Give Bush Nothing. The Iraq Supplemental Was The Compromise.

Posted on May 6, 2007
4 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!

While delivering his second-ever veto to the Iraq supplemental appropriation to fund his war, the American Pretender asserted in many speech-crafted sentences that the war in Iraq is now the war on terrorism and where we engage Al Qaida:

In Washington last week, General Petraeus explained it this way: Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all Al Qaida’s global campaign.

It seems possible, beyond the hyperbolic rhetoric, “If we don’t defeat them over there, we’ll be fighting them over here,” that Iraq has become the haven for terrorists that the neocons insist it has.

The question is, where is the president’s apology for creating that situation? All justifications for invading Iraq have turned out to be lies, and before the U.S. invaded, Iraq was not such a “haven.”

Much worse, the president has not earned the nation’s trust to accept his administration’s assessment of the current situation in Iraq. In fact, the nation, still smarting from a contentious election and its dubious outcome, was willing to give Bush the benefit of uncritical and unearned support following Sept 11. The administration squandered that support and much more on it’s Iraq adventure and countless cynical attempts to undermine government regulation of the world’s wealthiest corporations.

It is also true that continuing the war provides acknowledged political cover after the fact, and enriches the president’s most valued supporters, including major energy companies, and contractors that supply not only logistical support, but also tens of thousands of mercenary soldiers.

It is hard to know how the administration values the aspects of continuing the war that benefits it politically or lines the pockets of their cronies. It might seem unfair to overstate the impact of these influences; it would also be foolish to overlook them.

Following his veto, it was amazing to witness the contempt with which the president described the motives of Congressional Leaders. He characterized Pelosi and Reid, especially, as making political statements or performing “political theater” in presenting him with a bill that requires the president to begin some withdrawal of forces in October, even with the broad flexibility allowed for in the bill and the potential for future negotiations.

Bush never allowed that Congress, itself, had a valid, principled position on the war. He never acknowledged that many of the congress members that voted for his $124 Billion, did so against personal principles or those of their constituents, in the spirit of compromise. He never allowed that some allowed the vote to pass only because there were some stated limits and benchmarks. Where will those votes go if the president’s, so called, “clean” bill came up for a vote?

Maybe Congress could not override the veto, but Bush must not be allowed to override the will of Congress and the American people. Message to Congress: Stand your ground. Give Bush nothing. The passage of the supplemental with timeline and benchmarks was the compromise. Send it again; or, send less, not more.

Share This

Sphere It

Did Someone Whisper Impeachment?

Posted on May 1, 2007
2 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!

George Bush for so long has refused to acknowledge his weakened political position overall, and especially regarding the war. Today, while vetoing the spending bill he requested because it contains some minimal Congressional oversight, on the fourth anniversary of his “Mission Accomplished” declaration that “major combat operations were over,” he is likely to signal some willingness to compromise on a replacement bill.

In an NPR interview Rep. John Murtha said, regarding a recalcitrant president:

There’s four ways you can influence a president. First of all, there’s the polls, which didn’t influence him. Second of all, there’s an election, which should have influenced the president. It has had some influence: He fired the secretary of defense. Third, there’s impeachment, and fourth, there’s the power of the purse. We’re using the power of the purse to negotiate with the president, and I hope we’ll be able to work out a – we want to work with the president to end this long conflict, where our troops are caught in a civil war.

Murtha backpedaled just a bit when pressed, but didn’t take it off the table by any means. He is recommending as a next step, funding military operations in Iraq for two more months while passing a full appropriation to take care of soldiers’ needs, Walter Reed, equipment, etc. That way forcing the conversation every couple of months. I like this approach, short of giving no more money for combat operations, except what’s necessary to withdraw more or less gracefully.

Bush could be doing what he’s already done many times, saying he’s willing to compromise, but then offering nothing. He has already stated that timetables and benchmarks are off the table. Will he offer anything new? Is there any way that, given what he won’t concede, he can offer anything substantial and that can be trusted to be sincere?

Rep. Murtha has a reputation of speaking his mind, not being careful at all times with his words. Still, to my ears, mentioning impeachment as a remedy, was not an accident. I think it was a signal that impeachment is on the table if the president continues to refuse to work with Congress. I wonder what back-channel messages might be sent up Pennsylvania Avenue?

Share This

Sphere It

The count: Gonzales 64, or 71

Posted on April 21, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

The previous count: Sampson 122, Lorita Doan 29

The Gonzales hearing did not go quite as I expected. Two weeks of preparation including “murder board” sessions, and still the AG was not up to the task. I believe my expectations were not met because I incorrectly believed saving himself would be his objective.

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank wrote:

The hearing was billed as Gonzales’s chance to explain the contradictions, omissions and falsehoods in his response to the firings. But instead of contrition, the attorney general treated the committee to a mixture of arrogance, combativeness and amnesia. Even his would-be defenders on the Republican side were appalled.

Certainly some of his “I don’t recall” variations were for his own protection. In a corrupt administration that has raised obfuscation to an art form, perjury is about the only charge that can be made to stick. Dana Milbank of the Post put the count of Gonzales’s claims of faulty memory at 64. NPR’s Nina Totenberg put it at 71. Both can be correct, as there are many ways to say “It serves my purpose to sit here and pretend I’ve lost my mind, but insist I still should be the U.S. Attorney General.”

Sen. Tom Coburn R-Okla. A tired artful dodge used by officials under fire is the statement “I take full responsibility,” uttered now by Gonzales on several occasions. It’s usually employed to say also, “end of story.” One of my favorite quotes from committee questioners came from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

To me, there has to be consequences to accepting responsibility. And I would just say, Mr. Attorney General, it’s my considered opinion that the exact same standards should be applied to you in how this was handled. And it was handled incompetently. The communication was atrocious. It was inconsistent. It’s generous to say that there were misstatements. That’s a generous statement. And I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered. And I believe that the best way to put this behind us is your resignation.

Gonzales is not falling on his sword, in this play, however. The underlying problem of the Justice Department being used as just another political tool will remain, even if Gonzales leaves. The understood pact is that he stay in place, take all the heat and protect the administration, that is, Rove and Bush. His reward is keeping his job. This way both objectives are met.

Bush might mitigate his problems by appointing a new AG known for intelligence, integrity, and independence. That’s not too likely. Someone like that just might initiate a proper investigation from within, and on all sorts of things that have not yet come out.

The Boston Globe writes:

“There were no bombshell revelations in yesterday’s hearing, but it did provide new evidence of why Gonzales has been so deceitful about the firings. In at least some of the cases, the attorneys — all Bush appointees — were being canned for blatantly partisan reasons, either because the administration believed they were prosecuting Republican officeholders too aggressively or not prosecuting allegations of voter fraud by Democrats aggressively enough.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. describes such behaviors by the administration and Justice as “improper.” Other interpreters might say “criminal.” To use U.S. Attorneys to selectively investigate and prosecute your political enemies for purely political purposes, is abuse of power. Protecting allies from rightful prosecutions is obstruction of justice. These were two of the articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon. The third was contempt of Congress. How blatant is that in the present administration?

Getting Gonzales out of the government would be a worthy goal. He has no one’s confidence except for the president’s. Let’s not fool ourselves that the AG’s removal would fully redress the abuses that have been exposed. Congress must now move to understand fully the White House’s involvement.

Share This

Sphere It

Pacifist, Humanist, Pragmatist — Trying To Make Sense In Aftermath Of Sensless Virginia Tech Shootings

Posted on April 20, 2007
2 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!

There are plenty of wonderful tributes to the victims, survivors, and their families on the web, both in the MSM as well as Facebook and Myspace. It’s important to understand the human losses this week. Personal stories of the victims make clear the depth of losses in the tragic shootings on the Virginia Tech Campus.

I’m conflicted about writing this. I’ll decide whether to post and when later. Some folks will find me reactionary or opportunist. In truth, my writing is motivated by anger and grief. My earlier reaction was shock and rage. Yes, rage. Don’t worry. I understand my own rage and am a pacifist at heart. You will never catch me packing heat. Never. Again, I understand my rage and abhor violence.

Jane Smiley had a telling piece in Huffington Post quoting a former gun owner,

I gave my gun away, because when I had it, every time something happened that made me mad, my mind would start circling around that gun, and I would be thinking about using it. So I got rid of it and I’m glad I did.

Once, in Junior High, I threw a bic pen at a classmate. She was taunting me. I throw badly. Those who taunt me would say I “throw like a girl.” Any self-respecting “girl” would take exception. Somehow, without intention, I landed the pen uncomfortably close to her eye. No physical harm was done, but I was mortified by my own actions and the potential consequences.

The pen incident was my last violent act.

Today my weapon of choice is still a pen, but this time, I’m writing. Actually, as most weapons contests go, I’ve escalated to a more efficient weapon, the computer keyboard. I can definitely get more words down; but, writing at high speed, not all hit their mark. Fortunately, removing poorly chosen words is also a more efficient process.

Monday, April 16, a lone gunman murdered 32 people, injuring numerous others, on what one witness called the “bucolic” Virginia Tech campus. I have family nearby in Blacksburg, and was born and have owned a home in Virginia, but do not have any personal ties to this tragedy. And yet, I am still deeply affected by the events there.

I avoid immersion in the endless commentary by any number of talking heads and their interviewees. I am especially quick to lower the volume when a newsperson has extracted all the facts they can from a witness and then attempts to get some emotion for the microphone, turning empathy into just another question designed to get a voice to crack.

I worry that I’ve become inured to the emotional side of the tragedy. I’m assured by my anger that I have not. My knee-jerk is “too damn many guns,” but that is too easy; though, it has to be part of the story. Another part of the story is how badly the federal and state governments deal with problems that are politically inconvenient, including moneyed opposition to all reasonable restrictions on guns, and mental health care which seems to be most available to the well-to-do and a small portion of the indigent population.

In Virginia, the politics certainly play a role. With the NRA headquartered in Fairfax, one fears that the lunatics truly are running the asylum. Amazingly Virginia has managed to elect two truly decent Democratic governors, in succession, including the present Gov. Tim Kaine. The trade-off these otherwise good men have to make to take office is that they have to embrace Virginia’s sacred cows to some extent. That means promises to maintain at least the status quo on guns, abortion, and the death penalty.

The status quo on guns and the death penalty are actually pretty extreme. Sadly, not even the most basic of Virginia’s restrictions on gun purchases proved any impediment for Virginia Tech’s gunman. Having been committed to a mental institution involuntarily for anti-social behaviors, having been determined to be potentially “of harm to himself or others,” should have kept the young man from purchasing guns legally.

I’m convinced there will always be guns in America, and hardly oppose legitimate hunting rifles and the activities for which they were designed. I do not understand hunting “for sport” but the traditional hunt for food for meat-eaters seems more humane than factory farming practices. That sport hunters are necessarily included in regulated hunting seasons is not an issue for me.

I question a society where guns are celebrated in everyday life. The NRA does much to promote such a society. Without trying to account for their large donors, its clear that they extract donations and member fees from a broad swath of the population by making believe that even reasonable gun ownership will be outlawed and that any restrictions are an abridgment of rights. They prey on ignorance and fear and perceived victimhood, in much the same way televangelists and politicians do.

I worry about first-person shooter video games and don’t know their affects on impressionable minds. State-sponsored execution legitimizes killing and Virginia has been one of the biggest killers of alleged violent offenders. Televised wars of choice and bloody civil conflict, and public hangings of deposed leaders have to contribute to a culture that accepts violence too easily. That a hanged leader is known to have been a murderous despot himself, only reinforces the idea of “righteous” killing.

There is a community of 26,000 in Southwestern Virginia, at Virginia Tech, whatever their political beliefs, who has seen the affects this week either of a mostly anomalous case of one troubled youth with dangerous weapons, or of a culture run amok with the permissiveness of violence and the tools of violence.

We know that Tech’s shooting, however shocking and severe, was not an isolated case. America is the mass murder capital of the Western world. Those who promote pat slogans like “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” need to be exposed for high cost of their lobbying efforts on society. America needs a national discussion on the death penalty and it’s effects on the minds of it’s people. Conservative pastors need to reconsider their constant messages of retribution for personal wrongs and wrongs against God, and look more to messages of generosity and forgiveness which are just as easily found in the same texts they preach from.

We need better mental health intervention, wider availability of mental health services and help for middle class and poor patients to pay, and to continue to work to remove the stigma on those who seek assistance.

We need to examine our entertainment business and identify as pornographic gratuitous and graphic violence for entertainment’s sake. It’s crazy how worked up we get over sexual content of any kind while letting violence mostly slide. This clearly includes the fast-growing gaming industry. What we do with these forms of protected speech, and in a few cases, art, is the stuff for much discussion. Some of these violent vehicles do a better job than others — acknowledging violence but showing the waste of it. Maybe in a scheme of ratings and enforceable and enforced age restrictions these would be treated somehow differently. It seems like whatever disincentive for producing and selling these entertainments should be at least as strong as the market forces that encourage producers to escalate violence to increase the bottom line. Maybe the most violent-rated could be the most highly taxed. Somehow that seems ripe for first-amendment challenges, but there has to be a price for those who purvey violence, when the rest of society seems to be paying a high toll.

And yes, there are too damn many guns.

Share This

Sphere It

Gonzales preparing for the performance of his life

Posted on April 14, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

It’s worse than sad that the AG needs to “practice” testifying before the main event at the Senate Judiciary Committee next Tuesday. A certain amount of preparation before critical testimony might be expected but 2 weeks worth seems to be for something of a performance rather than an opportunity for clearing the air and truthtelling.

The suspicion here is that the AG is practicing remaining consistent on his and the administration’s version of the story, learning and practicing how to minimize the potential for untruths by means of obfuscation. To keep from revealing anything and keep from lying in a way that can be caught, he will have to answer questions with non-answers and somehow make the non-answers seem satisfying just the same.

The leaks from those practice sessions suggest that Gonzales is not doing very well in his preparations. Is anyone actually buying that? Apparently the MSM is. These suggestions that the AG’s preparation is not going well are continually reported straight, without reporting on why the leaks might be made.

But who are these leakers? A person in the know would be very close and would have an agenda. Remember when George W. Bush was preparing for political debates against reputedly much more articulate opponents? His political team worked the media to lower expectations of Bush’s performance. The idea was that if expectations were low enough, all Bush would have to do was not make an ass of himself and could be declared the winner. Is something like this being spinned on Gonzales’s behalf? Are the leaks advance preparation for his defense? Is there an allowance to be made for false testimony because an “unknown source” revealed that Gonzales privately had trouble keeping the facts straight in his own mind? And this is the U.S. Attorney General?

Share This

Sphere It

Impeachment: Bring It On!

Posted on April 12, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

It’s a taunt, isn’t it — when the president says to Congressional leaders, summoning them to the White House, after a 4-year war based on lies in which 3,292 U.S. soldiers have died, after Congress has given him everything he wants in a spending bill but included provisions aimed at limiting death and mayhem without end,

At this meeting, the leaders in Congress can report on progress on getting an emergency spending bill to my desk. We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill.

It’s a taunt, isn’t it — when the president says that congress can interview Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, but they may not do it publicly, may not record any transcripts, and may not have require testimony under oath?

It’s a taunt, isnt’ it — when a president seeks to politicize all aspects of government, repeatedly appointing industry insiders to regulate their own industries, and preventing federal agencies from doing their legally mandated missions when those missions run counter to his politically charged or corrupt goals?

It’s a taunt, isnt’ it — when a president vows a second veto on federal support for stem-cell research because he says it destroys life, when that life is a cluster of undifferentiated cells, while sending beautiful, fully-formed young adults to die in an illegal and immoral war?

It’s a taunt, isnt’ it — when a president suppresses evidence that the world and human history could well be headed for preventable cataclysm, in favor of short-term bottom line gains for the energy companies that bought him?

It’s a taunt, isnt’ it — when a president signs bills into law while issuing statements that he will not be bound by that law?

It’s a taunt, isnt’ it — when a president stages an event on an aircraft carrier declaring victory, and saying, Bring Em On?

It’s a taunt, isnt’ it — when a president who has to know that the popular drive toward impeachment is gaining momentum, continues to refuse to compromise any single part of his many misguided policies?

It’s a taunt, isn’t it — when George W. Bush and Dick Cheny believe that there is no will in Congress to enter into impeachment proceedings and to flout the will of the Democratic Congress and a vast majority of the people.

Has there ever been such a large popular movement for impeachment without Congressional support? The Democrats, who represent the view of the majority population, won victories in November many would not dare imagine. They know that the effort to impeach could well fail, not because the charges are not just, but because of the president’s remaining entrenched supporters.

It is important to allow the war funding battle to play out and to strive for victory in that fight. If the efforts to reign in the president on Iraq should fail, the next priority must be impeachment.

Share This

Sphere It

King George Issues Summons On War Funding

Posted on April 10, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

King George Arrogance or delusion? From what place in the shrub’s mind comes the audacity to summon congressional leaders to the White House to “discuss” his supplemental war spending bill? His words sound like those of the petulant child demanding ice cream from an indulgent mother. Whatever mother brings, no matter her greater wisdom, will not be satisfactory. If mother brings a bowl with chocolate sauce, Georgie wants a cone with sprinkles. You can see the fit he’ll throw forming behind his eyes and hear it in the timbre of his whine.

The child who would be king, extending his “invitation,” expressed his demands this way:

At this meeting, the leaders in Congress can report on progress on getting an emergency spending bill to my desk. We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill.

So, what he’s saying is Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can just march their butts down Pennsylvania Avenue so he can lay down his demands. There’s no point pitching a fit unless the ones he’s annoyed with are there to see it. No negotions. No give and take. He’ll have what he wants. Period.

The only humor in any of this these days is when Nancy and Harry publicly explain the new rules to Georgie in the manner and tone which indeed a patient, exhausted parent would take.

The horror is that while the tactics and attitudes of the president can seem rather childish, the goal of his demands supports actions rarely, if ever, supportable among even the wisest adults: Aggression, killing, and mayhem.

It’s time to take away Georgie’s toys and give him a long time-out.

Share This

Sphere It

How Not To Say Gay

Posted on April 8, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

This article will do no good. The right-wing haters are on to us liberal, politically-correct fascists. They use the style guides on how not to be offensive precisely to know how to be as offensive as possible. More defeating still, is that we who care about words that hurt are also largely in the group that will protect most fiercely the right-wingers’ right to be offensive. When Ann Coulter recently trotted out the word “faggot” for a national audience she knew precisely what she had hold of.

Exposing the lie is the fact that fascism and liberalism are diametrically opposed views. Fascism is a movement of extreme right-wing, authoritarianism. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard right-wingers recently equating the left with fascism and naziism. Tom Delay did it in his recent book and then denied it even when it was there in print for everyone to see. At the same time the left and the MSM (mainstream media) dance all around themselves to avoid words like fascism even when they appropriately apply. We occasionally hear the word “authoritarian” slipped into the body of an article, but not frequently as a headline.

The MSM eschews the word “fascism” because we still have a relatively free press. The point they miss is that the administration suppresses speech every day wherever they have the ability and desire to do so. This has happened primarily with scientific and environmental information — funded by taxpayers and that belongs to taxpayers — information that is deemed harmful to the bottom lines of the administration’s corporate supporters. While some small amount of information can justifiably be suppressed on national security grounds, climate science and information that fails to support the administration’s extreme political positions can not be legally suppressed. Which is worse: one, a government saying you can’t speak ill of the “leader,” or two, suppressing public information, the suppression of which could harm planet-wide climate for generations upon generations. The problem here is making a legal distinction between party discipline and illegal suppression. The administration knows this as they recently have put politically-appointed gatekeepers on information released by all agencies. The MSM would do well to put some of their best legal reporters on parsing these issues.

Politically correct speech has long been attacked as limiting expression and for humorlessness. I get that. Liberals who generally embrace political correctness (though have largely abandoned the term) have long been painted with the same brush. The thing is that it takes a pretty keen mind to use language well. Even those of us who feel well-practiced have our dull moments. It’s good, on those occasions, to have some guidelines to help us keep our stinky feet out of our potty-mouths.

The liberal position on speech differs from fascist repression in that we believe all speech should be legal and protected, save for the often cited exception of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre, or other speech that threatens public safety. We also believe that there should be consequences for offensive speech. The consequences have occasionally seemed too extreme. It does not seem extreme if Michael Richards cannot get bookings because of a racist tirade against hecklers; that is the consequence of his choice of speech. If Richards apologizes and makes amends and regains some of his audience, we all learn something. Then there’s Ann Coulter’s failed attempt at humor, suggesting that someone needs rehab for calling someone a “faggot.” If Isaiah Washington chooses that route, that’s between him and his publicist and / or therapist. What a fan wants is a sincere apology. Rehab could never become the catch-all amends for offensive behavior precisely because the sincerity of it is not believable.

This blog was one of the vast number that called offensive Ann Coulter’s attack on John Edwards and gays in a single breath. Again it’s not that she didn’t have the right to say what is offensive. That was never the point. The word itself is offensive, but context is everything here. If Ann had been hanging with some gay boyfriends and called one a faggot, and none took offense and any felt like they could call her a ho’ back with no offense, I’d say no harm, no foul. Now put her on a national stage speaking for her political party with full media coverage and toss out the f-bomb — she deserves the criticism she gets for not understanding the difference, or not caring. She also gets what she deserves if no serious candidate will ever again share a stage with her.

Anyone who studies English usage knows that dictionaries do not make the rules of language but reflect the evolution of words and their usage. As a lifetime gay man and curmudgeon, I still have the same gut reaction every time I read in the newspaper the phrase “a homosexual.” A homosexual WHAT? Dictionaries allow the usage of the word as a noun, but that is only a reflection of modern usage. It is still pretty meaningless and often offensive. It’s meaningless, in part, because it is an adjective, to my thinking, and a modifier. The noun often is not supplied. It is offensive because it reduces a person to what he or she does in bed. In other contexts it is too clinical and suggests illness or defect, a notion long discredited. Too often it is used where sexual orientation is irrelevant or if relevant could be understood from the context. Why not say John and his partner Bill, rather than John and his homosexual partner Bill?

The press has no difficulty calling groups of people what they choose to be called, except when it comes to gays and lesbians. “Homosexual” is usually offensive when not talking about what two men or two women might do together in bed — and how many newspapers are really writing about that? “Queer” and “fag” are “in-words” that should be used very carefully, if ever. Many do not get transgender and gender identity at all, and seem not to have tried. I suppose that can be difficult with such a spectrum. Probably better to say “he was wearing red sequins,” if relevant, or leave out the pronoun or the sequins altogether, rather than resorting to labels, especially when you get the labels wrong.

None of us wants to be invisible. In fact, invisibility is especially harmful to gays and lesbians. It all goes to relevancy, once again. A reporter can describe the scene and let readers reach conclusions. It’s good journalism practice. If the sexual orientation of suspect or victim in a crime story is relevant, it should be transmitted. In a style piece a pretty easy test would be if you would include a straight partner or date in the story, it would be an omission to not include a gay or lesbian counterpart.

I suppose some people are tone-deaf to language or seriously lack subtlety. I remember an editorial meeting in a small publishing group in the early 1990s, where we had just gotten news from a conference from which we, a mostly-white staff, learned that African Americans were beginning to prefer to be called African American rather than “Black.” One mid-level managing editor was looking tortured and asked out loud, “What do we call ‘them’ now?” A young staffer quietly said, “both” and was correct. The manager remained confused.

Language is an evolution and is not absolute. We should not get bent out of shape by little slip ups. I prefer to assume one’s language is inclusive until it becomes clear that it is not. For me, the word “gay” is inclusive of gays and lesbians. Some lesbians may disagree, but not all lesbians would disagree. I say lesbian when I am speaking of a woman who loves women. I may say gay inclusively, but will be careful to say “gay and lesbian” or “glbt” or the whole thing written out, not every time, but often enough to show inclusivity. I try and remember to say “gay men” when speaking only of men, to allow gay, alone, to cover all.

Words said in anger as in the cases of Isaiah Washington and Michael Richards — while potentially revealing — when there is not a history of cultural insensitivity, should be more easily forgiven than habitual abusers of others through language. I loved Mel Gibson’s early film work, but because of a long record of intolerant remarks, I’ll be damned if he’ll get a dime at the box office from me these days. When his stuff comes up on Tivo, I don’t just ignore it, I give it a thumbs down. On Netflix, I mark suggestions to rent his films, “not interested.” Free marketers should embrace such an approach.

Share This

Sphere It

The Secret Government, Redux

Posted on April 3, 2007
3 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!

In this 1987 PBS video, Bill Moyers begins, “The secret government is an interlocking network of official functionaries, spies, mercenaries, ex-generals, profiteers, and “super-patriots” who, for a variety of motives, operate outside the legitimate institutions of government. Presidents have turned to them when they can’t win the support of the Congress or the people, creating that unsupervised power so feared by the framers of our Constitution.”

The circumstances vary over time, but it’s scary how much 2007 looks like 1987. The new twist is now we’re allowing private contractors like Blackwater to weapon up. The problems with massive private armies operating on American soil and for hire around the globe are clear.

Share This

Sphere It

A Final Status For Gay Marriage?

Posted on April 2, 2007
3 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!

It’s amazing to think, given the state of Israeli-Palestinian relations these days, that back when Bill Clinton was president and Arafat was alive, people were talking about the end-game in a Palestine-Israel peace process. Jerusalem was the non-negotiable item that somehow, sometime would have to be negotiated. Ideas were floated. There was an atmosphere of hope.

I’m wondering if gay marriage is going that way. We are in this strange place, at least in the more moderate parts of the country, where everything EXCEPT marriage is negotiable, and perhaps winnable. It pisses me off in a huge way that the majority of society would withhold that official label.

In my mind, marriage should not be a government issue at all. It is a spiritual idea and for many a religious thing. All of us, gay and straight can find a religious community that will sanctify our relationships. Still while government is in the business of marriage, it must be available to all.

Setting marriage aside, as seems to be the way of the moment, it is striking how the more reasonable officials are willing allies in the effort to dissect the legal benefits of marriage and provide equal protection under the law. I know, it’s still the “separate but equal” thing, but stay with be a bit longer.

It takes a lot of legislation to provide equal protection — for the government-given benefits of marriage are many — and taken for granted by most of those allowed to enjoy them. New Jersey wanted marriage and is not giving up, but for now has passed a broad civil unions law. This broad brush approach will need many details worked out. The District of Columbia is taking a piecemeal approach, but a very thorough one. They seem to be working on two bills and two government protections equal to marriage at a time. There are two gay men on the city council, they have support on the council and from the mayor. We’ll want to keep an eye on their progress.

The striking thing today, reading in the Washington Blade, was realizing how many bills are before Congress, or are planned this year, to reduce discrimination against glbt folks. They don’t all have to do with marriage, but they clearly do have to do with guaranteeing equal protection under the law.

The Blade lists these ten:

Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007

Military Readiness Enhancement Act — repeals “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Uniting American Families Act — imigration equality for domestic partners

Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act — provides marriage parity on taxation of health benefits

Domestic Partners Benefits & Obligations Act — equal health benefits for federal emplyees

Clarification of Federal Employment Protections Act — says “we really mean it” to Bushies on federal employment discrimination

Family Medical Leave Inclusion Act — amends Family & Medical Leave Act of 1993 for marriage equality

Responsible Education About Life Act — actual sex-ed instead of abstinence dogma

Early Treatment for HIV Act — provides medicaid for needy hiv-positive folks before AIDS develops

For any ‘wingers reading this, there’s no need to get excited. In a way you’ve won. No marriage for people like me. If you think this is too much legislation, you might want to cool your jets. Given the direction the wind is blowing, if we don’t achieve something that looks like equal protection, the pressure will continue to build until one day we’ll win on constitutional grounds — and we’ll win it all.

For disappointed folks like me who know when a moral victory has been stolen from us, there is the consolation prize of creeping toward equal protection. The up side is that it really is just a matter of time. Even without the added protections of law, we would still have a long wait. Most folks younger than me are pretty cool with equal marriage. Most folks older than me are not. Whether I see nation-wide equal marriage is likely a matter of whether my body outperforms actuarial tables. A moral victory in old age will taste just as sweet.

There is going to come a time — not too far off — where the confusion of laws, in marriage-permissive states, marriage-prohibitive states, and federal laws will create more problems than anyone hoped to resolve — in any direction. It seems very likely that very soon that there will be protections in federal law for glbt domestic partners that are not recognized in Virginia, a state that just passed the most restrictive laws on legal recognition of gay relationships anywhere. The momentum will be in favor of equal protection for all.

States fall all over themselves to attract new businesses. Most like high-tech businesses best. High-tech businesses are ahead of the curve on non-discrimination policies and domestic partner benefits. If these businesses want to attract the best and the brightest, they’ll choose to locate in states that best match their internal corporate cultures. Let’s see what happens when states pit so-called “morals” issues against pocketbook issues.

Unlike the final status of Jerusalem, which seems like a conflict the parties will never resolve, I suspect the question of equal marriage will be resolved sooner than anticipated. Things have a way of gaining momentum exponentially. Even with the setback of the last 6-plus years, change is in the air.

Share This

Sphere It

Remembering “The Great Society”

Posted on April 1, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

This blogger is taking a break from the news for the weekend. I can’t say I’ve quite managed it, but I’ve at least avoided the usual immersion. In times like these, this moment of peace feels like an indulgence.

I’ve had this text on my desktop for a few weeks, now, with the idea of sharing it here.

The speech was delivered May 22, 1964, at Michigan State University, 6 months to the day after the assassination of JFK, which made Johnson president. He would be facing his own election in less than 6 months, which resulted in a landslide for him and for his Democratic party.

Johnson’s reputation seems forever soiled by the Vietnam war, and we rarely if ever hear of him referred to as a great president. His greatest failure, escalating the war, and the fact that the nation continued for to mourn for JFK for the rest of the decade, overshadowed his visionary domestic agenda, and the mind-boggling success of it. We take for granted, today, the fruit of LBJ’s legacy. Check out the Wikipedia article.

How is it that our Republican presidents have for the most part sought to sell us on delusions, like Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America,” and George W. Bush telling us to go shopping after 9/11, while Democrats, like LBJ, FDR, and Bill Clinton, have sought to inspire us with visions? Republicans seem always to want to reinforce the status quo, saying “aren’t we great,” while Dems have long inspired us to be better than we are.

The Great Society

President Hatcher, Governor Romney, Senators McNamara and Hart, Congressmen Meader and Staebler, and other members of the fine Michigan delegation, members of the graduating class, my fellow Americans:It is a great pleasure to be here today. This university has been coeducational since 1870, but I do not believe it was on the basis of your accomplishments that a Detroit high school girl said (and I quote), “In choosing a college, you first have to decide whether you want a coeducational school or an educational school.” Well, we can find both here at Michigan, although perhaps at different hours. I came out here today very anxious to meet the Michigan student whose father told a friend of mine that his son’s education had been a real value. It stopped his mother from bragging about him.

I have come today from the turmoil of your capital to the tranquility of your campus to speak about the future of your country. The purpose of protecting the life of our Nation and preserving the liberty of our citizens is to pursue the happiness of our people. Our success in that pursuit is the test of our success as a Nation.

For a century we labored to settle and to subdue a continent. For half a century we called upon unbounded invention and untiring industry to create an order of plenty for all of our people. The challenge of the next half century is whether we have the wisdom to use that wealth to enrich and elevate our national life, and to advance the quality of our American civilization.

Your imagination and your initiative and your indignation will determine whether we build a society where progress is the servant of our needs, or a society where old values and new visions are buried under unbridled growth. For in your time we have the opportunity to move not only toward the rich society and the powerful society, but upward to the Great Society.

The Great Society rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice, to which we are totally committed in our time. But that is just the beginning.

The Great Society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents. It is a place where leisure is a welcome chance to build and reflect, not a feared cause of boredom and restlessness. It is a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community. It is a place where man can renew contact with nature. It is a place which honors creation for its own sake and for what is adds to the understanding of the race. It is a place where men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the quantity of their goods.

But most of all, the Great Society is not a safe harbor, a resting place, a final objective, a finished work. It is a challenge constantly renewed, beckoning us toward a destiny where the meaning of our lives matches the marvelous products of our labor.

So I want to talk to you today about three places where we begin to build the Great Society — in our cities, in our countryside, and in our classrooms.

Many of you will live to see the day, perhaps 50 years from now, when there will be 400 million Americans — four-fifths of them in urban areas. In the remainder of this century urban population will double, city land will double, and we will have to build homes and highways and facilities equal to all those built since this country was first settled. So in the next 40 years we must re-build the entire urban United States.

Aristotle said: “Men come together in cities in order to live, but they remain together in order to live the good life.” It is harder and harder to live the good life in American cities today. The catalog of ills is long: there is the decay of the centers and the despoiling of the suburbs. There is not enough housing for our people or transportation for our traffic. Open land is vanishing and old landmarks are violated. Worst of all expansion is eroding these precious and time honored values of community with neighbors and communion with nature. The loss of these values breeds loneliness and boredom and indifference.

And our society will never be great until our cities are great. Today the frontier of imagination and innovation is inside those cities and not beyond their borders. New experiments are already going on. It will be the task of your generation to make the American city a place where future generations will come, not only to live, but to live the good life. And I understand that if I stayed here tonight I would see that Michigan students are really doing their best to live the good life.

This is the place where the Peace Corps was started.

It is inspiring to see how all of you, while you are in this country, are trying so hard to live at the level of the people.

A second place where we begin to build the Great Society is in our countryside. We have always prided ourselves on being not only America the strong and America the free, but America the beautiful. Today that beauty is in danger. The water we drink, the food we eat, the very air that we breathe, are threatened with pollution. Our parks are overcrowded, our seashores overburdened. Green fields and dense forests are disappearing.

A few years ago we were greatly concerned about the “Ugly American.” Today we must act to prevent an ugly America.

For once the battle is lost, once our natural splendor is destroyed, it can never be recaptured. And once man can no longer walk with beauty or wonder at nature his spirit will wither and his sustenance be wasted.

A third place to build the Great Society is in the classrooms of America. There your children’s lives will be shaped. Our society will not be great until every young mind is set free to scan the farthest reaches of thought and imagination. We are still far from that goal. Today, 8 million adult Americans, more than the entire population of Michigan, have not finished 5 years of school. Nearly 20 million have not finished 8 years of school. Nearly 54 million — more than one quarter of all America — have not even finished high school.

Each year more than 100,000 high school graduates, with proved ability, do not enter college because they cannot afford it. And if we cannot educate today’s youth, what will we do in 1970 when elementary school enrollment will be 5 million greater than 1960? And high school enrollment will rise by 5 million. And college enrollment will increase by more than 3 million.

In many places, classrooms are overcrowded and curricula are outdated. Most of our qualified teachers are underpaid and many of our paid teachers are unqualified. So we must give every child a place to sit and a teacher to learn from. Poverty must not be a bar to learning, and learning must offer an escape from poverty.

But more classrooms and more teachers are not enough. We must seek an educational system which grows in excellence as it grows in size. This means better training for our teachers. It means preparing youth to enjoy their hours of leisure as well as their hours of labor. It means exploring new techniques of teaching, to find new ways to stimulate the love of learning and the capacity for creation.

These are three of the central issues of the Great Society. While our Government has many programs directed at those issues, I do not pretend that we have the full answer to those problems. But I do promise this: We are going to assemble the best thought and the broadest knowledge from all over the world to find those answers for America.

I intend to establish working groups to prepare a series of White House conferences and meetings — on the cities, on natural beauty, on the quality of education, and on other emerging challenges. And from these meetings and from this inspiration and from these studies we will begin to set our course toward the Great Society.

The solution to these problems does not rest on a massive program in Washington, nor can it rely solely on the strained resources of local authority. They require us to create new concepts of cooperation, a creative federalism, between the National Capital and the leaders of local communities.

Woodrow Wilson once wrote: “Every man sent out from his university should be a man of his Nation as well as a man of his time.”

Within your lifetime powerful forces, already loosed, will take us toward a way of life beyond the realm of our experience, almost beyond the bounds of our imagination.

For better or for worse, your generation has been appointed by history to deal with those problems and to lead America toward a new age. You have the chance never before afforded to any people in any age. You can help build a society where the demands of morality, and the needs of the spirit, can be realized in the life of the Nation.

So, will you join in the battle to give every citizen the full equality which God enjoins and the law requires, whatever his belief, or race, or the color of his skin?

Will you join in the battle to give every citizen an escape from the crushing weight of poverty?

Will you join in the battle to make it possible for all nations to live in enduring peace — as neighbors and not as mortal enemies?

Will you join in the battle to build the Great Society, to prove that our material progress is only the foundation on which we will build a richer life of mind and spirit?

There are those timid souls that say this battle cannot be won; that we are condemned to a soulless wealth. I do not agree. We have the power to shape the civilization that we want. But we need your will and your labor and your hearts, if we are to build that kind of society.

Those who came to this land sought to build more than just a new country. They sought a new world. So I have come here today to your campus to say that you can make their vision our reality. So let us from this moment begin our work so that in the future men will look back and say: It was then, after a long and weary way, that man turned the exploits of his genius to the full enrichment of his life.

Thank you. Good-bye.

Share This

Sphere It

Keeping score: Counting Claims Of Faulty Memory

Posted on March 29, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

From Dana Milbank in the Washington Post March 30, quoting Kyle Sampson:

“I can’t pretend to know or remember every fact that may be of relevance,” he warned at the start — and he wasn’t kidding. He used the phrase “I don’t remember” a memorable 122 times.

From the Post on March 29 on the Lurita Doan hearing:

On at least 10 occasions, she testified that she could not recall asking employees to help the GOP or remember details of the presentation.

Monica Goodling, of course, takes the fifth.

Watch this space for counts of all the disingenuous claims of bad memory going forward. Feel free to email or comment when you hear of another good one.

Share This

Sphere It

There Needs To Be A Law Against “I Don’t Recall”

Posted on March 28, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

The Washington Post says today of Lurita Doan, GSA Administrator,

On at least 10 occasions, she testified that she could not recall asking her employees to help the GOP or details of the presentation.

Before the malfeasance of this administration is fully exposed, we are going to hear that a lot. It’s pretty clear that Washington’s Republican elite can not all have faulty memories, so some of them have to be lying. Lying under oath to Congress is a felony.

We need a new way to cut through this tired lie of a defense. The most interesting solutions defy valued civil liberties protections. Doesn’t it just bite you in the ass that the same people who show contempt for civil liberties are the ones in the most need of them and who gamed the system for their purposes will be the beneficiaries of it’s fairness?

Share This

Sphere It

A Timeline For Withdrawal from Iraq

Posted on March 27, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

A Hero among columnists, E.J. Dionne Jr., of the Washington Post set it up this morning, in his piece “An Antiwar Tide on The Rise.” And then, it happened. Jaded folks like me turned up the radio in a hurry on the drive home when we heard that the Senate had actually passed the war spending bill with a timeline for withdrawall. Sometimes Mr. Dionne says the right thing because it’s the right thing to say. I admire that. This time, I believe, he counted the votes and knew something big would likely happen.

It’s a bittersweet victory for liberals and progressives. It’s way more funding than needed to achieve our objectives, that is, ending the debacle as swiftly as possible. It is a victory nonetheless.

E.J. nailed it, writing about the House passage of a similar bill:

Oddly, the president’s harsh rhetoric against the House version of the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq war may have been decisive in sealing Pelosi’s victory. “The vehemence with which the president opposed it made it clear to a lot of people that this was a change in direction and that it was significant,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

We can thank the president and his shrill response for letting the left know he took the house vote hard. I’d quote him, but he never actually says anything. It’s how he says it that makes all the difference.

John McCain said “This bill should be named the date certain for surrender act.” in an NPR report. He continues, suggesting that you don’t tell the enemy when you’re leaving.

But this isn’t that kind of war. Neither surrender nor victory is possible. The U.S. began losing somewhere around the time it became clear there really were no WMD. The slide to ignominy began before that, with Bush’s SOTU speech building the case for war in Iraq in 2003, saying, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” It continued with Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations. Every time George Bush changed his rhetoric about the nature of the mission in Iraq was a surrender. For the U.S. to stop policing a civil war, implies no greater surrender than those implied by the constant missteps and miscalculations by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush.

If any victory can be achieved it will be for the Iraqis alone. Their victory will be an end to sectarian violence. They have to achieve this victory politically, if it is to be won.

To the extent the U.S. is an irritant in the region, a timetable could as easily provide a strong incentive for Iraqis to work out their political differences, knowing that in a relatively short time they’ll be on their own.

Share This

Sphere It

Gonzales Aide Cries Persecution Before the Fact

Posted on March 26, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

What is Monica M. Goodling afraid of? Goodling’s attorney, John Dowd, seems to claim that the Scooter Libby trial is evidence that even truthful testimony would put her in jeopardy.

It was not Libby’s trial that put him in jeopardy. It was the lies. It’s still not clear who’s lies, but Libby’s conviction was for prior lies in his grand jury testimony, not for testifying truthfully.

From the AP via NPR:

“The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” Dowd said. Goodling was key to the Justice Department’s political response to the growing controversy. She took a leave of absence last week.

“One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby,” Dowd said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.

Goodling says in a declaration to the Senate committee, according to the Washington Post,

Schumer, Leahy and other lawmakers have already “drawn conclusions” about the U.S. attorney firings.

I don’t believe the 5th amendment has much to say about protection from what you think others are thinking. I don’t know whether Goodling believes she may have done something criminal or if she only believes she will not be treated fairly by Democratic U.S. Senators in open committee. She needs the 5th in the case of the former. It is unfair in all kinds of ways to apply it in the case of the latter.

Share This

Sphere It

keep looking »