« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »
May 31, 2006
The big one that got away?
Greg Sargent has a story that will make your jaw drop.
The short version: Judith Miller had information--before September 2001--that Al Qaeda was planning a large-scale attack on the US, former NYTimes editor Steve Engelberg held back the story because it wasn't firm enough, and managing editor Bill Keller (above Engelberg on the organizational chart) never heard about the story until much later.
Read the whole thing, and wonder what might (not) have been--if an editorial call had gone the other way, or if Miller's reporting had been less worthy of suspicion.
Oregon angle: Engelberg, whose middle name is "hindsight", is now managing editor of the Oregonian.
Posted by Nothstine at 07:26 PM |
Cadence
Brother Bill Moyers, a man who should be declared a national treasure, has a wonderful piece on why public broadcasting can't simply be replaced by 400 channels of commercial television. It has a historical perspective that few but geezers remember first-hand (honestly--how many of you knew that public television got its birth certificate when television was barely a decade old?). Excerpt:
The bill passed. When he signed it, the President said that the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 "announces to the world that our nation wants more than just material wealth; our nation wants more than 'a chicken in every pot.' We in America have an appetite for excellence, too…At its best, public television would help make our nation a replica of the old Greek marketplace, where public affairs took place in view of all its citizens." He got it. Even a man hardened and compromised by the dog-eat-dog, knock-down-drag-out backroom brawls of hardball politics knew that a vigorous artistic, cultural, and intellectual forum is important to the health of democracy. So he said at the signing, "Today we rededicate a part of the airwaves - which belong to all the people - and we dedicate them for the enlightenment of all the people."And Moyers not only tells the story most of us have forgotten--the story of how people once dreamed that we could get news, learning, and even entertainment that wasn't completely whored out to commercial interests, and that this would be a good thing--he manages to tell it with a rhetorical signature, an ear for the well constructed phrase, that's largely missing from public discourse today:
It's right in our own PBS guidelines. Go to Paragraph F, under headline "Courage and Controversy."You will read there: "The ultimate task of weighing and judging information and viewpoints is, in a free and open society, the task of the audience."
You will read there the pledge we have made as public broadcasters to seek "content that provides courageous and responsible treatment of issues, and that reports and comments, with honesty and candor, on social, political and economic tensions, disagreements and divisions."
You will read there the promise that our "overall content will offer a broad range of opinions and points of view, including those from outside society's existing consensus" - those from outside society's existing consensus.
We couldn't ask for a clearer statement of our mission.
We couldn't find a more affirmative reason for being.
We couldn't want a more resounding call to action.
I read those guidelines from time to time when I grow faint of heart, or my knees turn weak, or my resolve falters after I've been attacked by people who don't like us - people representing power, privilege, or ideology who despise any journalist who shatters the silence. Reading them, I realize again how corporate media pollutes the meaning of "fair and balanced" with the pretense that two well-rehearsed sound bites by representatives of self-serving interests constitutes "analysis" of the news.
I believe in "fair and balanced."
I say let's be more fair than anyone else. Let's be as fair to Main Street as we are to Wall Street - to the working men and women of America as we are to the big corporations, big government, and big investors.
Let's be as fair to poor families as we are to the First Family and the Royal Family (Yes, I looked up one evening, as more deaths were occurring in Iraq, more suffering was being endured on the Gulf Coast, and more Americans were losing their healthcare, and there on my public television screen was a special on "The Royals and their Pets.")
Let's be as fair to the skeptic of official policy as we are to its spokesman, as fair to the commoner as to the celebrity, and as fair to the lived experience of ordinary people as we are to the calculated opinion of think tank experts.
I'm for balance.
Let's balance the spin with the evidence, the rhetoric with the record, and opinion with reporting.
It's a little thing we like to call cadence.
(Cross-posted at p3)
Posted by Nothstine at 03:54 PM | | TrackBack
Comments issues whilst we battle the Dark Side
Dear PKers:
I've been getting emails from folks who are frustrated that they've been unable to leave comments.
We've been getting another deluge of comment and trackback spam. What's likely happened is that in my effort to combat the bandwidth thieves trying to shop their porn and pharma, I've set the Blacklist too tight.
I'll try and go through the Blacklist tonight and see if I can't loosen things up a little.
I'm sorry for the frustrations. Please bear with us while we get this right.
Posted by Carla at 03:35 PM | | TrackBack
Everything is On the Rise in Iraq
Iraq war apologists are bringing out an old argument to try to allay concerns about the war. They're saying that "Iraq is less violent that Washington, DC." Supposedly, it is also less violent than Detroit, Baltimore, Atlanta, and St. Louis. The whole point is that things are all hunky-dory over there and we should quit worrying about all the violence we are reading about in the newspapers. Those daily car bombings? No big deal.
I'm not the only one who doubts the statistics that form the basis of these statements in the first place. But even if they are correct, it's important to note that the murder rate in Islamic countries is traditionally far lower than in the West, and the death rates being cited are only those caused by Coalition forces. Civilians are dying at a much higher rate today than they did when Saddam Hussein was in control of Iraq. But don't just take my word for it. A team of senior British academics last year said Iraqi civilian deaths had "spiraled upwards."
Data collected by Iraq Body Count - an independent organization set up to monitor the human cost of the war - also revealed the number of violent incidents has soared during the past 12 months.
"Violent incidents" - that means violent crimes in addition to murders.
They criticize the U.S. and British governments for failing to track civilian deaths while painstakingly logging their own dead and wounded, creating a distorted picture of the human cost of the war.
The war has resulted in a dramatic increase in suffering for the Iraqi people that is largely being ignored by media outlets such as Fox News:
Malnutrition rates in children under five have almost doubled since the US-led invasion - to nearly 8% by the end of last year.
Sectarian tensions are on the rise.
Acid attacks on immodest women are on the rise.
The Christian murder rate is on the rise.
Militias are on the rise.
Kidnapping is on the rise.
Killings and expulsions are on the rise.
Tuberculosis is on the rise.
Drug abuse is on the rise.
Rape is on the rise.
"Temporary marriages" (legalized Islamic prostitution) are on the rise.
Can the Administration just for once stop the bullshit here? You broke it – it's time to own up to it.
Posted by Becky at 11:48 AM | | TrackBack
Choosing women's health over sexual politics
Every once in a while our paper of record here in Oregon hits one out of the park. This editorial on the craven political pandering by the Food and Drug Administration looks like a dinger over the Green Monster:
The Food and Drug Administration knows it could prevent scores of unintended pregnancies and devastating abortions by approving emergency contraception for over-the-counter sale. It hasn't, despite the best available medical advice, because of pressure from conservative religious groups.This decision to value sexual politics over women's health has damaged the reputation of this federal agency. More important, it has needlessly hurt women and their families. Next month, the FDA has a chance to mend some of the damage by approving a new vaccine against a sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.
The idea of vaccinating young girls against a sexually transmitted disease causes discomfort among some of the same groups that oppose contraception. But the chance to prevent cancer is too powerful and extraordinary to deny.
I've always said that the "abortion" debate from the so-called "pro-life" crowd was never about ending fetuses. Not really. Its about controlling the choices women have over their bodies and lives.
The fact that these conservative religious organizations would put the lives of women at risk because the disease they may contract is sexually transmitted is antithetical to anything resembling pro-life. Its what I've always said it is: ANTI-CHOICE.
The O sums it up nicely:
A cervical cancer vaccine will mark an important landmark for women's health. But as long as the FDA, against medical advice, keeps emergency contraception behind a hurdle, it will send a signal that politics matters more to this administration than health.
Which would put the FDA pretty much on track with the rest of the Executive Branch under President Bush.
Posted by Carla at 07:35 AM | | TrackBack
May 30, 2006
Christian Youth Being Indoctrinated to Kill Infidels
A couple of weeks ago I asked the question Should We Fear the Teen Mania Battle Cry? Today I came across an article that answers that question for me: Yes, we should.
Pastor Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life," with the full support of Tim LaHaye, author of the "Left Behind" series, has created a new video game which he intends to release by October – just in time for Christmas. The video game is an extremely violent game in which born again Christians prowl the streets of New York City giving people an opportunity to convert or be killed. Then, as they blow the infidels away, they say, "Praise the Lord." If you wish, however, you can be part of the army of the Antichrist and release demons to devour Christians when you find them.
This video game, in my opinion, validates the fears of people who have been saying that Teen Mania's Battle Cry language may, indeed, be more than simply a call to be dedicated to Christ. It may be a part of a planned fundamentalist indoctrination of children intended to pursue a violent takeover of our country.
Mr. Warren … describes himself as a "stealth evangelist" and describes his training programs as "a stealth movement, that's flying beneath the radar, that's changing literally hundreds, even thousands of churches around the world."
Warren is not limting his goals to changing the U.S. only. He has decided to turn other nations into "purpose-driven" nations based on his dominion theology as well. He's chosen a real plumb to start with:
Celebrants included Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda, a tiny east African country that lost hundreds of thousands of people when it suffered genocide in 1994. Catholic and Protestant clergy have been convicted in connection with that genocide. Yet Mr. Kagame announced that he would allow Mr. Warren to turn his country into the first purpose driven nation.
Perhaps he has chosen Rwanda because he already knows the people there are so hateful of each other after decades of war atrocities that many are willing to accept any reason offered as an excuse to resume killing each other. But what about people here at home?
On both sides of the political aisle lately I am increasingly hearing off-handed comments about a French Revolution or a second civil war. People seem to feel they have no alternative left to just killing those who are destroying the country. For some it's the damned liberals and for others it's the damned neocons, but across the board people feel something is desperately wrong and we are running out of options. Meanwhile the damned radical Christian fundamentalists are continuing to build their militaristic movement right under our damned noses. And I'm damned uncomfortable with it.
Posted by Becky at 10:42 AM | | TrackBack
Big Energy Takes to Authoring School Textbooks
You might at first think it's a good think that a 7th grade science textbook is telling children to use sun block. That is, until you learn what kind of sun block the book is talking about.
One father is raising the alarm after reading his child's 7th grade science textbook which teaches that chemtrails and the air pollution generated by coal burning are creating a helpful sunscreen to protect us from getting skin cancer.
The chemtrails section is found in the Centre Point Learning Science I Essential Interactions science book. Under "Solutions for Global Warming", section 5.19 features a photo of a big multi-engine jet sporting a familiar orange/red paint scheme.The caption reads: "Figure 1- Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen".
It seems the energy moguls have taken to authoring textbooks (did it ever occur to you they would do that?). If that wasn't bad enough, they're only giving the kids one side of the story.
Airborne soot also blocks sunlight, lowering greenhouse temperatures. Volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Pinatubo - and globe-circling soot from 1,000 burning oil wells during Desert Storm - belched enough sulphur into the stratosphere to cause a plunge in world temperatures, temporarily slowing global warming.World scientists looking at deliberately putting megatons more sulphur into a closed, recirculating atmosphere already smoggy enough to depresses orbiting astronauts, decided that a sulphur sunscreen is not a swift idea.
But not this Jr. High science text. "Creating either kind of sunscreen would be cheap," it tells young readers. As if "cheap" is the only consideration.
Like this concerned dad, I'm wondering why the book isn't teaching kids about "planting trees, or turning down thermostats, or bicycling, or any of the other ways not to add to the problem?"
Posted by Becky at 09:26 AM | | TrackBack
Terrorizing Journalists to Preempt Real News?
The Iraq war is now officially the deadliest war for reporters in the past century. 71 journalists and 26 members of media support staff have been killed in Iraq, and 42 journalists have been kidnapped.
"It is absolutely striking," Ann Cooper, the executive director of the CPJ, said on Monday. "We talk to veteran war correspondents who have covered everything going back to Vietnam and through Bosnia. Even those who have seen a number of different wars say they have never seen something like this conflict."
Back in January, Kimberley Dozier, who was seriously injured over the weekend by a roadside bomb, wrote about the fear that journalists, soldiers, and the Iraqi people confront on a daily basis.
It took us a while to admit we were targets, and start to change the way we work — adding bodyguards, armoured vehicles, blast walls outside our hotels, and so on. But now going into Iraq is like being flung into a pot of water you can see boiling from a great height from far away. Inwardly, you’re screaming, “Arghh,” then you stifle it with a mental “Ulp.” […]I’m fine. That is, until I get myself and a cameraman, soundman and perhaps a producer invited on a trip across town with the US military, just like our ABC colleagues Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt did.[…]
But if you want to tell their story, you have to take their risks. If we, the journalists, are sitting in hot water, the troops are hopping around on Hell’s coals. It’s even worse for the Iraqi army and police. And then you’ve got the Iraqi people, who are not restricted to tours of duty and have no ticket out.
A writer for Al Jazeera has concluded that the U.S. forces are actually allowing journalists to be killed on purpose in order to prevent them from telling the world what is really going on in Iraq.
Last week, Isam Rasheed, a freelance journalist, and Fumikazu Nishitani, head of Osaka-based NGO Rescue the Iraqi Children, briefed a public gathering in Osaka on the true situation in Iraq. "It is now virtually impossible for foreign journalists to move around independently in Iraq," Nishitani said.
One of the biggest secrets the U.S. is trying to hide, he writes, is the results that will forever be visited on the Iraqi people of our use of depleted uranium munitions.
[H]ow can the world know about the true extent of the devastation in Iraq, if reporters, who complain that harassment and intimidation by American soldiers in Iraq is growing, can’t do their job well. Journalists are the only people who’re able to transfer the Iraqis’ sufferings to the entire world.[…]“U.S. military fire is the second-leading cause of death. At least nine journalists and two media support staff have died as a result of US fire in Iraq in the last 23 months."
Has killing become part of the Pentagon “Press Policy”?
Interesting question.
Posted by Becky at 09:23 AM | | TrackBack
May 29, 2006
Support for Marriage Amendment Based on a Fallacy
Jeff Hall spells out in an excellent editorial entitled Since When Did Marriage Become a Christian Institution? precisely why the arguments in favor of Bill Frist's "Marriage Protection Amendment" (S.J. Res. 1, which the Senate will begin debating in a week) are based on a false understanding of Christian history. The amendment in question reads:
“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
Christians are rallying in support of the amendment as a means of protecting an institution they believe was created by God and which they see as symbolic of Jesus's relationship with the Christian church. What they don't realize is that neither the Bible nor early Christian history supports their position. It is no secret that the Old Testament is replete with polygamy (one of the bogeymen that supporters of the marriage amendment say it would prevent) and disrespect of women and marriage (which we must only hope is not representative of how God views his relationship with mankind).
But what about the New Testament? Contrary to the assertions of The Da Vinci Code, Jesus was actually quite averse to marriage. He often preached against it, saying, for example, "I tell you the truth, no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life." (Luke 18:29) Jesus also claimed in Matthew 22:30 that no one would be married in heaven (if that is the truth, think about what it means for all those happily married Christians who won't be married anymore when they meet up with their spouses in heaven).
Early on, Romans felt that Christians were the ones who threatened the fabric of the traditional family. Conservative Romans like Celsus (ca.185) were disturbed by Christian calls to renounce traditional religion, the Roman state, and the traditional family.When it came to marriage, historian Edward Gibbon writes that early Christians tolerated it as “a defect,” and exalted celibacy “as the nearest approach to the divine perfection.” According to Gibbon, the early Church fathers believed Adam would have best served God had he remained a virgin: “The use of marriage was permitted only to his fallen posterity, as a necessary expedient to continue the human species, and as a restraint…on the natural licentiousness of desire.” […]
In his book, The Confessions, church father Saint Augustine repeatedly acknowledges that chastity is the most Christian path to take. In one instance, he points to Matthew 19:11-12, in which Jesus recommends being a eunuch (a castrated or sexless man): “The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Two well-known Christian historians also disdained marriage. Origen wrote, "Matrimony is impure and unholy, a means of sexual passion." Tertullian characterized marriage as "more dreadful than any punishment or any death." I suppose many today might agree. Fortunately, I am not among them.
But make no mistake, the anti-gay marriage amendment is really about taking steps toward theocracy based on a particular, modern version of Christianity, which aims to claim the institution of marriage as its own and define it in a particular way when in fact, throughout history, it has been viewed in many ways by many cultures, including Jewish and Christian cultures.
Posted by Becky at 11:42 AM | | TrackBack
Attacking the messenger
The heroic John Murtha is once again speaking out against what appears to be another atrocity committed by US forces in Iraq, this time in Haditha.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Marine General Peter Pace is cautioning folks to wait until an investigation has ensued. Unfortunately for Pace--the Abu Ghraib scandal showed us that not only will the government actively work to cover up scandal like this--they'll send their attack dogs in force to rip apart anyone who questions the government on it.
It would seem the memo has already gone out to the rightwing attackosphere:
Michelle Malkin says Murtha has rushed to judgement.
John at Powerline calls Abu Ghraib "overblown" and that we must wait for the investigation to wrap up. He also blasts Murtha for saying that killings "may" hurt our cause in Iraq, calling Murtha's behavior "disgusting". Earth to John: Looking for disgusting? Read your blog. Anyone who believes that sexual humiliation of prisoners is "overblown" lacks morals and scruples. Continuing to carry water for this Administration and the horrid acts committed by some in our military is disgusting. Enough is enough.
Some hack calling itself California Conservative goes completely over a cliff:
The issue is not about whether or not a crime was committed and should be investigated (Note: the matter remains under ongoing active investigation) or, if found guilty, whether the soldiers should be held accountable, everyone can agree on that.
The issue is what Jack Murtha is seeking to accomplish by eagerly airing the dirty laundy in public? His actions are purposefully damaging the reputation of our military, and also providing political ammo to our enemies here and in the Middle East who can point the finger at “evil” America and continue to incite violence in the region.
Just because the local 6 o’clock news, “reporting” in accordance with the guidelines of political correctness, doesn’t identify the race/skin color of a rapist or murderer doesn’t mean that a crime hasn’t been committed and that the investigation isn’t serious. Or does it?
Murtha certainly knows better. And maybe he should exercise some true political correctness when it really counts: protecting
If we've done something wrong in our efforts in Iraq..we should own up to them: publicly. It absolutely undermines any good thing we do there when there's even a hint of wrongdoing, much less an all-out murder of civilians.
Murtha's actions are purposefully helping the military. Its forcing the military to examine its actions and training. And it holds the military accountable to the people--whose tax dollars pay for it and who sanctions its existance.
Conservatives erode any progress we make in Iraq by continually trying to cover up and make excuses for wrongdoing. They demand zero accountability for anyone who isn't a Republican. It ruins the credibility of our nation and demonstrates a fundamental dissrespect for everyone: including themselves.
Posted by Carla at 09:09 AM | | TrackBack
May 28, 2006
Taking a (hopefully) short sabbatical
Several weeks ago I was given a preliminary diagnosis by my doctor of Hyperthyroidism and had it confirmed Friday by the endocrinologist that she referred me to. Some of you are probably wondering what that has to do with PK. Well, if I might flatter myself just enough to presume that at least some of you noticed my conspicuous absence over the last few days, that ties in with the hyperthyroid issue... I think.
I remember vividly when my doctor called me a month ago with the initial results of the bloodwork she'd sent me to get done. I'd been having racing pulse-rate and according to the blood test results hyperthyroid was the culprit. It was a short conversation, but she told me that I'd be "hard to live with" and then after a short half-laugh she expressed sympathy for those close to me. I mentally brushed it aside thinking it was preposterous because I've always been known far and wide as a very easy going guy. Some have suggested that I'm too easy going, particularly as a single parent.
The thing is, while I know the starting point of my diagnosis, neither I nor my doctor know when it started. Although we're both assuming that it is fairly recent. At least not going back beyond the beginning of this year.
I kinda got into with Carla and TJ in comments the other day and haven't posted or commented since. Long story short, that disagreement moved to email and continued on. Which was probably a mistake because the disagreement only deepened into a rift. But, convinced of the rightness of my position I doggedly held out, not wanting to give an inch of ground.
So anyway, in frustration I decided to take a long drive this afternoon, contemplating quitting PK and who I was going to transfer ownership of the domain name to. And it wasn't until I was on the return trip home that something clicked in my head. You see, on Friday night I was watching Oregon Public Broadcasting TV as usual and there was a documentary on called Out of the Shadows which is about the mother of the woman who made the documentary. Her mother is schizophrenic and the movie was a very interesting glimps into the life of a child who was raised by a schizophrenic mom. Most of which is irrelevant to the point of this post. What is relevant, and which kinda clicked in my head as I was driving home, was that this extremely articulate and clearly very intelligent mom, even when she was on her meds and doing well, was completely oblivious to her schizophrenia. As far as she could tell she was perfectly normal and everyone else was just picking on her, including this daughter who had stuck with her thru thick and thin. She knew that she was supposedly schizophrenic and she was able to describe what schizophrenia is. But she couldn't agree that she was anything but rational. From her perspective, the fact that she kept ending up in mental institutions was conclusive evidence that she was being picked up unfairly.
Now I'm not suggesting that I'm schizo - LOL. But I do have to concede to myself that even though inside my own mind I'm perfectly rational..., that perhaps, not unlike this poor mother, I can't see my own irrationality caused by this hyperthyroidism thing bedeviling me right now. Then I remembered back to when I saw A Beautiful Mind and how at the end the character played by Russell Crowe was asked if he still saw the people who had played the central role in his schizophrenic implosion. He said that no, he still saw them but that he knew now that they weren't real.
That's kinda where I'm at right now. I still think that I'm perfectly rational and anyone disagreeing with me has either misunderstood me or is just actively disrespecting me. But, I can't honestly deny the very real possibility that it's all the hyperthyroid issue and that perhaps this is exactly the kind of thing that my doctor was talking about when she said that I'd be hard to live with.
So, I've got my first appointment with the endocrinologist under my belt as of this last Friday. I have two appointments not this week but the following week to undergo a diagnostic scan so that they can conclusively figure out what the extent of my thyroid problem is and then the endocrinologist's office will call me and make an appointment where I believe I will be given the one-time treatment which he told me Friday, based on his preliminary confirming diagnosis, will fix me up permanently. So I figure that I'm looking at the very least another couple weeks or maybe longer because it took me nearly a month of waiting just to get in to see him for the first appointment.
So for now I need to take a sabbatical from PK because I am presently entirely too argumentative and quite likely not in a place where I can even rationally argue anything. Or at the very least I can't trust what I think is a rational arguement originating in my own head right now. And I have no desire to offend any of you, much less my blog partners.
Oh, when I walked in the door after my long drive my oldest daughter (18 going on 30, naturally - LOL) was sitting on the couch in the living room. I asked her if I'd been hard to live with lately and her response was to give a half-laugh not unlike what my doctor had given and she said, "yeah, just a little," which I could tell by the look on her face was meant to be taken as an understatement.
So anyway... to TJ and Carla: Although I can't honestly say that I see it this way as of right now, I also have to honestly concede that you both could very likely have been entirely right and I was wrong, vis-a-vis our disagreements. If that's the case, and it seems likely that it is, then I apologize now and hopefully once the chemical soup running my brain right now is stabilized I'll be able to see it for myself.
Posted by Kevin at 07:59 PM | | TrackBack
Even the Pope Wonders Why People Suffer
One of the most difficult questions faced by those who believe in a loving God who is personally involved in the lives of each individual is why does God allow suffering?
Even the Pope asks that question. During his visit to Auschwitz today, he said:
"In a place like this, words fail; in the end, there can be only a dread silence, a silence which itself is a heartfelt cry to God: Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?"
Christians have come up with a variety of answers that satisfy the mind of someone who really wants to believe them:
The suffering of this world makes us long for our eternal dwelling with God in the heavens.
Who could argue with the notion that suffering makes us want a perfect world without suffering? But the more in-depth answer for those who keep asking is a bit more sinister, in my opinion:
We ourselves do not establish the standards of what is right. Only the Creator of all reality can do that. We need to settle it, in our minds and hearts, whether we understand it or not, that whatever God does is, by definition, right.[…]Since "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), there is no one who has the right to freedom from God's wrath on the basis of his own innocence.
As far as babies are concerned, and others who may be incompetent mentally to distinguish right and wrong, it is clear from both Scripture and universal experience that they are sinners by nature and thus will inevitably become sinners by choice as soon as they are able to do so.
This view, that we all deserve to suffer, is the natural probable consequence of a belief built upon one primary concept: that one can only be saved from the well-deserved punishment for their sins through the blood of Christ. The belief forces one to come to all sorts of unsavory conclusions, such as that even good people who never had a chance to hear about Jesus will burn in the eternal fires of hell, and they deserve it.
The Christian salvation concept includes the notion that Christ will come into one's heart and have a personal, one-on-one relationship with each individual who accepts his sacrifice; hence the "why does God allow Christians to suffer" dilemma. And really, no answer that I have ever heard satisfies that question. Christians claim to feel "safe in the arms of Jesus," yet simultaneously accept explanations of the book of Job that point to a punishing God who uses suffering to discipline his people. It is an extreme version of the "spare the rod and spoil the child" philosophy that serves only to terrify if you really think about it, because it means that once you belong to God, anything horrible that happens to you is a punishment or correction from God and you must bear it humbly.
I suppose many Christians would say Auschwitz and the rest of the Holocaust nightmare was God's attempt to punish/correct the Jewish people who had rejected the Messiah. The Old Testament is chock full of punishments visited by God upon Israel, and this fits right in.
Personally, I don't believe in a God with a personal interest in individuals or a desire to interfere with the natural ebb and flow of good and evil that constantly convulses our planet. I guess I subscribe to a form of the yin and yang concept that the universe is in balance in all things, whether black and white, good and evil, male and female, or living and dying. You see this concept throughout the universe, even to its very origins in which matter and antimatter were created from nothing.
And if I may be so blasphemous, I would point out that the Bible itself recognizes the fundamental yin/yang balance throughout the universe: the reason God did not want Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden tree was that they would become like God, knowing good and evil.
"In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: a righteous man perishing in his righteousness, and a wicked man living long in his wickedness. Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise- why destroy yourself? Do not be overwicked, and do not be a fool- why die before your time? It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other. The man who fears God will avoid all extremes." -Ecclesiastes 7:15-18
Posted by Becky at 03:06 PM | | TrackBack
Oh, Sweet Mystery of Life
Mark Morford, a columnist for SF Gate, has penned a wonderful light-hearted look at the mystery of the sexes. Here's a teaser:
Yes, it is a wonder humans manage to communicate at all. It is a wonder the sexes make some sort of adorably vain attempt to bridge that rainbow chasm between us just long enough to remain wildly attracted to one another and still have sex and eat together at restaurants and laugh at each other's jokes and pretend we understand what the hell is going on. We do not. This is the great cosmic joke. And the punch line is being delivered every day, in a million scenarios exactly like the one I describe above.
Posted by Becky at 11:45 AM | | TrackBack
Cameras Get U.S. in Trouble Again
We really ought to outlaw and confiscate all cameras, both still and video. They just keep getting us in trouble in Iraq.
If it hadn't been for cameras, we would have been able to keep the Abu Ghraib prison scandal from erupting. Nobody would have believed our military did what those released terrorist suspects were saying they did. After all, what credibility do former prisoners have, especially brown-skinned ones?
Now the camera has us in trouble again. When angry Marines murdered a couple of dozen civilians last November, they and their higher-ups decided to cover it up. They might well have succeeded except for the fact that someone had a video camera and gave the tape to Time magazine and Arab television stations.
Now, the military is investigating and John Murtha is speaking out again, calling the incident "worse than Abu Ghraib." Our ability to find any kind of diplomatic solution to the problems in Iraq is further undermined, as is our reputation in the Middle East. Darned cameras, anyway.
Posted by Becky at 11:36 AM | | TrackBack
Still weaseling
The President's recent news conference in which he declared his greatest mistake as using too much "tough talk" is a pretty interesting development. Although made much too late to actually repair any damage he's done, at least the President's handlers understand that the smug and arrogant tones haven't played well outside of Texas.
But sadly, Elizabeth Bulmiller of the Times still plays into the myth that Bush is some sort of plain spoken Texan:
Mr. Bush's Texas twang intensifies and recedes depending on the setting. But he has always prided himself on being plain spoken. When it comes to military and national security, he made the heaviest use of Texas talk in the first term, initially after the Sept. 11 attacks and then after the Iraq invasion.On Sept. 15, 2001, Mr. Bush declared that he would go after the perpetrators of the World Trade Center attack and "smoke them out of their holes." On Sept. 17, 2001, Mr. Bush declared that he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." On July 2, 2003, Mr. Bush taunted militants attacking American forces in Iraq with "bring 'em on."
White House officials have defended his Texas talk as the kind of plain-spoken language Americans like to hear, but Laura Bush has at times tried to rein him in. In a widely reported comment at the time, Mrs. Bush sidled up to her husband after he said he wanted Mr. bin Laden "dead or alive" and asked, "Bushie, are you gonna git 'im?"
I suppose the definition of "plain spoken" is up for debate. Bush's supporters defend his mispronounciations and garbled delivery as part of his unsophisticated, every-man approach. As if we're supposed to be pleased that our President is just like everyone else with no special intellect or abilities. Personally, I'd prefer that the Leader of the Free World be smarter and more capable than I am. This is a guy with his finger on the nuke button...not someone I'm headed to the local pub to down a few beers with.
But the "plain spoken Texan" thing is utter bullshit--part of Rove's created caricature. Bush was born in Connecticut. His family moved to Texas when Bush was a young boy and he lived there until he left for prep school in New England. After than he attended Yale.
This is hardly a born and bred Texan.
Posted by Carla at 08:15 AM | | TrackBack
May 27, 2006
The Electric Burger Acid Test
Now that the strange stories here, here, here, and here, of the split between the GOP and Frank Luntz (language strategist, and Rene Belloq to my Indiana Jones) have been replaced by news of their happy reunion, we can turn to the next big--actually, to the big--meta-story of the next two election cycles:
The Republican candidate for president in 2008 will have one major-party opponent, a Democrat. The Democratic candidate will have two: The Republican candidate and the Washington press corps.Let's start with Bob Somerby, who's been right about this--sometimes depressing, and often over-written, but unquestionably, uninterruptedly, and incomparably right--for at least six or seven years:
When it comes to the notion of “liberal bias,” the other side keeps saying things which are false. And we keep refusing to say what is true! This tendency will badly damage Dems in Campaign 2008, as the press corps rolls out its familiar script: Dem contender are fake, inauthentic. Republicans are straight-talking straight-shooters. This script has been killing Dems for the past fifteen years—and party leaders simply refuses to address it.(Read the whole thing.)
At Huffington Post, Eric Boehlert spells it out, and connects it to the most recently-emerging strain of the meme: The private lives of Democrats are worthy of intense, sheet-sniffing inspection, because it reveals all about their politics and governing, while precisely the opposite is true of Republicans (and, of course, of the Washington press corps).
Folks, consider yourselves warned. And in fact, the Daily Howler has been sounding the alarm for some time now that the press is ready and waiting to roll out its 2008 presidential narrative about Democrats being phony ("inauthentic," they "play it safe" -- and they're "poll-tested") and the Republicans being genuine, comfortable in his own skin. Joe Klein fills up his new book with page-after-page of this Beltway-pleasing narrative; Democrats lose national elections because their candidates aren't real and voters can sense that. […](Read the whole thing. Also, for grins and giggles, check out Atrios, who's initiated a sauce-for-the-goose series on the marital lives of mainstream media bigshots.)[A]nybody on the left who's crossing their fingers hoping the press puts down its RNC talking points long enough to come in from the cold for the 2008 campaign and finally treat Democrats fairly, is simply kidding themselves. They didn't do it with Gore, they didn't do it with Kerry. The press refuses to change willingly […]. Because there are prominent people within the Beltway pundit ranks who think what's on Hillary Clinton's iPod is a) revealing because b) it proves she's a phony.
Why would this be so? Many hold that the explanation can be reduced to two words: cocktail weenies. The Washington press corps is so addicted to attending the "right" dinner parties that they daren't risk biting the hand that feeds them (hor d'ouevres), even if they could imagine it.
My take is slightly different, but only slightly: It's a combination of the Cocktail Weenies Theory and a class snobbishness in DC that's always felt more at home cuddling up to Republicans than to Democrats. After all, Democrats have cocktail parties too, but the full-year residents of DC would say, as Sally Quinn wrote in a too-honest-to-live little essay back in 1998:
When Establishment Washingtonians of all persuasions gather to support their own, they are not unlike any other small community in the country.(Read the whole thing. And if it makes you want to put people up against the wall, consider that that impulse may be on the right track.)On this evening, the roster included Cabinet members Madeleine Albright and Donna Shalala, Republicans Sen. John McCain and Rep. Bob Livingston, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, PBS's Jim Lehrer and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, all behaving like the pals that they are. On display was a side of Washington that most people in this country never see. For all their apparent public differences, the people in the room that night were coming together with genuine affection and emotion to support their friends -- the Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt and his wife, CNN's Judy Woodruff, whose son Jeffrey has spina bifida.
But this particular community happens to be in the nation's capital. And the people in it are the so-called Beltway Insiders -- the high-level members of Congress, policymakers, lawyers, military brass, diplomats and journalists who have a proprietary interest in Washington and identify with it.
They call the capital city their "town."
And their town has been turned upside down.
With some exceptions, the Washington Establishment is outraged by the president's behavior in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The polls show that a majority of Americans do not share that outrage. Around the nation, people are disgusted but want to move on; in Washington, despite Clinton's gains with the budget and the Mideast peace talks, people want some formal acknowledgment that the president's behavior has been unacceptable. They want this, they say, not just for the sake of the community, but for the sake of the country and the presidency as well.
In addition to the polls and surveys, this disconnect between the Washington Establishment and the rest of the country is evident on TV and radio talk shows and in interviews and conversations with more than 100 Washingtonians for this article. The din about the scandal has subsided in the news as politicians and journalists fan out across the country before tomorrow's elections. But in Washington, interest remains high. The reasons are varied, and they intertwine.
1. THIS IS THEIR HOME. This is where they spend their lives, raise their families, participate in community activities, take pride in their surroundings. They feel Washington has been brought into disrepute by the actions of the president.
"It's much more personal here," says pollster Geoff Garin. "This is an affront to their world. It affects the dignity of the place where they live and work. . . . Clinton's behavior is unacceptable. If they did this at the local Elks Club hall in some other community it would be a big cause for concern."
"He came in here and he trashed the place," says Washington Post columnist David Broder, "and it's not his place."
"This is a company town," says retired senator Howard Baker, once Ronald Reagan's chief of staff. "We're up close and personal. The White House is the center around which our city revolves."
Bill Galston, former deputy domestic policy adviser to Clinton and now a professor at the University of Maryland, says of the scandal that "most people in Washington believe that most people in Washington are honorable and are trying to do the right thing. The basic thought is that to concede that this is normal and that everybody does it is to undermine a lifetime commitment to honorable public service."
"Everybody doesn't do it," says Jerry Rafshoon, Jimmy Carter's former communications director. "The president himself has said it was wrong."
Pollster Garin, president of Peter Hart Research Associates, says that the disconnect is not unlike the difference between the way men and women view the scandal. Just as many men are angry that Clinton's actions inspire the reaction "All men are like that," Washingtonians can't abide it that the rest of the country might think everyone here cheats and lies and abuses his subordinates the way the president has.
"This is a community in all kinds of ways," says ABC correspondent Cokie Roberts, whose parents both served in Congress. She is concerned that people outside Washington have a distorted view of those who live here. "The notion that we are some rarefied beings who breathe toxic air is ridiculous. . . . When something happens everybody gathers around. . . . It's a community of good people involved in a worthwhile pursuit. We think being a worthwhile public servant or journalist matters."
"This is our town," says Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the first Democrat to forcefully condemn the president's behavior. "We spend our lives involved in talking about, dealing with, working in government. It has reminded everybody what matters to them. You are embarrassed about what Bill Clinton's behavior says about the White House, the presidency, the government in general."
And many are offended that the principles that brought them to Washington in the first place are now seen to be unfashionable or illegitimate.
Muffie Cabot, who as Muffie Brandon served as social secretary to President and Nancy Reagan, regards the scene with despair. "This is a demoralized little village," she says. "People have come from all over the country to serve a higher calling and look what happened. They're so disillusioned. The emperor has no clothes. Watergate was pretty scary, but it wasn't quite as sordid as this."
"People felt a reverent attitude toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," says Tish Baldrige, who once worked there as Jacqueline Kennedy's social secretary and has been a frequent visitor since. "Now it's gone, now it's sleaze and dirt. We all feel terribly let down. It's very emotional. We want there to be standards. We're used to standards. When you think back to other presidents, they all had a lot of class. That's nonexistent now. It's sad for people in the White House. . . . I've never seen such bad morale in my life. They're not proud of their chief."
NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell adds a touch of neighborly concern. "We all know people who have been terribly damaged personally by this," she says. "Young White House aides who have been saddled by legal bills, longtime Clinton friends. . . . There is a small-town quality to the grief that is being felt, an overwhelming sadness at the waste of the nation's time and attention, at the opportunities lost."
Presidential historian Michael Beschloss sees this scandal not only from a historical perspective but from a resident's. "There's never been a sex scandal affecting a president while in office," he says. "In a distilled way, the sense of centeredness, stability and order depends on who is in the White House and what's going on there. When everything is turned upside down it affects our psyche more than someone who might be farming in Wyoming."
Lloyd Cutler, former White House counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton and considered one of the few "wise men" left in Washington, gives yet another reason why people take the scandal more seriously here. "This is an excitement to us, a feeling of being in on it, and whichever part of the Washington milieu we come from, we want to play a part. That's why we're here."
The point remains the same: The Republican candidate for president in 2008 will face one opposing party; the Democratic candidate will face two.
Lance Mannion has a good take on it, unpacking (I loathe the abuse of "deconstructing") the "have a beer and a burger with him" master trope. His punchline:
This beer and burger thing, it’s another way of describing the common touch.This being a democracy, having the common touch is in fact a qualification for public office.
Not the qualification, but certainly a qualification.
Some aristocrats have it, and some sons and daughters of the working classes don’t.
And whatever it is, it is not a matter of being a charming frat boy, or of not being the kind of A student who always has his homework done.
And whatever it is, should the Democrats find and nominate someone who has it, you can bet the Media Elite will do their best to tell us that that person doesn’t really have it or that the Republican candidate has it more authentically.
Or if they find someone who has it and the Media Elite can’t deny it, they’ll change the rules. Having the common touch will be a sign of the Democrat’s bad character. He, or she, will be dismissed as being someone who tries to be "all things to all people."
This has already been done.
You may remember that the Democrats had someone who was at home among the people, who liked crowds, who loved to talk with voters, who wasn’t just someone voters felt they could share a beer and a burger with but who wanted to share beers and burgers with them, who was someone people felt they could tell their problems too because he felt their pain.
You probably also remember how the Media Elites felt, and still feel, about that guy.
Lance finished up, a few days later, with a delightfully allusive piece, for which this is the punchline:
The Democrats can take control of both houses of Congress, they can put a Democrat in the White House, but unless they take control of Vanity Fair as well, the MSM will likely remain dismissive and hostile and in league with the Republicans to regain their power.Read the whole thing. (And not just because it's Lance.)
(Cross-posted at p3)
Posted by Nothstine at 04:23 PM | | TrackBack
Soldier's Religion Isn't Good Enough
The family of an Army National Guard Seargent whose helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan last September is still waiting for a headstone for their son's grave because his religion, Wicca, is not an officially approved religion. Although the Veterans Affairs' National Cemetery Administration recognizes thirty different religious symbols for use on fallen soldiers' headstones, the Wiccan pentacle is not one of them.
Approved religious symbols include the Jewish Star of David, the Christian cross, and the Islamic crescent and star, as well as symbols for the Tenrikyo Church, the United Moravian Church, the Sikhs, and even atheists.
[Nevada's] top veterans official, Tim Tetz, said he was "diligently pursuing" the matter with Gov. Kenny Guinn, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev."Sergeant Stewart and his family deserve recognition for their contributions to our country," said Tetz, executive director of the Nevada Office of Veterans Services. "It's unfortunate the process is taking so long, but I am certain Sgt. Patrick will ultimately receive his marker with the Wiccan symbol," he said Thursday.
But when? According to the Rev. Selena Fox, senior minister of the Wiccan Circle Sanctuary in Barneveld, Wis., Veterans Affairs has been sitting on a decision over the Wiccan symbol for nine years.
It really is amazing how successful the Christian church has been in demonizing the symbols of a religion that is based on respect for the earth, nature and the cycle of the seasons, so that people today refuse to view it as anything other than the worship of Satan and evil.
Posted by Becky at 01:16 PM | | TrackBack
Mom and Dad Need Safe Sex Education
Now that they're retired, have plenty of Viagra, and can't get pregnant, it seems the parents of the "free love" '60s generation are following their children's example and enjoying themselves like never before. Unfortunately, they seem to be ignorant of the potential downside of free love.
Doctors said sexually transmitted diseases among senior citizens are running rampant at a popular Central Florida retirement community.A gynecologist at The Villages community near Orlando, Fla., said she treats more cases of herpes and the human papilloma virus in the retirement community than she did in the city of Miami.
"Yeah, they are very shocked (to hear the diagnosis)," gynecologist Dr. Colleen McQuade said. "I had a patient in her 80s."
It might be a good time for the Baby Boomers to sit Mom and/or Dad down and give them a little talk about condoms.
Posted by Becky at 01:01 PM | | TrackBack
You'll Find Out We're Right in the Afterlife
Jewish leaders are irritated with Mormons because they haven't kept their part of a deal to remove the names of Jewish Holocaust victims from their genealogical database, nor will they quit adding new Jewish Holocaust victims' names.
The conflict is over much more than the mere matter of Jewish names being a part of the Mormons' genealogy. The problem is that their presence in the database means they have been posthumously baptized into the Mormon church.
Posthumous baptism is a sacred rite practiced in Mormon church temples for the purpose of offering membership in the church to the deceased. Church members are encouraged to conduct family genealogy research and forward their ancestors' names for proxy baptism.Church President Gordon B. Hinckley has said the baptismal rite is only an offer of membership that can be rejected in the afterlife by individuals. "So, there's no injury done to anybody."
Is it really harmless? To someone who does not believe in an afterlife, it might seem comical that such angst is occurring over a non-existent phenomenon. But the real matter at issue here is that Jews are being insulted by Mormons who believe that they alone have the truth and that deceased Jews in the afterlife will realize it and be grateful that someone back in the real world loved them enough to give them a second opportunity to be saved.
Posted by Becky at 12:49 PM | | TrackBack
The Smirking Phony
Normally I can't tolerate listening to the President anymore because I am so averse to being lied to, but as nothing else interesting was on the radio during my evening commute Thursday I gave him and Tony Blair a listen.
Toward the end of their press conference, Bush really surprised me with his response to a question:
Asked what "missteps and mistakes'' he regretted the most, Bush responded with uncharacteristic reflection, citing his July 2003 admonition to Iraqi insurgents to "bring 'em on,'' and his declaration shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the U.S. wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive.''"Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people,'' Bush said. "I learned some lessons about expressing myself, maybe in a more sophisticated manner. ... I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted.''
Of course, I didn't buy it for a moment, but I was impressed that someone had finally convinced him to address this issue. Any positive reaction I had was entirely erased this morning, however, when I read how immediately following these comments, he turned to the press corps and smirked. My lack of techno-know-how prevents me from posting the photo here, but I urge you to go to the site and look at it.
Richard Wolffe from Newsweek, joined Keith Olbermann and said that Bush's more realistic tone and mannerisms seemed rehearsed. Bush was photographed smirking to the front row of the press corps after his 'humble admission' that tough talk like "bring 'em on" had been a mistake.
Bush's phoniness is really getting old. But this smirking thing is, in my opinion, the most depressing, outrageous display he has ever made because it shows very clearly what he thinks of the American people.
Posted by Becky at 12:27 PM | | TrackBack
May 26, 2006
Flowchart of Republican corruption
Larger, more readable version found here.
(Blatantly stolen from Editor At Large)
Posted by Carla at 03:14 PM | | TrackBack
Get your toke on
For those of you choosing not to light a doobie cuz you're afraid of the lung cancer risk, fear not:
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.
Me..I'm not a drug user. Never have been. I don't even like to take aspirin. This is what comes from being a high maintenance control freak.
Posted by Carla at 12:29 PM | | TrackBack
Watch out, Bolivia! The Liar Cometh ...
Why can't President Bush for once tell the truth about why he is criticizing or threatening one country or another?
His latest such disingenuous statements regard criticism of Bolivia's "erosion of democracy". I'll admit, I don't pay as much attention as I ought to the goings-on in a lot of countries around the world, so this whole Bolivia problem is news to me. I thought Venezuela was our southern problem. Why would the President suddenly start criticizing Bolivia when its President is only four months into his term and has done nothing to undermine the country's efforts to create a participatory democracy there?
Answer: Because Bolivian President Evo Morales has decided to nationalize the country's natural gas exports. And he's buddying up to Venezuela, which under the leadership of Hugo Chavez, is also beginning to nationalize his country's oil industry.
This falls right in line with the lies about why we're saber-rattling at Iran over its efforts to develop nuclear energy. The truth is, Iran has pissed off the same group of energy moguls as Venezuela and now Bolivia by beginning to trade its oil in euros.
Why can't someone just fess up about the fact that we're fighting for oil and gas, not the cause of democracy? Or are they afraid Americans would not be willing to spend their grandchildren into debt and send their sons to die for oil rather than spend more money developing renewable energy sources for transportation?
Posted by Becky at 10:59 AM | | TrackBack
Jesus Has Returned!
My heart leapt for joy when I read this today. In the person of Dr. Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, Jesus Christ the Man, our Lord and Savior has returned to earth and is now revealing spiritual truths long hidden by the formal Christian church (I don't quite know yet what this means for our officially crowned Messiah, the Reverend Sun Myong Moon).
Like the Da Vinci Code suggests, religion as we know it today has, in fact, kept secrets from humanity for over 2000 years. There is undeniable proof that further truths exist than what this film suggests, which have been hidden from the world for ages. The renowned singer/actress Martita Roca of ‘LOVE FOR RENT’ (HBO) can attest to this with great evidence, and has indicated she will not stop until the entire planet learns about these mysteries that are now being decoded.
What, you might ask, are these mysteries that Jesus Christ the Man himself is decoding?
[T]he same Founder of the actual religious system, the Apostle Peter, utilized deceitful mechanisms to keep the world in darkness. In fact, there is proof that the same disciples of Jesus of Nazareth, were responsible for the murder of the Apostle Paul. But there is more, much more.
And why is Jesus Christ the Man decoding these mysteries?
“My purpose," he explains, "is to close down every church so the true church can begin. You could say I’m leading the greatest reformation that has ever happened."
Unfortunately, there will always be a few who are unwilling to accept the truth into their hearts.
One observer went so far as to label the Mestizo Messiah as nothing less than a "false prophet" leading a "cult."
How could someone say such a thing about the Savior? How could they so lack faith as to consider him no different than other wacky self-proclaimed messiahs?
Posted by Becky at 10:26 AM | | TrackBack
Al Franken Might Have to Go Back to Comedy
A 16-year-old Indian prodigy may have finally given the world what it needs most: a highly reliable truth machine. 16-year-old Tricia Pasricha of Galveston, Texas worked with her father (who is director of the Division of Gastroenterology at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston) to develop a machine that records the electrical activity of the stomach – an indicator of lying. By all accounts, the machine works much better than the poloygraph.
Can you imagine being able to conduct a simple test and thereby solve some of the greatest mysteries of our time?
Dennis Hastert would have to tell us the truth about his relationship with Jack Abramoff.
We could find out how Scooter Libby really learned about Valerie Plame's identity and whether Vice President Cheney or Karl Rove were involved.
We would have known long ago that Ken Lay was guilty.
President Bush would not have been able to mislead us for so long about our being spied on by our own government. While he was hooked up to the machine, we could even ask him what really happened on 9/11. We might have to hook Cheney up for this one, too.
And Pat Robertson wouldn't get away with claiming he can leg press 2,000 pounds so he could sell his magical protein shakes.
Posted by Becky at 09:51 AM | | TrackBack
May 25, 2006
Bush Appoints Another Neocon Insider
Karl Zinsmeister has just been appointed the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy by President Bush, replacing Claude Allen. The appointment is resulting in some very interesting spin.
Zinsmeister is being described as having "a pronounced aversion to Washington," and his appointment is said to be "part of an ongoing revamp of Mr. Bush's staff" that includes another "outsider," Tony Snow. Of course, when Grover Norquist, talking points coordinator for the vast right-wing conspiracy, says anything, you know it is part of a carefully crafted message. It is true in this case, as well:
"There's new blood and it's not just for show," a conservative activist, Grover Norquist, said in an interview yesterday. He called Mr. Zinsmeister "an intellectual's intellectual" and praised the White House for turning to a true outsider.
Granted, few Americans have probably ever heard of Zinsmeister. But is he really an outsider? Not even close.
As Editor in Chief of the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) magazine, The American Enterprise since 1994, Zinsmeister has not only actively promoted neocon philosophy, including outspoken support for the war and opposition to the Kyoto protocol and most environmental regulation, but he has also gained some pretty noteworthy financial and political connections.
With funding from conservative foundations and large corporations, AEI is one of the richest and most influential think tanks in the U.S. … AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station. ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees. … American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research has received $1,625,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Prominent AEI scholars, trustees and fellows include (or have included) Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Robert H. Bork, Lynne V. Cheney, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol, and Norman J. Ornstein, among others. President Bush claims to have moved twenty of the AEI's people into various positions within his Administration.
The "outsider" Zinsmeister's resume includes several government policy and director positions. He was an embedded reporter in Iraq and has written extensively about how great things are over there, including creating a comic book promoting the war. Oh, yes, and he graduated from Yale, Bush's alma mater.
Zinsmeister notably served on the advisory board for the Foundation for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise, which was founded in 2001 at the behest of Karl Rove to push for the president's faith-based initiatives. All the grant money for that project came from a single source: the John M. Olin Foundation, which funds a lengthy list of right-wing think tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, Judicial Watch, the Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the Hoover Institute of War, Revolution and Peace. It also grants hundreds of thousands of dollars each (in some cases, millions) to ivy league universities and has even granted an enormous amount of money to the Council on Foreign Relations.
Looks to me