activities may or may not be one of several factors for these positions,' Lundberg said." Yeah, right.
Will the Democrats formally attack Chambliss' attempt to trade a job for a campaign contribution? Don't bet on it. Looking at the DNC Web site, there is no sign yet that Terry McAuliffe and company are ready to go there. This isn't a great shock; the Dems have a better but far from sterling record in this area. McAuliffe's attention has been focused on chasing money, which tends to weaken the party's resolve when it comes to taking a firm stand against corporate abuse and influence-peddling.
This fact, combined with the Senate's clubby atmosphere, mean that Chambliss is unlikely to pay any political price for his blatant attempt to reward a contributor with a job.
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 12:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone Should Do Something
Just not us. As the situation continues to deteriorate in the Congo, there are calls for the UN to send in a bigger peacekeeping force.
Carolyn McAskie, the UN Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator, told a press briefing at UN Headquarters in New York that the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation and the ethnic tensions in Bunia conjured up "shades of Rwanda in 1994," where men, women and children rose up and attacked their neighbours.
Whole villages in and around Bunia were slaughtering each other - a deeply disturbing aspect of the hostilities that Ms. McAskie feared was "Rwanda-like," although "nothing could match the scale of Rwanda." Still, there had been hundreds of casualties "that we know of" in the last few weeks or so, she added, stressing that the humanitarian situation was "extremely dangerous, even desperate; the focus was on very basic life-saving interventions."
The dire security situation - where a "rather nasty cocktail" of rebel groups and dissatisfaction with local authorities was playing on ethnic hatreds - meant that relief agencies were "down to the minimum in terms of providing the most basic human needs" such as plastic sheeting for shelter and high-protein biscuits.
Ms. McAskie noted there were just eight humanitarian personnel on the ground right now - including a surgeon, nutrition specialist, and water and sanitation expert -doing what they could. Despite the evacuations, she and others, including the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), were trying to keep a core group in place. Other teams and supplies were on standby, but needed a more secure environment in which to operate. Supplies were being moved up from Goma, but incoming flights tended to be sporadic. The first priority was to find a way to stop the fighting.
Asked how large a force would be needed to suppress the fighting, Ms. McAskie said Ugandan troops had been "keeping a lid on it". They had anywhere from 7,000 to 9,000 troops. "We have 800 personnel now, and estimates of what was needed were some three times that," she said.
According to the NYT
After the meeting, one United States diplomat said, "We support a member state that is willing to consider this task quickly" — an implicit nudge to the French to take on the responsibility.
This MSNBC article gives a bit of background on the situation.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing the Trend
From Human Rights Watch
A new legal brief filed by the U.S. Justice Department would roll back twenty years of judicial rulings for victims of human rights abuse, Human Rights Watch warned today.
On May 8, Attorney General John Ashcroft filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief for the defense in a civil case alleging that the oil company Unocal was complicit in forced labor and other abuses committed by the Burmese military during the construction of the Yadana gas pipeline. The case, John Doe I, et al. v. Unocal Corporation, et al., was originally filed in 1996 and is currently being reheard by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Justice Department brief went well beyond the scope of the Unocal case, however, and argued for a radical re-interpretation of the 1789 Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA). For over 20 years, courts have held that the ATCA permits victims of serious violations of international law abroad to seek civil damages in U.S. courts against their alleged abusers who are found in the United States. The Justice Department would deny victims the right to sue under the ATCA for abuses committed abroad.
“This is a craven attempt to protect human rights abusers at the expense of victims,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “The Bush administration is trying to overturn a longstanding judicial precedent that has been very important in the protection of human rights.”
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 11:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Going, Going, Gone: Tom DeLay's Republican Redistricting Bill
Rep. Tom Delay's attempts to add five to seven Republican seats to Congress, split liberal Austin into four congressional districts, split liberal Hidalgo County into three congressional districts and split the teeming metropolis of Waco, Texas into two congressional districts is, for all practical purposes, dead. The bill will die at midnight tonight, at which time the 52 Texas House Democrats will evacuate their temporary headquarters at the Holiday Inn in Ardmore, Oklahoma, and return to Austin.
It is still quite possible that the Republicans might try some legislative sleight of hand to revive their bill. However, such an effort would meet with certain failure in the Senate due to technical rules. To read today's coverage, go here.
My favorite paragraph from this story is this:
At a news conference earlier in the day, Craddick, Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst urged the Democrats to return to Texas in time to allow a House vote on redistricting. Perry acknowledged the Democrats would lose the vote, but he said that is part of the process.
posted by
Tyler at 11:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I Ever Needed Another Reason to Hate the DLC ...
... They've just provided one. According to the Washington Post, the Democratic Leadership Council issued a memo dismissing Howard Dean as an elitist liberal from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the party -- "the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one."
"We are increasingly confident that President Bush can be beaten next year, but Dean is not the man to do it," said the memo. "Most Democrats aren't elitists who think they know better than everyone else."
On the other hand, the DLC loves Lieberman and Graham, so at least I know who I won't be voting for next year.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making the World Safer III
If by that you mean, killing off over 90% of the world's large predatory fish. From Nature:Analysis of data from five ocean basins reveals a dramatic decline in numbers of large predatory fish (tuna, blue marlins, swordfish and others) since the advent of industrialized fishing. The world's oceans have lost over 90% of large predatory fish, with potentially severe consequences for the ecosystem. These findings provide indirect support for goals established at the UN's World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg last year.
posted by
Helena Montana at 10:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making the World Safer II
The United States has refused to sign the 1997 international treaty banning the use of landmines, and even acknowledged plans to use them in Iraq (see here or here) but that won't keep us from sending Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck to deliver public service messages warning Cambodian children that landmines are dangerous.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:18 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Making the World Safer
From the Christian Science Monitor
Amid all the talk of weapons of mass destruction, a curious bill passed through the United States Senate Armed Services Committee last Friday, repealing a ban on the research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. Such weapons are so sophisticated and specialized that few nations have the capability to respond with their own similar weapons programs. But for the clutch of nuclear-weapons states here in Asia, accustomed to American diplomatic lectures on the benefits of nuclear restraint, the change of tone in the Senate comes as a welcome change.
The message, perhaps unintended, is that if the US can do nuclear-weapons research, other nations can too.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ha Ha...Not Funny
Yesterday, I thought that DeLay's call for the feds to come wrangle up the Texas D's was just a bunch of grandstanding. He blusters like that plenty and I thought it was just another soundbite, effective in the short term but with no substance behind it.
Well, how naive am I?
Via this Common Dreams story, I read this report from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:The hunt for Democrats on the lam from the Texas Legislature has involved virtually every level of government, ranging from a house call by local cops to monitoring conducted -- apparently unwittingly -- by a California-based agency that normally is involved in the fight against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. There's a bit of passing the buck on who was really asking for federal involvement, but this much is certain:One federal agency that became involved early on was the Air and Marine Interdiction and Coordination Center, based in Riverside, Calif. -- which now falls under the auspices of the Homeland Security Department.
The agency received a call to locate a specific Piper turboprop aircraft. It was determined that the plane belonged to former House Speaker Pete Laney, D-Hale Center.
The location of Laney's plane proved to be a key piece of information because, Craddick said, it's how he determined that the Democrats were in Ardmore.
"We called someone, and they said they were going to track it. I have no idea how they tracked it down," Craddick said. "That's how we found them." Sounds like abuse of a federal agency to me.
posted by
Helena Montana at 9:27 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, May 14, 2003 |
|
|
|
Please Put Michael Graham Back in His Cage
And lock it tight. Those instructions follow a colleague's discovery this afternoon of a particularly hateful quote by Graham -- the hyperconservative, radio talk-show host -- who said he "wanted to bludgeon" New York Senator Hillary Clinton with a tire iron. Ironically, Graham was commenting May 7 on MSNBC's "Hardball" on another offensive quote -- this one by a Boston Globe sportswriter who declared during a TV interview that he'd "like to smack" the wife of New Jersey Nets basketball player Jason Kidd. The sportswriter, Bob Ryan, was suspended by the Globe. Graham's vicious remark referred to remarks that Senator Clinton delivered on the Senate floor criticizing Ryan's line.
Here are excerpts from a transcript of the May 7 "Hardball" that aired. The speakers are loudmouth host Chris Matthews, Graham, and Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation:
Matthews: "For that he got a suspension without pay for a month. What do you make of that, Katrina?" Vanden Heuvel: "As a woman I find it offensive, cruel, ignorant about the problems of domestic abuse and violence. As an editor, it bothers me that a newspaper would suspend a columnist. I might just add, I think it's ironic the editor of the Boston Globe talked about his language being offensive and unacceptable because I would argue that a lot of the political talk shows on cable, including Michael Savage, if they were held to that standard of unacceptable and offensive, would be pronto on a lot of 30-day suspensions." Matthews: "Well, I accept your standards. Michael Graham, what do you think?" Graham: "I'm not a woman or an editor. But as a human being, I found the line a joke. It was a joke. It was just an off the cuff comment. Anyone listening to Hillary Rodham in her speech last week about patriotism, that screaming, screeching fingernail, I wanted to bludgeon her with a tire iron. That's what I wanted to do."
Graham's comment brings to mind an Edward R. Murrow line: "When the politicians complain that TV turns the proceedings into a circus, it should be made clear that the circus was already there, and that TV has merely demonstrated that not all the performers are well trained."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 3:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maynardville, Tennessee
Every year, hundreds of Union County students take a field trip for the soul. Children are excused from class, loaded onto school buses with teachers and sent to a three-day Christian revival.
...Fourteen-year-old India Tracy said she was harassed and attacked by classmates for nearly three years after she declined to attend Baptist Pastor Gary Beeler's annual crusade because of her family's pagan religion.
Her family has filed a federal lawsuit against Union County schools, claiming the crusade, prayers over the loudspeaker, a Christmas nativity play, a Bible handout and other proselytizing activities in the rural school system have become so pervasive they are a threat to safety and religious liberty.
...India said she was called "Satan worshipper" and accused of eating babies when it was revealed she was a pagan. She said she was taunted, found slurs painted over her locker and was injured when classmates assaulted her and slammed her head into the locker.
...After Christmas break in early 2002, India said three boys chased her down a hall at Horace Maynard Middle School, grabbed her by the neck and said, "You better change your religion or we'll change it for you."
...The lawsuit said school officials took no disciplinary action. In a May 2 legal response, school officials said they acted appropriately, denied the attacks happened, or said they were unaware of them. Those are selected excerpts from this article. Sheesh.
posted by
Helena Montana at 3:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone's Doing It
More advocacy blogs. Here's TomPaine.com's, only two days old! And waaaay on the other side, there's one Ex Parte, from the Federalist Society. Not to mention a competing liberal legal blog from the American Constitution Society that's just getting started. So much to catch up on...
posted by
Helena Montana at 2:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DeLay Calls for Feds to Take 'Killer 'D's Into Custody
And now this:
WASHINGTON -- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Monday he wants federal authorities to pursue Texas Democrats dodging a vote on a plan he authored to increase Republican seats in Congress.
The Sugar Land Republican told reporters that bringing in either U.S. marshals or FBI agents is justified because redistricting is a federal issue, involving congressional seats.
"If it is legal for them to do so, I think it would nice for them to help out the Texas Rangers and the Texas troopers," DeLay said.
posted by
Tyler at 2:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Day Three and Still No Quorum
Texas House Democrats remain holed up in a Holiday Inn in Ardmore, Oklahoma, denying the Texas House of Representatives the quorum it needs to pass the DeLay Republican Redistricting bill, which could well ensure Republican control of the U.S. House of Representatives for the remainder of this decade.
You can go here to read a letter written by the chair of the House Democratic Caucus to Republican Speaker Tom Craddick, explaining the Democrats actions.
The letter contains this amusing post script:
"P.S. As you know, we are at the Holiday Inn in Ardmore, Oklahoma. Please stop having our loved ones in Texas followed and staked out by law enforcement."
posted by
Tyler at 10:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pictures Worth a Thousand Words
Here's official maps, in pdf form, via the Austin American Statesman.
The current districts, as drawn by a federal court after the TX lege stalemated in 2001. You'll notice that Austin, like many other cities, is largely divided into an urban CD. Amusingly, it is the pink spot in the middle of the state.
The DeLay plan, whereby Travis County (Austin and the surounding area) is ripped into four different districts. See the top left inset on the map for detail.
I finally put my finger on why this feels so eerie to me. I was raised in Austin and I have lived in DC for the better part of a decade. I seem destined to reside in places that especially nasty Republicans try to disfranchise. I feel like the Typhoid Mary of voting rights.
posted by
Helena Montana at 10:03 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, May 13, 2003 |
|
|
|
The Issue That Will Not Die
Astute reader J.G has again alerted me to an interesting piece on judicial nominations, this one coming from a Bruce Fein and appearing in today’s edition of the Washington Times.
Fein gets off to a solid start by suggesting a quasi-practical remedy to the judicial nominations gridlock. Quite candidly, Fein recommends In recognition that Senate Republicans thwarted scores of President William Jefferson Clinton's nominees by masterly inactivity tantamount to filibusters, Mr. Bush and the Senate Republican leadership should compensate for that politically and constitutionally misguided history. They should agree to fill 10-20 percent of the next 50 judicial vacancies with Clinton nominees who failed to obtain a Senate vote.
But such magnanimity is quickly squandered, as Fein makes it clear that he only recommends doing so because Republicans have nothing to fear … The doctrines they celebrate generally dominate the constitutional landscape in the Supreme Court, for example, in the fields of racial or ethnic preferences, church-state relations, federalism, and powers of the police and prosecutors. President Ronald Reagan's meticulously devised and brilliantly executed plan to populate the federal bench with trenchant thinkers and writers scornful of Great Society enthusiasms proved a stupendous success. Foiled Clinton nominees who might be selected under a 10-20 percent compensation formula, in contrast, fell within the customary range of mediocrity unlikely to convince others or to disturb the status quo.
I take issue with much of what Fein has to say, most notably his later assertion that Bush was elected to appoint judges who share his political/philosophical convictions. Fein’s claim that “judicial appointments were a centerpiece of his campaign against Al Gore” is laughable and irrelevant. Even had Bush made judicial appointments a major campaign issue, the fact that he lost to Gore by 500,000 votes and that the liberal/democratic Gore/Nader block received some 3 million more votes than did the conservative/Republican Bush/Buchanan block provides a compelling argument that the voters of the America were not eager to see Bush remake the judiciary in his image.
Anyway, Fein’s entire proposal is based upon the assumption that Democrats are simply angry over the treatment of Clinton's nominees and just want some of Clinton’s stalled judges renominated and confirmed. But what Democrats really want is for Bush to stop nominating right-wing nutcases like William Pryor and for the Senate to stop blindly confirming every moron Bush sends their way. A solution that offers a few token Clinton renominations in exchange for a judicial confirmation blank check is not going anywhere.
As I seem condemned to repeat: the issue is not solely that Republicans killed too many Clinton nominees (which they did). It is that Bush and these same Republicans now want to fill these open seats with ideological zealots who will use their positions to further their political agendas. Liberals on the bench do not negate conservatives activists on the bench, nor vice versa. They are not matter and anti-matter. What Americans want are fair-minded, mainstream, moderate judges, not a federal bench split into opposing ideological and political camps. That is what we have in the Senate right now, and we can all see how well that is working.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Update on the 'Killer D's"
If the Texas Democrats can manage to stay in Ardmore, Oklahoma until midnight Wednesday, it could kill Tom Delay's very bad Republican redistricting bill. Meanwhile, the media blitz in Texas -- and now, in Oklahoma -- continues:
First, this:
On Tuesday, local law enforcement agents greeted the Democrats with big smiles and warm handshakes.
"We're here to let them know we support them," Harvey Burkhart, sheriff of Carter County, Okla., said Tuesday. "Nothing's going to happen to them here. I can tell you we're certainly not going to put them in jail."
And this:
"You guys are my heroes," Sharon Copeland, who drove to Ardmore from her home about 60 miles away in Denton, Texas, said Tuesday as she threw her arms around Rep. Lon Burnam of Fort Worth. "I sure am proud to be a Democrat today. I didn't even know this could be done."
For the latest AP write up, go here.
For a story about reaction quotes to what is going on in Texas, go here.
posted by
Tyler at 5:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feeling So Stimulated
Thanks Mr. President! According to the Heritage Foundation's tax calculator, Bush's "stimulus" plan would net me a whopping $50!
Go check it out and let us know how much Bush's plan would help you!
Here's an interesting comparison: A single person making $30,000 per year would shave off $50 from their taxes. A single person making $60,000 per year would shave off $526 from their taxes. A single person making $120,000 per year would shave off $1,726 from their taxes. A single person making $240,000 per year would shave off $4,126 from their taxes. A single person making $480,000 per year would shave off $11,490 from their taxes. A single person making $960,000 per year would shave off $28,770 from their taxes. A single person making $1,920,000 per year would shave off $63,330 from their taxes.
(For the sake of comparison-- the person in question is under 65, no dependents, no dividends, and takes the standard deduction. Obviously the savings for those who are part of the "investor class" who are double-taxed would save more. Also, I'm aware that the standard deduction method is only used for people who don't own much of anything, like me.)
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 2:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
America's future is not looking so bright (you won't need to wear shades)
The U.S. trade deficit widened in March to $43.5 billion, the second-highest on record, as imports of foreign-made industrial supplies, including crude oil, rose to an all-time monthly high.
Consider the new record-high trade deficit numbers while contemplating the following: our current unemployment rate, the 2.1 million Americans who are about to lose their unemployment checks, illusionary consumer confidence estimates, the dire financial problems in most states, and then would someone please explain to me how Bush's tax-cuts are going to fix it all?
posted by
Zoe Kentucky at 2:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas-Sized Lying From DeLay
"What's at stake here is the most effective and accurate representation for Texans," DeLay said Monday. "Republicans are the majority party in both Washington and Austin and are best able to deliver on Texans' priorities and represent their beliefs." Tom DeLay, 5/13, Houston Chronicle
"I'm the majority leader, and I want more [Republican] seats." Tom DeLay, 5/9, Washington Post
Texas Dems: Tequila's on Me! If only it weren't so dang far away, I'd travel down to Mexico and buy those renegade state legislators a round of shots. This is one of those things that just makes politics seem fun isn't it?
But, I have to admit that I'm not sure what the Dems who went to Oklahoma were thinking. As Tyler just said to me, "It is sad when, to protect the concept of one person, one vote, Texas Democrats have to flee to Ardmore, Oklahoma!"
And What Exactly Are They Trying To Do? Amid all the breathless reporting of runaway legislators, it's a bit hard to find some backstory here. Not suprisingly, the excellent weekly Austin Chronicle was the first place to turn up in my search for actual maps of the proposed districts. Check it out if you are interested, though the maps are partial and don't fully reflect how tortuous the districts are. The AP reported on Friday that the GOP's own redistricting expert said of the proposal:It is a pro-Republican partisan gerrymander on top of an already pro-Republican existing plan. It attempts to achieve for the Republican Party in Washington, through artificial pairings and partisan packing and cracking, what Republican voters in the existing districts could already do easily on their own -- elect a disproportionately Republican delegation. Finally....the Houston Chronicle printed a list of the Dems who walked. Tell them how great they are!
posted by
Helena Montana at 1:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blog Jinx
Purely by coincidence, I offer this follow-up to Frederick's previous post, which I was apparently working on at the same time as he was posting his. But rather than analyzing Bush's obvious inability to speak in an even remotely coherent manner, I am just going to offer up a few choice quotes from his pro-tax cut speech in New Mexico For 20 months -- for 20 months we have waged a relentless campaign against global terror. (Applause.) An enemy struck us because they hate what we stand for: they hate the fact that we have freedom of speech in America. (Applause.) They hate the fact that we have freedom of religion in America. (Applause.) They hate the fact that we love freedom and so they attacked us. (Applause.) And they thought we had quit.
We have a lot of work to do in Iraq. We have a lot of work to do in Iraq. Haven't been there very long, by the way. (Applause.) Less than 60 days ago that we started our mission. And in that period of time, not only did we remove a regime which threatened our security and held the American people hostage...
We have faced big challenges in this country. But because of the actions we have taken and the sacrifices many have made, a America is more secure, the world is more peaceful, and many people are more free.
Too many of our people here aren't working. The inflation -- I mean, the unemployment rate hit 6 percent. That should serve as a warning signal for the reluctant members of the United States Congress that we need to hear the voices of those who are looking for work
I want to review the history right quick. In March of 2000, the stock market started to decline. In January of 2001, we were in a recession, which meant three quarters of negative growth. (Demagogue notes: "The technical definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth.")
And all of a sudden now, it means they've got more of their own money to decide what to do for their families.
The cornerstone of the plan, however, focuses on small business. It's an important part of the plan, it's an integral part of the plan. I told you earlier, most new jobs are -- in America -- are created by small business owners, which makes it -- see, if you're interested in expanding the job base and you go to the origin of job creation, it seems like to me, and the origin of job creation is a small business owner.
The plant makes -- incensed Phil to make the decision to make a capital investment.
I fully recognize that some people up there, when they hear -- have the word "appropriator" by their name, appropriate. (Laughter.) My job is to encourage them to appropriate, but in a wise way. And I will continue to do so. But if we hold down spending, the way to deal with the deficit is to encourage revenue growth in the Treasury, and the way to deal with -- encourage revenue growth is to stimulate this economy. The best way to deal with the recession is to have an economic growth plan that will cause economic vitality.
I'm worried about the deficit, but I'm more worried about the single mom who's worried about putting food on the table for her children, so she could find work.
Come on now, a high school junior delivering a speech this mangled would get be lucky to get a "D" - shouldn't we have a higher standard for the President of the United States?
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 12:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Democracy in Action in Austin, Texas
By now, everyone probably has read about the courageous and historic walkout in the Texas Legislature by the House Democrats who are protesting the Republicans' redistricting plan.
Under the plan, U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett's congressional district would be eliminated, thus denying the city of Austin, and its population of 680,000, the ability to elect its own representative to Congress.
Doggett, a progressive Democrat, writes this op-ed in today's Austin American-Statesman. (Please note that this link will be good only for today, due to the newspaper's frustrating indexing system.)
Some snippets:
Looming above us all is Tom DeLay's scheme to slice up Texas and divide our communities from each other, much the same as his insistence on divisive politics in Washington. In a series of bizarre-shaped congressional districts, Texas is chopped and hacked, axed and sliced into the mess that is the "DeLay Congressional Redistricting Plan."
Travis County, for example would be divided into four congressional districts, all of which claim some portion of Sixth Street between MoPac and Interstate 35. One snakes its way for hundreds of miles from here to the Rio Grande, and another reaches across rural small towns and into Houston. It is as unfair to these other widely separated communities as it is in denying my hometown an accessible member of Congress.
This carving up our capital city is nothing but a power grab designed to ensure DeLay's lifetime tenure as House majority leader. "Tom the Hammer," as he is known for pressuring people in Washington, has become "Tom the Knife" in Texas.
Monday, more than 50 outstanding members of the Texas House of Representatives, acting on the courage of their convictions, prevented a quorum from being reached. This is an extraordinary action, but it is in response to extraordinary arrogance and intimidation and the admission by Republicans on the House Redistricting Committee that this entire process is of, by and for Tom DeLay.
This is no lark. This is no prank. It is a time neither for jest nor jubilation -- rather, this reaction shows what can happen when extremism pushes too far. This is a bold message that in Texas, the people's business must come first. These members will not sit idly by and watch the bipartisan cooperation be exterminated by strong-arm tactics. They refuse to be hammered. They refuse to let Texas be knifed.
Go Lloyd Doggett!
posted by
Tyler at 12:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
White House Promises Bush to Master English by '06
President Bush continues to resemble a student studying English as a second language. In a speech yesterday in Nebraska to promote the administration's tax cut plan, the president demonstrated yet again his willingness (even when delivering a formal address) to jettison parts of speech that are normally considered essential for constructing what we call "sentences."
First, keep in mind that all of these quotes are from the White House's official transcript. Referring to the 9-11 terrorist incidents, the White House reported that Bush offered this sentence fragment, "They attacked us, and it affected us. Obviously, took a lot of lives, and we mourn for those lives ..." Apparently, the president is snubbing France, Mexico and nouns. "It" is a mono-syllabllic word. Why couldn't the president make time for it?
Even when the president delivered a perfectly grammatical sentence, he couldn't resist adding this fragment: "We have a deficit because the economy slowed down, is why we have a deficit." Now that's smooth, Mr. President.
In his speech yesterday, President Bush referred to CEOs at Enron and other corporations, saying "they forgot they have a responsibility to shareholders and employees to tell the truth. They got a bad case of big-shot-itis. But they're now learning." I'm not sure they're learning, but it's clear from Bush's misuse of language that he isn't learning much. Since "got" is the past tense of "get," Bush's choice of words would make sense only if he meant that Enron executives received "a bad case of big-shot-itis." Yet, clearly, what the president meant to say was that these executives had "a bad case of big-shot-itis."
Many of Bush's sloppy and awkward phrases reflect the broader ways in which many uneducated or marginally educated Americans abuse the language, which perhaps explains some of his appeal to the NASCAR demographic. One example from yesterday's speech: Bush tells the Nebraska audience, "You know, the great strength of America happens when a neighbor loves a neighbor in need." But does strength "happen"? Indeed, American may be strengthened when neighbors show compassion for each other, but strength (unlike shit) doesn't "happen."
The president's penchant for redundancy can be seen in many of his speeches, and Monday's address is no exception. Congressman Steve King of Iowa, whose district adjoins Nebraska, attended Bush's speech, and the president wanted to recognize his presence. Instead of telling the audience that King "came across the border to be here," the president made the somewhat redundant observation that "you let a man come across the border today to come here." Reducing this sentence to its most basic elements, Bush is essentially saying: "You let him come to come here." Also in this speech, the president told the crowd that his tax cut is "going to have a positive effect all throughout the economy." The contention, of course, is shamefully unfounded, but, assuming there were some basis for the argument, one might claim that the proposal would have a "positive effect all through the economy" or "throughout the economy," but "all throughout" is clearly redundant.
The New York Times' Bill Safire supports Bush, but Safire, a literate man, must cringe whenever he hears the president speak. Bush defenders may be inclined to laugh off the president's grammatical transgressions as simply "a Texas thing," but Barbara Jordan was from Texas, too. And she never inflicted such torture on the English language as our prez does nearly every day.
Mark Crispin Miller, a New York University professor of media studies, has compiled a book of (in the words of Publisher's Weekly) Bush's "grammatical gaffes, syntactical shipwrecks, mind-boggling malapropisms and simply dumb comments." Miller contends that Bush has succeeded not in spite of these verbal sins, but, to a large extent, because his tortured words and phrases appeal to the vacuous TV culture in which we live. That's an interesting assessment -- or, as our president might say: "That's an assessment viewpoint, is interesting."
posted by
Frederick Maryland at 11:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unforgivable
Nicholas Kristoff on famine in Africa "How is it that we routinely accept a level of suffering and hopelessness in Africa that we would never accept in any other part of the world?"
Donate to the World Food Program
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bring on the Class Warfare
This Washington Post article relates that Bush is preemptively seeking to blunt criticism that his current tax cut proposal unfairly benefits the rich. During a speech yesterday, he told the audience, "Oh, you'll hear the talk about how this plan only helps the rich people. That's just typical Washington, D.C., political rhetoric, is what that is. That's just empty rhetoric."
As the "King of Empty Rhetoric," he ought to know. But it seems to be working because "Democrats are just scared to be accused of class warfare," said a Senate Democratic aide.
This is ridiculous, as all the Democrats have to do is cite the following paragraphs, from the same Post article
Under Bush's original proposal, households with $40,000 to $50,000 in taxable income would receive an average tax cut of $482 and a boost of 1.2 percent to their total after-tax income. For households earning more than $1 million, the average tax cut would be more than $89,500, with an increase in their after-tax income of 4.2 percent, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
The $550 billion version that passed the House last week is even more skewed. Those same middle-income households would receive a tax cut of $452 and an income boost of 1.1 percent, while millionaires would receive a cut of $93,537, enough to increase their after-tax income by 4.4 percent. The more modest $350 billion tax cut that passed the Senate Finance Committee last week would trim the average millionaire's tax cut a bit, to $64,431. But it would also trim the middle class cut to $415.
If it is "class warfare" to honestly explain to the American people that Bush's proposal favors the rich at their expense, then bring it on.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 10:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Follow Up North Korea Post
Today, the Christian Science Monitor ran a story about a female North Korean soldier who defected. According to the article, those in the Army had it better than most, but they could not go on leave, go home, speak to their families or to those outside the Army. They earned two North Korean won a month - about 10 cents. Dinners always combined the same four dishes: kimchee (pickled cabbage), rice or noodles, and a vegetable. Eggs were a holiday treat. The only time they got meat was on President Kim's birthday. The Army practiced with live rounds only one week out of four to save ammunition.
When the famine hit in 1997, she found her status as a model and former soldier didn't help secure food. Eventually, after her middle child died of malnutrition, she walked for 16 days through the jungle and then defected to South Korea.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 12, 2003 |
|
|
|
Humanitarian Hawk
This Washington Post piece on North Korea's "Great Leader" Kim Il Sung and his son, "Dear Leader" Kim Jong Il, is interesting in its own right but disconcertingly makes almost no mention of what life is like for those forced to live under this insane regime.
As Human Rights Watch reports
Human Rights Watch has no access to the DPRK and has not carried out research inside the DPRK. The closed nature of the DPRK and the lack of access by private human rights organizations and U.N. human rights experts is a major obstacle to monitoring abuses and promoting improvements.
Human Rights Watch has conducted research with North Korean refugees who have fled to China, and now reside in Seoul. We collected testimony on horrific conditions and treatment in labor camps and prisons in the DPRK, which we have corroborated with information from other sources. In a report on North Korean refugees published in November 2002, HRW documented serious abuses including: arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of citizens based on family background; torture and cruel and degrading treatment of detainees in labor training camps, provincial concentration centers, and political prison camps known as administrative camps; and the use of forced labor.
Other reports of serious abuses in the DPRK include arbitrary arrests and detention, severe restrictions on basic and fundamental freedoms of belief, assembly, association, religion, press and freedom of movement, and use of the death penalty.
Some day, this oppressive regime will fall and its record of murder and repression and torture and starvation will be made available for all the world to see and future generations will wonder why the world stood by and did nothing. Why are we doing nothing?
It reminds me of the section on Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge in Samantha Power's book "A Problem From Hell," where she relates the following quote from a Cambodian who lived through it
When you are suffering like we suffered, you simply cannot imagine that nobody will come along to stop the pain. Everyday, you would wake up and tell yourself '"somebody will come, something is going to happen." If you stop hoping for rescue, you stop hoping. And hope is all that can keep you alive.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Golf for Boors
Well it is nice to see that, like all other major sports, professional golf has its share of close-minded, sexist pricks
Vijay Singh believes Annika Sorenstam has no business playing in the Colonial next week, and he would withdraw if he gets paired with her.
"I hope she misses the cut," Singh said after his runner-up finish in the Wachovia Championship. "Why? Because she doesn't belong out here."
Singh acknowledged he won't play in the same group as Sorenstam when she becomes the first woman in 58 years to compete on the PGA Tour. His name will be drawn from a pool of PGA Tour winners when the pairings are made.
Still, his comments were the strongest yet about Sorenstam's decision to accept a sponsor's exemption to play in the Colonial. The last woman to play on the PGA Tour was Babe Zaharias, who qualified for the 1945 Los Angeles Open.
Nick Price, the defending champion at Colonial, has said Sorenstam's presence "reeks of publicity." He thinks she ought to qualify if she wants to prove herself at the highest level.
Scott Hoch, who once played with Sorenstam in a mixed-team tournament, said he wants to see her play well so people will realize "how much separation there is between us and the ladies' tour."
Still, most players have been cautious with their comments, not willing to predict a score and hopeful she plays well so it doesn't reflect poorly on the LPGA Tour.
Singh held nothing back in an interview with The Associated Press as he left the locker room at Quail Hollow late Sunday afternoon, saying the 32-year-old Swede should stick to her own tour.
"What is she going to prove by playing? It's ridiculous," said Singh, a two-time major champion who is No. 7 in the world ranking. "She's the best woman golfer in the world, and I want to emphasize 'woman.' We have our tour for men, and they have their tour. She's taking a spot from someone in the field."
The Colonial is an invitational with a limited field. Sorenstam received one of eight sponsor's exemptions.
Singh speaks from experience
In 1998, he played in an unofficial event called the "Super Tour" that matched the scorecards of nine professionals after playing 18 holes a day in four Asian cities. Laura Davies was invited to play, and finished 39 strokes behind Singh.
"Laura Davies is a long-ball hitter, but she still had to hit good irons," Singh said. "It's just different for ladies to play on the men's tour. It's like getting the Williams sister to play against a man, and they're far better athletes than she (Sorenstam) is."
Sorenstam has become significantly stronger in the last two years as she has taken over women's golf. She won 13 times around the world last year, the most by a woman in nearly 40 years, and two years ago became the first woman to shoot 59.
Sorenstam was returning from Japan on Monday, where she won the Nichirei Cup by nine shots, and was not available for comment.
Sorenstam has been playing from the back tees to gear up for the Colonial, including a round with Tiger Woods in which she is said to have finished 10 strokes behind.
"Some people don't believe she should be out here -- golfers and men in general," Hoch said. "Most guys hope she plays well, and what comes out of this is that she realizes she can't compete against the men."
Losing by 10 strokes to Tiger Woods is nothing to be ashamed of - professional men do it every week. And provided that Sorenstam doesn't shoot a million and come in dead last, which I don't think she will, this will be good television and good for golf. It's scary that the thought of losing to a woman can make grown men act like children.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 9:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Brooks channels Chris Buckley
And the effect is much more pleasant than the whole Schiffren/Noonan fiasco. From the New York Times magazine: No Sex Magazines, Please, We're Wal-Mart Shoppers.
Too bad for Brooks that Buckley had a funnier piece in this week's New Yorker, John le Kerry.In a sign that the Bush campaign plans to portray Senator John Kerry as an aloof, anti-American snob who doodles on legal pads during Senate committee hearings by conjugating French irregular verbs, Bush media adviser Mark McKinnon unveiled a half-dozen thirty-second spots designed to emphasize Mr. Kerry’s “alarming and unapologetic Francophilia.”
The ads, which McKinnon admits have been “somewhat” computer-enhanced, variously depict the Senator singing the “Marseillaise” on the floor of the U.S. Senate during a filibuster in the discussion of Bush judicial appointees, raising the French tricolor over the U.S. Capitol, and groping French actress Sophie Marceau during an anti-Iraq-war protest march on the Mall in Washington.
posted by
Helena Montana at 3:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That Liberal Media
Who wrote this?
DID PRESIDENT BUSH arrive by fighter jet when he could have taken a helicopter -- for $7 less per hour? Did the USS Abraham Lincoln delay its return by a day so that Mr. Bush could make his dramatic tailhook landing? Did White House press secretary Ari Fleischer lie when he said that Mr. Bush had to arrive by jet and then switched his story to say that the president chose to land that way? Are the Democrats who are raising these questions secretly working for Karl Rove?
Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.V.) questions "the motives of a deskbound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech." Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) wants a General Accounting Office inquiry into the trip, citing its "clear political overtones." Rep John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) demands that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld "determine what the cost to taxpayers was for transporting the president to the carrier, his stay on the carrier, his flight from the carrier to shore, and any changes made in the carrier's or the jet's schedule or procedure for the president's visit." Well, guess what, guys? Presidential travel is inherently political -- like when President Clinton spent taxpayer dollars to fly onto an aircraft carrier on the very day his defense secretary announced a new round of base closings -- and wore a green flight jacket to boot while he watched fighter jets catapult off the carrier. (Major distinction here: Mr. Bush got the bottom half of the outfit, too.) Presidential staffs -- and we know this is a shocking concept -- worry quite a bit about the way their visits will look on TV -- and they work to get the most picturesque backdrop! And a president who wins a war -- whether you agreed with that war or not -- pretty much gets to greet returning troops wherever he wants.
Not since the ado over whether Mr. Clinton held up Air Force One on the tarmac for an hour to get a $200 haircut has there been a controversy this fundamentally silly. The difference is that the Republicans scored political points with haircut-gate; here, Democrats are only hurting themselves with churlish and petty complaints. Their real gripe with Mr. Bush is that he looked great; the president pulled off his "Top Gun" act as much as Michael Dukakis flubbed his spin in a tank. And what was the result of their agitating? Even more showings of the same dramatic footage of a triumphant commander-in-chief. The only rational explanation for this conduct is that it is a brushback pitch designed to intimidate the Bush campaign from using carrier footage in campaign commercials -- but even then, it seems destined (a) not to work and (b) to backfire.
Yes, yes, Republicans seemed to demand investigations every time Mr. Clinton -- or Hillary Clinton, for that matter -- went outside the Beltway, but Democrats are sorely mistaken if they think the "they did it too" argument is going to have any sway with voters. Mr. Bush's visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln may have been the real kickoff of his presidential campaign. If the Democrats' tone-deaf handling of this episode is any indication, he may well get his four more years.
Ann Coulter? Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh? The Wall Street Journal? The Washington Times?
Nope.
It appeared in yesterday's edition of the "liberal" Washington Post
I find it interesting that the Post would compare Bush's fraudulent USS Lincoln photo-op to Clinton's $200 haircut. If such things are so "fundamentally silly," why did the Post see fit to run 25 stories or columns mentioning the haircut incident in the 10 days after the story broke? And why have they run just 4 about Bush's staged landing? And do you think those 25 articles in any way helped the Republicans score political points off of haircut-gate? And do you think that perhaps the Post's desire to totally ignore the Lincoln Charade might be contributing to the impression that the Democrats handling of the issue has been tone-deaf?
But what should we expect from a paper whose next-day coverage of the USS Lincoln speech reported that everything went "gorgeously right," from the moment he stepped "from the plane in his flight suit looking fit and vigorous" to the minute he officially "conquered prime time" and delivered his "stirring address"?
If the Post's handling of this episode is any indication, the myth of the liberal media is just that - a myth.
posted by
Eugene Oregon at 1:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calling Jon Stewart...
There's a handy pre-fab joke in this story: Plant Workers Say Bush Speech Will Cost Them.President Bush plans to speak at an Omaha plastics factory today to sell his message that his tax cut plan will put money in workers' pockets. But some workers at the factory, Airlite Plastics, are complaining that Mr. Bush's speech will have the opposite effect.
They are unhappy because Airlite's chief executive, Brad Crosby, has announced that more than 300 hourly workers might lose all or part of a day's pay unless they work next Saturday to offset the time lost when the plant closes for the speech. Update: Tapped noted that Boss Crosby appears to have changed his mind and now says that employees will get paid regardless. (Scroll to the end of the article.)
posted by
Helena Montana at 10:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|