I See My Dreams

Out of my mind

2008-05-04T15:32:00.002-04:00

This blog has been archived for research purposes. Use the index to the left to access archived post titles. Or, use the "search blog" window above for specific subjects. All posts are original to the author, are documented and are copyrighted 2008. Thank you for visiting.

Blog Author

Birthday girl

2008-04-24T08:16:00.003-04:00

This little bit of trouble came into the world on this date in 1942, just a few months after Pearl Harbor. Arriving two months early, she weighed in at 3 1/2 pounds. “About the size of a little bag of sugar and just as sweet,” her daddy said. A box by a wood-burning stove was prescribed by the attending country doctor as an incubator.

Her brother, then 16, and sisters, 14 and 12, have related many stories from those earliest days, including waking her up before they left for school just so they could play with her. Many older cousins joined in the fun of spoiling her.

A German shepherd puppy, “Jack Dog,” a gift from her uncle when she was six months old, became her constant companion and protector until he died when she was nine.

Her sister called her last night to tell her once more about the day she went missing and how Jack Dog led them to find her “sitting atop the wood pile laughing at everyone.” She also threw in the story of how the little girl tried to flush her beautiful new prom dress down the toilet.

Her earliest memories include a red velvet coat and hat, a gift from her sister, and seeing a movie where a white-gloved hand walked up and down stairs and played a piano.

To this day, 66 years later, she still celebrates life, and her birthdays make her feel like a happy kid!

A young niece once said her epitaph should be, “She lived until she died and outlived us all.” What a lovely thought.

To celebrate the day – and her 6,000th blog visitor – she has decided to give up blogging and devote more time to her beloved books, movies and music and to the special people in her life.

With deepest appreciation to all who have dropped by to read and to comment. I’ve learned a lot from the blogging experience and from your thoughts.

B. J. Trotter
Anderson, SC

Giddy ditty or rhyme of reason?

2008-04-23T12:56:00.002-04:00

Throughout the day and half the night,
MSNBC joined in the fight
To boost Obama in P-A;
He’s closing the gap, they did say.

They crunched the numbers all day long,
“Obama’s a shoo-in, he can’t go wrong.”
You’d think these overzealous fools
Would stop and read the DNC rules.

Tim and Tom, Keith and Chris
Juggling numbers would insist
She cannot win the nomination;
Obama is the big sensation.

As soon as the last vote was cast,
Keith could announce at last,
To the delight of one and all,
“This race is too close to call.”

As they critiqued and harangued,
Keith said, “The terminolgy’s changed,”
The vote’s not close after all,
“This race is too early to call.”

As the tally monted, keeping score,
Keith said, “The margin’s down to four!”
MSNBC’s boys began to fidget;
“She cannot get a double digit.”

I saw this sideshow in New Hampshire,
And one thing is for damn sure:
Despite the spin, when votes were in,
Hillary was a perfect 10.

She told supporters, “The tide is turning.”
Across this nation there’s a yearning –
A growing sense of finality –
For a fighter who’ll deal with reality.

Her speech was “great,” Chris admitted.
Keith opined, she’s not acquitted.
With the panache of a Hulk Hogan,
He declared she “mocked Obama’s slogan.”

“He’s got the crowds, He’s got the money. He’s got the media,” but ain’t it funny,
Buchanan asked his TV mates,
“Why can’t he win the bigger states?”

They closed their anti-Hillary blitz
Demanding that she call it quits.
The jig’s up, boys, you cannot spin it,
The lady’s tough; she’s in it to win it!

'Hell freezes over'

2008-04-22T12:41:00.003-04:00

Some four or five years ago, I was seated at my computer in the early morning hours when my chair shifted momentarily as if sitting in a bowl of Jello. “That was an earthquake,” I said out loud. I went to the Web site of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Earthquake Center and filled out a report. This was a first for me, and I though it might, at least, establish that the effects of the 4.2 earthquake, centered in northern Alabama, had been felt by a novice in northwest South Carolina.

Early Friday morning, seated on my loveseat listening to Dickens, I felt the same sensation underfoot. I knew immediately another temblor had occurred. This one, at 5.4, was farther away and to the northwest.

Neither tremor shook me up as much as the well-reported change of heart of one Richard Mellon Scaife toward Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In the past year I’ve listened to Bill Clinton’s “My Life,” “Living History” by Hillary Rodham Clinton, David Brock’s “Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative,” and “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton” by Carl Bernstein. I know who Richard Mellon Scaife is.

During Bill Clinton’s administration, billionaire Scaife spent the collective GDP of four or five Third World nations and a couple of South American Banana Republics on a one-man effort to destroy the Democratic president and first lady.

Since Brock, now manning the liberal media watchdog site, Media Matters for America, was Scaife’s #1 hired gun, I recommend his book – a gutsy romp, a nonfiction roman à clef which doesn’t bother disguising the pin-stripe-suited, cigar-smoking young men and leopard-skin-skirted young women of the “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

Brock and his fellow conspirators turned out reams of anti-Clinton tripe in the pages of the Scaife-backed American Spectator magazine and other right-wing media. Absolutely nothing stuck except a bit of DNA on a blue dress.

On Sunday, 30 March 2008, Scaife wrote the following editorial in his newspaper, the Pittsburgh (Pa.) Tribune-Review:

Hillary, reassessed

Hillary Clinton walked into a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review conference room last Tuesday to meet with some of the newspaper's editors and reporters and declared, "It was so counterintuitive, I just thought it would be fun to do."
The room erupted in laughter. Her remark defused what could have been a confrontational meeting.

More than that, it said something about the New York senator and former first lady who hopes to be America's next president.

More than most modern political figures, Sen. Clinton has been criticized regularly, often harshly, by the Trib. We disagreed with many of her policies and her actions in the past. We still disagree with some of her proposals.

The very morning that she came to the Trib, our editorial page raised questions about her campaign and criticized her on several other scores.

Reading that, a lesser politician -- one less self-assured, less informed on domestic and foreign issues, less confident of her positions -- might well have canceled the interview right then and there.

Sen. Clinton came to the Trib anyway and, for 90 minutes, answered questions.

Her meeting and her remarks during it changed my mind about her.

Walking into our conference room, not knowing what to expect (or even, perhaps, expecting the worst), took courage and confidence. Not many politicians have political or personal courage today, so it was refreshing to see her exhibit both.

Sen. Clinton also exhibited an impressive command of many of today's most pressing domestic and international issues. Her answers were thoughtful, well-stated, and often dead-on.

Particularly regarding foreign policy, she identified what we consider to be the most important challenges and dangers that the next president must confront and resolve in order to guarantee our nation's security. Those include an increasingly hostile Russia, an increasingly powerful China and increasing instability in Pakistan and South America.

Like me, she believes we must pull our troops out of Iraq, because it is time for Iraqis to handle their own destiny -- and, more important, because it is past time to end the toll on our soldiers there, to begin rebuilding our military, and to refocus our attention on other threats, starting with Afghanistan.

On domestic policy, Sen. Clinton and I might find more areas on which we disagree. Yet we also agree on others. Asked about the utter failure of federal efforts to rebuild New Orleans since the Katrina disaster, for example, she called it just what it has been -- "not just a national disgrace (but) an international embarrassment."

Does all this mean I'm ready to come out and recommend that our Democrat readers choose Sen. Clinton in Pennsylvania's April 22 primary?

No -- not yet, anyway. In fairness, we at the Trib want to hear Sen. Barack Obama's answers to some of the same questions and to others before we make that decision.

But it does mean that I have a very different impression of Hillary Clinton today than before last Tuesday's meeting -- and it's a very favorable one indeed.

Call it a "counterintuitive" impression.

-END OF EDITORIAL-

It’s called “spunk.” I like spunk!

***

On Sunday, 20 April 2008, Scaife’s newspaper endorsed Clinton. The headline on Editor & Publisher’s report on the endorsement said it all: “Hell freezes over.”

Paying the piper

2008-04-21T08:35:00.003-04:00

A DIFFERENT TUNE

Barack Obama supporters are livid over the “piling on” he got from ABC debate moderators last week – a 52-minute “free association test” of Obama’s “my bads.”

Were they paying attention early Sunday morning when Fox News’ “The Beltway Boys” – Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke – delivered a potentially lethal litany of Obama’s “unpatriotic” leanings?

Seems an appropriate moment to recycle my post from 17 December 2007. Bear in mind, dear reader, that Obama is now the perceived frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.

THE PIPER

On the evening after Election 2006, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews hit the ground running with a one-man campaign against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Soon, others fell in behind this modern-day Pied Piper of politics.

“To see the townsfolk suffer so
from vermin, was a pity.”

As I pointed out, on this blog, the growing media bias, I was told, quite frankly, that it was a product of my perception – by the very pesons who are now screaming “foul.”

“By drowning their speaking
with shrieking and squeaking in fifty different sharps and flats.”

SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT

Maybe Obama supporters will pay more attention to the post’s premise now that the shoe is on the other foot.

“Folks who put me in a passion may find me pipe after another fashion.''

THE POST

12/17/2007

Method in MSNBC's madness

My veins still run with newspaper ink, and I still love the institution of journalism. Real journalism. Ethical reporting.

I confess: I have been addicted to politics and news since I was a child. Both were discussed at our family dinner table. I can remember lying on our living room floor reading the daily newspaper which landed on our front porch. The “Brenda Starr” comic strip led me as a kid to dream of a career in newspapering.

Because I love the Fourth Estate – and still believe in its potential power to right the wrongs – I am deeply troubled by what cable news is imparting under the non sequitur “news.”

Perhaps as a defense against spin, distortion and lies now disguised as “news,” I am compelled to keep myself informed.

This background leads me to this conclusion: MSNBC is swift-boating Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Opinion” shows such as “Morning Joe,” “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” “Tucker,” “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” and “Live with Dan Abrams” aside, the personal attacks on this candidate for the presidency have spilled over into the so-called news segments throughout the day.

Those of you who despise Senator Clinton have your reasons and are entitled to them. But, if you approve the PERSONAL attacks on her and her campaign, you are turning a blind eye to ethics in journalism.

MSNBC has long been my cable news source of choice, although I do trust CNN’s Wolf Blitzer at 4 p.m. ET to give me a thorough and reliable daily news wrap.

From 5 a.m. ET up until the nightly tabloid, “Doc Block” at 10, I have heard reporting on Senator Clinton’s campaign which spins, distorts and takes out of context its every effort.

There is no attempt at subtlety. Whether her laugh is called a “cackle” or her campaign workers called “surrogates,” MSNBC’s campaign against Clinton is aimed at those who do not think for or inform themselves.

To my chagrin, I have seen long-respected journalists such as Tim Russert, David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, David Shuster join in these unrelenting jabs at the Clinton juggernaut.

(I hope you will remind yourself, dear reader, what this same select group did to Don Imus.)

There’s no need to even mention Fox News.

Big media is after the Democratic frontrunner.

Have you asked yourself “Why?”

There are two reasons, and they both involve profits.

The first, simply put, is “conflict sells.”

The other is a little more complicated. As you read this, the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is ready to “open the floodgate” to further media consolidation.

Here’s what freepress.net has to say:

“If FCC Chairman Kevin Martin gets his way, your community will be inundated with even more mass-produced celebrity gossip and infotainment, and less local reporting and quality journalism: more of the junk news that is making us sick.

“Martin wants to ‘Super Size’ Big Media, allowing companies like Gannett, News Corp and Tribune to swallow up even more local TV, newspaper and radio outlets. Martin wants to let one company own both the major newspapers and a TV station in your hometown, drowning out the few remaining independent voices, so that media moguls like Rupert Murdoch can expand their empires.”

So, you ask, what has this got to do with MSNBC’s campaign against Hillary Clinton?

Well, everything.

When it became apparent that Senator Clinton was the frontrunner, outpolling candidates of both parties, cable news went into overdrive to stop the Democrat most likely to succeed.

By attempting to marginalize both Hillary and Bill Clinton and promoting candidates which, in my opinion, cannot carry the national vote, “big media” will keep in place an FCC which is favorable to both profits and expansion.

I remember the words of a former executive editor, who, when I complained our inside pages “news hole” (space left after advertisements are inserted) was too small, said, “It’s a business. If you don’t want it to be a business, you had better get out.” I did.

So, now you know: there’s method in MSNBC’s (and Matthews’) madness.

I will support and work to elect the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, but I did that in 2000 and 2004.

I honestly believe the one person who could win back the White House – and turn this country around - is at the mercy of an unethical media. If these personal attacks succeed, you just wait to see what they do to the Democratic Party’s nominee.

That “food for worms,” Benjamin Franklin, who chose “printer” as his sole epitaph, must be spinning in his Philadelphia grave.

And, when there’s a Republican taking the oath of office in January 2009, I will refer you back to this post. –END-

THE POSSIBILITY

“For dolts that can't or won't determine what's best to rid us of our vermin! … Rouse up, sirs! Give your brains a racking to find the remedy we're lacking, or, sure as fate, we'll send you packing!''

***

REMINDER:

* Hillary Clinton goes one-on-one with Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, tonight at 8 ET.

· Hillary Clinton will be on CNN’s “Larry King Live” tonight at 9 ET.
· Barack Obama will appear on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” Comedy Central, tonight at 11 ET/PT.
· Tuesday: Pennsylvania Primary.
· Tuesday is Earth Day.

ABC debate moderators catch hell

2008-04-18T03:16:00.002-04:00

As explained in the previous post, I missed ABC’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia.

In addition to the transcript (LINK), I have read numerous critiques, all lambasting the debate moderators.

To be fair, the bulk of these were written by obvious Barack Obama supporters who thought he was treated unfairly. I am a Clinton supporter, and I agree.

On the other hand, most TV pundits I’ve seen since the debate have declared Clinton the clear winner – in terms of overall advantage.

Of the many articles I’ve read, here are two which stand out as most informative:

MEDIA MATTER FOR AMERICA:

“Numerous media figures have criticized George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, moderators of the Democratic presidential debate on ABC, or the subject matter of the event, in part or in whole, as "shoddy [and] despicable," "specious and gossipy," "cringe-worthy," "banal," consisting of "tabloid trivia," "flat-out repulsive," "embarrassing," "seem[ingly] slanted against [Sen. Barack] Obama," "shameful," and "an outrage." READ MORE

AN OPEN LETTER FROM A JOURNALIST:

Nothing like an ethical and ticked-off journalist to get my attention. In this open letter to the two moderators, Will Bunch of The Philadelphia Daily News reminds them – and us – of a free press’ obligation to serve the citizenry. Bunch is angry, yet manages to turn all that venomous energy into an outstanding critique. READ MORE

Wouldn’t you know it! The one debate of this long campaign season which I’ve missed turns out to be a lollapalooza of lame journalism! That would have set my keyboard afire!

Red-faced

2008-04-17T10:44:00.004-04:00

I am sorry to say I fell asleep about 15 minutes into last night’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia, but not before I saw where it was going.

Apparently, ABC went negative in a crucial moment when the candidates – Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – needed to fine tune their differences and show the nation theirs is a better way.

I stayed up until 3 a.m., hoping ABC would reair the show, but the network felt it more important to show infomercials, or “paid programming” as it’s called now.

The transcript (LINK), copied and pasted to Microsoft Word on 18-point font is 101 pages – and so much is lost in a written transcript. But, I will read it.

I very much would like your take on the debate. To comment, click on “Comments” below, type in your comment, select “Name/URL,” and when the new screen comes up, scroll up until you see a place on the right to type in your name, then click on “Publish.”

I look forward to what YOU have to say!

Sounds familiar!

2008-04-16T15:04:00.002-04:00

Portions of The New York Times’ lead editorial today sound an awful lot like my post, “In Defense of Barack Obama” on 14 April (LINK)

Read the NYT editorial: LINK

The NYT and I agree Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have better fish to fry than to be going after each other over guns and religion.

Watch the debate between the two Democratic contenders TONIGHT on ABC at 8 ET/PT. Moderators will be Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.

My left eye

2008-04-15T11:13:00.002-04:00

Thought I would follow up with the report I got yesterday on the problem with my left eye – my so-called “good eye,” but first a little math.

Five minutes ago, Forbes reported the cost of oil has reached an all-time high at $113 a barrel.

The price of the antibiotic eyedrops needed to treat my eye is $3,090,278.40 a barrel. I figured it up.

As I mentioned a few days ago, I haven’t had a prescription filled in years. I’ll get over the shock in a week or two.

The retina specialist says I have an infection which can be a “recurring condition” and has a name so long I didn’t think it worth the effort to remember.

The feeling of having something in the eye is being caused by a "swollen area" on my eyeball. Nice.

A week of the eyedrops should clear up the infection and, hopefully, the blurring which has greatly hamped my computer activity of late.

$3,090,278.40 a barrel. My God!

In defense of Barack Obama

2008-04-14T07:18:00.003-04:00

Our hobbit friend Frodo (BLOG LINK) had predicted, even before George W. Bush took office, that one day his approval rating would drop to 24 percent.

On Thursday the Associated Press poll showed Dubya’s approval rating at 27 percent. It’s really scary: to think that 27 percent of Americans think Bush is doing a “good job.”

Who, then, was responsible for Bush’s re-election in 2004? Primarily, one-issue voters, who I suspect remain in the approving percentile.

To be sure, within that 27 percent are the people squawking loudest about the following remarks made at a San Francisco fundraiser by Sen. Barack Obama:

“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,”

The premise in all this media uproar is that these one-issue voters have been insulted. It’s a shame they cannot see it as an opportunity for soul-searching self-improvement.

Given the fact that Democratic strategist James Carville has described Pennsylvania as “Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in the middle,” I have no problem with the camps of senators Clinton and McCain claiming Obama is “out of touch” with voters (NY Times, 12 April 2008, LINK). This is, after all, a heated political contest. All three candidates now have been victims of a 24/7 cable news and Internet smorgasbord of soundbites blown entirely out of proportion in a frenzied rebirth of “yellow journalism.”

My regular readers know I’ve supported Hillary Clinton since she entered this mad race. Barack Obama doesn’t need me to defend him. He’s got Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Jack Cafferty and a whole host of reporters and pundits to do that. Let’s just say, then, that I am defending the truth.

“Out of touch?” “San Francisco liberal elitism?” “Condescending?”

Like it or not, Sen. Obama is right. What he’s talking about is what got Bush re-elected and could very well result in a McCain presidency. Let me exlain.

I once read that certain pooh-bahs, potentates, sheiks, emirs, princes, kings and other rulers in the oil-rich Middle East encourage hatred of Americans because it takes the minds of impoverished peoples off their fleets of Rolls Royces. Made sense to me.

Similarly, the Republican Party – with, in my opinion, a platform of hate - wants to take the minds of lower- and middle-class Americans off the problems which plague them.

Wouldn’t do for Americans in need to realize the Democratic Party is more populist, more in tune to their needs, more dedicated to solving their problems.

Suddenly, it’s incredulous that Sen. Obama would say such a thing? Gimme a break. This is not a novel idea: it’s rooted in the political strategies of Lee Atwater and his protégé Karl Rove and melded into the frontline in a cultural war.

How does the GOP accomplish this? In recent election cycles, they have brought out those old “hot-button” emotional issues, “God, gays, guns and abortion.” Under the auspices of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tn), they even threw in flag-burning, gay marriage and poor Terri Schiavo. As Obama points out, immigration and trade have been stirred into the caldron.

Anything to take American minds off education; health care; the economy; energy, fuel and grocery prices; job losses; housing foreclosures and other problems close to home.

Nice diversions from the debacle in Iraq.

These red herrings create one-issue voters who ignore the candidates most likely to improve their lives and vote for those who claim to champion the issues they feel morally obligated to defend.

Sen. Obama used the word “bitter.” Yes, there are Americans out there who are bitter; they are angry; they are frustrated; they feel powerless. Yesterday, in discussing “our lot in life” with a friend, I remarked that I’m not bitter, that I feel blessed when I get a break. Her reply startled me. “I’m scared,” she said.

She’s scared because she quit her job a few years ago to care for an aging parent. Her husband works hard, with little fringe benefits, to support the family. Living costs are climbing. And, with no health insurance, they can’t afford to get sick.

It is time for an awakening in this country. The Democratic Party is not made up of “far-left extremists out to destroy the American way of life,” as proclaimed by a power-hungry right-wing chorus which makes its money manipulating the “have-nots.”

I have no doubt this is what Sen. Obama was trying to say, and telling the truth will probably hurt him with some voters.

Maybe those too easily swayed by the emotion-stirring techniques of propagandists.

Flying takes a 'Lo' blow

2008-04-11T05:47:00.005-04:00

Some things never change. The safety of flying is being scrutinized once more, so it seems appropriate to recycle this column published in the Anderson (S.C.) Independent-Mail, 20 July 1987. Enjoy!

***

Arguments for flying jumbo jets take a ‘Lo’ blow

By B. J. Trotter

My poor husband wants to take a European vacation, but our ’75 Caprice Classic won’t make it.

I once bought a waste-of-time paperback by Erica Jong because its title expressed my greatest phobia, “Fear of Flying.” The book, if I recall, was about sex and dirty toenails and never even mentioned airplanes.

Actually, it’s misleading to say I have a fear of flying. I first “slipped the surly bonds of Earth” at the age of four in a small plane piloted by my dad. I remember looking down with delight on ribbon-roads with crawling ant-cars. It’s those big, super, jumbo jets that scare me to death.

I love Cessnas and once ventured weekend flights with a friend who owned an Aerocommander. I even tried sky-diving, making five static-line jumps: at least with sky-diving you have a parachute! The only fatality was a favorite dress, ripped while I practiced PLFs off a table. (That’s “parachute landing falls.”)

Oh, I’ve heard all the reasons to fly the jumbos: “There’s nothing to it.” “You have a couple of martinis and watch a movie, and you’re there.” “Statistically, it’s safer than driving.”

Etc., etc., and when I finally work up the courage to even consider it, the news wires move yet another crash or near-miss story.

If this is less-than-comforting, there’s more. Add to the threat of terrorism and hijacking these recent headlines (ripped right from these pages): “Pilot Lands on Wrong Runway.” “Pilots Land at Wrong Airport.” “Pilot Says Air Safety ‘on the Brink of Crisis.’” “Senators Warn Airliners to Shape Up.” “N.C. Man Pleads Guilty to Firing at Airliner.”

Suddenly, the friendly skies don’t seem so friendly.

The topper came on June 30 (1987) when a 27-year veteran pilot, shortly after takeoff from Los Angeles International Airport, mistakenly cut off fuel to both engines of his craft. The plane glided from 1,500 feet to within 600 feet of the Pacific Ocean, and passengers warned to prepare for a crash went into mass hysteria.

It’s mass hysteria which separates the Cessnas from the big ones. What I really fear is not flying, but sharing that moment of reckoning with hundreds. One-on-one, it doesn’t seem so bad.

When the big ones go down, they go down as poet Walter Benton puts it: “Without a rain check or a parachute, a key to Heaven or a last long look.”

My friends are right. Flying has to beat long treks by car or bus. (Amtrak has its own problems.) Statistically, flying is safer than driving. But, I’m serious about this. So much so that in 1982, to avoid flying, I drove a necessary 1,000 miles from Plattville, Wisc., to Jackson, Miss., in 24 hours – without sleep! So, I offer one last excuse:

Our dear Grandma Trotter is a lovely, bright woman. She gave me a better argument for not flying than any when she soothingly advised: “Remember, our Lord said, ‘Lo, I am with you always.’”

(Column photo, 1987)

A giant of a man

2008-04-09T09:10:00.005-04:00

PHOTO: Paul Harper Hill & Mary Bell Turner Hill, 2000.

***

I remember a hot August day in Mississippi, a day so hot that photos show white tapers in candelabra warped from the heat. The setting was our home, and my sister Mary was marrying a tall, dark and handsome sailor.

To a 5-year-old girl Paul Harper Hill at 6’6” looked like the giants of my fairy tales, and he has remained a giant of a man for 61 years – a good man with a zest for life who never met a stranger.

Paul was a baker in the U.S. Navy aboard aircraft carriers and a destroyer in the battle zones of WWII. True to his duty of feeding the men who flew the planes and manned the decks, Paul’s love of cooking and baking remained one of life’s great joys.

One of the happiest summers of my life was spent with Mary and Paul and their little boy Johnny on Chincoteague Island in Chesapeake Bay while Paul was stationed a ferry ride away in Norfolk, Va. That summer was filled with catching crabs, steaming clams and watching the “Penny Pony Roundup” as wild Spanish ponies made the annual swim from nearby Assoteague Island. (Mary’s Sunday School teacher, Marguerite Henry, wrote of such days in her children’s classic, “Misty of Chincoteague.”)

Upon leaving the Navy in 1951, Paul worked at Colonial Bakery. To prepare himself for a career with the postal service, he attended college. He liked to joke that he took math courses to learn to convert his Navy recipes, like biscuits calling for a hundred pounds of flour, down to family size.

We had all ended up in Jackson, Miss., and I remember one day in the 50s when Paul drove up with a metal contraption which he set up in our backyard. For the first time in our lives we tasted barbecued chicken halves, and they remain the best I’ve ever eaten.

While continuing his work with the post office, Paul became a baker and cook at the Mississippi National Guard Armory. Out came the old recipes.

In 1975, Paul was awarded the Mississippi Commendation Medal, awarded to any member or former member of the Mississippi National Guard for “meritorious service.”

Gov. William Winter, a childhood friend of Paul’s in Grenada, in 1982 presented him the Mississippi Magnolia Medal for “distinguishing himself through outstanding service and extraordinary achievement in behalf of the Mississippi National Guard.”

Upon retirement, he began to bake in earnest, making mult-tiered wedding cakes for young folks in the church he served as deacon. Always there was good food, candies, cakes and pies. He was happiest in his kitchen.

When I was at the Jackson newspaper with access to free press passes, Paul and I had great fun attending plays and art auctions and the International Ballet Competition.

One Christmas Paul conspired with his grandson Phillip Hill, now working on his PhD in opera at UT-Austin, to publish a cookbook – a combination of his WWII recollections and favorite recipes titled “The Measured History of Paul Hill.” The books were surprise gifts for every member of the family, and the two guys pulled it off.

During one of those 50th anniversaries of WWII, the Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss., ran a full-page feature story about Paul and his cookbook. There are photos of Paul surrounded by freshly baked breads and cakes and pies. The reporter, Gary Pettus, told me he had never had a tastier assignment.

Several years ago Paul had a leg amputated. He hitched up his prosthesis and never slowed up. Then, about three years ago, he was diagnosed with a stomach aneurysm – a ticking time bomb within. I told him he was like a Timex watch: “Takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin’.” He got a kick out of my wry sense of humor!

On the day the aneurysm ruptured he had been by the store to buy ingredients for a baking session with his daughter the next day. Miracle of miracles, he survived the aneurysm after paramedics shocked his heart and administered CPR.

Then, this 85-year-old man put up a fight, demanding surgery. His zest for life refused to yield to the inevitable.

Paul and Mary, who died in 2005 after 58 years his bride, have four children – John, Robert, Jeanette and Dovie – and they were at his bedside when he died Monday, 7 April. He leaves nine grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren. He was preceded in death by two young granddaughters and two great-grandchildren.

Jesus said, “In my Father’s house are many mansions. …” I’d like to think there’s a kitchen in one where a happy reunion is taking place.

Paul will be buried today at high noon with full military honors and a 21-gun salute.

***

Family and friends will gather following this service at the Mary and Paul Hill Fellowship Hall at Flag Chapel Baptist Church in Jackson, named in honor of service to their church and community.

I will be there in spirit.

***

PAUL HARPER HILL
August 4, 1922 – April 7, 2008

OBITUARY

Sign & read the guestbook

Mississippi Medals

Sweeping reality under the rug

2008-04-07T11:54:00.003-04:00

There are times when I probably get a tad too personal for my readers, and this will be one such post. You know: it’s my blog, and I’ll cry if I want to!

Thanks to a friend’s generous Christmas gift several years ago I have a little “slush fund” which I dare not touch. The peace of mind it brings is priceless. Occasionally, when I’ve been able to add to it, it has allowed me to give a little to charity or lend someone a helping hand.

For months I have saved what little money I have left in “B.J.’s Boojay” (my monthly budget) toward some essential logistical changes. I have a friend coming to visit the first week in July, and she will help me rearrange my living room so I can continue to live independently.

It really does come down to that as I have lost most of my eyesight.

A shopping trip is planned for a new desk, a computer chair and a surge protector, which will allow me to move my huge videomagnifier from the opposite side of the living room to flank my computer desk.

These two wonders of technology – the computer and the videomagnifier – have allowed me to continue business and correspondence as usual. With a growing dependence on both, it has become necessary to move them to one spot so I can work from them in tandem.

Have been feeling really great about saving the necessary funds to implement these changes.

Now, for Part Two of this tale.

Red tape and forms are the BANE of the blind, and after a whole year of such activity, I was blessed to qualify for state Medicaid, which, finally, would cover the Medicare premiums for physician insurance.

I am incredibly blessed with good health, haven’t had a cold in 20 years and cannot remember the last time I had a prescription filled.

In order to qualify for the wonderful visual aids received from the South Carolina Commission for the Bling, I paid an initial visit to a “retina specialist.” There’s absolutely nothing he can do for retinitis pigmentos (RP), but he is monitoring my “good” left eye for cataracts and my blind right eye for a mole inside which “could develop into melanoma.” This monitoring has cost $270 for each yearly visit.

Nine months passed before I learned, after all the red tape, that there’s a yearly deductible to be met, and none of his fees have been covered.

Enter the health problem.

Remember the public service ad which stated “The five most dangerous words in the English language: maybe it will go away”?

About three months ago, I began to have a problem with the left eye, wherein lies my dwindling vision, possibly a cornea scratch or tear which is causing constant irritation, mucus and blurred vision.

Selfishly, I’ve clung to the “shopping savings” earmarked for July in the hopes that this problem would just “go away.” Working on the computer is becoming increasingly difficult. You would be amazed at the tricks one uses to do so.

So, having just paid the last doctor’s visit and with another check-up scheduled for August, I am looking at an unforeseen visit. Doing the math, that’s gonna get costly, a large portion of which I will pay.

Is there a point to all this, besides bitching? Yes, there is.

Much has been made over Hillary Clinton’s story of the pregnant woman who died because she didn’t have the money to be treated by a hospital. Few replays of her telling of the story have included the interview with the Ohio deputy sheriff, who related the story to Clinton during a visit in his home. Clinton merely repeated verbatim what the law enforcement officer told her. Yet, few people saw his interview.

Should Clinton’s team have vetted the story? Yes.

Here is the point of this post:

What can be deduced from the many pundits discussing this Clinton faux pas – on cable TV and the Internet - is that medical care problems like this don’t exist – a sweeping under the rug of the realities of health care in this country.

These talking heads, perched atop their comfortable pedestals, choose to ignore millions of such stories – true stories – which are happening across this country.

This, while relatively insignificant, has been one of them.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports Hillary Clinton's story was true, after all, 7 April 2008: LINK

He can't win

2008-04-04T08:15:00.003-04:00

“He can’t win,” the media quoted Hillary Clinton. Hillary said her “I can win” statements have morphed into “He can’t win.”

Another racial slur by the Clintons, the media are claiming.

First, Bill and Hillary Clinton are not racist. I have said all along that he can’t win, and it sure has nothing to do with race.

What I have said, to make it very clear, is: this country does not elect a candidate perceived to be far left and anti-war. For far too many Americans, “liberal” is a curse word.

Of the following Democratic nominees, which ones most closely resemble Barack Obama’s political stance, and which resemble Hillary Clinton’s?

1968 – Hubert Humphrey (Richard Nixon won)
1972 – George McGovern (Richard Nixon won)
1976 – Jimmy Carter (Gerald Ford lost)
1980 – Jimmy Carter (Ronald Reagan won)
1984 – Walter Mondale (Ronald Reagan won)
1988 – Michael Dukakis (George H. W. Bush won)
1992 – Bill Clinton (George H. W. Bush lost)
1996 – Bill Clinton (Bob Dole lost)
2000 – Al Gore (George W. Bush won*)
2004 – John Kerry (George W. Bush won)

Now, look back over the Republicans to see how many losers closely resemble John McCain. With all due respect for McCain’s POW years, an examination of the winners shows military service hasn't always mattered in the voting booth.

Notice who won and who lost?

Carter, in retrospect, seems the lone exception. At the time, though, he was the bright young chairman of the Democratic National Campaign Committee, a former Naval lieutenant who had worked with Admiral Rickover in developing our nuclear submarine program, a farmer and former Georgia governor. Like Obi-wan Kenobi, “our only hope.” (Now, like Bill Clinton, Carter is the brunt of right-wing attacks and media jokes, despite his post-presidential good works.)

Here’s a quote at the time by Carter campaign pollster Patrick Caddell (LINK):

"If it weren't for the country looking for something in '76, Carter could never have gotten elected. He would never have been allowed out of the box. No one would have paid attention to him."

This country definitely is “looking for something” after Bush and Cheney, and Obama might ride that wave to the White House.

Frankly, after voting for seven losers in the last 10 elections, I am ready to vote for a winner again!

In my heart, I just don’t think Obama can pull it off.

Overriding all these considerations is the fact that this country is facing hard times, and we had better think long and hard about who is best qualified and most capable to guide us through them.

(Footnote: In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote by 540,520 votes, but SCOTUS gave the election to Bush.)

I met a man with six wives

2008-04-03T06:51:00.003-04:00

“Nature wronged her by not making her a man. But for her sex she would have surpassed all the rulers of history.” - Oliver Cromwell, upon the death of Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England, divorced from Henry VIII.

***

Remember the riddle about going to St. Ives and meeting a man with seven wives? Well, on my way to my blog this morning, I stumbled across such a man on a great Web site.

Althogh I thought I knew all there was to know about his wives, I found excellent biographical sketches on each.

No deep thoughts or frivolous froufrou to offer you today. I’m still thinking about the above quote and am knee-deep in history.

Here they are, complete with portraits: the six wives of Henry VIII. Some things you just can’t get enogh of!

TUDORHISTORY.ORG

John Cleese settles U.S. election

2008-04-02T06:38:00.002-04:00

This came from a friend who got it from a friend, Syd, who got it from a friend “whom I must describe as now a senile Ozark hillbilly,” who got it from a friend “who is an Englishman living in Canada.”

I didn’t check snopes.com to see if John Cleese, now retired from films, really is the author, because I like mentioning him. “Monty Python,” “A Fish Called Wanda” and all those brilliantly crafted “Fawlty Towers” episodes (“Basil!”) merit his mention. Enjoy!

Britain Repossessing the USA: A Message from John Cleese.

To the citizens of the United States of America

In light of your failure to acknowledge officially the incompetence and arrogance of George W. “Dubya” Bush and the evil heart of Dick “Darth Vader” Cheney, and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and territories (except Texas, which she does not fancy).

Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then, look up “aluminium,” and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

2. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as “favour,” “colour” and “neighbour.” Likewise, you will learn to spell “doughnut” without skipping half the letters. And, the suffix -ize will be replaced by the suffix -ise. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels (look up “vocabulary”).

3. Using the same 27 words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize. You will relearn your original national anthem, now “God Save The Queen.”

4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a potato peeler. And, a permit will be required if you wish to carry a potato peeler in public.

7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are useless; and this is for your own good. When we show you European cars, you will understand what we mean.

8. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric (with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables). Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

9. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) - roughly $6/US per gallon. Get used to it.

10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call french fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat and dressed not with catsup (you know it as ketchup), but with malt vinegar.

11. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as lager. South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on Earth, and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them.

12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood now also will be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie McDowell attempt English dialogue in “Four Weddings and a Funeral” was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby, which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every 20 seconds or wearing full Kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies. Don't try rugby - the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.

14. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1 percent of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

15. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

16. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

17. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries in season.

God save the Queen. (Only He can.)

John Cleese

No fooling, a bit of good news

2008-04-01T09:37:00.002-04:00

This election cycle might be one of the greatest red herrings of our time, drawing the politically engaged away from the continuing day-to-day shenanigans of the Bush administration.

Whether it’s Bush attempting to ram through a pro-torture Justice Department nominee or just the lack of attention to the many unresolved scandals which have permeated his administration, some of us are missing a beat or two when it comes to keeping up.

Not so with the folks at the Center for American Progress, whose daily newsletter “The Progress Report” makes every effort to stay on top of all current issues.

This morning I took some time to catch up on several editions of the Report and found, among the on-going Iraq and economic woes, a bit of good news.

Reuters reported on 27 March (LINK):

“New Orleans, abandoned by thousands of residents after destructive floods and hurricanes in 2005, was one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the United States last year, according to a report released by the U.S. Census Bureau Thursday.

“The Louisiana city's population climbed by 4 percent, with an increase of 39,885 residents between July 2006 and July 2007, making it the eighth fastest growing metro area in the country, the bureau said.”

A 2006 study estimated fewer than 200,000 people were living in New Orleans, down from 485,000 in 2000.

According to the bureau, eight of the 10 cities with the highest population growth are located in the South, a fact that bodes well for the re-emergence of the Crescent City as a major U.S. port and commerce hub.

Let’s hope, with growth, the culture and cuisine which has made New Orleans one of America’s great tourist destinations is preserved.

Laissez le bon temps roulet!

In it to win it

2008-03-28T07:33:00.006-04:00

I can tell you why Hillary Clinton supporters are sick of Obama mania, because I am one of them.

After month upon month of bashing this woman, who owes it to her supporters to win the Democratic nomination, two new mantras – accompanied by a constant drumbeat from the media and Obama supporters - have emerged:

· Hillary needs to get out of the race.
· Hillary is destroying the Democratic Party.

To put it nicely, that is esoteric bullshit.

If you don’t want facts to get in your way, you are on the wrong blog. The following post will take about 10 minutes of your time, but you might come away better informed.

FACT: The Rasmussen poll released 26 March 2008 (LINK) found that 66 percent of registered Democratic voters want both candidates to stay in the race for the nomination. The poll shows there’s equal dislike on either side of the Democratic race for the rival candidate: 22 percent of both Clinton and Obama supporters said they believe the other candidate should drop out of the race.

FACT: In calling for either candidate to drop out of the race, there is an assumption that the other can defeat John McCain in November – despite unknown developments over the next eight months.

FACT: To win the Democratic Party nomination, a candidate must have won 2,025 pledged delegates. It is mathematically impossible for EITHER Clinton or Obama to achieve this number.

FACT: In the event the required number is not achieved, the rules of the Party, established in 1984, state that the “superdelegates” – a media term - will intervene.

FACT: The superdelegate rule was created to strengthen the role of party leaders and elected officials and to cover the possibility of the unforeseen - something going terribly wrong with a Party frontrunner in the lead-up to the convention. In the nick of time, the major contenders in the 1984 primary were Gary Hart and Walter Mondale. Each won some primaries and caucuses. Mondale was only slightly ahead of Hart in the total number of votes cast, but won the support of almost all superdelegates and became the nominee after Hart’s “Monkey Business.”

(What the rules say: The Democratic Party rules do not use the term "superdelegate." The term refers to unpledged delegates, who fall into two categories: 1) delegates seated based on other positions they hold, who are described in Rule 9.A as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates" (PLEOs); and 2) additional unpledged delegates selected by each state party, in a fixed, predetermined number, who are described in Rule 9.B as "unpledged add-on delegates" and who need not hold any party or elected position before their selection as delegates. Unpledged PLEO delegates should not be confused with pledged PLEOs. Under Rule 9.C, the pledged PLEO slots are allocated to candidates based on the results of the primaries and caucuses. While the number of pledged PLEOs is fixed and predetermined, the number of the unpledged PLEOs is not set. Pledged PLEOs generally support their state’s primary or caucus winner, but they are not required to do so.)

FACT: You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.

FACT: In light of the mathematics, a call for either candidate to drop out at this point is just a bit of silliness. After all, the official race against John McCain is not going to begin until the Democratic National Convention in August. So much for the hue and cry that it must begin NOW.

FACT: While the Republicans have accomplished the deification of former President Ronald Reagan, Obama supporters, to my chagrin, have joined the right-wing and the media in marginalizing Bill Clinton. Progressive and liberal blogs which support Obama are exhibiting the blue-dress syndrome and denying the many accomplishments of the Clinton administration.

FACT: Throughout his administration Clinton’s job approval rating was, on average, higher than Reagan’s, and he left office with a 66 percent approval rating. So, why the circular firing squad?

FACT: Despite media mockery, Hillary Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” was real, and it still exists. It will go after either candidate in the general election. For full, documented accounts of such a “conspiracy,” I highly recommend David Brock’s book “Blinded by the Right” and “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton” by Carl Berstein. All Democrats will be better prepared for the general election campaign having read these two books.

FACT: If we play by the rules of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the nomination are as good as Barack Obama’s.

A BIT OF DIALOGUE FROM THE OBAMA-LEANING MEDIA:

From “The Race for the White House with David Gregory,” MSNBC, 26 March 2008 (TRANSCRIPT):

DAVID GREGORY, host: Finally tonight, the Clinton camp is hammering home the message inside their war room that she is still in it to win it, laying out their case in a press release listing a series of myths and facts.

Among the myths … the delegate math works decisively against Hillary. But they claim the fact is that the delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win. They went further to say, “The math is actually very simple: with hundreds of delegates still uncommitted, neither candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination, and either candidate can reach the required number in the coming weeks and months. That is indisputable.”

Rachel, what is also indisputable is that she would really have to change the dynamic in this campaign and win something on the order of 70 percent of the rest of the delegates. That is hard math.

RACHEL MADDOW, “Air America” host: The real - realistic way to put this is that NEITHER candidate can win with the remaining state-based contests. Neither candidate can win without the superdelegates. The question for Democrats is not whether or not they want the superdelegates to decide this; the superdelegates are going to decide this, as gross as that may seem to a lot of Democratic voters. And so, therefore, we should stop worrying about the ethics of that. We‘re faced with that now. And, the real question on the people, when should the superdelegates decide? Do we wait until Denver, or do we force them to do some sort of superdelegate primary sometime more soon like in June, which has been proposed by the governor of Tennessee?

GREGORY: But, Richard, is there anything beyond rhetoric here in saying, no, there really is a path to victory here that‘s real, that is actual arithmetic?

RICHARD WOLFFE, “Newsweek” senior White House correspondent: No, it‘s rhetoric. It‘s the department of voodoo math. Look, the pledged delegates are the way we assess the will of the people in these races. There are all sorts of caucus states that we still don‘t know where the popular vote is. So, we can argue out percentages of this or that or the other. He has a 150-odd lead in pledged delegates, that‘s 10 percent more than Hillary Clinton has. It‘s a significant measure.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe:” We? You said that’s how we decide it? If that‘s the way we decided it—if that‘s the way the Democratic Party decided it, then they wouldn‘t have superdelegates. That‘s the thing.

Let me tell you what we love to do. We in the media love to tell everybody - which we have been telling everybody for months - that the numbers don‘t add up for Hillary Clinton ,,,

WOLFFE: So, Joe …

SCARBOROUGH: … She can‘t get enough delegates by Denver. Well, guess what: the numbers don‘t add up for Barack Obama, but we don‘t tell that side of the story, do we?

WOLFFE: No, we don‘t. That happens to be the rules of the Democratic Party, Joe.

SCARBOROUGH: The superdelegates are the rules of the Democratic Party.

WOLFFE: And, the pledged delegates.

SCARBOROUGH: And, they can go any way they want.

WOLFFE: The pledged delegates are how people assess the votes of the people, the voters, what else is there?

SCARBOROUGH: There are superdelegates. And, if the superdelegates decide between now and Denver, which I hate to remind people but, my God, that is months and months away, that Barack Obama cannot win because of things that happened after Pennsylvania, in May, June, July, that is a lifetime. Harold McMillan said a week in politics is a lifetime. We‘ve got months and months and months. –END-

All you Democrats in either camp who fall into the “22 percent” and are stuck in Abraham Maslow’s “instant gratification” stage of development, go fix yourself a cup of instant coffee.

We have two great candidates. Let’s let this primary process play out – as it always has in the past.

“Saddle up!” (CORRECTION: The cited Rasmussen poll showed 56 percent of Democrats surveyed think both candidates should stay in the race. The error is mine. Fighting for truth can be very tiring these days.)

Capital punishment

2008-03-26T06:54:00.002-04:00

PROMISE:

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are ready from “day one” with platforms which hold the promise of benefiting all Americans, of changing the direction of our country, of restoring competence to the presidency.

Both are uniquely qualified to do so. Once sworn in, our new president will hit a wall. Only one candidate has experienced its effects.

On 23 January 1993, a couple with an established life goal of helping others took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They, and the Americans who sent them there, had high hopes.

Bill Clinton would soon find out that his predecessor had “cooked the books,” that the deficit was far higher than was previously known – the biggest dollar deficit in American history. The reality: many of his campaign promises would be put on hold because of inherited economic woes.

The $290 billion deficit Clinton inherited is chump change compared with what our new president will face, so don’t expect campaign promises to materialize miraculously.

POISONED DARTS

Carl Bernstein, of Watergate’s Woodward and Bernstein, brings his best investigative reporting skills to his book, “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

The Clintons learned early on how tough it is to go up against the Washington establishment.

Bernstein quotes the following “welcome to Washington” article:

"Making Capital Gains: Welcome to Washington, But Play By Our Rules," Sally Quinn, The Washington Post, Outlook section, p. 01, Nov. 15, 1992, 1,965 words. (Buy archived article)

Ms. Quinn is the wife of former Washington Post Executive Editor Benjamin Bradlee and a noted Washington hostess. She offered 1,965 words of advice from the “in-crowd” to the incoming president and first lady, but none were so incisive as these:

“Think of it this way: your plane has crashlanded in the middle of Brazil, and you find yourself surrounded by a curious and possibly hostile tribe. Instead of giving them beads and eating the monkey tongues they’ve offered you, you decide that you don’t need their help. Fine. But, don’t be surprised if you end up with poisoned darts in your backside. Like any other culture, Washington has its own totems and taboos. It would serve the newcomers well to learn to abide by them.”

The Clintons and their transplanted Arkansans learned the hard way – and fast – what happens when you don’t play by the rules of the Washington elite. Bernstein brilliantly documents their saga.

Once more, Hillary holds the experience card.

Obama is running on a promise of changing Washington, of somehow transporting his cheering rally-goers into a position of power in D.C. Let’s hope, if elected, he – and all his true believers – don’t end up with poisoned darts in their backsides.

Just as she was told to do when flying into Bosnia, Hillary has learned to sit on her flak jacket. Perhaps experience has taught her that diplomacy and compromise work best - from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other.

It’s becoming clearer every day that the alternative to a Democratic win in November is unthinkable.

So, let’s hope beyond hope that once the votes are counted and the inherent and inherited obstacles are overcome, the core values of the Democratic Party will once more emerge to lift an America left foundering.

Two sad numbers

2008-03-24T07:37:00.002-04:00

A recent Pew Research survey (LINK) revealed only 28 percent of Americans were aware that the U.S. death toll in Iraq was nearing 4,000 – a tragic figure reached Sunday with the deaths of four U.S. soldiers killed by a roadside bomb.

The Big Uneasy

2008-03-21T09:07:00.002-04:00

It’s Good Friday. Easter and spring are upon us. I want to think of joy and faith and renewal.

Racism (and sexism) keep getting in the way.

Over at Papamoka Straight Talk, he, too, is wondering why such prejudices exist. Read his post: “Obama on Racial Tension in America,” LINK

You always write from your heart, Papamaoka, and that’s the essential quality of good writing which draws me to your blog.

I admit I am one of those persons made uncomfortable when racial tensions reach a boiling point in America. I have believed, naïvely I suppose, that things had gotten better.

That belief was jarred when the scab on this festering condition was knocked off - and should have gained a national forum - with the racial and class injustices in the aftermath of Katrina.

In an ironic twist, the person who raised the most hell, in Katrina’s wake, about race and class injustice in New Orleans was himself a victim in this struggle: Don Imus, a man I greatly admire. I believe to this day that Imus is not a racist and might have been a force in airing this issue if he himself had not uttered three words.

Yes, words matter. The very persons who now defend Obama’s allegiance to his pastor are those “friends” of Imus who turned their backs on him when he needed them most. Imus’ words of unintended consequence cannot compare with those of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Or, for that matter, those of McCain endorsers John Hagee and Rod Parsley.

On a very personal level, my discomfort when racial tension arises comes from its intrusion into my own life. In my life there are no racial tensions. I am not in a “racial stalemate:” I do not hesitate to let othrs know if their prejudices offend me.

I have lived my life believing all “are precious in His sight.”

Early on, there were simple lessons, other than those from my parents and my church:

· A little song which goes, “Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world.”
· The simple words of the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
· Sitting in a Saturday matinee with my kid brother and watcheing the 1951 movie “The Well” with Harry Morgan. Available on video and DVD, the movie is described by Yahoo!: “An incisive study of crowd psychology, focusing on the effects of the townsfolk when a black child gets lodged in a deep well. Academy Award Nominations: Best Story and Screenplay and Best Film Editing.”

For almost 23 years I have lived in a large apartment complex where the majority of my neighbors and friends, some of whom have remained my friends after moving on, has been black. Sure, there have been problem neighbors, white and black, and distancing myself from them was based on their conduct.

So, yes, to be frank, it makes me nervous, it makes me uncomfortable to be drawn into a larger world where hatred and prejudice exist. I was drawn into that world as I sat comfortably in my living room for five days watching my fellow Americans in New Orleans suffer in unspeakable ways while our federal government did nothing.

And, I am drawn into it when I feel the hatred in the heart of the Rev. Wright. I agree that, essentially, some of his statements are based in fact, but many are nothing more than vitriolic reverse racism against his fellow Americans.

Arguments about all the good Wright has done fall on deaf ears. Imus proved that.

Many have asked me why I bother to monitor Fox News and other outlets of right-wing propaganda. Well, read “The Art of War.” The issue of whether Barack Obama should distance himself from his mentor is not going away. The media will not let it. It is, after all, tantamount to the very dialogue Sen. Obama has called for.

How this dialogue will affect the Democratic nomination and, more importantly, the general election in November, remains to be seen.

Boy, talk about naïve, when a womn and a black man entered this presidential race, I didn’t see this coming.

Have I distanced myself from certain persons in my own life? Tp be sure, Such choices were based on individual evaluations of personal conduct. That’s a lesson our mothers taught us.

The long-needed national forum is apparently upon us.

In the meantime, I want my secure, harmonious and peaceful little world to remain intact. It is a world where my closest friends are color-blind and do not give thought to the color of each other’s skin. If that makes me selfish, sobeit.

Papamoka and I share a common quandary: why prejudice exists in the first place.

'A More Perfect Union'

2008-03-19T11:15:00.009-04:00

1912 OVERTURE - Women march in NYC to win the right to vote.

WHAT IS THE name of that little stick men use to stop the bleeding when they nick themselves shaving?

Barack Obama’s speech yesterday on race relations in America was memorable, perhaps one of the most memorable speeches of our time, but will it be a catalyst that will stop the hemorrhaging of his campaign and bring about a healing of prejudiced hearts, or is it like that little stick, merely staunching, for the moment, a flesh wound?

If you missed the speech, by all means view the video or read the transcript HERE.

Soundbites won’t work, because Obama built his speech point upon point.

His words were brilliant in linking bygone wounds to the anger they’ve produced among all races in this country. He is right that if we don’t start now to concede the scars of our own history, confront our differences and coalesce around our common needs, these problems will exist in perpetuity.

I could not see Obama or the setting where he spoke, but in better times I stood in the same spot in Philadelphia and walked the streets where this country took form.

Obama is correct in pointing out that the men who created this Republic made concessions on slavery. Better, they thought, to break the ties of English tyranny than to risk not doing so by excluding the Southern colonies.

Benjamin Franklin told his peers (I could make the argument Ben had no peers): “We will hear of this (slavery) problem 100 years hence.” Indeed, we heard it loudly on the battlefields of the War between the States.

A half-century later, on 6 May 1912, the tramp, tramp, tramp of tens of thousands of high-buttoned shoes marching through New York City was heard loud and clear. In 1920, the suffragettes who marched so bravely that day were granted the right to vote by the 19th Amendment.

It got louder in WWII as we fought to stop a racist lunatic whose armies were conquering Europe.

Over another two decades, the cries for equality and justice grew louder and louder until, on 28 August 1963, loudspeakers blared out the voice of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., across our nation’s capital and into our collective conscience:

“Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.”

(Click HERE for video and transcript of Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.)

Prejudices and “man’s inhumanity towards man” will not cease to exist. These human failures have been around since Cain slew Abel. They will be around when, as William Faulkner put it, “the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded.”

Years ago, I read this quote and can’t recall who said it, “Tyranny is the natural form of government. Freedom must be won with each new generation.”

The long struggle for civil rights and civil liberties is being reversed in the name of security.

It’s our turn.

***

For those of you who heard Sen. Obama’s speech or have viewed it online, I would like your comments, pro or con, on these questions posed on cable news networks, in newspapers and by blogs:

· Reportedly, Obama’s team was onstage before the speech, which began some 30 minutes behind schedule, trying to decide how many flags to display behind him. Do you think the flags, the setting and the evocation of our Founding Fathers were a skillful propaganda device to draw ALL Americans into the speech? Was Obama’s subdued delivery aimed at contrasting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s fiery speech?

· Do you believe Obama’s words were heartfelt or were they simply an attempt to “cover his ass” in the wake of devastating publicity?

· Do you agree that some “knuckleheads,” as Newsweek’s Howard Fineman put it, are unable to grasp the meaning and complexity of Obama’s brilliantly crafted call for racial harmony? (Certainly, a case in point is Sean Hannity’s performan on last night’s edition of “Hannity and Colmes.”)

· Finally, as inspiring as I found Obama’s speech and as deeply as I desire the fruition of his thesis, is it not true that the hateful words of a Rev. Wright, a Rev. Hagee, a Rev. Parsley remain an echo long after the flags were folded in Philadelphia?

***

The “comments” link below is your portal to a fair and open discussion. If you do not have a log-in, simply select “name/URL,” and when the new screen comes up, scroll UP until you see a window on the right to type in your name. Or, you may select “anonymous.” Then, click “publish.”

Wright or wrong?

2008-03-17T07:11:00.002-04:00

I have agonized over beginning this post and discarded “The Wright stuff” as too flippant a title for a matter of such seriousness to me. This is no time for inappropriate levity.

While I have supported Hillary Clinton, I have made it clear to my readers that I would support and vote for Barack Obama if he is the Democratic nominee.

I have friends who read my blog and are very dear to me who wholeheartedly support Obama’s candidacy. For that reason, I have tried to emphasize issues when discussing the two Democratic hopefuls.

Perhaps it was inevitable with the first African-American and the first woman among top contenders for the presidency that the media would smack their greedy, ratings-craving lips at any hint of racism or sexism.

No one can question that for more than 200 years this has been “white man’s country.”

I find it very hard to level criticism at a candidate who, if nominated, would get my vote in November, considering the alternative.

Simply put, I do not buy Obama’s claim that he has had no previous idea of the tone of his pastor and “spiritual adviser” the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons.

“Tone” is the key word.

Whether you agree or disagree with Wright’s words, there is an anger in his soul which cannot be denied.

Fox News’ Greta van Susteren devoted a large portion of her show Friday night to airing numerous videos of Wright’s diatribes, which I have not seen on CNN or MSNBC.

I found many patently offensive.

As a young woman, I had a pastor for 12 years who helped me in the development of my spirituality. His sermons and his friendship were as powerful an influence as that of my parents and siblings, providing me with an inner gyroscope which helps me keep my balance. I knew his mind and his heart.

There is incredulity in Obama’s sudden disdain for his pastor’s mind and heart – a dichotomy of divinity being heavily dissected.

Arguments can be made about endorsements John McCain has received from right-wing religious leaders like John Hagee, who has called the Catholic Church “The Great Whore,” and Rod Parsley, who says the Founding Fathers intended Americans to slay all followers of Islam. But, McCain has not had the relationship with either that Obama has had with Wright. I don’t know much about McCain’s spirituality, but I’ll bet I know who he talked to during three years of solitary confinement at the Hanoi Hiltn.

(For the record, numerous books about Hillary Rodham Clinton, including her autobiography, note her spirituality took form in her teenage years. Prevalent were: the influence of her church’s youth minister, who has remained her lifelong friend and adviser; the opportunity twice, as a young girl, to hear Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., preach; and Methodist leader John Wesley’s mantra, “Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.”)

Wright’s statements are the antithesis of Obama’s stump speeches, and, whether they have had influence on him and his family, cut right to the heart of his platform of hope, unity, change and good judgment.

If Obama faces McCain in the general election, there will be “swift-boating” by 527s like nothing John Kerry ever experienced.

In a worst-case scenario, McCain would win the presidency, and the ramifications of that are far too frightening.

Perhaps more frightening is what a McCain win would do to young people who have become energized in the political process; to blacks who, in my opinion, are long overdue for an MLK-like leader and role model; and to Obama himself.

I have conservative friends who are telling me the Democratic Party is “imploding.” Certainly, the media would have us believe we’re in trouble. But, in the end, the platforms of both senators Obama and Clinton offer far more help, far more hope for Americans and America than anything the Republican Party has offered in many a year.

I believe Barack Obama when he says he loves America. Questions arise about his judgment.

I believe Barack Obama when he says he is a Christian. No person can question another’s spiritual beliefs or what is in a person’s soul.

Essential to this discussion are the words of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

I just hope Obama’s little daughters were never in the pews when the Rev. Wright was spewing such fiery rhetoric as “No, no, no. Not God bless America. God damn America. The Bible says so.” across his congregation.

Hillary's role in Irish peace

2008-03-12T07:09:00.003-04:00

The quote you’ve heard all over TV and the blogosphere:

David Trimble, the former first minister of Northern Ireland and 1998 Nobel Peace Prize winner along with SDLP leader John Hume, had this to say about Hillary Clinton’s role in talks leading up to the Good Friday Agreement:

"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill (Clinton) going around," Trimble said. He characterized her recent campaign statements as "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets. … She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."

Trimble said Hillary Clinton’s claims are “a wee bit silly.”

Just another incident of cherry-picking any “evidence” which sheds bad light on Sen. Clinton.

The above quotes appeared in London’s Daily Telegraph in an article dated 3/8/2008. The article, generally negative toward the former first lady, tamps down positive comments about her role in uniting the women who formed the Women’s Coalition, which participated in Ireland’s peace agreement.

Of the women’s role, the much-quoted Lord Trimble said: "The Women’s Coalition will think they were important. Other people beg to differ."

Read the full two-page article: LINK

And, John Hume, leader of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), who shared the 1998 Nobel Peace Prize with Trimble? What has he to say about Hillary’s involvement?

"I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as first lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland. She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process.

"There is no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland think very positively of Hillary Clinton’s support for our peace process, due to her visits to Northern Ireland and her meetings with so many people. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion-makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward."

Finally, in his book, “A Farther Shore: Ireland’s Long Road to Peace” (Random House, 2003), Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams wrote:

"On a number of occasions she (Hillary Clinton) sat in for discussions between us and the President. Her political instincts on issues of equality meant that she had a natural affinity with the struggle for justice and equity. I also think that she understood the dynamics of the peace process and the need for it to have both forward momentum and a capacity to deliver on issues which affected disadvantaged people in their daily lives. She was to bring a singular contribution to the process on the issue of empowerment of women but in my engagements with her it was obvious that her mind was busy on all the issues that required attention."

***

Still on my blog break, folks, but just couldn’t let this WEE BIT SILLY SELECTIVE SCRUTINY ride.

Later, BJ

'My heart will go on'

2008-03-07T05:06:00.003-05:00

I’m a glass-half-full gal, a cockeyed optimist, and I’ve never let anything life has thrown at me get me down for long.

I just need to take a break, to back away from the “through the looking-glass” idiocy which is coming to characterize this Democratic campaign.

Last night I heard MSNBC’s Chris Matthews say, “I’m not a member of an organized party; I’m a Democrat.” Better put: that oft-quoted line from Walt Kelly’s “Pogo,” “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

I have regular readers who don’t want to hear any more about “perceived” media bias – bias which is slapping me in the face ‘round the clock. Never in my voting adulthood have I seen anything like it, and I simply do not understand why people are not bothered by its impact. If you don’t believe communications can cultivate groupthink, meet Joseph Goebbels.

Yesterday I left an innocuous little comment on a liberal blog, simply suggesting, in the end, that whoever the Democratic Party’s nominee is – Obama or Clinton – we must all pull together to ensure his or her election. My statement was followed by two lengthy comments denigrating Hillary. From an Obama supporter.

I’ve never considered myself naïve. I knew the far-right would trash a Clinton, but I never expected what is happening in the media and in my own Party.

Hillary Clinton is not a monster. She has spent her life in one form of public service or another. Her supporters are not uninformed anarchists, dashers of hope.

Yesterday I saw Ann Coulter telling an MSNBC anchor she will support and “even work for” Hillary Clinton against John McCain. We know Ann’s game: this pseudosupport might hurt Hillary and sell a few more books in the process.

Through the looking-glass.

As for rules, anything goes, as long as it benefits one’s chosen candidate. As I’ve noted before, the persons who claim rules cannot be broken when it comes to Michigan and Florida, despite the disenfranchisement of millions, are adamant that the rules governing superdelegates must go, because, well, they ignore the popular vote.

I have said repeatedly I will support the Democratic Party nominee, but I’m not getting that promise from fellow Democrats across the blogosphere.

The Democratic Party is blessed with two highly capable and dedicated hopefuls. Both are drawing new people into the political process – a good thing.

I have had both a total stranger and a person I thought I knew well suggest I’m racist because I don’t support Obama. I was not ready for that. To be frank, I have spent more time defending Obama to certain acquaintances than I have defending Hillary.

A comrade in arms of some duration spoke of my support for Hillary being “justified.” I don’t have to justify my support for any candidate. I am an American.

No one has called Hillary Clinton stupid. She has campaigned from the outset to appeal to the general electorate.

I believe this with all my heart: this country will not elect a candidate perceived as far left and anti-war. I hope I have to eat those words with a nice side dish of mint jelly. I base them on nothing less that U.S. election history.

Right now, I am heartsick.

But, as the Celine Dion song promises, my heart will go on, and so will this country. The path it takes depends, as it always has, on unity in diversity. Such unity is long overdue. The pendulum swings to the far left and to the far right, but it always comes back to the center. The time has come for a correction.

As I told a boss once, when personal tragedy hit my life, “I might be back in three months or in three days, but I’ll be back.”

I pray the same for my country.

The Hagee kiss

2008-03-06T06:11:00.003-05:00

(Reprinted with permission of Matthew O’Keefe, Papmoka Straight Talk.)

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Catholics, McCain & Hagee

We Catholic’s are a tough lot. Hell, we have to deal with the shame of the child- molesting priest issue that went underground for decades, but we all own that shame together as Catholics. It is a shame that should never be forgotten by every single Catholic.

Mind you as church organizations go the Catholic faith is very strict with its teachings but very liberal with its actions. Caring for the poor, feeding the homeless, clothing people, offering assistance in many areas of life without care as to whether you are a Catholic or not. There are no flares fired off to make notice of our churches’ response to people in need, it’s just done.

With that being said, there is a religious Christian war going on in American politics that is based in hate. Christian, and hate are two words that should never go together when talking about the American Christian experience of faith. Love thy brother does not have the word “except” in it. Down at the bottom of the page there is no italicized notes with a list of who is not to be loved. If you think this war is happening in both political parties then you would be dead wrong. This issue is totally owned by the “My God is better than your God” Republican Party and the Rev. John Hagee is heading up the battle with his endorsement of John McCain. Over at the Washington Post they have this great read on it:

Hagee Endorsement of McCain Has Risks

By LIBBY QUAID
The Associated Press, Monday, March 3, 2008; 6:23 PM

SEDONA, Ariz. -- Endorsed by an influential Texas televangelist, Republican John McCain endeared himself to one group of voters but risked alienating another with the pastor's anti-Catholic views.

The controversy has been mild so far, but still, every vote counts in a presidential election that is expected to be closely contested.

Evangelical or born-again Christian voters were key to George W. Bush's victories, but so were Roman Catholics, who chose Bush over their fellow Catholic John Kerry in 2004 and over Al Gore in 2000.

The televangelist, San Antonio megachurch leader John Hagee, has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and called it a "false cult system" and "the apostate church"; the word "apostate" means someone who has forsaken his religion.

He also has linked Adolf Hitler to the Catholic church, suggesting it helped shape his anti-Semitism.

McCain said he does not agree with some of Hagee's past comments. "It's simply not accurate to say that because someone endorses me that I therefore embrace their views," McCain told reporters at a news conference Monday in Phoenix. - Washington Post

Just checking facts and we have this video from YouTube: LINK

John McCain needs to look in the rear view mirror of his campaign and think about this endorsement more clearly. No matter how McCain spins this in the desire to hold on to the Bush Evangelical right vote he will lose the Catholic vote in large blocs. That is where the weakness of the McCain campaign will be in the general election. Pitting one Christian-based religion against another Christian-based religion offers no hope or change from the Bush full speed ahead of separation of the people. Good luck with that one Johnny! Here is your cross, you earned it, wear it well.

My family was from the old school, marry an Irish girl and marry a Catholic girl. I got one out of two right but one thing is true of both my wife and me: our Catholic faith is one issue we never argue over. Our faith is our rock, and we stand on it many times to keep our heads above the tides of life. To have someone call our faith a bastardization of religion or a whore just bothers me.

As for John Hagee, from this die-hard Catholic, you, sir, are a money-grabbing hypocrite. You call my church a group of “whores.” You call my faith a “false cult.” Then, you call us a “Nazi” shaping tool of Adolf Hitler! I’ll turn the other cheek. Hit me again as you drive away from your multi-million dollar church and studios in your luxury car to go to your personal mansion paid for by believers only looking for any beacon of hope that is the beginning of their faith.

Two words for the most self-righteous Reverend John Hagee, “False Prophet.” Somewhere in the Bible is a story about being very aware of men preaching God’s word and directing hate towards our fellow man. Again, God and hate are two words that should not be used together if you are a minister, priest or a “Reverend.” In politics this endorsement is tantamount to forsaking an entire people for the favor of one.

In the battle for Christian voters, John McCain is selling out his own self respect for votes from just one religious political group. What would he do as president? In acceptance of this endorsement he has basically endorsed the same words of the Rev. John Hagee and called all of us in the Catholic faith “whores”! As a practicing Catholic I resent it. If this is what the Republican Party is all about, then I would suggest Catholic Republicans jump ship in the general election simply for this endorsement.

There is no backpedaling on this very central Catholic issue, and Sen. McCain will not back off or denounce John Hagee’s endorsement. That is the issue to stand and fight for as Catholics come November. Our faith is not a whore!

I have to run, as a Catholic I have to say a couple dozen Hail Marys and a ton of Our Fathers for this post …

Papamoka

For more Papamoka Straight Talk: LINK

Confetti

2008-03-05T03:09:00.002-05:00

It was a happy night for Hillary supporters and, God know, we were due.

Thanks to my sweet niece Jeanette, who stayed on the phone reading me vote tallies off the TV as they came in. Nice to share the Texas moment with her!

Now, it’s 3 a.m.

Sweet dreams.

'Our fixation on fantasies'

2008-03-03T09:28:00.003-05:00

I am not a “feminista.” I have never burned a bra. I have learned in this election cycle that it’s perfectly all right for the media to attack a person on the basis of gender while broadcast licenses would be pulled if the same attacks were leveled on the basis of race.

I find that deeply troubling.

In many previous posts I have tried to address the role the media have played in putting up guideposts on the road to the White House. In so doing, there has been no way to avoid a discussion of sexism and racism – in the context of media coverage.

A friend who also has paid close attention to this 21st Century dichotomy of equality emailed me the link to “A Letter From Feminists on the Election,” which appears in the 17 March 2008 issue of The Nation – you know, the magazine that cuts “through layers of obfuscation.”

A couple of days after the Democratic debate in Texas an even dozen of the top feminist leaders in the country met for a breakfast discussion with one aim, and I quote:

“We were there to hash out a split that threatened our friendship and the various movements with which we are affiliated.”

The split which threatens the work of these feminist leaders? Whether to vote for a black man or a woman?

I’m sorry, I thought, but these are not criteria for leadership, and they certainly do not address the all-important issues facing this country.

The letter addressed my beef with the media, as well as major setbacks by the Bush administration.

But, what about the issues?

When I decided Hillary Clinton is the best qualified and most capable candidate to be president, it did not enter my mind that I was supporting her because she’s a woman. When Barack Obama gave his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention and cemented his future in politics, I never saw him as an African-American. I see Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as highly capable, intelligent and altruistic individuals.

The media have stoked the race and gender controversies by bringing them – vis-à-vis the Democratic contenders - to the forefront of this campaign. That they have done so with out-of-context quotes and distortion of facts, subtle innuendos and blatant bias are just tricks of the craft. Such tricks are not modern-day phenomena; they are just coming at us 24/7. The media thrive on conflict, and what more lucrative chance to stir racism and sexism – simultaneously?

Further, to see the media’s self-examination of whether coverage has favored Obama is both hypocritical and sickening. Do they forget it’s on tape and on the record?

But, media bias and Bush administration setbacks are not the crux of this open letter, and I am bothered with its opening words, because they suggest you have to choose between a woman and a black man – rather than vote for the best qualified candidate.

Clearly, women are voting for Hillary because she’s a woman, and blacks are voting for Obama because he’s black. Apparently, we Americans haven’t moved beyond discrimination.

A resolution of sorts, this statement of intent in the letter’s penultimate paragraph redeems its message:

“If we could get over our fixation on a fantasy that many of us hoped to see realized in our lifetimes, maybe we could finally turn to the issues that each of them brings to the table.”

The issues are real, dear reader. Arguably more critical than at any other time in American history.

This is no time for fantasy.

THE LETTER: LINK

“DemWit” today: “R.I.P.”

Quite a leap

2008-02-29T07:02:00.003-05:00

We’re all so focused on the presidential campaign, I thought we would celebrate Leap Year 2008 with a little comic relief:

At George W. Bush’s press conference yesterday:

Q What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing …

THE PRESIDENT: Wait, what did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?

Q A number of analysts are predicting …

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yeah?

Q … $4-a-gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.

THE PRESIDENT: That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.

Q Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I know it's high now.

THEN, just a few minutes later, when a reporter asked Bush whether there would be restrictions on contributions to his presidential library, whether he would accept foreign money:

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I'll probably take some foreign money, but don't know yet, Ken. We just haven't -- we just announced the deal, and I, frankly, have been focused elsewhere, like ON GASOLINE PRICES and, you know, my trip to Africa, and haven't seen the fundraising strategy yet. So, the answer to your question, really, I can't answer your question well.

OK. It would be funny if it weren’t so darn serious.

WHITE HOUSE TRANSCRIPT: LINK

“DemWit” today: “Equal time for McCain”

Mo of the same

2008-02-27T10:02:00.003-05:00

“ ‘Maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow,’ she said tartly in the debate here Tuesday night. She peevishly and pointlessly complained about getting the first question too often, implying that the moderators of MSNBC — a channel her campaign has complained has been sexist — are giving Obama an easy ride.

“Beating on the press is the lamest thing you can do. It is only because of the utter open-mindedness of the press that Hillary can lose 11 contests in a row and still be treated as a contender.”

I snatched these two paragraphs out of New York Times’ columnist Maureen Dowd’s anti-Clintons regurgitations this morning. (If you have an appetite for vitriol and vomit, you can read her here.)

That “contender” remark is pretty lame itself. That status is granted by voters, not the press.

“ … implying that the moderators of MSNBC — a channel her campaign has complained has been sexist — are giving Obama an easy ride.”

Gasp!

Apparently, Ms. Dowd doesn’t spend a lot of time – as I do – watching campaign coverage on MSNBC.

Then, too, Ms. Dowd, whose attacks on Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky affair are legend, has never forgiven Hillary for keeping her wedding vow. You know, “for better or for worse.”

While MSNBC spent the entire day yesterday beating Hillary Clinton into the ground and extolling Obama, regular viewers who see through the bias knew that Brian Williams and Tim Russert were locked head-to-head, trying to formulate THE question that could bring Senator Clinton’s campaign to its end.

Around mid-afternoon I sent an email to Hillary supporters on my list: “Keep an eye on Tim Russert.”

“Beating on the press is the lamest thing you can do.”

Come on, Mo, you’re a smarter woman than that.

Hillary was not, to use Barack’s word, “whining.” What she said, to use yours, was not “pointless.” She looked Tim Russert in the eye and gave him notice: “I am ready for you!”

And, Mr. Russert got her drift.

So, what, I’m sure, seemed to some another “silly season” remark set the “tone” for the evening and gave us – in this third meeting of the Democratic contenders – a real debate.

Now, Ms. Dowd, if you want to talk about who is “beating on” who, meet me in Ohio on March 4.

To paraphrase “The Godfather:”

“Leave the keyboard, bring the TV.”

Taking a moment

2008-02-26T11:55:00.004-05:00

Mat, author of the blog “Papamoka Straight Talk,” is about the nicest Internet friend you’d ever want to make.

This dedicated blogger lives in Worcester, Massachusetts, in The House of the Six Women – his wife and their five daughters, ages 5 to 17.

I found Mat’s blog some time ago via Google and have enjoyed his honest and down-to-earth commentary on all things political. I don’t even mind that we sometimes disagree. I have never shied away from opposing viewpoints, and I trust Papamoka’s.

In one of his current posts, Mat selected a personal “Top 10” list: blogs he gives an “E for Excellent.”

What a lovely surprise while reading through his picks of such notable blogs as “Michael Linn Jones,” “Gun Toting Liberal,” “Bring It On!” and “Crooks and Liars” to find the road-less-traveled blog named “I See My Dreams.”

Papmoka writes: “Next on my list for 'E for Excellent' is, at number six, my good friend BJ at I See My Dreams. One of the things that makes me read a blog is the love of writing from the site owner. BJ is a retired newspaper editor in South Carolina, and I just love reading her posts. Liberal leaning and on topic with facts and links to back up all of her posts. In her heart is what is right and from her perspective is always an amazing read. I just love her work. Who loves ya, BJ!… Tag, you’re it, my friend! You can see her work at I See My Dreams and get addicted yourself.”

Gee.

With almost 5,000 visitors to date – I’m a little fish in a big sea of bloggers - and some 300-plus posts under my belt, it would be easy to talk myself into hanging it up. After all, as Mat points out, we don’t do this for the money.

Funny how a spoonful of encouragement can inspire. It is you, dear reader, who keeps me from yielding to those “doggin’ bloggin’ blues.”

Thank you, and sincere thanks to Mat!

Papamoka’s “E for Excellent” picks: LINK

And, his informed and insightful blog: LINK

A quagmire by any other name

2008-02-25T10:21:00.003-05:00

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Friday renewed for another six months the cease-fire keeping his Mahdi Army militia in check. (Associated Press, 2/22/2008)

For several weeks there has been speculation that Sadr would not continue the cease-fire, credited by Gen. David Petraeus with contributing to a reduction of violence in Baghdad.

The Iraqi parliament continues to be bogged down in factional in-fighting, which prevents any meaningful advance in legislation.

The Turkish military sent ground troops into Northern Iraq Thursday night in an effort to quell Kurdish militants – the first such incursion since the U.S. invaded Iraq. (New York Times, 2/22/2008, LINK)

The move, Turkey claims, is an attempt to prevent the militants – the Kurdistan Worker’s Party – from entering Turkey and attacking troops there.

This, of course, pits two U.S. allies against each other. (I was shocked to hear a Fox News report Saturday that the U.S. considers the Kurdish militants “terrorists.”)

While conservatives continue to claim “the surge is working,” U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians continue to die. We are just 28 troop deaths short of 4,000 American sons and daughters dying in Iraq. The strategic situation can only be called a quagmire.

Is the United States, then, putting too many eggs in the Sadr basket?

“Sadr,” according to The Progress Report, Center for American Progress, 2/22/2008, “has felt pressure from rank and file members of his Mahdi Army, who equate the cease-fire ‘with a loss of power and resources, believe the U.S. and ISCI* are conspiring to weaken the movement and eagerly await Muqtada's permission to resume the fight.’ “ (*BJ note: the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq – ISCI – is the largest and most powerful Shiite party in Iraq.)

What, then, is Sadr up to?

The Progress Report continues: “But, Vali Nasr, author of The Shi’a Revival, believes Sadr has a long-term strategy. ‘The game in Iraq is not over,’ says Nasr. ‘[Sadr] has been beefing up his strength.’

“Sadr has also been pumping up his religious credentials, studying in the Iranian seminary city of Qom in order to become a recognized religious authority. Once he achieves a higher clerical rank, Sadr will be more able to credibly challenge the Najaf establishment for leadership of Iraq."

Call it a “surge.” Call it a “success.” A quagmire by any other name is still a quagmire.

For more on the current strategical situation in Iraq, read the Progress Report’s “Iraq: A Precarious Situation,” LINK

Challenge the chant

2008-02-22T09:08:00.002-05:00

(Reprinted with permission from Craig Crawford, Congressional Quarterly.)

Yes We Can WHAT?

By Craig Crawford, Congressional Quarterly February 18, 2008 6:00 AM

The news media’s long-awaited scrubbing of Barack Obama’s concrete plans for governing has begun and, not surprisingly, it doesn't take long. The Democratic presidential contender’s famously inspirational speeches offer little sustenance for wonks.

In a rare and much-heralded policy address last week, Obama attempted to get specific on economics but the details turned out to be so reminiscent of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s proposals that an aide to Republican nominee-to-be John McCain stepped in to cry foul. “He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own,” McCain economic advisor Kevin Hassett said.

Obama’s supporters and advisers refer pesky policy inquiries to the campaign Web site, but it is difficult to connect the dots between this internet data dump and a candidate whose public comments reveal little evidence that he has read it himself. As Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, an Obama fan, concluded after examining the Web site, “I'm still puzzled about where to locate Obama on this policy map.”

No one expects Obama to use every opportunity to wade through the policy thicket that Clinton seems to enjoy navigating in her often mind-numbing stump speeches. The Illinois senator apparently intends to be a motivational president who stays above the fray. But on the stump he provides little guidance to the occasional voter who might be curious about exactly what he would do as president.

Politically speaking, it is probably true that Obama does not need to sweat the policy details. He has so far made it to the brink of success in the Democratic race without specifics. Instead, his admiring crowds appear content to chant “Yes We Can” without bothering to finish the sentence. –end-

For more of “Craig Crawford’s Trail Mix:” LINK

NEXT POST: ‘They are snakes’

'They are snakes'

2008-02-22T08:59:00.002-05:00

In a perfect world, Americans could find unity in diversity.

Barack Obama told last night’s debate audience that Hillary Clinton’s “Let’s get real” slogan implies his supporters are “delusional.”

Well, there’s one thing Obama keeps promising that this old gal ain’t delusional about: I am not naïve enough to think he can unite the left-wing and the right-wing in this country.

Hillary or Obama, the right will go for the jugular.

Listen to these words from the right-wing’s guru Rush Limbaugh – his response to the New York Times story about John McCain:

“The important question for John McCain today is, is he going to learn the right lesson from this, and what is the lesson? The lesson is: liberals are to be defeated. You cannot walk across the aisle with them. You cannot reach across the aisle. You cannot welcome their media members on your bus and get all cozy with them and expect eternal love from them. You are a Republican. Whether you're a conservative Republican or not, you are a Republican. At some point, the people you cozy up to, either to do legislation or to get cozy media stories, are going to turn on you. They are snakes.”

(Expand Your Mind: read what else Rush had to say – LINK)

I do not want to be bedfellows – strange or otherwise - with Limbaugh, with Sean Hannity, with Bill O’Reilly, with Ann Coulter, with Michelle Malkin or any others of their ilk.

No group hugs with neocons.

I do have my pride. Let’s get real!

Whitewater: case closed

2008-02-21T09:19:00.002-05:00

For the last couple of days I have been reading visitor comments on various blogs and news sites – to check the pulse of the American people.

Conclusion: there are a great number of people out there who are brain dead.

Aside from the apparent failure of our education system to teach spelling and proper grammar, these comments – from Hillary, Obama and McCain supporters - have had running themes:

1) Whitewater.
2) The Clintons killed Vince Foster.
3) Hillary has never accomplished anything.
4) If Hillary can't control her husband, how can she control the country?
5) Obama is a Muslim.

Let’s address theme #5 first. Are these people so ignorant and uninformed that they cannot distinguish “militant Islamic fundamentalists” from the one in every five persons on Earth who embrace the faith of Islam? Barack Obama’s father was an African Muslim who deserted his wife when Barack was two years old. In 1985, Obama joined the United Church of Christ in Chicago and became a Christian. He, his wife Michelle and their two daughters are members of Trinity United Church of Christ in southside Chicago.

As to comment theme #3 – Hillary has never accomplished anything – let’s just chalk that one up to stupidity.

The remaining comment themes are related to the Whitewater investigation, and are addressed in the following:

(Originally published on this blog 6/25/2007 – LINK)

Whitewater: case closed

Continuing to listen to Bill Clinton’s autobiography, “My Life.” I transcribed the following excerpt from the tapes, because its subject is going to come up again in the run-up to Election 2008, and I want you, dear reader, to be aware of the other side of the story.

From Chapter 45:

“… (I)n mid-December the complete Whitewater story finally came out when the RTC (Resolution Trust Corporation) Inquiry from Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro was released. The report was written by Jay Stevens, who like Chuck Banks was a Republican former U.S. attorney, whom I had replaced.”

(See “RTC report exonerates Clintons,” Congressional Record, December 1995: LINK)

“It said, as had the preliminary report in June, that there were no grounds for a civil suit against us in Whitewater, much less any criminal action, and it recommended that the investigation be closed.

“This is what The New York Times and The Washington Post wanted to know when they called for an independent counsel. I eagerly awaited their coverage.

“Immediately after the RTC report was released, the Post mentioned it in passing in the 11th paragraph of a front-page story about an unrelated subpoena battle with (Ken) Starr. And, The New York Times didn’t run a word.

“The Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and Washington Times ran an Associated Press story of about 400 words on the inside pages of their papers.

“The TV networks didn’t cover the RTC report, though ABC’s Ted Koppel reported it on “Nightline,” then dismissed its importance, because there were ‘so many new questions.’

“Whitewater wasn’t about Whitewater any more: it was about whatever Ken Starr could dig up on anybody in Arkansas or my administration.

“In the meantime, some Whitewater reporters were actually covering up evidence of our innocence. To be fair, some journalists took note.

“Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz wrote an article pointing out the way the RTC report had been buried. And, Lars Erik Nelson, a columnist for The New York Daily News, who had been a correspondent in the Soviet Union, wrote, ‘The secret verdict is in: there was nothing for the Clintons to hide. In a bizarre reversal of those Stalin-era trials in which innocent people were convicted in secret, the president and the first lady have been publicly charged and secretly found innocent.’

“I was genuinely confused by the mainstream press coverage of Whitewater. It seemed inconsistent with the more careful and balanced approach the press had taken on other issues, at least since the Republicans won Congress in 1994.

“One day, after one of our budget meetings in October, I asked Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming to stay a moment to talk. Simpson was a conservative Republican, but we had a pretty good relationship, because of the friendship we had in common with his governor, Mike Sullivan.

“I asked Alan if he thought Hillary and I had done anything wrong in Whitewater. ‘Of course not,’ he said, ‘that’s not what this is about. This is about making the public think you did something wrong. Anybody who looked at the evidence would see that you didn’t.’ ”

***

And, Starr’s investigation was about more than Whitewater. In early 1998, Starr won authorization to expand his investigation to include the Lewinsky scandal, and questions about Monica Lewinsky's relationship with Clinton quickly overshadowed Whitewater matters.

Of note: in late 1998, when Starr presented his case for impeachment of the president for his attempts to conceal the Lewinsky affair, he indicated that his office had NO impeachable evidence in the Whitewater matters.

Starr resigned in October 1999 and was succeeded by Robert W. Ray, the senior litigation counsel in Starr's office. In September 2000, Ray ended the Whitewater inquiry, stating there was “insufficient evidence” to prove that President Clinton or his wife had committed any crime in connection with the failed real estate venture or the independent counsel's investigation into it.

The final report was issued 18 months later.

In February 1999, CNN’s Terry Friedan wrote:

“Expenditures by Independent Counsel Ken Starr's office have officially surpassed the $40 million mark, according to new Justice Department figures. … The figures show that Starr's office, through the end of November 1998, had spent $40,835,000. … Those figures do not include costs incurred by Starr's predecessor, Robert Fiske, whose office spent about $6 million before Starr was appointed to lead the investigation.” LINK

There are continuing allegations that the Clintons murdered their longtime Arkansas friend Vince Foster, although his death was officially ruled a suicide.

And, there is the ongoing reduction of the amazing life stories of Bill and Hillary Clinton into a two-word summary: Monica Lewinsky.

I was telling a yound friend how impressed I am with Clinton’s ability to recall life events and his skill at keeping the reader engaged, and her response was, “Has Slick Willy mentioned Monica?”

How very sad, I thought, that such a life could be so trivialized by one tragic flaw, especially by those who do not care to read the rest of the story.

Go figure!

2008-02-19T10:01:00.003-05:00

This can get confusing!

We must obey the rules. Michigan and Florida cannot be counted because that’s the rules the DNC laid out to punish these states for holding early primaries. It doesn’t matter that voters in these states are disenfranchised.

We must break the rules. Superdelegates cannot count, although this system has been in place for years. The votes of U.S. citizens must count.

And speaking of superdelegates:

According to a report on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 (LINK), Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama “have both thrown cash - and a lot of it - into the campaign chests of fellow Democrats who also just happen to be superdelegates.”

A spokesman for the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics said he doesn’t believe the two candidates were trying to buy votes, but were “building relationships. They were doing what all politicians do.”

CNN correspondent David Mattingly reports: “Since 2005, the Center says that Senator Clinton contributed more than $280,000 to superdelegates and that Senator Obama handed out almost $700,000.”

According to the Center, there is a direct correlation between the amounts of money given and superdelegate support.

Oh, and according to Mattingly, “Democrats tell us this came at a time when there were a lot of Democrats helping other Democrats in a critical election cycle. Hillary Clinton herself was running for re-election in 2006. Guess who contributed to her campaign? Barack Obama, a total of $4,200.”

'SCREW YOU!'

2008-02-18T07:27:00.002-05:00

The press has had a role in American politics since this nation was founded. In pre-broadcast days, back in the days of “yellow journalism,” publishers made no attempt to limit endorsements of candidates to editorial pages.

An excellent source on how the press can control American politics is the book, “The Chief: The Life of William Randolph Hearst” by David Nasaw. Argueably, Hearst’s most famous quote came in reference to the Spanish-American War, when he told a staff photographer, “You provide the photos; I’ll provide the war.”

For the first time in American history, with both an African-American and a female vying for the presidency, racism and sexism are issues to be confronted.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper hosted an excellent special, “Uncovering America: Race, Gender and Politics,” Friday night, 15 February 2008. Expand your mind: read the transcript.

Apparently, in covering the candidacies of Barack Obam and Hillary Rodham Clinton, cable news, which has made no pretext at objectivity, has decided that while racist remarks are certainly taboo, sexist remarks against Senator Clinton are “fair game.”

Media Matters for America, which has faithfully documented such off-putting remarks by MSNBC personalities, takes a look at a media watchdog program, which aired Friday on WNYC, in an article titled, “MSNBC's pattern of sexist/misogynistic comments highlighted.” READ THE ARTICLE.

A program guest, Rachael Sklar, Huffington Post media editor, talks about MSNBC’s pattern of gender-bashing and, hence, Hillary-bashing:

“Chris Matthews, the day after the New Hampshire primary and Hillary Clinton's victory, made the comment that she was basically where she was, quote, ‘because her husband messed around.’ And, Media Matters, which gets its teeth into these things and really shakes its head furiously, generated post after post about things that Chris Matthews had said, things that other people on MSNBC had said, comments from Joe Scarborough, comments from Tucker Carlson, very specific and discrete situations, but, when you put them all together, did seem to call for some sort of response.”

Chris Matthews, apparently under pressure, half-heartedly apologized for that particular remark. Reporter David Shuster sincerely apologized for trying to "be hip” when he suggested the Clintons were “pimping out” daughter Chelsea on the campaign trail. (Trying to be “hip” got Don Imus fired from MSNBC.) Shuster, whose reporting talents I admire, has been suspended until next week, while the egregious and on-going remarks by Matthews have gone unpunished.

A defensive Matthews had this to say Friday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” (LINK):

“What she (Hillary Clinton) has to do is get rid of the kneecappers that work for her, these press people whose main job seems to be punishing Obama or going after the press, to building a positive case for her. I just don't think the kneecapping has worked. I think her press relations are lousy.

“I think if all you do is intimidate and punish and claim you'll get even relentlessly, people - all kinds of politicians, and, in full fairness, the press - human reaction to intimidation is, ‘SCREW YOU!’ (Emphasis Matthews’)“

Matthews’ sexism was apparent long before this campaign began. His snide remarks to veteran journalist Andrea Mitchell while ignoring her in an otherwise all-male panel of guests come to mind. Matthews, smart women who have something to contribute to your program don’t need you telling them how “pretty” they are.

Accepting such remarks by this sexist jerk and his MSNBC colleagues just because they benefit your candidate is UNACCEPTABLE!

Bill Clinton has a right to be angry: I sure as hell am!

'What about the loaves and fishes?'

2008-02-13T10:59:00.002-05:00

“There was a boy there,” the Holy Bible says, who had a small basket of fishes and bread loaves as Jesus spoke to the multitudes. Jesus bade him to take his little basket and feed the thousands and thus performed a miracle.

Joe Klein, Time’s political columnist and author of six books, has quoted author, educator and Democratic Party activist Donna Brazile (LINK):

“All of which is very nice,” Klein says of Barack Obama’s online fundraising, “but it's now time to find out what the candidate actually stands for. As Donna Brazile told me a few weeks ago, ‘We know he can walk on water. Now, what about the loaves and fishes?’ "

In a more secular analogy and quoting a popular commercial at the time, Walter Mondale, on the campaign trail, asked, “Where’s the beef?”

History has proven many a great orator has failed at leadership, that essential characteristic needed most when the rubber hits the road in American politics.

Have you really listened to Barack Obama’s stump speech? Or, are you caught up in the platitudes and heart-jolting homily?

MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell recently related a conversation with a friend. When she asked him whether he would vote for Obama or Clinton, he replied, “My heart tells me Obama, but my head tells me Hillary.”

As we know, propaganda can be used for good or for evil purposes. The very definition of propaganda is: an expression of opinion or action by individuals or groups deliberately designed to influence opinions or actions of other individuals or groups with reference to predetermined ends. Because the propagandist does not welcome scrutiny, efforts are made to appeal to emotions rather than to intellect. Obama is very skilled at using its “glittering generalities” technique.

In their hearts, Americans who have followed closely the grave results of the Bush presidency are desperate for a leader.

This dialogue from Rob Reiner’s “The American President” says it all:

Press Secretary (Michael J. Fox): “People want leadership. And in the absence of genuine leadership, they will listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership, Mr. President. They're so thirsty for it, they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.”

President (Michael Douglas): “Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty, Lewis. They drink it because they don't know the difference.”

For God’s sake, folks, it’s crunch time. Know the difference.

The nominee-apparent of the GOP, John McCain, told his party last night, “We do not yet know for certain who will have the honor of being the Democratic Party's nominee for president, but we know where either of their candidates will lead this country, and we dare not let them."

Up against this old war hero, the party-that-loves-to-hate will go for Obama’s anti-war jugular just as it did John Kerry’s and Gold Star Mother Cindy Sheehan’s.

As Slate.com’s chief political correspondent John Dickerson (LINK) puts it, Obama is “the pet rock of the wealthy liberal wing” of the Democratic Party. Can a Democratic nominee who cannot win the votes of the working-class survive in November?

We are about to hire a chief executive in this country, and we had better be absolutely certain qualities of leadership are high on the resumé.

A starving nation – with so many wrongs to be righted - cannot be nourished with a cupful of hope. “What about the loaves and fishes?”

Lanny's Story: The Sequel

2008-02-11T10:46:00.000-05:00

Back in May 2007 the name Lanny Davis caught my ear, because I have a first cousin named Lanny, and this was only the second male I’d ever heard of with the name.

Lanny Davis is proving to be an effective spokesperson for the Clinton campaign. He was particularly well-armed to ward off the negativity Mika Brzezinski threw at him on today’s “Morning Joe” (MSNBC).

The appearance this morning reminded me to follow up on my May 2007 post on Lanny and the Bush administration’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Read my original post, then hit “backspace” to return here for the follow-up on this important story: LINK

FOLO:

From CAMPUS PROGRESS, Center for American Progress (LINK):

Under The Shroud Of Secrecy
February 7, 2008

Value open government? Like your own privacy? Then do we have two stories for you today.

First Story: In 2004, the 9/11 Commission recommended the establishment of a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The board would ensure that any laws and policies the White House implemented under the name of national security would, in fact, appropriately protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans.

The board is vacant. Even as the White House begins its massive push to get even more warrantless wiretapping powers, the privacy oversight board is… vacant.

The terms of the original members expired on January 30, 2008. No new nominations have been chosen to fill the empty spots.

AND THEN SOME …

Second Story: In December, President Bush “reluctantly signed a law” that required better enforcement of the Freedom of Information Act. [Washington Post]

The Freedom of Information Act says we have guaranteed access to public records. The new law says government agencies have 20 days to provide requested information. It also created an ombudsman, working out of the National Archives, who would act as a neutral party and make sure agencies were properly complying with the law and turning over public documents to citizens when asked.

President Bush, in his new budget, now wants to move that ombudsman over to the Justice Department, a move that would in effect kill the position. (The Justice Department acts as an advocate for agencies, helping them when people sue them for information.)

The secrecy-loving White House is not a fan of the Freedom of Information Act. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft went so far as to send a memo to agencies telling them to use all legal means necessary to fight any public document requests.

Why we’re not surprised: In 2000, the federal government spent $452,807 on contracts for paper shredding services. By 2006, that number skyrocketed to $2.9 million. And what the White House couldn’t shred, they stonewalled. Since 1998, the number of exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act cited to support the withholding of information increased 83 percent. Two out of five FOIA requests weren’t even processed by 2006. [USA Spending] [Coalition of Journalists for Open Government]

Tit for tat, White House. If you want to spy on us, we want to see your public files. It’s that simple. –END-

Just a reminder that while we political wonks are focused on this crucial election campaign, over at the Bush White House it’s business as usual.

Calm down, guys

2008-02-08T10:33:00.000-05:00

It has been pointed out to me that my characterization of certain male conservative pundits as “numbnuts” is sexist in nature.

Actually, it’s got nothing to do with nature.

A search of various online dictionaries yields these definitions:

Idiot, stupid, moron, ignorant, untrainable, objectionable, contemptible, same as “numbskull.”

I just love quaint words, like “egad,” “balderdash” and “poppycock.” If they’re good enough for Dickens, they’re good enough for me.

DemWit today: Another MSNBC mea culpa

Best Hillary-bashing rebuttal

2008-02-06T07:23:00.000-05:00

I wish I had said this. Wait a minute! I have! A thousand times!

Great thanks to the friend who sent me this AOL News column – the best rebuttal to Hillary-bashing I’ve ever read.

So, you don’t care for Hillary? Go ahead, read it. It might surprise you!

“Political Machine” column (LINK), AOL News – written yesterday before Super Tuesday results:

The Greatness of Hillary Clinton

By Tommy Christopher, POLITICAL MACHINE, Feb 5, 2008 6:40 AM

Senator Hillary Clinton is now neck-and-neck with Illinois Senator Barack Obama going into today's Super Tuesday contests, after what has been a hard-fought, turbulent campaign so far. Unless you live in a cave, you know that every move the candidates make, or the candidates' staffers, or their cousins, has been scrutinized and magnified by our conflict-starved news media, and the din from both camps of supporters has reached supersonic pitch.

It is easy to lose perspective at a time like this. A lot of criticism has been leveled at Hillary Clinton, some of it fair, most of it not. If you are an Obama or former Edwards supporter, you might feel the need to tear down their opponent out of a belief in your candidate, rather than explore why you may agree with all three, but with your guy more. No matter what happens today, I think it needs to be remembered that Hillary Clinton is a great American, a pioneer, and in my view, would have gone just as far or farther had she never even met William Jefferson Clinton. I think Hillary says it best when she says, "I may be the most famous person that you don't really know." The level of bile and hatred that has been spewed at her, dating back to her husband's first term, is truly astounding, and it is clearly motivated out of a fear of women.

I first became aware of a Hillary backlash when she began working on the Clinton healthcare plan in 1993. Hard to believe that was 15 years ago, but looking at that plan now, even if you disagree with it, you have to admit it was a bold and pioneering step toward addressing one of the major issues of our time. Almost immediately, the cry of, "Who does she think she is?" went up all across the airwaves.

From then on, the narrative on Hillary Clinton was set. Every misogynistic cliché in the book was applied to her. Some at least bothered to mask this with an ostensible concern about her not having been elected, but that was a thin veil, indeed. Of course, her plan was defeated by the Republicans and the health insurance industry, and labeled a failure in the press.

Since then, she has weathered a never-ending tsunami of scrutiny and criticism and hate from every quarter. What always surprised me was that the most virulent reactions to Hillary came from women that I knew, even before the Lewinsky scandal. Perhaps she represented a challenge to them to overcome their own marginalization.

Then, there was that "scandal." To this day, I can't figure out why, even if you cared about that business, why would anyone be resentful of Hillary? I remember at the time being so impressed with her composure in the face of all of that adversity. I was no fan of Bill Clinton, whom I felt did too much to appease the extreme right wing at our country's peril, but I was always impressed by Hillary.

She ran for Senate in New York at the end of her husband's term, and suddenly, everyone was calling her a "carpetbagger." I had to run and get my English-to-1930s-Slang dictionary (Roget's puts it out). But, as she campaigned, a funny thing happened. People liked her. She won the election, becoming the first woman senator from New York.

For me, the erosion of my support for Hillary was a slow process that began with this country's drastic shift to the right in the wake of 9/11. The events that unfolded after that pushed me to more progressive politics, and I saw Hillary as part of the wing of the Democratic Party that stood in the way of progressives like Howard Dean. To be clear, I didn't move left as much as the country moved right, and I ended up on the left. For a long time, I bought into a lot of the left's anti-Hillary rhetoric.

Hillary makes a strong argument that her ability to appease those elements, and to weather attacks from the extreme right, make her an effective agent to enact practical changes. There's validity to both arguments, really. For me this election is not about who I agree and disagree with, but rather with whom do I agree more? After last week's debate, the choice isn't so clear to me anymore, but it is also beginning to look as though both of these candidates will end up on the ticket, anyway.

Whomever you vote for today, just think about what you were doing in 1973, what your mom was doing, what your buddy's mom was doing. More to the point, what they were allowed to do. Hillary was graduating from Yale Law School. You can google a long list of her accomplishments, I won't waste time listing them, because they are tangential to the essence of my argument.

Hillary Clinton is a force of nature. When I saw her at the debate last week, it rekindled in me the admiration that I had felt for so long. I still have political and philosophical disagreements with her, although I do think she exposed a weakness in Obama's healthcare plan, and she may not get my vote, but I sure do think she's a great American. I don't see how you can deny that she would have been as successful, or more so, had she not been first lady. She has something innate that drives her to lead.

You can disagree with her politics, or with some of her campaign strategy, or her overarching philosophy, but if you want to talk about "fishwives" or cackling or crying, man, do I not want to hear it. History will record Hillary Clinton as a great American and a pioneer, and possibly the first woman president, or vice president. History will record those who smeared her with misogyny as clowns.
–END-

“DemWit” today: Congressional Quarterly’s Craig Crawford past midnight, Super Tuesday

Do a little digging ...

2008-02-05T05:46:00.000-05:00

The truth is out there!

This post addresses readers’ comments to yesterday’s post regarding Hillary Clinton’s 22-state town hall meeting last night:

FACT CHECK #1:

COMMENT:

“I will have to think about how to pose my question when Clinton has said garnishing wages is how health care will be paid for. I thought the healthcare industry was to undergo a change, not the people.”

FACTS:

Senator Clinton has no plans to garnish the wages of Americans. This remark was made by Senator Barack Obama in the most recent Democratic debate:

OBAMA: You can mandate it (health-care coverage), but there's still going to be people who can't afford it. And, if they cannot afford it, then the question is, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?

Senator Clinton then went into detail about how health-care coverage would be made affordable.

Later:

BLITZER: Senator Obama, let me just fine-tune the question, because I know you want to respond. On this issue of mandates, those who don't, whether it's 10 million or 15 million, those who could afford it but don't wind up buying health insurance for one reason or another, they wind up getting sick, they go to an emergency room, all of us wind up paying for their health care. That's the biggest criticism that's been leveled at your plan.

OBAMA: If people are gaming the system, there are ways we can address that. By, for example, making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten it in the first place.

BJ: So, is Obama suggesting retro-mandatory?

I have put the “health-care coverage” section of the debate transcript in “Expand Your Mind: The Reading Room” for anyone interested in what was said in context: LINK

UPDATES:

“On Healthcare, Primary Opponents Differ Less Than Parties Do,” U. S. News, 4 February 2008, LINK

“In Health Debate, Clinton Remains Vague on Penalties,” New York Times, 4 February 2008, LINK

FACT CHECK #2:

COMMENT:

“This one was filmed in my home town of Worcester, MA today!!! I wasn't able to make it to it but it was all over the local media over the weekend.”

FACTS:

“Hillary Clinton hosts a roundtable in New Haven, Connecticut, a rally in Worcester, Massachusetts, and a nationwide town hall from New York City.” Report, CNN, 4 February 2008: LINK

BJ: I believe the commenter honestly confused the rally with the live town hall meeting, but the comment left the impression that the Clinton camp had LIED about the broadcast being "live.” Clinton appeared at a rally at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. The “Voices Across America” town hall was broadcast live from New York City.

Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

2008-02-04T12:55:00.000-05:00

Come one, come all to the largest town hall meeting ever held.

“Voices Across America” will be broadcast live Monday night on Hallmark Channel starting at 9 EST. Or you can watch it live on HillaryClinton.com.

Via satellite, persons in 22 states – Americans like you and me – will ask Hillary Clinton questions about issues of concern.

Questions are also being taken via the Internet.

Let your voice be heard! Submit your question HERE.

Invite your friends and kinfolks to join in this unique event.

The 9/11 whodunit

2008-02-02T11:19:00.000-05:00

In Vincent Bugliosi’s (boo-lee-osi, please) book on Bush v. Gore, “The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President," the author talks about research for his book about the Kennedy assassination. When encountering conspiracy theorists, he asks two questions: “Do you believe the Warren Commission Report?” (resounding “no”) and “Have you read its 26 volumes?” (muffled “no”).

When I was approved to receive “Talking Books for the Visually Impaired,” the first book I ordered was “The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.”

I had seen Commssion hearings on TV and viewed several specials featuring Commission members. These persons, in my opinion, had a strong sense of mission.

The Report is an outstanding piece of work – the bringing together of reams of minutiae into a solid, highly readable volume.

The person responsible for the team which put the Report together was Executive Director Philip Zelikow.

Now comes what is being called “an explosive new book” which links Zelikow to the Bush White House. This was no secret and received much attention at the time the Commission was formed. To a person, Commission members had nothing but highest praise for Zelikow’s work.

Philip Shenon's new book, “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation” – due Feb 5 - will set conspiracy theorists afire.

The book alleges, among other things, that the executive director, who had worked with then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, had talked with Karl Rove on a regular basis.

As one Commission member put it on CNN this morning, “I hope he was talking with Karl Rove.”

I have a friend who is absolutely convinced the Bush administration planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11.

One thing about conspiracy theorists: they don’t want facts to get in their way.

I have asked this friend on three different occasions, “Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report?” To date, he has never answered the question.

As with the continuing theories surrounding JFK’s death, such cover-ups would have involved hundreds, even thousands of persons who have remained silent about their involvement.

Will I listen to this new book? Sure. You can bet your sweet patootie, the Interenet is abuzz over this new PROOF of a Bush cover-up. Before the first leaf of the new book is turned.

FYI:

Raw Story’s take on the new book: LINK

The 9/11 Commission Report: LINK

“Conspiracy plots and paranoia,” my post on how and why conspiracy theories evolve: LINK

Debate winner!

2008-02-01T09:32:00.000-05:00

The winner of the Democratic debate last night from Hollywood was the Democratic Party. The debate was substantive, civil and dignified.

For last night, at least, Barack and Hillary were a dream team.

By cmparison the Republican debate the night before was, well, scary. John McCain, the GOP frontrunner, attacked Mitt Romney on Iraq by making Romney’s case for him. Surreal.

Feeling great about my party and ready for Super Tuesday!

'Pushing my FEMA button'

2008-01-31T11:16:00.000-05:00

When something being said gets my dander up, I retort, “You’re pushing my FEMA button.” Most folks who know the backstory get the message.

When Hurricane Hugo did devastating damage in South Carolina, then Sen. Ernest “Fritz” Hollings was very angry over the government’s slow response to the needs of his state. A red-faced Hollings told a group of reporters asking about the problem, “You’re pushing my FEMA button!”

This item from the Progress Report, Center for American Progress (1/29/08), is just one more example among thousands of the dismal failure and deceit of this administration:

KATRINA - FEMA SILENCED CONCERNS OVER SAFETY RISKS OF TOXIC TRAILERS: Democratic leaders of the House Subcommittee on Science and Technology released a study Monday that found FEMA "ignored, hid and manipulated government research on the potential impact of long-term exposure to formaldehyde" on Katrina and Rita victims now living in FEMA trailers. "The lawmakers said the Center for Disease Control’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ignored one of its experts ... after he informed FEMA there was no 'safe level' of long-term exposure. They said FEMA bypassed that opinion and 'shopped' the agency for its desired recommendation to study only short-term exposure."

Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), co-chairman of the subcommittee, said, "Honest scientific studies don't start with the conclusion, and then work backwards from there." Last year, a report found that 94 percent of the emergency housing trailers contained "hazardous levels of formaldehyde."

In November, it was reported that FEMA was prohibiting its staff from entering the trailers, even as 500,000 families were still living in them. –END-

And, from the same report:

“Some 9/11 responders (who were exposed to toxins after the EPA rulled the area ‘safe’) were on-hand … to listen to Bush's State of the Union. ‘I'm fed up with how we're treated,’ said Queens paramedic Marvin Bethea. Ground Zero volunteer John Feal added, ‘You got $3 billion a month to kill people; you got $3 billion a year for health care.’ "

This from agencies whose job it is to protect Americans. Where is the accountability? Where the heck is my FEMA button?

POSTSCRIPT:

How green is your candidate? Al Gore’s “Live Earth” recommends this excellent chart on where the top presidential candidates stand on renewable energy sources, environmental issues and global warming: LINK

A billion here, a billion there

2008-01-30T12:43:00.000-05:00

A couple of days ago I wrote that the $700 billion allocated to date for the war in Iraq amounts to $400 million per day since the war began.

Pretty hard for me to grasp all those zeroes - $700 billion is a lot of money compared to, say, the $24.4 billion allocated to “No Child Left Behind” for the whole of FY2007.

I was STUNNED to hear yesterday morning that George W. Bush on Monday signed into law yet another $700 billion expenditure – a 3.5 percent pay raise for members of the U.S. military.

The bill, which cleared the U.S. Senate by a vote of 91-3 after the House passed it 369-46, makes the pay raise retroactive to January 1.

Talk about your economic stimulus package.

Lord knows, I’m all for U.S. troops with boots on the ground getting a pay raise, but with Bush threatening to rein in spending in his SOTU address Monday night and the U.S. economy in the tank, how can this nation continue such military spending?

Now, the White House is poised to ask Congress next week for another $70 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The very conservatives who are always yammering about Democratic proposals to help lower- and middle-class Americans and are demanding permanent tax cuts are the ones who continue to believe the war in Iraq was a great idea.

Something’s got to give. Hopefully, it will - come November.

Up close & personal

2008-01-29T14:48:00.000-05:00

Some observations from a South Carolina friend. Thank you, sir!

BJ,

Here's my quick take on the SC primary. Obama won, as I expected. His margin was a little surprising, though not much.

What has amazed me is how little the political commentators understand what happened or what the Clintons intended.

Why do they think Bill Clinton, Chelsea, et al, and Hillary herself spent so much time in South Carolina the past month? Bill Clinton knew that Hillary wasn't going to win South Carolina. Blacks, after a moment's hesitation, were going to vote for Obama regardless. Why, then, would they waste all that time and energy here?

It was a well-calculated strategic decision. After what happened in New Hampshire, Clinton (or the Clintons) guessed (rightly) that the Obama camp would fear the same sort of "comeback" here. They were right. Obama spent, what, 16 straight days "shoring up" his base in SC and spending capital needlessly on statewide ads, Bill and Chelsea "engaged the enemy" and took potshots at his campaign here, there, and everywhere across the state, while Hillary was off tending fences and bridges in the delegate-rich states, where the black vote won't count so much, preparing for the showdown on Feb. 5. She made it back to South Carolina just enough times to keep Obama's eyes off her real target -- the delegate counts around the corner. It was "Bill Clinton thinking" at its best, riskiest, and most ingenious. The Obama camp took the bait.

Sadly, it also involved having to "toss out there," plant the seed among the Democratic faithful, that while Obama is an extraordinarily articulate orator and a sharp thinker to boot, his very lack of experience and ideas battle-tested in the real world is just not going to allow him to be elected president this time around. When it gets down to it, America is not going to elect an untested, personable black man over what the Republicans will bring to the table. He'll be president some day, if he lives and keeps out of trouble, but I just don't think the stars are his this year.

Two personal observations:

I heard Obama at Clemson (University) Friday and was surprised at how devoid of details he seems to be on the stump. It may have been that he was just tired, but he sounded as if he were doing little more than sloganeering. He also seemed to be promising, primarily, to throw money at most problems facing the American people. On camera, close-up, giving a victory speech, nobody is better since JFK and RFK, but working a big crowd, he is, or was, something of a dud to my way of thinking.

I had the pleasure of a chance meeting with Hillary the day before, at the Anderson Civic Center, just after her hour-long presentation. She was animated, fresh, looked great, gave detail after detail without boring even for a second, is somewhat taller and thinner than I expected, is obviously a consummate pro on the stump. I was standing in line as she was walking by, shook her hand, and while doing so mentioned that Herb Jackson is a fraternity brother of mine (Herb married Laura Grosch, one of her college suitemates) and that Vince Foster and I roomed almost door-to-door at Davidson a couple of years. It probably gave her a minute of respite. She asked for my name, said that she had just gotten a card from Laura and that "Can you believe it, Herb's now a grandfather," and mentioned that "You know, Vince was one of my very dearest friends" before passing on by. I hadn't met her before, but she was charismatic and down-to-earth, "reachable," all at the same time. I was frankly surprised at my reaction to her because two months ago I was saying that I just don't think she's electable -- Americans are tired of dynastic voting and dynastic presidencies.

The Democratic nomination process is a Preakness, not a Kentucky Derby. I just don't see Obama having the legs this time. I think it will be a close race, with Edwards causing some oddities early on, but eventually either endorsing Obama or else holding onto his delegates in an attempt to get something from the eventual nominee -- attorney general, Supreme Court, something.

I think Hillary wins it. Just has too many chits to cash in. I don't think the Kennedy endorsements do much. They're still just sore Bill Clinton stole their throne. Hillary is going to lose some of the black vote, maybe a lot of it in that they may decide to stay home, but I think she'll make up for that with Latinos. She'll probably name (Gov. Bill) Richardson her VP if his dirty laundry stays in the basket. If you don't think the Republicans are scared silly about Hillary, tune in to Limbaugh and Hannity and listen to how they're pumping up Obama.

I think McCain will win, but not by much over Romney, and will then name (Sen. Lindsey O.) Graham his VP. Fred Thompson may be a better choice, but he may have blown it by his take it or leave it attitude. Barring something totally unforeseen happening, I think Clinton/Richardson beats McCain/Graham in a closer race than would be expected -- but, then, what do I know?

Didn't mean to go on so. Politics doesn't ordinarily interest me so, but this is an unusual year.

Take care.

Winnie S.

'The medium is the message'

2008-01-28T15:45:00.000-05:00

Fact: Former President Bill Clinton is being marginalized, not by himself, not by the right wing, but by the media. Obama supporters are cheering, and the GOP is having the last laugh.

Fact: In a thousand subtle and not-so-subtle ways, the media have interjected race into the presidential campaign, very conventiently in the run-up to the South Carolina primary.

Fact: The media are skillful at “creating reality” and making big bucks from conflict.

Fact: As primary day dawned here in South Carolina, a special edition of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” broadcast live from Columbia and asserted 1) Bill Clinton introduced the “issue of race” into the Democratic campaign, 2) Bill Clinton is racist, and 3) any white South Carolinian voting for Hillary Clinton is racist.

You didn’t hear the broadcast? There is documentation across the Web of what went down.

This post is not about the South Carolina primary. This post is about media integrity or, more accuately, the lack thereof.

Finally, in Joe Scarborough’s unrelenting attack on the Clintons (which to his credit MSNBC’s David Shuster tried to tamp down), in the worst display of media bias I believe I’ve ever witnessed, the Congressional Quarterly’s Craig Crawford gained the microphone:

“You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month, and I have watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness.

“I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney, he ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, ‘Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?’ you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons.

“I mean, I think if somebody came out today and said that Bill Clinton -- if the town drunk in Columbia came out and said, ‘Bill Clinton last night was poisoning the drinking water in Obama precincts,’ the media would say, ‘Ah, there goes Clinton again. You can't trust him.’

“I really think it's a problem. You know what? You guys make him stronger with this bashing. This actually is what makes the Clintons stronger.”

That and their record on civil rights and human rights. That cannot be denied.

What is being made weaker is the democratic process. When cable news spins, distorts and lies to promote one candidate over another – because conflict sells and fattens its own coffers – it is the people who lose, not the candidates.

***

Here’s what Mr. Crawford concluded on his blog, “Trail Mix” (LINK) Sunday:

How the Media Destroys Obama
By Craig Crawford January 27, 2008 1:00 PM

Talk about killing with kindness. Supporters of Barack Obama should be wary of the news media’s feverish gushing for the Democratic White House hopeful.

For starters, it was media romanticism – not Hillary Rodham Clinton’s hardball campaigning – that made Obama the “black candidate.” This happens, albeit unwittingly, every time a journalist waxes poetic about the historic step forward of seeing an African-American in a viable run for the presidency. (And yet, when Bill Clinton talks about Obama’s appeal to black voters, it is decried as "injecting race.")

Obama also runs the risk of a backlash against the media being seen as force feeding him to Democratic primary voters.

In South Carolina, the anti-Clinton media frenzy might have suppressed Obama’s white vote as much as any other possible cause – although many appeared to move toward John Edwards instead of Clinton. A similar backlash against media overkill probably contributed to Obama’s last-minute loss to Clinton in New Hampshire.

The Washington press club’s love affair with Obama allows many of a certain generation to indulge the fantasy of returning to their youth as starry-eyed believers in John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy. Hence, the voluble response to Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement in today’s New York Times (1/27/08) and the trembling expectations of a similar move by Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Still, Obama could be excused for welcoming media groupthink that has gone stark raving mad for his candidacy. But in the long run, he might be well advised to dismiss the hype and build a relationship with voters that remains independent of what fickle journalists say. –End-

'Paper of record' picks Hillary

2008-01-25T11:02:00.000-05:00

The New York Times examines the strengths and weaknesses of the three top Democratic candidates and endorses Hillary Clinton in its “Primary Choices:”

The New York Times, 1/25/08

Editorial

Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton

This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.

The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.

As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’ editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.

We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’ fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image. On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.

The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave.

On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the same course — shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans, and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind education program.

Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and what must now be done to set things right.

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America’s voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won’t be able to do it town by town.

When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.

(See ‘Fair Use Notice’ in left-hand column of blog.)

'Suffer the little children ...'

2008-01-24T11:45:00.002-05:00

I cannot make it work in my head that the same people who bought George W. Bush’s (what?) 17th or so reason for invading Iraq – to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people – are buying into the Internet-generated LIE that Barack Obama is a “Muslim who will destroy America.”

Are these people so ignorant that they believe ALL Muslims are determined to destroy America, while supporting the sacrifices we’ve made on their behalf in Iraq? Seems so.

(For the record, Barack Obama is Christian, having accepted Christ and joined the United Church of Christ in Chicago in 1985.)

Here’s another “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma:” the same people who support the drainhole of Bush’s misbegotten war in Iraq – sucking up nearly a trillion from our treasury and barrels of American blood – cannot bring themselves to support an expansion of S-CHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Yesterday, in a vote of 260 to 152, the House failed to override Bush’s veto of that bill, which blocked 4 million children from the coverage. Supporters were 15 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed.

The New York Times reported: “The bill would add $35 billion to the child health program, providing a total of $60 billion over the next five years. The money would allow states to cover nearly 4 million children, in addition to the 6 million already on the rolls. The program helps families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance.”

To date, 3,931 U.S. troops have died in Iraq, and $700 billion has been allocated to the war. If that’s too big a figure to wrap your mind around, that amounts to, according to my computer calculator, $396,787,907 per day since the war began.

Bush balked at the high cost of the S-CHIP expansion? It’s time to rethink our priorities.

Republicans, according to the Times, said the vote to override Bush’s S-CHIP veto was “a political stunt, intended to embarrass Mr. Bush before his State of the Union address next week.”

God forbid that Mr. Bush could be any more embarrassed than he would be IF he tells us the true state of the union.

Next post: ‘A hobbit speaks’

2008-01-24T11:45:00.001-05:00

A hobbit speaks

2008-01-24T11:34:00.000-05:00

In the Fellowship of the Ring, my friend, the hobbit Frodo, stands above the pack.

A masterful wordsmith, who writes from his heart, Mr. Frodo has penned some thoughts about former President Bill Clinton. Worth reading!

“Frodo, Keeper of the Ring”

Dum, de dum dum, driftwood!

2008-01-23T11:00:00.000-05:00

Just how damn crazy can the far right get?

According to newshounds.org, a guest on Fox News’ “Your World with Neil Cavuto” yesterday (1/22/2008) believes John Edwards, who commented in the S.C. debate that McCain would likely be the GOP nominee, and the liberal mainstream media are in cahoots to promote the “libertal John McCain.”

Huh?

“John McCain's candidacy isn't sitting well with the economic fascists who are sweating bullets over the November election,” newhounds’ Melanie reports. “They want big(ger) tax cuts for the rich and corporations, and apparently McCain isn't ruthless enough for them on that score. They're freaked that McCain is picking up momentum (and Rudy Giuliani, their fave, isn't). So, with Neil Cavuto's help, they're trying to bring McCain down.”

“So, you think something sinister is afoot?” Cavuto asked his guest Ben Shapiro, characterized by newshounds as a “23-year-old fledgling neocon.”

“Ah, well, yeah,” Shapiro said, “I think it's rather suspicious when John Edwards, the left-most candidate of the Democratic Party, and the mainstream media team up to ANOINT any Republican. You see the same thing with Mike Huckabee to a certain extent. They like economic populists ... and they're willing to ALLOW these people to win.”

Shapiro went on to claim McCain’s stance on issues is Obama- and Clinton-lite. He suggested McCain’s age and poor performance in a one-on-one campaign with either senator would keep Republicans away from the polls – and further stated Giuliani is the only candidate who can beat either.

The newshounds.org report concludes:

“Once again, Fox airs a segment based on its own propaganda and on its viewers knowing nothing more than what it feeds them. You can't take this seriously unless you believe, (l) That the mainstream media is so liberal it stands at the ready to 'rip apart' Republicans; (2) That John Edwards is the 'left-most' Democratic candidate; (3) That the 'liberal' MSM is so anti-Republican that it would actually
'team up' with John Edwards, a candidate it has, in reality, shunned; (4) That McCain is so liberal that only the likes of Edwards and the MSM would 'anoint' (as in endorse) him, whereas Willard 'Mitt' Romney did essentially the same thing. and (5), that Giuliani is so popular he's the 'only one' who can stop McCain.”

Postscript:

When I was in college, at age 38, the younger students would often comment on a really stupid remark by saying, “Dum de dum dum, driftwood!”

“DemWit” today: Tom Brokaw gets it

Eye on Wall Street

2008-01-22T10:59:00.000-05:00

From Papamoka’s Straight Talk (LINK), 21 January 2008:

Moments of Clarity and Clinton

While on a recent road trip Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy, and now is the time to talk about the economy and how we all got into this horrible mess. The near future is not as positive as some people would like to think and a clear path through it is needed. With the latest reports coming in from all of the world stock exchanges, the “Maybe Recession” is a worldwide concern when you are talking about the United States of America. World economics is the key to saving not only our own economy, but the world’s.

One of the key factors to the U.S. economy is the middle class and the sheer numbers of them with disposable income. The facts are simple, and the middle class in America has been downsized and locked out of the “Bush” economy from benefits to salary increases. In that same time period, the cost of living in America has gone through the roof. One large contributor to that lockout was the executive release of responsibility in corporate America. In the world of business it should be called a signing statement, similar to the thoughts of our current president and the Constitution - downsizing and outsourcing of entire manufacturing plants out of the country, not to be competitive but to ensure the yearly top executives bonuses are protected and, of course, adjusted for inflation.

In some circles it could be argued that NAFTA and every other acronym for free trade helped to boost the economy in America, but they never really stipulated if it was South America or north of the border of America? In reality, free trade literally meant a migration of American middle-class jobs out of America, and that is yet just one more source of the downfall of our economy. When our government supports the rights of other nations’ citizens for good jobs at good wages, you better look at your last days of employment because that is the first tax break for corporate America to send your job over the border. Key phrases for shutting a factory or manufacturing plant here in the States is “Stock Holder Value.” Largest benefactors to stock holder value are CEOs and top executives with stock options.

Senator Clinton in her race for the White House spoke about where she thinks we as a nation need to be, and it is hard to argue with her thoughts when you look at the numbers realistically. Over at the New York Times they have this interview with Senator Clinton:

Todd Heisler/The New York Times

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration.

In one of her most extensive interviews about how she would approach the economy, Mrs. Clinton laid out a view of economic policy that differed in some ways from that of her husband, Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton campaigned on his centrist views, and as president, he championed deficit reduction and trade agreements.

Reflecting what her aides said were very different conditions today, Mrs. Clinton put her emphasis on issues like inequality and the role of institutions like government, rather than market forces, in addressing them.

She said that economic excesses — including executive-pay packages she characterized as often “offensive” and “wrong” and a tax code that had become “so far out of whack” in favoring the wealthy — were holding down middle-class living standards.

Interviewed between campaign appearances in Los Angeles on Thursday, she said those problems were also keeping the United States economy from growing as quickly as it could.

“If you go back and look at our history, we were most successful when we had that balance between an effective, vigorous government and a dynamic, appropriately regulated market,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And we have systematically diminished the role and the responsibility of our government, and we have watched our market become imbalanced.”

She added: “I want to get back to the appropriate balance of power between government and the market.” - New York Times

Senator Clinton is obviously correct in stating that the markets from housing to Wall Street’s power brokers are out of control and need government oversight more now than ever. If our nation is to survive the current recession then restraints and intervention need to come from our government. If not, then the Robber Barons of days long gone will run the economy and the nation into the ground and ride out the destruction on the billions earned prior. And you can bet your last Rockefeller shiny new dime that they will pull their investments out of the stock market long before it crashes and outsource them to safer shores.

Salaries of record for one year to think about from Too Much (LINK):

$118.9 million for Leslie Blodgett, CEO of Bare Escentuals, who cashed out over 5 million option shares in her cosmetics company for a $117.6 million personal profit.

$415.5 million for Occidental Petroleum CEO Ray Irani. To reach this total, the Times added to Irani's $52.1 million in pay, as calculated by Equilar, the $270.1 million Irani cleared from cashing out stock options and the $93.3 million he withdrew from his deferred stock plan. Irani still holds another $124 million in deferred pay.

$647 million for Apple CEO Steve Jobs

$127 million for UnitedHealth CEO William McGuire

$32.6 million for Todd Nelson, CEO of the Apollo Group, a profit-making collection of higher education institutions

$131 million for Robert Nardelli, the Home Depot CEO forced out in January

$97 million for Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis

$1.5 billion for James Simons, Renaissance Technologies

$39.1 million for Ford CEO Alan Mulally, a sum that includes an $18.5-million bonus for leaving Boeing to join Ford. Ford had six executives in the industry's top 15, despite record 2006 losses of $12.6 billion. – Too Much

Some people would say that each one of these people earned their pay and in some cases I might not argue with you. In most cases, though, it is a race to the top of the heap, and they never look back at all the folks they stepped on to get those annual salaries and mega stock options. That is not part of the horizon they are looking at when they cash out, sell out or move on to another corporate position to repeat the process all over again. Once there, they never forget the politics that kept them there, either, with donations that max out. Atilla the Hun would have been very comfortable in corporate America, but he would have owned it all.

Hillary Clinton is talking the talk, and I would not be surprised if she became president that she would look at corporate politics with an evil eye, but she will not hesitate to cash those campaign checks coming in till that day comes. She isn’t alone in the cashing of those checks, and that, my friends, scares me.

If you’re interested in seeing who is giving political donations to whom and how much, then I highly recommend NewsMeat.com. It’s a great search engine for political thoughts and for seeing who is maxing out to their favorite candidates.

Papamoka

365 days to go!

2008-01-21T00:13:00.000-05:00

One more year! One more year! (Cheering and applause.)

Care to comment on Dubya's "legacy?"

The Countdown Clock

McCain no shoo-in

2008-01-20T11:47:00.000-05:00

John McCain’s Scouth Carolina win can hardly be called a “clincher.” Mike Huckabee, who lost by only three percentage points, was hurt by “a perfect storm:” a very low voter turnout where 58 percent of registered voters identify themselves as “evangelicals,” a prediction of snow in the Upstate where his evangelical support was strongest, and Fred Thompson’s dip into the Religious Right vote.

Thompson’s strong anti-abortion stance coupled with Huckabee being labeled (amazingly) “the liberal Republican” were factos in McCain’s narrow lead.

McCain had the “establishment” vote: endorsements from the state’s leading politicians and newspapers and heavy support from South Carolina’s military installations.

The top three GOP candidates poured money into the state, and the fact they are strapped for funds is an indication of overall party disillusionment not only with its field of hopefuls, but its trend away from "true conservatism."

South Carolina GOP primary

2008-01-18T11:03:00.000-05:00

This state is proud of its heritage as one of the 13 original colonies and of its role in every war since. Its people are an intriguing mixture: from Upstate mill workers to military installation personnel, from Low Country aristocracy to Gullah-speaking basketweavers.

Tomorrow Republicans in the state will cast their primary votes, followed by the Democratic Primary on Saturday, 26 January.

In my opinion, these two primaries will be a watershed in the 2008 presidential campaign as they will reflect the mood of the South – the so-called “Bible Belt.”

Today, I’ll offer thoughts on the top three GOP contenders and will comment on Democratic hopefuls next Friday.

John McCain has received endorsements from some of the state’s leading newspapers. After a quarter-century on Capitol Hill, McCain, I believe, is being viewed as “Mr. Grand Old Party.” In a state which has long revered the military, he has deep respect for his sacrifices as a POW in Vietnam. Some South Carolinians might desire to make amends for what happened to McCain here in 2000, when, it is generally accepted, personal attacks by the Bush camp derailed his candidacy. Despite endorsements by some of the state’s leading Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, in the end McCain’s age, his maverick positions on hot-button issues such as immigration reform and his hawkish stance on Iraq might be factors of defeat. Certainly, anyone who viewed his New Hampshire acceptance speech would question his stamina for a possible eight-year presidency. McCain portrays himself as “Mr. Nice Guy.” He wants to be viewed as “Everyman.” So, why don’t I trust him? I believe he will be the S.C. runner-up.

Mitt Romeny will be the primary’s also-ran. I’m convinced any attempted man-on-the-street interview of many South Carolinians would yield the question, “Who?” Of course, primary voters are more dedicated to the process and more savvy, which is precisely why they might reject Romney.

I predict Mike Huckabee will carry this state, where there are more Southern Baptists, evangelicals and fundamentalists than palmetto trees. These are the people who voted for George W. Bush, because “he’s a good Christian man,” and their strength in numbers cannot be discounted. Never underestimate the church-driven mobilization of citizens with a cause – it worked during the civil rights movement, and it worked in 2004. Lest you forget, in 2004, with our troops at war on two fronts, exit polls showed the issue of most concern to voters was “moral values.”

Sure, there’s the “economy, stupid.” There’s war and homeland security. These and all other issues important to Americans might be trumped by people hell-bent to take this country back for God.

Stay tuned …

"DemWit" today: Chris Matthews apologizes for sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton

'A prince and a great man'

2008-01-17T12:05:00.000-05:00

On this date in 1905 a man was born who remains very much in my thoughts today.

One of 13 children, he was introduced to hard work at an early age. As a young adult he married and began a family, rearing his children on a farm.

His skills with car repair led him to manage a tire and battery shop.

In mid-life he lost his eyesight and spent the next 28 years until he retired standing in one spot and making brooms at an industries for the blind. When he made a dozen brooms, they were exchanged for a token, and at the end of the day he traded in his pocketful of tokens for his pay. This arduous task of providing for his family showed great strength of character.

This man who was never handicapped devoted his life to his church as a deacon and taught an adult men’s Sunday School class for 25 years.

The center of his life was his family: his children, grandchildren and generations of babies which came along. He entertained them with lengthy poems learned in the schoolrooms of his youth.

I never knew a wiser man.

He gave me life twice, the second time saving me from drowning when I was nine.

When he died in 1986, the pastor quoted the scripture, “A prince and a great man has fallen this day.”

Isaac Lafayette Turner, Sr. To me, he was just “Daddy.”

The Dickens eagle

2008-01-16T00:33:00.000-05:00

Last night’s Democratic debate from Las Vegas left me not just with excitement about my party, but with pride in my country which I’ve not felt throughout the Bush administration.

I owe it to my readers, I thought, to put my feelings into words. To convey emotions is the greatest challenge for a writer, so I thought it best to get a good night’s sleep and compose this important post over morning coffee.

To quell the thrill, to bring the calm that induces sleep, I listened to my book on tape. And, there it was, the promise of the debate, put in simplest terms by one of the world’s most gifted wordsmiths:

In Charles Dickens’ “The Life and Adventures of Martin Chuzzlewit,” the title character and his servant, the ever-jolly Mark Tapley, had suffered grave illness, a bad land deal and a host of unsavory citizens in America and had just boarded ship to return home to England.

“What are you thinking of so steadily,” Martin asked Mark.

“Well, I was a-thinking, Sir,” returned Mark, “that if I was a painter and was called upon to paint the American eagle, how should I do it?”

“Paint it as like an eagle as you could, I suppose.”

“No,” said Mark, “that wouldn’t do it for me, Sir. I should want to draw it like a bat for its shortsightedness, like a bantam for its bragging, like a magpie for its honesty, like a peacock for its vanity, like an ostrich for its putting its head in the mud and thinking nobody sees it.”

“And like a phoenix, for its power of springing from the ashes of its faults and vices and soaring up anew into the sky,” said Martin. “Well, Mark, let us hope so.”

'Stop all the clocks'

2008-01-14T01:14:00.000-05:00

When it comes to fighting media madness, I sometimes feel as W.H. Auden and really do want to “stop all the clocks.”

But, there is truth to be told.

The attempts to portray Bill and Hillary Clinton as “racist” with no respect for the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other civil rights leaders would be funny, if they weren’t so demonstrably false.

The Clintons’ record on civil rights and human rights speaks for itself.

I will let this segment from yesterday’s edition of CNN’s “Reliable Sources” (LINK) speak for itself (the subtitles are mine):

WHAT BILL CLINTON SAID

HOWARD KURTZ, Host: Bill Clinton has had a testy relationship with the media ever since his first run for president, when stories about Gennifer Flowers, the draft, pot smoking and Whitewater nearly derailed his campaign. To this day, he is steamed about the way the press covered the Ken Starr investigation that wound up probing his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

It was against that backdrop that the former president, who is, after all, trying to get his wife elected to his old job, chided the press this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, well, how could you say that when you said in 2004, you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRESS COVERAGE OF OBAMA’S RECORD ON IRAQ:

KURTZ: So, does Clinton have a point about the Obama coverage?

Joining us now to talk about the media and the campaign, and pundits behaving badly, in Springfield, Massachusetts, Rachel Maddow, who hosts "The Rachel Maddow Show" on Air America Radio. And in Seattle, Michael Medved, host of "The Michael Medved Show" on the Salem Radio Network.

Michael Medved, what about Bill Clinton's point that the press hasn't really scrutinized Obama's record on Iraq or, some would say, on much of anything else?

MICHAEL MEDVED, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, I think that's probably a valid point, because Obama has been such an "exotic new face," fresh. And I remember when Joe Biden said that he was clean and articulate. People don't really know what to make of him entirely, and then there was that whole rock star factor that you were talking about before.

But frankly, I truly don't know if the Clinton campaign should welcome the idea of going back and looking at people's positions on the war in the past, because however ambiguous Obama's position has been -- and it has been -- it was not in favor of the war as Hillary Clinton's was. So, if you're going to argue about who was against the war first and how much were they against the war, this is something that actually hurts Democrats, both Obama and Clinton.

KURTZ: Just to provide some context, Rachel Maddow, the former president referring to two interviews that Obama gave in 2004. One, he told The New York Times he didn't think the case for war had been made, but he didn't know how he would have voted had he had access to classified information at the time, because he was not in the United States Senate. And one with the Chicago Tribune, in which he said there wasn't much difference between his position and George Bush's position on the war.

Now, the press has covered this a bit, but, you know, about 1,000th of the attention devoted to Hillary Clinton choking up.

RACHEL MADDOW, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: It's true, they haven't covered this as much. But also consider the context that I think Barack Obama's appeal, certainly his bipartisan appeal, his sort of general election appeal that he's been making, is not necessarily fundamentally about his record.

I mean, he hasn't been in public office that long. He's not necessarily running on his record.

He's running on -- trying to make the case that he represents a clean break from the politics of the past. That's the contrast that he's tried to set up in terms of his campaign, that he's not Hillary Clinton, that he doesn't represent the past, he doesn't represent the battles of the '90s. And so, because he hasn't necessarily been running so much on his record, I think that in part explains why that hasn't been the grounds on which he's been covered.

TIM RUSSERT, SPINMEISTER

KURTZ: Now, Hillary Clinton was asked about her husband's comments this morning on "Meet the Press," and Tim Russert played just the last part of the tape that I just played for you, the part where Bill Clinton talks about the whole thing being a fairy tale, but not the previous part in which he made clear that he's talking about Barack Obama's record of statements or history of statements on the war.

Let's take a look at Senator Clinton's reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And let me just stop you right there.

TIM RUSSERT, HOST, "MEET THE PRESS": But let me ...

H. CLINTON: You did not. No, wait a minute.

RUSSERT: No, I didn't stop you.

H. CLINTON: No, but you did not give the entire quote, and so ...

RUSSERT: No, but you ...

H. CLINTON: And so the entire quote was clearly about the position on Iraq.

RUSSERT: But I'm ...

H. CLINTON: It was not about the entire (Obama) candidacy. Tim, I can't let you get away with that mischaracterization and those snippets.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Michael Medved, what do you make of that exchange?

MEDVED: Terrific. I mean, she's -- she's found her voice as a candidate. And I think that for her to call Tim Russert on that is appropriate and it's right, and it makes her look good and tough without looking unfeminine.

THE PRESS’ JOB

KURTZ: But I wonder, Rachel Maddow, whether Bill Clinton comes out and complains about the coverage, whether he and his wife's campaign are really asking the press to do its dirty work for them. In other words, until now, I haven't heard Hillary Clinton say -- she's been doing it in recent days, talking about Obama's allegedly -- history of allegedly conflicting statements on Iraq.

So is it the press's job to make that argument?

MADDOW: Well, she has been doing it a little bit. One of the things that I've heard -- one of the arguments I've heard her make against Barack Obama is that he said that he would vote against funding the war, and then he voted for funding the war.

So she's been -- she's been advancing the story a little bit on her own. It's not just Bill Clinton.

(BJ Note: Maddow did not answer Kurtz’ question about the press’ “job.” For Kurtz to suggest that for the press to cover any candidate thoroughly is doing his or her opponent’s “dirty work’ is a slap in the face of good investigative journalism. Of course, whoever claimed cable news is “good investigative journalism?” Conversely, cable news seems to be doing the dirty work!)

OBAMA’S CAMELOT IMAGE

But I have to say, even though the context in which you played that clip makes it very clear that Bill Clinton's talking specifically about Obama on Iraq, and the coverage of that being a fairy tale, using that phrase "a fairy tale," I mean, that's a deliberate phrase. He's trying to puncture the sort of Camelot era that's been created in the coverage of Obama.

And I think that Obama has advanced himself. I mean, hearing him speak in New Hampshire before the primary, I very much felt like his speech and his case for himself was about the idea of what it would mean for America for him to be elected. I mean, he's advancing that himself, the rock star idea, the cult of personality idea, something that he's pushing himself because he knows it's resonating.

THE SOUNDBITE EFFECT

KURTZ: But some black leaders in South Carolina and elsewhere, Michael Medved, have taken offense at Bill Clinton's comments as if he was talking about Barack Obama's civil rights record or his whole candidacy. And it seems that's very different from what Clinton said and what the press reported that he said.

MEDVED: Well, yes, but there is that element. I mean, when you say "fairy tale," the question is, which fairy tale you have in mind. Rachel mentions Camelot. I think it's more Cinderella, which is the idea that the clock strikes midnight, which who knows which primary that's going to be in, and then all of a sudden the coach turns into a pumpkin and the footmen turn back into mice, and Barack Obama goes back to the -- God forbid -- the kitchen. And in that context, "fairy tale" is probably the kind of loaded language that Republicans in particular would get slammed on given the fact that Obama himself is what he calls a hope monger.

KURTZ (ending the segment): All right.

AT&T ripoff

2008-01-11T00:21:00.000-05:00

AT&T is busting my budget, affectionately known as “B. J.’s boojay.”

More than a few folks had related to me sudden problems with Internet connections, phone jacks and other equipment essential to communication.

Shortly after AT&T took over my Bell South account, I discovered people were trying to call, but my phones were not ringing. The AT&T service rep passed up two phone jacks in my apartment and made a beeline for the kitchen jack, which he diagnosed “corroded” – the first such problem I’d had in 22 years of service from said jack. That shiny metal rectangle now gracing my wall cost me $115.

Then, an AT&T rep sold me on the purchase of a plan offering 24/7, unlimited, state-to-state long-distance calls at a monthly fee I couldn’t refuse,

I happily gave up a Sprint toll-free number I’d had for 11 years.

Then, I got my bill. A red flag went up when my new balance was the highest I’d had in years. A closer examination revealed I was being charged more than the rep had indicated.

Then, of course, there were 15 – 15, count ‘em – appended taxes and fees itemized with indecipherable code names, acronyms and abbreviations – totaling more than the basic service charge.

I innocently believed a call to AT&T would take care of the overcharge on the long-distance plan, but the rep wouldn’t budge despite my protests that the plan had been misrepresented to me. So, I dropped the plan.

To my chagrin, the next month’s bill was even higher. That’s when I discovered long-distance calls were 35 cents a minute (compared with Sprint’s 10 cents). We haven’t seen those kind of per-minute charges in years.

Attempting to switch back to Sprint, I was told that company no longer offers long-distance plans for home telephones and is now concentrating on cell phones.

I need a cell phone like I need the shingles.

Throughout all these exchanges I was forced to listen to the “bundling” spiel – although I have long since figured out the least expensive way to go.

Now, thanks to one AT&T lie, I cannot make long-distance calls. Suddenly, I’ve been warped back to the days before the bust-up of the AT&T monopoly.

Naturally, this news item yesterday caught my ear:

“AT&T reported an increase in unpaid phone bills in the fourth quarter, another sign that consumers are stretched.”

Stretched? I’m hanging on for dear life!

Maybe AT&T customers have suddenly found themselves with bill increases they had not anticipated and are unable to pay.

Fortunately, I’ve managed to cover mine.

The Associated Press reports:

“Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the Bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time.” FULL STORY

The Bureau blames an “antiquated” system of keeping up with money dispensed to its 56 field offices – and an embezzling bookkeeper to boot.

My system of accounts receivable and accounts payable is slick.

***

Similar problems with AT&T? Leave a comment!

Matthews blames 'racists'

2008-01-09T09:43:00.000-05:00

An open letter to Steve Capus, president, NBC News (steve_capus@nbc.com):

1/9/2008

Dear Sir:

Incredulous that Chris Matthews would appear on "Morning Joe" (8:30 a.m. ET) and blame "racist voters" for both misleading polls and Hillary Clinton's victory last night.

In truth, Matthews and MSNBC have relentlessly leveled personal attacks on Senator Clinton with sexist remarks - right up until she was declared the winner in New Hampshirre.

In reality, this is more about Matthews and other MSNBC personalities than anything - a backlash to constant personal attacks on her, delivered during your extensive campaign coverage.

In a farcical turn, it was almost amusing to see MSNBC and NBC "stars" sit around last night trying to figure out "what happened," when they themselves were part of what happened!

How is it that Don Imus was fired for his remarks, and Matthews and other MSNBC and NBC employees are allowed to continue insulting your female viewers' intelligence?

There are moments, sir, when Mr. Matthews' sanity is suspect. The evidence is on tape. Note his comments to Keith Olbermann about what the Clintons would do last night before they went to bed.

Dan Abrams and Mika Brzezinski have raised legitimate questions about the effects of such coverage of Senator Clinton, so why isn't NBC management listening?

You are in a postion to take a good look at this situation and correct it. Ultimately, MSNBC and NBC are going to be held responsible for such sexist, inaccurate and irresponsible reporting as more light is shed on the N.H. election results.

Sincerely,

Ms. B, J. Trotter

NEXT POST: So, what happened in New Hampshire?

BACKLASH!

2008-01-09T00:47:00.000-05:00

From “Talking Points Memo” - commentary on political events from a politically left perspective - the Web site of Joshua Micah Marshall:

“I have always had somewhat lukewarm feelings about Hillary Clinton. It took me years to forgive her for her "baking cookies" comment. At the time I had just given birth to my first child and decided to leave my job as an attorney to stay home and take care of my baby. I have been on the fence throughout this campaign, liking John Edwards more than the others. The media coverage of Sen. Clinton has caused my blood to boil. I cannot bear to witness blatant misogyny. Gloria Steinem's article in the NYT this morning was so on the mark. If I lived in New Hampshire, I would have voted for Sen. Clinton today. I would not allow the talking heads to tell me who to vote for or declare this race over. And I certainly was not going to participate in the sexist BS that has been spewing out the mouths of the likes of Chris Matthews.”
- TPM READER, MS, Josh Marshall, talkingpointsmemo.com, 1/8/2008, 9:19 P.M.

***

EXPAND YOUR MIND: So, what worries Gloria Steinem?

***

POSTSCRIPT:

Primary coverage, 11:30 P.M. – “I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again.” – Chris Matthews, MSNBC

'Brave New World'

2008-01-08T06:08:00.000-05:00

A neighbor’s little girl charmed my former husband and me: at age six, she was smart, had a great personality and, as my son put it, was “cute as a speckled puppy.” I invested time in her potential. She drew the line at my sharing stories from my past or of historical value, stopping me short with “B. J., it’s the Nineties!”

***

Since I first became cognizant of the world around me, I’ve worked really hard all my life – all 65 years of it – investing in my own potential, achieving dreams along the way and constantly seeking knowledge and truth.

On Monday I found out I’m “so yesterday.”

In other words, experience counts for nothing and summa cum laude don’t mean sh*t!

I will say this, I have lived long enough to see everything achieved by women in 20th Century America reduced to a 21st- Century fascination with bimbos whose only endowments lie below the neck.

On Monday I also heard a report that “most women in this country don’t believe the presidency is a job for a woman.” Sadly, the report was talking about the United States of America.

My sincere thanks to Dan Abrams of MSNBC and Alan Colmes of Fox News for concluding last night that the media have “gone overboard” with personal attacks against Hillary Clinton.

As I’ve stated before, apparently racial slurs are verboten and sexist slurs are de rigueur.

When the Boston Herald headline proclaimed of Senator Clinton, “She’s so yesterday,” it could have, at various points in our history, substituted the masculine pronoun in describing quite a few who went on to become president – not to mention a few of the current crop of hopefuls.

Two books just might be prescient of things to come: Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” and “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood.

6:05 a.m. Joe Scarborough had been on the air five minutes when he characterized Hillary's emotional moment yesterday as having occurred when a woman asked her "how she was handling the stress of seeing her lead evaporate." That's not what the woman asked at all. She wanted to know how Hillary was handling the stress of campaigning. Just a brief example of distortion.

My feelings this morning?

“Oh, I belive in yesterday …” It’s a sure thing.

"DemWit" today: "Shallow facade of sincerity"

Dueling debates

2008-01-06T11:54:00.000-05:00

Some thoughts from my daily journal on last night’s debates from New Hampshire:

Talked with a friend Saturday who asked, “What’s the point of watching another debate? What could they possibly say that’s new?”

One good reason: so you will know the post-debate SPIN when you hear it. Unbelievable!

Well, I managed to watch both the Republican and Democratic debates in their entirety without falling asleep or the phone ringing! I thoroughly enjoyed the format, thought all the candidates got to say so much more than in a rigidly timed debate.

The GOP candidates really went after each other with Gov. Romney bearing the brunt of the blitz. I thought McCain was like a devious little brat going after Romney with his one-line zingers. Silly. But, Romney did DISH IT OUT with attack ads in Iowa, yet moaned about the "personal attacks" during the debate. Paybacks are hell. Even Huckabee zinged him right off the bat.

Giuliani didn’t know which to bring up more often: 9/11 or Ronald Reagan, his “hero.”

I couldn't see any of the candidates in either party, but I've heard discussions this morning about how tired they all looked (with the exception of John Edwards, who reportedly got in a run just before the debate). I cannot imagine how exhausted they all are!

OK, now to the Dems. being as objective as I can be, They got into a round of verbal fisticuffs, too, but they were egged on by Charlie Gibson’s invitation to Obama and Clinton to go one-on-one over “change.”

Obama seemed tired, and his responses were flat at times. Richardson pointed out to Edwards that we need to be trying to pull together not fight everyone in sight. Hillary needs to cut the phrase “you know” from her vocabulary.

IMHO, the cutest line of the night was Hillary’s “That hurts my feelings.” One post-debate pundit said her remark drew a broad smile from her daughter Chelsea in the audience.

The “soundbite” of the entire evening will be “Hillary’s anger.” Well, hell hath no fury like a woman waylaid over her political experience.

I’m still uncertain what to do in the event of incoming nukes, though. Get under my computer desk, I guess, and “duck and cover.” As far as targets go, for my money the most important site in this area is Skin’s Hot Dogs.

Heard Charlie Gibson this morning. He loved the photo op between debates when the hopefuls from both parties came onstage and greeted each other. That I would have loved seeing.

Overall, I thought the debates were good and came away even more convinced that the Republicans in this race are elitist, holier-than-thou, hatemongering, warmongering fools who have no idea that poverty exists.

Maybe the most thought-provoking statement of the night came from Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM):

“But you know, what ever happened to experience? Is experience kind of a leper?” (Audience laughter.)

***

In my opinion, these two debates were the best so far, allowing candidates time to elaborate on their issues and their differences. If you missed the debates last night …

As the children’s song goes, “Little Rabbit Foo Foo … I’ll give you three chances, then I’m going to turn you into a GOON!”

CNN will air a replay of both debates tonight at 7 ET.

Expand your mind: Republican debate transcript

Expand your mind: Democratic debate transcript

The audacity of hoke

2008-01-04T05:35:00.000-05:00

Alternate title: “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”

THE GOOD

It was, indeed, “a great night for Democrats:” a record turnout in Iowa!

Perhaps the overriding result of the Iowa caucus is the indication that in Election 2008 Iowa might move from red state to blue state.

My personal conviction is that the potential for quality leadership among the Democratic hopefuls far outweighs that of the GOP slate.

THE BAD

The Iowa caucus is a media event – particularly in years when no incumbent is seeking the presidency. Historian and journalist Bob Woodward, in a post-caucus interview, called the caucus “a snapshot.” A wise hobbit I know correctly calls it “the results of the deliberations by one-sixth of one percent of the American electrorate.”

Only two candidates, excluding incumbents, have won the Iowa caucuses and gone on to win the presidency – Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. In recent years, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton did not win in Iowa.

Ultimately, what we saw last night is not a viable indicator of things to come, so let’s not confuse our “audacity of hope” with the “audacity of hoke.”

Finally, as a result of what happened in Iowa, two good men, longtime public servants with hard-hitting convictions, have dropped out of the race – senators Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd.

THE UGLY

Whether the wins of Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee represent a groundswell of populism or merely the result of media manipulation remains to be seen.

My faithful readers know I support Hillary Rodham Clinton. I will fully and happily support the Democratic hopeful who ultimately tops the ticket.

Regardless, I hope another result of the Iowa caucus is a clarion call for public discourse on journalism ethics (that’s not an oxymoron).

Since Election 2006, MSNBC, which I have watched regularly for years, has leveled personal attacks against Hillary Clinton with dogged determination. From her “clap” to her “cackle” to Chris Mathews’ “Evita and the little people” rant (VIEW VIDEO), MSNBC’s “swift-boating” has been transparent.

Even as the polls opened last night Matthews and Tim Russert were characterizing her supporters as “90-year-old women.” If constant references that she cannot do the job without Bill’s help aren’t sexist, I don’t know what is.

Media Matter for America has documented 455 instances where MSNBC has distorted facts or outright lied about Hillary Clinton. Don’t take my word for it, take a minute to go HERE and scan down the headlines.

If this is OK with you because it might have helped your candidate win, then you are no better than the folks who found the Supreme Court’s decision in “Bush v. Gore” OK because their guy was declared the winner.

If it’s OK with the candidates, take another look at the candidates.

Now, read this part carefully and don’t misconstrue my words: apparentently its safer today to use gender slurs than to utter racial slurs. In my opinion, one is as bad as the other. As sexist remarks go, Don Imus can't hold a candle to Chris Matthews or other stars of the very network which fired him.

In 21st Century America one would hope neither race nor gender would determine support. The unknown in this election is what voters will do within the secrecy of the voting booth.

In the months ahead, we really don’t know where the road to the White House will wind.

I do know this for certain: if we wake up on the morning of 5 November 2008 with a Republican from this field of hopefuls headed for the White House, the path our nation will take might be uglier than can be imagined.

That’s how important your vote is. Sadly, although touted as the highest turnout since 1968, only 60.7 percent of voting-age Americans cast a ballot in the 2004 general election.

THE AUDACITY OF HOPE

That the remaining 39 percent – more than one-third of voting-age Americans – will step up and be counted in shaping America’s future.

The privilege is ours

2008-01-03T04:06:00.000-05:00

I am deeply saddened to hear that Congressman Tom Lantos (D-California) has been diagnosed with cancer of the esophagus and will not seek re-election.

Lantos, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is singularly the greatest orator on Capitol Hill – the combination of a beautiful accent and sound reason is a gift.

In a statement released yesterday, Lantos said:

“It is only in the United States that a penniless survivor of the Holocaust and a fighter in the anti-Nazi underground could have received an education, raised a family, and had the privilege of serving the last three decades of his life as a Member of Congress. I will never be able to express fully my profoundly felt gratitude to this great country.”

The feeling is mutual, Sir.

Here’s what I wrote about Lantos almost a year ago:

2/19/2007

'Blood and treasure'

During the last week many words about the war in Iraq – pro and con – have been spoken in the chambers of the U. S. Capitol.

In my opinion, none were as reasonable or as eloquently spoken as the five-minute speech given by Congressman Tom Lantos (D-California).

Lantos is chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and one of three authors of the House non-binding resolution on troop escalation in Iraq.

He rose on the House floor, his crown of white hair catching the light and, in his beautifully lilting accent, spoke truth about the war – the cost in “blood and treasure” – which no one could deny.

You can read Lantos’ speech on his official Web site: LINK

***

Despite claims the troop escalation, or “surge,” is working, Lantos was right about the blood and the treasure. We have no way of knowing how much more will be sacrificed.

Touch and go

2008-01-02T05:06:00.000-05:00

Alternate title: “Déjà vu all over again.”

This holiday season saw a couple of my traditions bite the dust. Couldn’t see the ball drop in Times Square, only to find out later it was the 100th anniversary of the event. Bummer. On New Year’s Day I opted to give up on the Tournament of Roses parade – decidedly not a listening event!

Serendipity! A channel change led me to CNN’s all-day “Ballot Bowl,” a chance to get to know all the candidates – live from Iowa and New Hampshire eateries and living rooms, one-on-one and up close and personal. Kudos to CNN for the outstanding coverage.

I came away with a firm conviction that the more I hear from Gov. Mike Huckabee the scarier he gets. Make certain you know exactly where this guy aims to take our country before you are charmed by his folksy, faith-based manner.

Now, to the subject of this post:

Because the TV was on CNN I caught a couple of hours of “The Situation Room” with Wolf Blitzer (TRANSCRIPT), staying with him because he repeatedly teased a story which holds my interest.

A few months back I posed a question in this blog’s left-hand column: “What issue comes up about a week before elections, then dies away immediately thereafter?”

The issue is one which trumps every other issue brought up by any candidate in this race. It has plagued me since Election 2000.

Electronic voting machines – can you trust your vote to count?

Blitzer reported, “As primaries draw near, some states are finding serious problems already with their electronic voting machines, and they're ready to give e-voting a grade of ‘F.’ "

Correspondent Carol Costello added, “You know, Wolf, you would think after all the problems we had with hanging chads in 2000 and voting machine malfunctions in 2004 and 2006, voting machines across the country would work by now. But, a few days before caucuses and primaries get under way, they're not.”

Colorado’s Secretary of State Mike Coffman, who says the machines can be shut down or corrupted with a simple magnet or even a Blackberry, said,”At the end of the day, what I think is most important is that the voters have confidence that this equipment is secure from being tampered with, and that their votes could be accurately counted.”

Well, duh.

Remember Ohio in 2004? Here’s what that state’s secretary of state, Jennifer Brunner, had to say about the machines: “They have done the job in the past with difficulty, and I could probably best analogize it to a vehicle with a bad axle, that at some point the wheels are going to fall off, and we're just going to be hopeful that in using them for one more election that we'll be able to get through.”

Just “one more election?” How about arguably the most important election in this country’s history?

OK, we’ve heard this crap for seven years now. What good does it do to give a lame, milguetoast report just days before votes are cast, then ignore the problem for another year?

Damn it! When is something going to be done about this – so that the next time you go into a voting booth and touch your favorite candidate’s name on the screen, you can know for certain who actually got your vote?

PEOPLE POWER: Contact your state election commission and your state legislator or assembleman and demand machines which yield a paper ballot as proof their innards aren’t rigged.

Top news of 2007

2007-12-31T06:35:00.000-05:00

I’ve always enjoyed year’s-end lists. Here are the top 10 news stories of 2007 as voted by members of The Associated Press (released 20 December):

#10 - IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM: Worried that the ultimate goal is a nuclear arsenal, the United States and other countries pressed Iran to halt uranium enrichment. Iran said it never had a weapons program. A recent U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), prepared by 16 intelligence agencies, concluded there was such an effort, but it stopped in 2003.

#9 - IMMIGRATION DEBATE: A compromise immigration plan, backed by President Bush and Democratic leaders, collapsed in Congress due to Republican opposition. The plan would have enabled millions of illegal immigrants to move toward citizenship, while also bolstering border security. The issues remained alive in the presidential campaign.

#8 - PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: In a yearlong drama with shifting subplots, large fields in both major parties battled for support ahead of the caucuses and primaries that will decide the 2008 presidential nominees. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama led among the Democrats; some polls showed five Republicans with double-digit support.

# 7 - BRIDGE COLLAPSE: An Interstate 35 bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed during the evening rush hour on Aug. 1, killing 13 people and injuring about 100. The disaster fueled concern about possible structural flaws in other bridges nationwide.

#6 - GLOBAL WARMING: Warnings about the consequences of global warming gained intensity with new reports from scientific panels and a Nobel Prize to Al Gore for his environmental crusading that included the award-winning film "An Inconvenient Truth." Across the U.S., many state governments sought to cap emissions blamed for global warming.

#5 - CHINESE EXPORTS: An array of Chinese exports were recalled, ranging from toys with lead paint to defective tires to tainted toothpaste and food. Despite the high-profile problems, America's trade deficit with China was running at record-high levels.

#4 - OIL PRICES: Oil prices soared to record highs, at one point reaching nearly $100 a barrel. The high prices, which burdened motorists and owners of oil-heated homes, nudged Congress to pass an energy bill that ordered an increase in motor vehicles' fuel efficiency. (BJ note: Under-reported is the effect of higher delivery costs on grocery prices.)

#3 - IRAQ WAR: The "surge" that sent more U.S. troops to Iraq was credited with helping reduce the overall level of violence. But, thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of U.S. personnel were killed nonetheless during the year, and Iraqi political leaders struggled to make meaningful progress toward national reconciliation.

#2 - MORTGAGE CRISIS: A record-setting wave of mortgage foreclosures, coupled with a steep slump in the housing market, buffeted financial markets, caused multibillion-dollar losses at major banks and investment firms, and became an issue in the presidential campaign.

#1 - VIRGINIA TECH KILLINGS: Seung-Hui Cho, 23, who had avoided court-ordered mental health treatment despite a history of psychiatric problems, killed two fellow students in a dormitory on April 16, detoured to mail a hate-filled video of himself to NBC News, then shot dead 30 students and professors in a classroom building before killing himself. It was the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

If you disagree with the AP ranking or don’t see an important story on the list, please leave a comment. (The Bhutto assassination occurred after the list’s release.)

The AP list, an analysis of the reanking and the runners-up for top stories of the year: LINK

'Happy-Happyism'

2007-12-28T03:05:00.000-05:00

In “Earthbound,” one of my favorite Nintendo role-playing game (RPGs), my mission was to go into a village of conformist cult followers and break the spell which held them. Everything in the village was blue, from the faces of the faithful to the milk cow. The worshipers practiced “Happy-Happyism.”

Back in the 1970s a popular source of camp entertainment was the TV ministry of one “Reverend Ike.” Bedecked with gold chains and bracelets and diamond rings, Rev. Ike’s followers were encouraged to pray for new Cadillacs. His message: “You can’t lose with the stuff I use.”

New broadcast technology has drawn millions of followers under the spell of new-day “prosperity preachers.”

As a Christian, I am turned off by their message that money can, indeed, buy happiness, and if worshipers are “faithful enough,” they will be showered with earthly riches, good health and a problem-free life.

Out here in the real world, we know that sometimes bad things happen to good people.

Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is not too keen on these pulpit panhandlers, either.

Grassley is investigating a number of these mega-church charlatans. The senator insists this is not about theology; it’s about the U.S. tax code, which allows these TV “preachers” to live in a world of Rolls-Royces, private jets and multi-million-dollar estates – tax exempt.

The ministries under review include Randy and Paula White of Without Walls International Church and Paula White Ministries of Tampa, Fla.; Benny Hinn of World Healing Center Church Inc. and Benny Hinn Ministries of Grapevine, Texas; David and Joyce Meyer of Joyce Meyer Ministries of Fenton, Mo.; Kenneth and Gloria Copeland of Kenneth Copeland Ministries of Newark, Texas; Bishop Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church and Bishop Eddie Long Ministries of Lithonia, Ga.; and Creflo and Taffi Dollar (for real!) of World Changers Church International and Creflo Dollar Ministries of College Park, Ga.

Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, Grassley points out, not a Rolls-Royce. And, he didn’t wear a Rolex, either.

In fact, Jesus talked about the poor more than any other subject – mentioning them some 700 times in his red-letter New Testament teachings.

The human tragedies in all this are the faithful – the contributors who become disillusioned and heartbroken when they find out their faith isn’t strong enough to merit such prosperity.

For further reading:

The Grassley investigation, The Associated Press.

The “Prosperity Gospel” and its victims, CNN.

Now, it's working ...

2007-12-26T06:53:00.000-05:00

There’s a joke in upstate South Carolina about two Clemson University students riding around campus. The driver pulls over and asks his buddy to get out and tell him if his right blinker is working. The buddy yells back to the driver, “Now, it’s working; now, it’s not; now, it’s working, now it’s not.”

So, is the so-called U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq working – or not?

Can the surge be working when armed U.S. troops celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ in the heart of a Muslim country?

Can the surge be working when a single American soldier looks into the camera and wishes his family “Happy Holidays” with tears running down his cheeks?

Can the surge be working when there are those who would have the United States become a fundamentalist theocracy while our soldiers are dying to prevent one in a Muslim country?

Can the surge be working when U.S. troops are fighting to liberate Iraqis from years of tyranny while the Bush administration has systematically chipped away at our own freedoms here?

Can the surge be working when major Iraqi factions cannot exist in harmony, and there are, quite literally, "warring" factions right here in America?

Can the surge be working as long as the neoconservatives who have shaped this administration’s foreign policy are building the world’s largest foreign embassy – a virtual fortress – in Baghdad with plans for a U.S. presence and U.S. bases protecting Iraq’s oil reserves for the unforeseeable future?

And, finally, you are hearing that the surge is working militarily, if not in terms of a successful Iraqi government. Is this true?

Examine six periods of this almost five-year war in terms of U.S. troop deaths in Iraq, verified by the DoD:

20 March 2003 through 1 May 2003 (end of major combat operations): 140 in 43 days

2 May 2003 through 28 June 2004 (sovereignty turned over to Iraq): 718 in 424 days

29 June 2004 through 30 January 2005 (Iraq elections): 580 in 216 days

31 January 2005 through 14 December 2005 (Iraq general elections): 715 in 318 days

15 December 2005 through 31 January 2007: 933 in 412 days

Beginning of the surge – 1 February 2007 to date: 811 in 328 days

Total deaths: 3,897 U.S. troops (Total coalition: UK, 174; other, 133)

'The Christmas Tree Regiment'

2007-12-19T04:45:00.000-05:00

During WWII, Japanese-American citizens began to be moved from internment to relocation centers, entered the U.S. work force and just as quickly were fired when angry townspeople demanded it of employers.

“At the same time the number of Japanese-Americans serving in the U.S. Army continued to grow, reaching 33,000.

“‘I’ve never had more wholehearted, serious-minded cooperation from Army troops,’ Lt. Col. Faron Turner said of the all-Japanese 100th Infantry Battalion, which fought with great distinction in Italy and France.

“The 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which also fought in Italy and France, was known as ‘The Christmas Tree Regiment,’ because it became the most decorated unit in the entire Army.

“In seven major campaigns, the combined 100th and 442nd suffered 9.486 casualties and won 18,143 medals for valor, including almost 10,000 Purple Hearts.

“In addition, almost 16,000 Nisei served in military intelligence in the Pacific, translating captured documents.

“At Topaz, Manzanar, Poston, Heart Mountain and other relocation camps, the parents of fallen heroes accepted the extraordinary honors on behalf of their sons. The color guard turned out as the medals of the dead were pinned on their mothers’ blouses

“The familiar sadness of the ceremony was multiplied by its setting: a tawdry, tarpapered barrack surrounded by strips of barbed wire, which denied the parents of the honored soldiers the very freedom for which their sons had died.”

- Doris Kearns Goodwin, “No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: the Home Front in WWII.”

~~~

In this season of faith, love and hope, let our prayer ever be,

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” Luke 2:14

Method in MSNBC's madness

2007-12-17T04:41:00.000-05:00

My veins still run with newspaper ink, and I still love the institution of journalism. Real journalism. Ethical reporting.

I confess: I have been addicted to politics and news since I was a child. Both were discussed at our family dinner table. I can remember lying on our living room floor reading the daily newspaper which landed on our front porch. The “Brenda Starr” comic strip led me as a kid to dream of a career in newspapering.

Because I love the Fourth Estate – and still believe in its potential power to right the wrongs – I am deeply troubled by what cable news is imparting under the non sequitur “news.”

Perhaps as a defense against spin, distortion and lies now disguised as “news,” I am compelled to keep myself informed.

This background leads me to this conclusion: MSNBC is swift-boating Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Opinion” shows such as “Morning Joe,” “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” “Tucker” and “Live with Dan Abrams” aside, the personal attacks on this candidate for the presidency have spilled over into the so-called news segments throughout the day.

Those of you who despise Senator Clinton have your reasons and are entitled to them. But, if you approve the PERSONAL attacks on her and her campaign, you are turning a blind eye to ethics in journalism.

MSNBC has long been my cable news source of choice, although I do trust CNN’s Wolf Blitzer at 4 ET to give me a thorough and reliable daily news wrap.

From 5 a.m. up until the nightly tabloid, “Doc Block” at 10, I have heard reporting on Senator Clinton’s campaign which spins, distorts and takes out of context its every effort.

There is no attempt at subtlety. Whether her laugh is called a “cackle” or her campaign workers called “surrogates,” MSNBC’s campaign against Clinton is aimed at those who do not think for or inform themselves.

To my chagrin, I have seen long-respected journalists such as Tim Russert, David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, David Shuster, join in these unrelenting jabs at the Clinton juggernaut.

(I hope you will remind yourself, dear reader, what this same select group did to Don Imus.)

There’s no need to even mention Fox News.

Big media is after the Democratic frontrunner.

Have you asked yourself “Why?”

There are two reasons, and they both involve profits.

The first, simply put, is “conflict sells.”

The other is a little more complicated. As you read this, the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is ready to “open the floodgate” to further media consolidation.

Here’s what freepress.net has to say:

“If FCC Chairman Kevin Martin gets his way, your community will be inundated with even more mass-produced celebrity gossip and infotainment, and less local reporting and quality journalism: more of the junk news that is making us sick.

“Martin wants to ‘Super Size’ Big Media, allowing companies like Gannett, News Corp and Tribune to swallow up even more local TV, newspaper and radio outlets. Martin wants to let one company own both the major newspapers and a TV station in your hometown, drowning out the few remaining independent voices, so that media moguls like Rupert Murdoch can expand their empires.”

So, you ask, what has this got to do with MSNBC’s campaign against Hillary Clinton?

Well, everything.

When it became apparent that Senator Clinton was the frontrunner, outpolling candidates of both parties, cable news went into overdrive to stop the Democrat most likely to succeed.

By attempting to marginalize both Hillary and Bill Clinton and promoting candidates which, in my opinion, cannot carry the national vote, “big media” will keep in place an FCC which is favorable to both profits and expansion.

I remember the words of a former executive editor, who, when I complained our inside pages “news hole” (space left after advertisements are inserted) was too small, said, “It’s a business. If you don’t want it to be a business, you had better get out.” I did.

So, now you know: there’s method in MSNBC’s (and Matthews’) madness.

I will support and work to elect the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, but I did that in 2000 and 2004.

I honestly believe the one person who could win back the White House – and turn this country around - is at the mercy of an unethical media. If these personal attacks succeed, you just wait to see what they do to the Democratic Party’s nominee.

That “food for worms,” Benjamin Franklin, who chose “printer” as his sole epitaph, must be spinning in his Philadelphia grave.

And, when there’s a Republican taking the oath of office in January 2009, I will refer you back to this post.

Case study: Internet crap

2007-12-14T03:10:00.000-05:00

Why in the name of God do people read the crap which circulates the world via Internet when these emails have no attribution or documentation?

This post, with a read time of about 10 minutes, cannot be appreciated unless you take the time to read the snopes.com analysis linked herein.

Involved is a particular bit of tripe from a man who claims a desire to publish his wife’s “beautiful” letter-to-the-editor because the Orange County (Calif.) Register ignored it. Basically, the email compares a Utopian view of late 19th- and early 20th-Century immigration with the blight of today’s unwelcomed hoards.

Snopes analyzes the letter with its usual dose of reality.

I wrote the following to the person who forwarded the letter to me – you know one of those emals where you have to plow down through countless email addresses until you get to its body and which always ends by demanding you keep it moving around the world.

(BEGIN MY RESPONSE)

I am so happy I read and studied Clyde Raymond Miller's "The Process of Persuasion," the acknowledged bible for identifying the various techniques of propaganda, because this CRAP is chock full of them. I read it and recognized it for what it is: xenophobic propaganda which is written to stir your emotions while blocking your ability to reason for yourself.

A rule of thumb on these Internet letters from NOWHERE is to delete them. If you do read them, look for the APPEAL at the end that asks the reader to spread it to "millions" and makes the reader feel less-than-patriotic if he or she doesn't send it along.

Actually, these letters are not from "nowhere," they are written by hired guns of advocacy groups which support or oppose an issue, a cause or a candidate. These people are very skilled at composing propaganda and setting it into circulation.

Why would you read these letters when you don't really know who wrote them?

Even if the content of this letter were TRUE, as a former editorial page editor I could tell you that the letter would have been rejected by any newspaper, because it's too long. When I write an occasional letter-to-the-editor to the newspaper here, the word limit is 250.

All that aside, you don't have to worry about persons coming here from Mexico just to make money for their families. Right now, the value of the U.S. dollar is plummeting, and when it drops BELOW the value of the Mexican peso, they will all go back home. Wall Street is very nervous over the continuing downward spiral of the U.S. dollar. Now, that's an issue for concern.

Here's what SNOPES.com says about this “letter” (and, dear reader, it will be worth your time to read the analysis!): LINK

Now, to take this to a personal level:

I have read best-selling books on the history of almost every American decade. It is a mistake to believe America - the America we grew up in and love - is and has been perfect, for it has not. There have been problems in every decade which have had to be rectified.

There have been systemic problems such as prejudices against blacks, Jews, American Indians and peoples of almost every nationality and faith.

There have been grave mistakes made when the U.S. has intervened in the affairs of foreign govenments (for example, the CIA-led coup to overthrow the elected Iranian leader and install the Shah or taking the side of the United Fruit Company in overthrowing the elected leader of Guatamala - to the advantage of a private business using near-slave labor).

So, as the SNOPES analysis points out the Utopia the letter writer would have you believe has never existed here. And, sadly, never will.

I am currently listening to noted historian Doris Kearns Goodwin's "No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: the Home Front in WWII," which is a documented record of the post-Depression 30s and the war-time 40s. During those decades Americans did sacrifice, but there were race riots and violent labor strikes.

Most notably, as a result of post-Pearl Harbor hysteria, the internment of more than 120,000 Japanese-American CITIZENS in filthy and overcrowded "concentration" camps remains a blight on our history. The last camp housing these "suspected enemies" closed in 1946. (History and photographs, University of Utah collection). The U.S. finally paid these citizens retribution for what they went through.

I am struck by a common theme in each decade of our history: each has had the SAME problems to deal with – the same prejudices, fears and paranoia.

Hence, the French phrase Snopes.com uses:

"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" - the more things change, the more they stay the same.

No, America is not perfect - as evidenced by all its current problems - but it's still a good country with good people, in my opinion, and I'm glad I was born here. I know you are, too.

Have you ever asked yourself, "Why?" Why were we lucky to be born here, when so many are born into oppression, disease, poverty and hunger?

I refuse to find fault with any persons who want to come here to find for themselves what we, by the sheer luck of birth, simply inherited, having done nothing to deserve it.

'There you go again!'

2007-12-13T06:48:00.000-05:00

Today I’m featuring a favorite blogger, Papamoka, whose “Straight Talk” blog is always interesting and might be named “Common Sense” if that title had not been used by an earlier patriot.

In his 12 December 2007 post, “Grinch AKA Bush Kills Kids Health Bill Again” (LINK), Papamoka writes:

Separated at birth is our current Commander in Thief and the Grinch who stole Christmas. If you took the time to compare the two it might not be as far off a thought as you think. With his hefty and mighty veto crayon he swiftly cast the medical care of 10 million kids in the “Do Not Recycle” bin out in the back of the White House today... AGAIN!

His rationalization for vetoing the bill is that it is the beginning of socialized medicine? Maybe the President has not visited an emergency room in any city in America lately. Socialized medicine is already here! It’s just the most expensive form of medical health care there is and we all pay for the poor using the Emergency Room with every payment to our HMO provider whether we like it or not.

If there ever was a clear cut example of what not to do as an American President then this guy is going to be mentioned more times than anyone else. He clearly fits the phrase from the movie The American President where it was said “For someone who loves America but clearly cannot stand Americans”. Rough paraphrase but it fits W to a tee.

Bush vetoes children's health bill a second time
Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:02pm

By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush on Wednesday vetoed a bill expanding a popular children's health care program for the second time, angering Democrats who are locked in a fight with the administration over the budget and spending.

Pushed by the Democratic-led Congress but also supported by many Republicans, the bill was aimed at providing health insurance to about 10 million children in low- and moderate-income families. Taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products would have been increased to pay for the aid.

Bush vetoed a version of the bill in October but Congress quickly passed another one that included some changes but not enough to satisfy the White House.

"Because the Congress has chosen to send me an essentially identical bill that has the same problems as the flawed bill I previously vetoed, I must veto this legislation too," Bush wrote in a message to the House of Representatives.

The fight between Congress and the White House over the health bill is one in a series of clashes over spending that have arisen as Bush approaches the start of his final year in office. -Reuters

One of the obvious problems with the bill is how it was to be funded and those funds discharged. There was no money in it for the “Bush Too” crew of political hacks. If Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi had linked some (more than half) of the money from the bill to be directly paid back to any oil company or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia then it might have had a chance at passing.

It is very obvious that this President does not care one iota about his own peoples’ health care. He does not even care about our own military wounded soldiers coming home for care in our military hospitals unless the Washington Post blasts the negligence across the front page to embarrass him. Even then he only tosses a white wash over the issue and moves on to where the money is.

Sometimes I wonder if he has CADD, that would be Conservative Attention Deficit Disorder. Federal programs that don’t send money his friends’way just cannot seem to hold his attention span long enough. Out comes the veto crayon, and he tries his best to color within the lines but those pesky flash bulbs always make him mess up.

Back to the emergency room, kids. Socialized medicine? Ridiculous!

Papamoka

For more of “Papamoka’s Straight Talk:” LINK

***

Demwit today: “Black eye”

WaPo A01

2007-12-12T09:23:00.000-05:00

AS I SEE IT:

Media’s anti-Hillary blitz backfires: LINK

Eat your heart out, Chris Matthews.

Taking five

2007-12-10T11:36:00.000-05:00

Working on Christmas projects and will see you in a couple of days. In the meantime, you might enjoy this post from 5 April 2007:

Whiskey at the good-old-boys club

Once upon a time at a certain daily newspaper in a certain Southern town, I edited the opinion pages.

In an editorial board meeting with the publisher and the executive editor, where plans were made for the week’s opinion pieces, I commented that Mississippi once taxed illegal liquor. There was a state tax collector, I added, whose salary was a percentage of the take.

Pretty confident of my home state’s history, I punctuated these remarks with “That’s how William Winter got rich.”

Maybe this newspaper had not yet gotten the word that women were becoming a force in journalism, for the publisher immediately put me in my place. “That’s ridiculous!” he retorted, “and I know Bill Winter. Bill Winter is not rich.”

When the publisher left the conference room, the editor, in front of the other board members, looked at me and snapped, “If you don’t know what you’re talking about, keep your mouth shut!”

I kept my mouth shut.

I did not tell him that my brothers-in-law Paul and Harold and my brother Leroy were friends of William Winter, former Mississippi governor, back in their Grenada, Mississippi, growing-up years.

Nor, did I tell him that William Winter had never in his life been called “Bill.”

Didn’t even mention that seen from the perspectives of a publisher and a lowly editorial editor, “rich” might be relative.

Heck, Mississippi politicians were among those who practically wore out the old Pearl River bridge connecting the state capital to “The Gold Coast,” a Rankin County road lined with wooden shacks dispensing illegal whiskey from drive-through windows.

A few days ago I ran across the delightful memoirs of retired Mississippi Judge Thomas Givens of Oxford.

Drawing me into Judge Givens’ stories were his title, “Whiskey, Chickens and Cherry Bombs,” and this on the Web site:

“Note from Ye Editor: Judge Tom Givens writes stories that are not only entertaining, but also give us a glimpse into a rapidly fading era of Deep South history. Readers will enjoy these four memoirs - and will learn a thing or two.”

Learn a thing or two, indeed!

With permission of Beth, whose Web site is usadeepsouth.ms11.net, I quote a few words from one of Judge Givens’ stories:

“As I said before, just about all the (Mississippi) Delta and River counties allowed liquor sales. You could walk into any of those establishments, and there tacked on the wall would be their black market tax receipt.

“Now, get this, they had a ‘State Tax Collector.’ His only job was to collect the black market tax, and his compensation was a percentage of the collection. In the 50's, Life magazine did a profile on him as the highest paid public servant in the United States. That was none other than the most Honorable William Winter. To Winter’s credit, he lobbied the legislature to do away with the position, which they finally did.”

Well, that makes two Mississippians who know what they’re talking about!

Thanks, Judge! Once upon a time a woman could get pretty lonely working at a good-old-boys club.

Girdles and coffee

2007-12-07T04:01:00.000-05:00

In “No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor: The Home Front in WWII,” the book I’m currently enjoying, Doris Kearns Goodwin points out the sacrifices Americans made during that war.

The two things they most hated to give up were girdles and coffee.

Because Japan had captured rubber- and coffee-producing countries, rationing became a necessity.

So great was the outcry over girdles - “sagging muscles in middle-aged bodies leave women without the energy to do their work” – the government capitulated on that restriction.

Coffee lovers were limited to one cup a day. (I would have demonstrated.)

By and large, Americans on the home front sacrificed. Society women had a new role model: Rosie the Riveter. The war was won on the beaches of Normandy, in the steaming tropics of the Pacific and on Main Street, USA.

Not much of that going on today with America at war in two countries.

Funny thing is: the people who thought the Iraq war was a great idea, the people who claim sole support for our troops are the very people most unwilling to pay taxes to fund it.

The Republican Party wants permanent tax cuts for the rich and for corporations, many of which are making megaprofits from the war.

Sacrifice doesn’t mean sugar rationing any more.

On this the 66th anniversary of FDR’s “day that will live in infamy,” maybe Americans could take time from life as usual to remember:

Uncle Sam still wants YOU.

***

DemWit today: “Wrong numbers”

The poop on Lou Dobbs

2007-12-06T04:43:00.000-05:00

This winner of Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” (LINK) is just too good not to pass along:

(O)ur winner, Lou Dobbs of CNN, who has been teetering on the edge of madness for a couple of years now and last night stopped the teetering part.

A critic from the L. A. Times, CNN‘s partner in an upcoming debate, accused CNN of improperly tailoring the first half hour of its YouTube debate last week to reflect Dobbs‘ personal obsession with undocumented immigrants.

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests the topic is only the fifth highest priority among American voters at 11 percent. The latest Pew Poll says it‘s only the sixth priority of Republicans.

Dobbs thinks it‘s the only one. The critic called CNN corrupt - strong language. But, of course, on this topic, Dobbs is corrupt and hypocritical, too, as we‘ll examine in a moment. First, though, let‘s play the tape of some of Dobbs‘ detonating, largely because, at this point, I‘m sad to say, my impression of him consists of only three words - I‘m Lou Dobbs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LOU DOBBS, CNN Imagine that. We offended the little liberal lily. Not only was Rutten apoplectic that presidential candidates would actually have to deal with the issue of illegal immigration; but Rutten‘s tortured mind crushed his own sense of reason and managed to conclude that CNN focused on illegal immigration to create a larger audience for me. Did Rutten notice I was not involved in that debate? The candidates get a little nervous if I‘m in the same building.

Rutten, you either don‘t know how to read a survey, a poll, or you have no interest in the facts, or you‘re just another elitist partisan, and that explains why the L. A. Times continues to lose readers. You‘re a lousy media critic. We all knew that. But, now you‘ve stepped into advocacy, and you‘re even worse at that.

And, you don‘t even have the guts to come on this broadcast and discuss your corrupt reasoning and partisan activism disguised as media criticism. Too bad, we would have loved to have discussed the issues with you. But, you‘re not interested in reality or truth. You‘re a media critic, of sorts.

(END OF LOU DOBBS VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: He sounds passionate about immigration, the way, say, Senator Joe McCarthy was passionate. But, actually it‘s hypocritical.

As noted in the book “A Sunday Horse” by Vickie Moon, Dobbs has two daughters who have for years been passionately involved in show jumping, the upper class, super expensive, elitist world of horses and hurdles. Show jumping depends on—and Lou Dobbs spends his money indirectly employing—hundreds of the very people he rails against each night.

After mentioning the Dobbs‘ family involvement, Vickie Moon writes of the sport, “This melting pot of international equine aficionados does not include the countless number of illegal Spanish-speaking immigrants who shovel the 40 tons of poop a day.”

In other words, weeknights, Lou Dobbs threatens illegal immigrants, and on weekends, he pays them to clean up after his daughters‘ horses.

So, Lou, get serious one way or the other. Drop your racism, thinly disguised as warnings and threats about illegal immigrants, or get your daughters and money out of a sport that could not exist without them. Better still, why don‘t you go clean up the 40 tons of poop a day yourself? On TV, you seem pretty good at shoveling it.

Lou “Do as I say, not as I spend” Dobbs, today‘s Worst Person in the World.
(END)

I continue to be amazed that, primarily, through the voices of Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan, who throw out statistics and don’t seem to back them up, the media has created the myth that ALL Americans are freaking out over illegal immigration.

Yet, current polls continue to show this is not the biggest issue on Americans’ minds. Legitimate polling shows the majority of Americans favor a “path to citizenship.”

Here’s is a question from a poll cited by Dobbs:

“Do you believe illegal immigration is an issue which needs attention?”

Well, of course, it is.

But, Dobbs will tell you that the 90 percent who answered “yes” to this question want all “illegal immigrants” shipped home. Not exactly a logical interpretation of the answer, huh?

Thanks, Mr. Olbermann, for pointing out the obvious: Lou Dobbs is a one-track fanatic.

***

DemWit today: “Untitled”

At the mercy of madmen

2007-12-05T00:22:00.000-05:00

Writing a political blog can be overwhelming. This country is at the mercy of madmen, and the head honcho is sitting in the Oval Office. The madness rolls in in daily waves – of tsunami proportions.

Did some master propagandist like Karl Rove, who has recently shown he has no qualms about lying to rewrite history, sit down and tell this administration: if we do enough bad things on a daily basis, the people, the Congress and the media will be so overwhelmed they simply cannot or will not do anything about it?

This is not uninformed speculation on my part; I’ve been monitoring this bunch since January 2001.

First, there was Rove himself, blaming the Democrats for “pushing” the vote on Iraq and saying the GOP didn’t want “to politicize” the potential for war in the run-up to Election 2002.

Then, there’s Bush using our troops as a fulcrum to convince Americans that if Congress doesn’t continue issuing him blank checks for Iraq NOW, the military will run out of money. Secretary of Defense Gates himself has contradicted this claim in statements before Congress.

The president of the United States then insulted the U.S. Congress by saying it had “done nothing.” I watched on C-SPAN as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada was the first to rise and speak as that body reconvened after its Thanksgiving break. Reid was incredulous that Bush would make such a blanket statement, then enumerated exactly what the legislative branch HAS done, despite Republican opposition and Bush vetoes.

Word comes next that Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq war, after scandal led to his firing as president of the World Bank, will be brought back into the Bush administration – as an expert on, of all things, “weapons of mass destruction.” (Ironically, that was CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson’s area of expertise!)

Now comes the National Intelligence Estimate – the NIE - a product of 16 U.S. intelligence entities, with findings on Iran which are certain to make Bush and this country the laughing-stock of the world. And, Bush with his sabre-rattling talk of World War III, stated he only found out about the NIE’s findings two weeks ago.

If further proof of madness is needed, here’s what former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton told Wolf Blitzer in CNN’s “The Situation Room” yesterday at 4 p.m. ET. (LINK) Read the following exchange and ask yourself if we can really wait until Bush leaves office in 412 days to put an end to this madness.

Blitzer asked war hawk Bolton if the NIE had changed his mind on Iran. (Bush told reporters yesterday that it had not changed his mind.)

“No,” Bolton said. “I think in the first place there is an artificial distinction in this Estimate between so-called civil activities and military activities.

“The Estimate itself says Iran continues its uranium enrichment program; and what that means is Iran is building up an inventory of at least low-enriched uranium, that it's at Iran's discretion when to convert that fissile material into a nuclear weapon.

“So, I think there are a lot of questions about this Estimate, which is only an analyst's judgment. And, I don't think I would change my view of the threat that Iran poses.”

Blitzer pointed out that the new NIE “clearly would indicate that the president and all of his top advisers who were so worried about Iran's nuclear threat were wrong.”

“Right. Well, that's one reason I'm suspicious about the conclusion here, that this took four years to find out,” Bolton said. “And, by the way, two agencies dissent from that conclusion. And, even what was published says that the NIE itself only has moderate confidence that the suspension in 2003 continues today, and that there are gaps in our intelligence. I think there's a real risk here of over-judging what the intelligence community found, and that there is a real risk of disinformation on the part of Iran.”

Blitzer asked Bolton for clarification: “You're saying that this new NIE … is potentially wrong? Is that what you're saying? And, that it was released for what, political purposes?”

Bolton replied, “Well, I think it's potentially wrong. But, I would also say many of the people who wrote this are former State Department employees who, during their career at the State Department never gave much attention to the threat of the Iranian program. Now, they are writing as members of the intelligence community, the same opinions that they had four and five years ago.”

President Bush, Blitzer pointed out, says he has confidene in the new NIE. He also reminded Bolton that, according to Bush, the entire U.S. intelligence-gathering community has been revamped since faulty intel led us into war in Iraq, and the president himself says he has “total confidence” in this NIE.

To that Bolton replied, “Well, I have to say I don't. I think there's a very real risk here that the intelligence community is like generals fighting the last war. They got Iraq wrong, and they're overcompensating by understating the potential threat from Iran.”

So, according to Mr. Bolton, when they got it wrong, they got it right, and when they get it right, they’ve gotten it wrong. Although the former ambassador recently declared, “I am not a neocon,” that sure sounds like neoconspeak to me.

Now, what could possibly be more scary than that? The fact that about 35 percent of the voting-age people in this country are not even registered to vote and only 65 percent of those registered actually vote. Far too many Americans have no idea all this is going on.

There might be one thing above all to be feared: a free press which has forfeited its mission as government watchdog.

***

See a brief, related quote on my blog, “DemWit:” LINK

One happy Imus fan

2007-12-04T05:59:00.000-05:00

Don Imus returned to the air with apologetic remarks, then added, "Other than that, not much has changed. Dick Cheney is still a war criminal, Hillary Clinton is still Satan, I'm back on the radio and the coffee’s still good at B. J.’s house.”

OK, I added that last part, but it’s true!

Like the night my “Friends” exited the apartment door or finally tossing my favorite old houseshoes, the absence of Imus and his crew in the morning was unsettling.

I had grown accustomed to the craggy-faced curmudgeon and stepped right back into the comfortable morning routine.

I once heard David Letterman say he liked “Beavis and Butthead” because “they’re consistent.” And both Imus and his fans know that is crucial to the new show’s success.

The I-man promised the show his fans came to love “is not going to change,” a remark which drew loud applause from yesterday’s live audience.

RFD-TV, which will simulcast Imus’ WABC-AM show, says 30 million viewers will tune in. The channel hopes to add “20 million urban viewers.”

RFD, for you city slickers, stands for the postal designation, “rural free delivery.”

A friend who gets the channel via satellite told me the program is being bleeped. Well, they ain’t gonna add urban viewers that way.

I buzzed the blogosphere to get reaction to the broadcast, and that hasn’t changed, either – you love Imus or you hate him.

I ran across a blog by a Jewish woman who was complaining about “that bastard Imus” and his new black female sidekick, Karith Foster, a Texas gal educated at Missouri’s exclusive Stephens College and Oxford University in England.

The Jewish woman was raising hell because Foster had joked on her Web site, “I'm really a Jewish girl from Long Island trapped in this body, which technically makes me a JAAP - Jewish African-American Princess."

Sometimes you’re just damned if you do and damned if you don’t. And sometimes, you just want to scream, “SHUT UP!”

***

Read the Associate Press coverage of the first show: LINK

Listen to Imus “streaming live” at WABC-AM, 6 to 9 ET weekday mornings. Go HERE and click on "Listen Live."

TODAY'S QUOTE: In discussing the issue of illegal immigration with Imus, GOP hopeful Mike Huckabee said, "We should get down on our knees every night and thank God we live in a country people are trying to break into and not trying break out of."

Imus on the air!

2007-12-02T07:20:00.000-05:00

Listen to Don Imus, beginning Monday, 6 to 10 a.m. ET, on WABC-AM, New York, ABC radio affiliates, RFD-TV simulcast and STREAMING LIVE on your computer at: "Listen Live"

And, with apologies to Elton John, a message for Joe Scarborough:

Goodbye, “Morning Joke!” Your sarcasm burned out long before your program ever did.

Is this your America?

2007-11-29T08:05:00.000-05:00

If you will allow me the “audacity of hope,” it is my hope that every voting-age American who did not watch the GOP debate last night will sit down and give it full attention when it re-airs on CNN Saturday at 8 p.m. ET.

Watch it, then remind yourself: one of these men might be the next president of the United States.

While the candidates themselves had no control over the questions, and CNN and YouTube vetted them, they were posed by Americans via YouTube video.

It is apparent that, contrary to what I had thought, “God, gays and guns” are still main concerns of those who will vote Republican.

So prevalent was the issue of “illegal immigration,” I found myself thinking of Charlton Heston, staring down at the Statue of Liberty protruding from the sand, and screaming, “You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you!”

Other questions were primarily about God (“Do you read and believe the Holy Bible?” and “What would Jesus do?”), gays, the 2nd Amendment and guns, abortion, torture and 9/11 and the Islamic Jihadist threat to America.

They were about a mindset.

The loudest booing came when Ron Paul attempted to explain jihadists hate us because of our policies toward the Middle East for the last several decades, and when Rudy Giuliani dared to suggest some gun ownership must be regulated.

The one question on Iraq – shouldn’t the U.S. establish permanent bases and remain there indefinitely to protect the region? – created a verbal tap dance onstage.

At times, Ron Paul seemed the only voice of reason, then he had to go and say we have to get government out of our lives, while pointing out the necessity of things only a federal government can do – such as “rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure.”

As one post-debate panelist said, “What you didn’t hear was the name George Bush. They are trying to distance themselves from him, yet, with the exception of Ron Paul, they agree with him on almost every issue.”

These issues did not come up: education, health care, energy, global warming, the economy, Iran.

During the post-debate coverage a group of “undecided Republicans” remained undecided, could not pick a debate winner and expressed interest in one overriding criterion: who can beat Hillary Clinton.

I don’t have a problem with that, as I support the one person I believe can defeat this less-than-illustrious field – and restore this nation’s soul.

Watch Saturday night. If you are conservative and Republican or liberal and Democrat, ask yourself if what you see represents your own ideals, your own hope for your country.

This might just be the most important two hours you will spend before Election 2008.

Watch it like your future depends on it.

An inconvenient distinction

2007-11-28T05:37:00.000-05:00

Ran across “Sean Hannity’s America” on Fox News the other night, and Sean was blathering away about how all the great scientists on Earth – the ones who really count – are refuting claims of global warming.

Sean went on to make the same mistake so many do – not recognizing there is an inconvenient (for them) distinction between “weather” and “climate.”

Time to recycle my blog post of 28 February 2007:

Hume-idity & snow jobs

My friend Richard, in a phone chat Saturday, was complaining about snow, ice and zero temps in Akron, Ohio. I hated to tell him I had my central air running here in South Carolina.

We were talking about the “weather.”

The right-wing and particularly Fox News are trying desperately to convince folks that “global warming” is a tree-hugger hoax.

Fox anchor Brit Hume just can’t get enough of those “it’s snowing, there’s global warming” jokes. On a recent show, he reported that a theater had canceled the showing of Al Gore’s “An Inconventient Truth” due to snow, then reacted to his own joke with a hee, hee and a yuck, yuck.

Hume was talking about the “weather.”

These naysayers neglect to tell their followers and/or audiences that there is a difference between “weather” and “climate.”

The 14 February 2007 edition of the Progress Report, Center for American Progess, explains the two terms:

“To understand why the current cold snap across the United States is occurring during a global warming trend, one must first understand the distinction between climate and weather.

“Climate is the ‘composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness and winds, throughout the year, are averaged over a series of years.’ In other words, climate refers to recorded history.

“Weather, on the hand, is current events; it refers to the ‘state of the atmosphere at a given time and place.’ Weather is a snapshot of the climate at any one instant. Although the two are related, their relationship is indirect. ‘The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place at one time ... says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less global climate change.’” LINK

Update on the former AG

2007-11-27T11:23:00.000-05:00

My lasting impression of former Attorney General John Ashcroft is the image of the sneer on his face as he whipped out a memo written by 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick during those crucial hearings. Turned out Ashcroft was wrong about the memo, and both Bush and Cheney apologized for the AG’s action during their session with the Commission.

The look on Ashcroft’s face that day was, in my opinion, pure evil. Funny how little things like that stay with you.

So, what’s the former AG doing now?

Article: “Justice Department Awards Ashcroft $52 Million Contract,” LINK.

The year that changed America

2007-11-20T08:22:00.000-05:00

Erstwhile broadcast journalist and writer Tom Brokaw is making the talk-show rounds promoting his new book, “Boom! Voices of the Sixties: Personal Reflections on the '60s and Today.”

In a recent appearance I heard Brokaw explain how 1968 changed America for the next four decades.

On 11 June 2007, I wrote a post about former President Bill Clinton’s observations on how that year changed American politics.

For its timliness, I repeat it here:

THE IMPACT OF 1968

My current book on tape is Bill Clinton’s “My Life,” and I am so impressed with his writing style, as amiable and down-home funny as his political style.

Clinton has just described one of the most tumultuous summers in our history – 1968 – and the violence at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The great dividers in the nation were racial conflict and Vietnam.

The Chicago violence unfolded while Clinton was on a trip to Shreveport, La., with his mother’s boyfriend. As he watched on TV Mayor Daley’s police force beating youthful protesters in Grant Park, Clinton says his Southern upbringing clashed with his progressive ideals. This young college kid, who would leave for Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship in the fall, says he saw his beloved Democratic Party crumbling before his eyes.

Hubert Humphrey won the Party’s nomination over Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern, choosing Senator Edmund Muskie as his running mate. Bobby Kennedy had been killed after winning the California primary, and Senator Edward Kennedy rejected the pleas of young idealists to seek the nomination. Alabama Governor George Wallace was set to wage a third-party campaign.

At the conclusion of Chapter 13, devoted to the politics of this explosive summer, Clinton writes:

“The feeding fanaticism of the left had not yet played itself out, but it had already released a radical reaction on the right – one that would prove more durable, more well-financed, more institutionalized, more resourceful, more addicted to power, and far more skilled at getting and keeping it.

“Much of my public life has been spent trying to bridge the social and psychological divide that had widened into a chasm in Chicago. I won a lot of elections, and I think I did a lot of good, but the more I tried to bring people together, the madder it made the fanatics on the right.

“Unlike the kids in Chicago, they didn’t want America to come back together. They had an enemy, and they meant to keep it.”

Later, in Chapter 14, Clinton describes 1968 as:

“… the year that broke open the nation and shattered the Democratic Party. The year that conservative populism replaced progressive populism as the dominant political force in our nation. The year that law and order and strength became the province of Republicans, and Democrats became associated with chaos, weakness and out-of-touch, self-indulgent elites. The year that lead to Nixon, then Reagan, then Gingrich, then George W. Bush. The middle-class backlash would shape and distort American politics for the rest of the century. The new conservatism would be shaken by Watergate, Its public support would be weakened as right-wing ideologues promoted economic inequality, environmental destruction and social divisions, but not destroyed.

“When threatened by its own excesses, the conservative movement would promise to be kinder and gentler or more compassionate, all the while ripping the hide off Democrats for alleged weakness of values, character and will.

“And, it would be enough to provoke the painfully predictable, almost Pavlovian reaction among enough white middle-class voters to carry the day.

“Of course, it was more complicated than that. Sometimes conservatives’ criticisms of the Democrats had validity, and there were always moderate Republicans and conservatives of good will who worked with Democrats to make some positive changes. Nevertheless, the deeply imbedded nightmares of 1968 formed the arena in which I and all other progressive politicians had to struggle over our entire careers.

“Regardless, those of us who believed that the good in the 1960s outweighed the bad would fight on, still fired by the heroes and dreams of our youth.”

***

Two geniuses – skilled at propaganda – became the architects of conservative populism: Lee Atwater and his protege Karl Rove. Atwater, who died from a brain tumor at the young age of 39, apologized and asked forgiveness for his deeds before death. Rove’s influence continues in Bush’s White House.

Update: Karl Rove is now writing a column for Newsweek, in which he continues to give the GOP pointers on how to win. So far, he hasn't apologized for anything.

Spitzer: 'Fix it'

2007-11-15T03:50:00.000-05:00

Remarks by Governor Eliot Spitzer Washington, DC November 14, 2007 (LINK)

Over the last two months, I have been advancing a proposal that I believe would improve the safety and security of the people of my state by addressing the fact that New York is home to one million undocumented immigrants, many of whom are driving on our roads unlicensed. After serious deliberation and consultation with people I respect on all sides of this issue, I have concluded that New York State cannot successfully address this problem on its own. I am announcing today that I am withdrawing my proposal.

Here in our nation's capital, I wanted to talk briefly about the failed federal immigration policy and what that has meant for states like New York.

I suggest to you what everyone already knows. The federal government has lost control of its borders, has allowed millions of undocumented immigrants to enter our country, and now has no solution to deal with it.

When the federal government abdicates its responsibility, states, cities, towns and villages still have to deal with the practical reality of that failure. And we face that reality every day in our schools, in our hospitals, and on our roads. In New York, that means one million undocumented immigrants, many of whom are driving without a license and without insurance, and all of whom are living in the shadows with no real identity.

While states lack the ability to fix our immigration laws, we do have the obligation to try to address some of their negative consequences. And so, many of us have tried.

In New York, we announced a comprehensive proposal to allow New Yorkers to choose from three secure licenses. This was a practical response to both the new federal travel requirements and the old federal inaction. It would have enabled us to keep our Upstate economy viable; meet the demands of federal travel requirements; make our roads safer; and bring more New Yorkers into the system, helping law enforcement officials fight crime and terrorism.

It would have restored the practice of licensing immigrants who do not have social security numbers, something New York had done for years, something eight other states -- both "red" and "blue" states -- do right now and something I continue to believe is principally the right thing to do to make our roads safer and our state more secure.

I continue to believe that my proposal would have improved an unsatisfactory situation. But I have listened to the legitimate concerns of the public and those who would be affected by my proposal, and have concluded that pushing forward unilaterally in the face of such strong opposition would be counterproductive.

Leadership is not solely about doing what one thinks is right. Leadership is also about listening to the public, responding to their concerns and knowing when to put aside a single divisive issue in favor of a larger agenda.

I am here today to respond to the vast majority of New Yorkers of good will who have heard my best case and yet still disagree with my proposal.

As New Yorkers, we respect that people from all over the world come to this country to work hard and to live the American dream, just like all four of my grandparents. We respect the hard and sometimes backbreaking work of those who participate daily in our economy. But at the same time we are troubled when people violate our immigration laws.

It does not take a stethoscope to hear the pulse of New Yorkers on this topic. It is also clear that, even if I could convince the public of the utility of our cause, the legislative process and any number of mounting obstacles would have prevented us from moving forward. The result would have been the defeat of this proposal and, even worse, a roadblock to solutions on so many important issues - like revitalizing our economy, lowering the cost of health care while improving quality and access; restoring excellence to our education system, and reducing property taxes. It is for these reasons that I will not move forward with this plan.

Indeed, a consequence of the federal failure is that Americans and New Yorkers are demanding a comprehensive solution. Piecemeal reform, even if practical, is unacceptable. It fails to address the many important, competing interests and values. I underestimated that sentiment in putting forward this proposal.

Beyond the crisis of illegal immigration that I have tried to address in some small way, please allow me this brief observation about another crisis - the crisis of political discourse in this country that was on full display these past two months.

While people of good faith opposed my plan for fair reasons, some partisans unleashed a response that has become all too familiar in American politics. In New York, forces quickly mobilized to prey on the public's worst fears by turning what we believe is a practical security measure into a referendum on immigration.

Political opponents equated minimum-wage, undocumented dishwashers with Osama Bin Laden. Newspaper headlines equated a drivers' license for an undocumented migrant laborers with a "Passport to Terror" and a "License to Kill." Based on the New Yorkers I speak to each and every day, I feel confident in saying that this rhetoric is wildly out of step with mainstream values -- doing nothing to offer solutions and everything to exploit fear.

In his new book, political analyst Ron Brownstein calls this a crisis of "hyperpartisanship," a crisis which has "unnecessarily inflamed our differences and impeded progress against our most pressing challenges."

Nothing reflects the result of hyperpartisanship more than the current immigration debate, which has become so toxic that anytime a practical proposal is put forward, it is shot down before it can even be weighed on its merits.

The consequence of this fear-mongering is paralysis.

Here are the facts:

Tomorrow, undocumented workers will not stop driving.

The federal government is not going to deport one million undocumented workers from New York by the end of this year, any more than it did last year or the year before.

And we can be sure that those who beat their chests the loudest will still have no solution at all.

As Attorney General, I often had to step into the enormous vacuum left by a federal government that did not embrace its most fundamental responsibilities. Whether it was ensuring fair play in the markets, protecting the environment, enforcing labor laws or product safety, time and again, the Attorney General's office was forced to step into the void left by federal inaction.

As Governor, it has not been much different. Whether it's health care, climate change, education or, in this case immigration, states are feeling the brunt of federal abdication and conscious neglect of a problem that is crying out for a solution.

But what I have learned here is that, while there are times when states should be laboratories, immigration is not one of them. It's too complex and too macro a challenge to be solved by a patchwork of state policies. But the reality of 14 million undocumented immigrants nationwide and one million in New York isn't going away. So my challenge to the federal government is this: fix it. Fix the problem so the states won't face the local impact.

With that, I look forward to getting back to an agenda that addresses the needs of all New Yorkers.

Thank you.
(END OF STATEMENT)

Searching for something?

2007-11-15T00:19:00.000-05:00

Many of you come to “I See My Dreams” via a search engine, and quite often there are posts here on your search subject.

Please use the “search blog” window at the top of this page to find what you are looking for.

Thanks for visiting.

Some final thoughts

2007-11-06T00:10:00.000-05:00

"Let her and falsehood grapple; whoever knew truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter." ~ John Milton in his great plea for a free press, "Aeropagitica."

***

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But, it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about anyone else." ~ Teddy Roosevelt, Kansas City Star,7 May 1918

***

“I don’t want to hear about politics for at least a week. I want only sun, light, air and peace.” ~ Josef Goebbels, vacationing on the Baltic, as recorded in his diary. (This was right after Hindenburg had initially denied the chancellorship to Hitler and embarrassed him with a published communiqué.)

***

And, finally:

“Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you are a good person is like expecting the bull not to charge you because you are a vegetarian.” ~ Source Unknown

Drowned-out answer

2007-11-05T04:49:00.000-05:00

Cable news’ frenzy over Hillary Clinton’s answer to Tim Russert’s question in the most recent Democratic debate apparently drowned out his follow-up question to Barack Obama.

I haven’t heard this reported. Have you?

From the debate transcript (LINK):

BRIAN WILLIAMS, “NBC Nightly News:” Senator Obama, why are you nodding your head?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, I was confused on Senator Clinton’s answer. I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it, and I do think that is important. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.

Immigration is a difficult issue, but part of leadership is not just looking backwards and seeing what’s popular or trying to gauge popular sentiment; it’s about setting a direction for the country. And, that’s what I intend to do as president.

TIM RUSSERT, ‘Meet the Press:” Are you for it or against it (drivers licenses for illegal immigrants)?

OBAMA: I think that it is the right idea, and I disagree with Chris (Dodd) because there is a public safety concern. We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer.

That doesn’t negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.

***

Clearly, Barack Obama gave the SAME answer as Hillary Clinton, but his answer was drowned out by cable hosts and analysts waiting to pounce on the campaign’s front-runner.

Now, please read the next post for the rest of the story.

Creating reality

2007-11-05T04:27:00.000-05:00

For decades schools of journalism have kicked around Marshall McLuhan’s theory, “The medium is the message.”

Over the last few months, we have seen the medium of cable news doing what it does best: creating reality.

On 25 May 2007, my post, “The silence is deafening” (LINK) concerned “the new silent majority.” The premise of the post was: the MAJORITY of Americans do not have a voice in the media.

As an example, I noted that major polls, taken during the Senate debate on “immigration reform,” showed 60 to 80 percent of Americans support “a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.”

MSNBC had Pat Buchanan on ‘round-the-clock, almost every program, stating that “the overwhelming majority of Americans do NOT support amnesty for illegal aliens.” Pat tends to throw out a lot of unsupported statistics.

Of course, Lou Dobbs was doing his nightly thing on CNN.

Between the two of them they started a cable news drumbeat – you know, reporting “there is a great public outcry” - that developed a MYTH exactly the opposite of what major polls were showing.

Let’s take a look at what Americans were saying at the time:

CNN ARTICLE, 24 MAY 2007 ON POLL RESULTS FROM MAY 4-6, 2007, 80 PERCENT FAVOR PATH TO CITIZENSHIP (LINK):

“The same thing is true for illegal immigration. A solid majority of Americans favor allowing illegal immigrants who have been living in the United States for a number of years to stay and apply for citizenship if they have a job and pay back taxes. Critics call that ‘amnesty.’ ”

CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS REPORT ON PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS: LINK

USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL ARTICLE, APRIL 2007, 78 PERCENT FAVOR PATH TO CITIZENSHIP: LINK

ALSO, FROM THE USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL, MARCH 2007 (LINK):

“These sentiments were captured in an early March Gallup poll, which asked: ‘Which comes closest to your view about what government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country, allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States in order to work but only for a limited amount of time, or allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time?’

“Fifty-nine percent think illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain in the U.S. and possibly become citizens if they meet ‘certain requirements,’ while 15 percent favor allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. for a limited time, and 24 percent believe all illegal immigrants should be deported.”

Fast forward: a “google” search shows most recent polls on this issue are yielding the same results.

On 2 November 2007, in an article following the Democratic debate in Philadelphia, the Washington Post reported (LINK):

“Polls suggest that most Americans want to allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country and create ways for them to obtain citizenship, but party strategists say the voters who care most about this issue are those angry about illegal immigration and want to hear a tougher message.”

So, America’s “new silent majority” is being drowned out by an angry 20 percent and two numbnuts with microphones.

'Demagogue in Denim'

2007-11-02T06:13:00.000-04:00

In the pre-dawn hours Turner Classic Movies aired a film which, upon fresh viewing, seems as relevant today as when it was released 51 years ago.

A denim-clad, charismatic drifter, discovered in the drunk tank by a radio producer, rises to phenomenal success by appealing to the American masses.

Behind his hokey and homespun humor lies a megalomaniac, evil to the core, who pushes a fascist agenda onto an unsuspecting and uninformed mass audience.

Director Elia Kazan had the singular talent of squeezing gut-wrenching, primal-scream performances from his actors. It seems unlikely that the man who crafted the acting skills of Marlon Brando in “A Streetcar Named Desire” and “On the Waterfront” and James Dean in “East of Eden,” arguably extracted some of filmdom’s most riveting scenes from the man who played the sheriff of Mayberry.

“A Face in the Crowd” (1956), with equally flawless performances by Patricia Neal, Walter Matthau and Lee Remick, moves easily into today’s genre of right-wing talk radio and TV giants and ideology-bent politicians.

The film, born in the midst of McCarthyism, translates to a world of mass hysteria, fearmongering, nationalism and empire building. With a new viewing, Andy Griffith’s Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes becomes the more frightening, more dangerous persona embodied in the 24/7 world of right-wing punditry.

The demise of a tragic man with Shakespeare’s “tragic flaw” comes only when a duped public wakes up to truth.

I highly recommend this movie. If you’re in for a weekend video fest, experience it along with Barry Levinson’s “Wag the Dog,” starring Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro. Be prepared for revelations.

He's back!

2007-10-31T04:28:00.000-04:00

Just in time for Halloween, one of the most intriguing characters in the whole Iraq war debacle has once more found favor with U.S. forces in that country.

When I first began to study the neocons – during the run-up to the Iraq war – a man’s name kept surfacing.

This man is an MIT-trained mathematician and a wealthy businessman.

He was an exiled Iraqi and president of the Iraqi National Congress, set up with funds from the CIA. The INC pushed for the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Among this Iraqi’s staunchest supporters were neocons and high-ranking Pentagon officials Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.

Pre-war intelligence provided by this man was stovepiped by the Pentagon’s Douglas Feith directly into the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Those notions that Saddam had WMD and U.S. forces would be greeted with flowers – he’s your source.

With his mission accomplished, this man - who sat in the president’s box with the first lady at Bush’s January 2004 SOTU address - in February 2004 told Britain’s Daily Telegraph:

“We are heroes in error. As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants.”

“Heroes in error.” The man then insisted the interview had never occurred!

Why would anyone put such trust in a man with an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Jordan – charged with embezzling $300 million from his Petra Bank? He was sentenced in absentia to 22 years. He filed a lawsuit in the U.S., claiming this was “a smear campaign.” Jordan’s king eventually pardoned him.

Here the plot thickens to the density of osmium.

Back in his homeland of Iraq, the man didn’t exactly do what the U.S. expected of him. The inticate details: LINK

Soon there were other warrants – in Iraq.

The man, accused of counterfeiting, said the bogus money was “samples” from his new job overseeing the country’s central bank. LINK

An arrest warrant for murder was issued in Iraq for the man’s nephew, then head of Iraq’s War Crimes Tribunal. The nephew, in London at the time, said the warrant was “an effort to discredit the tribunal.” LINK

The man’s Baghdad home was raided by Iraqi police and U.S. troops. U.S. officials accused the man of passing secrets to Iran. “Ridiculous,” he said. LINK

Remember this man’s name: Ahmed Chalabi.

On Monday, the Progress Report, Center for American Progress, reported:

“On 28 October 2007, McClatchy (newspaper group) revealed that Ahmad Chalabi, the disgraced Iraqi politician who embellished reports of Iraq's WMD to encourage an American attack, has ‘re-emerged as a central figure in the latest U.S. strategy for Iraq.’ As the new head of the services committee, charged with bringing electricity, health and other services to Baghdad, Chalabi serves at ‘the heart of the surge plan.’ Col. Steven Boylan, spokesman for Gen. David Petraeus, heralded Chalabi as ‘an important part of the process.’ "

In again, out again, this man is once more in U.S. favor. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

***

A brief and entertaining post follows.

Welcome to America

2007-10-31T04:22:00.000-04:00

Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” feature on MSNBC is always entertaining, but Monday night’s winner was just too good not to pass along:

“The winner, your Department of Homeland Security. For the second time in a year, it has detained at a U.S. airport a Mr. Shahid Malik of Great Britain; this time searched Washington Dulles for explosives.

“Last year he said it happened at JFK. This time he said the other two men detained with him in the interrogation room were black men with Muslim names.

“Couple of problems here, Mr. Malik was in our country to meet with the Department of Homeland Security. He‘s not just some British guy with a Muslim name. He‘s with the British government. You know, Mr. Bush‘s partners in the war on terrorists. In fact, he‘s the British minister for international development. He‘s in the cabinet.

“And, we patted him down for explosives at Dulles, again!

“Your Department of Homeland Security, inspiring new anti-American terrorists since 2001, today‘s Worst Persons in the World!”

Hired guns of fake news

2007-10-29T03:05:00.000-04:00

FEMA’S PHONY PRESS FIASCO

By now, you know about FEMA’s staging of a fake press briefing, using FEMA staffers instead of journalists, on Tuesday, 23 October.

The FEMA employees lobbed softball questions about the Agency’s response to California’s wildfires. (Read the “briefing” Q&A: LINK)

On Friday, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said FEMA had, in its own words, made “an error in judgment,” and red-faced Agency officials issued a public apology.

A CHRONICLE OF FAKE NEWS

These pseudo-journalist shenanigans by the Bush administration are nothing new. Let’s examine the background on this issue:

At the risk of seeming immodest, may I quote myself?

In 2004-2005 I authored a blog, “Vocal Yokels,” described thusly:

"Chronicling the absurd, the obnoxious, the outright lies, the occasional truths and the downright mystical out of the mouths of politicians and pundits."

For example:

"I hope you leave here and walk out and say, 'What did he say?'"
- George W. Bush,
Beaverton, Oregon, 13 August 2004

THE QUESTION THAT ROCKED ME

On 27 January 2005, under the post title, “Bush and the press,” I wrote about Bush’s press conference of the previous day (LINK). Watching the Q&A with Bush, I was stunned by an unidentified male reporter’s question:

"Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock-solid, and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work - you said you are going to reach out to these people - how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

I concluded the post with “Don't know where this reporter went to journalism school, but he obviously missed Objectivity 101.”

THE REPORTER

A couple of weeks later news broke that the reporter who asked that question was Jeff Gannon, aka James “J. D.” Guckert, a phony journalist who had somehow secured White House Press Corps credentials. Far from having attended any school of journalism, Gannon/Guckert was a former male prostitute complete with nude photos on the Internet! LINK He obtained Press Corps credentials after setting up a right-wing propaganda Web site.

A REALLY 'BIG STRETCH'

This sort of slanted journalism continues. At his press conference of 20 September 2007 (LINK), Bush fielded the “final question” from White House shill Bill Sammon of the Washington Examiner, a Fox News analyst and author of pro-Bush books (LINK).

Bush calls the tall reporter “Super Stretch” or “Big Stretch.”

Sammon, whose new book is titled “The Evangelical President: George Bush's Struggle to Spread a Moral Democracy Throughout the World,” lobbed the president a question about MoveOn.org’s General Petraeus ad in the New York Times, giving Bush the opportunity to conclude his press conference with sharp criticism of the “Democrat” (sic) Party.

PROPAGANDA AND PAYOLA

On 6 January 2005, I wrote in “Vocal Yokels:”

The White House paid a prominent black pundit $250,000 to use his influence among blacks in garnering support for its education reform law - Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB), USA Today reports. LINK

To earn the money, Armstrong Williams, one of the nation's most influential black conservatives, was required to promote NCLB on his television broadcasts and to run interviews with Secretary of Education Rod Paige during 2004.

As part of the deal, Williams - a former aide to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, host of "The Right Side" and op-ed columnist - influenced his colleagues to promote NCLB.

According to USA Today, "Williams' contract was part of a $1 million deal with Ketchum (public relations firm) that produced 'video news releases' (called VNRs) designed to look like real news reports. The Bush administration used similar VNRs last year to promote its Medicare prescription drug plan, prompting a scolding from the Government Accountability Office, which called them an illegal use of taxpayers' dollars."

THIRD TIME THE CHARM?

Williams, who is a regular political contributor on MSNBC, after being investigated twice before, has been issued a citation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

On 19 October 2007, PR Watch reported (LINK):

“Perhaps, in the case of Armstrong Williams, the third time will be the charm.

“The first two official investigations failed to hold anyone accountable for what can only be described as a textbook case of government propaganda. The results of the third investigation, by the Federal Communications Commission, were announced recently. The FCC found Williams and two media companies to be at fault, issuing a citation against Williams and proposing fines of $40,000 against Sonshine Family Television and $36,000 against Sinclair Broadcast Group.”

DEATH KNELL FOR PUBLIC DIVERSITY?

On 26 June 2005, New York Times columnist Frank Rich sounded the tocsin about Bush loyalists’ efforts to expunge public broadcasting - PBS and NPR - of liberal voices:

Stating the future of Big Bird was secure, Rich added, “That doesn't mean the right's new assault on public broadcasting is toothless, far from it. But, this time the game is far more insidious and ingenious. The intent is not to kill off PBS and NPR but to castrate them by quietly annexing their news and public affairs operations to the larger state propaganda machine that the Bush White House has been steadily constructing at taxpayers' expense.

“If you liked the fake government news videos that ended up on local stations - or thrilled to the ‘journalism’ of Armstrong Williams and other columnists who were covertly paid to promote administration policies - you'll love the brave new world this crowd envisions for public TV and radio.”

I recommend you read Mr. Rich’s exposé of right-wing efforts to take over public broadcasting: LINK

THE COUP CONTINUES

The conservative coup continues at PBS and NPR with five Republicans controlling the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, chaired by Cheryl Halpern, a former Republican fundraiser. Read more: LINK

CAVEAT EMPTOR

Finally, the FCC has ruled against “corporate propaganda disguised as news reports.” These video news releases, or VNRs, are “fake news,” and you see them every day on TV.

The Center for Media and Democracy reports in an emailed newsletter, “The FCC now requires that radio and TV stations, as well as individuals, disclose on-air when they have received compensation to talk about a product or an issue.”

FIRST-EVER FINE FOR FAKE NEWS

On 29 September 2007, the Denver (Colo.) Post reported (LINK):

“The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last week levied its first-ever fine against a cable-TV operator for running a "fake news" report without identifying it as such.

“The FCC proposed a $400,000 fine against Comcast, Colorado's largest cable company.

“Comcast ran a video news release, or VNR, for a sleep aid as part of a program the Philadelphia-based cable giant produced, but it didn't state the news report was produced by the third-party company.”

HOW FAR WILL THE FCC GO?

Remember the FCC ruling mentions “issues” as well as “products.” It remains to be seen how far the FCC will go in excluding propaganda from America’s airways – soon going digital - while protecting free speech and a free press.

‘CATAPULT THE PROPAGANDA’

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)"
- George W. Bush, Greece, New York, 24 May 2005: LINK

CONCLUSION

If all this is OK with you, if it fits your political agenda just fine, you do not want facts, you do not want real news, you want validation.

Bush WH: the naked truth

2007-10-25T00:58:00.000-04:00

If you need singular proof that the Bush administration is FUBAR, read Bob Woodward’s third book on the Bush presidency, “State of Denial.”

In the meantime:

Open your eyes to the truth.

There are eight million stories in the naked truth about the foulness of this administration, and this has been one of them:

KEITH OLBERMANN, “Countdown with Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, 23 October 2007 (LINK): On July 13, 2003, Valerie Plame Wilson was the chief of operations for the Joint Iraq Task Force of the CIA’s counter-proliferation division. Only a handful of people outside the CIA even knew this. For 15-plus years she had used various cover stories to conceal her identity as a CIA operative and to cultivate a network of contacts and sources as part of America’s effort to prevent the spread of nuclear and other nonconventional weapons. She was, in short, a rare and valuable commodity in the battle against weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.

On July 14, 2003, an American blew her cover to the media, trying to tarnish the credibility of her husband, who had just called out President Bush’s 16 words about Iraq’s pursuit of yellow cake uranium as the lie it was.

(BJ note: the parenthetical information in this transcript is mine. “16 words” background: The 16 words in Bush’s 28 January 2003 State of the Union Address – “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” – previously had been pulled from a speech Bush gave in Cincinnati, because the CIA determined intelligence surrounding them was shaky. Following the 16 words in Bush’s SOTU address, powerful words which wooed a nation to war with Iraq, CIA Director George Tenet stated he had not followed SOP and vetted the SOTU beforehand. It wouldn’t be the last time Tenet fell on his sword. A few days after Wilson’s op-ed piece appeared, the White House and the CIA conceded the 16 words – based on forged documents - should NEVER have appeared in the SOTU.)

OLBERMANN: The White House lied again, denying its self-involvement (in the Plame leak). A lengthy criminal trial later, and we learn that one State Department official and no less than three top White House aides had peddled Plame’s identity to the media.

Despite his pledge to fire any leaker or leakers, Mr. Bush fired neither Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove nor Lewis “Scooter” Libby. And, when Libby compounded his sin by lying to investigators, President Bush commuted his sentence, removing the one incentive Mr. Libby might have ever had to tell the truth.

No one ever apologized to Valerie Plame Wilson or her husband or her family. Today, in our third story on the COUNTDOWN, after some battling with her former CIA employers, her new book is finally out, “Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House.” I spoke with her earlier this evening:

OLBERMANN: Welcome.

VALERIE PLAME WILSON, (FORMER CIA COVERT OPERATIVE AND) AUTHOR, “FAIR GAME:” Thank you for having me.

OLBERMANN: The news of the month, let’s start there, Iran. David Shuster had reported that when you were outed, it damaged our ability to track nuclear ambitions by Iran. Give me your professional opinion: is this entire experience, Iraq, repeated right down to the cherry-picking of intelligence and eventually the picking of a fight with a foreign government?

WILSON: Yes, it certainly appears to be that way. I resigned from the CIA in 2006, so I, of course, do not have access to any current intelligence. But, it does seem eerily reminiscent of the run-up to the war with Iraq. And, I hope that we have learned some lessons.

OLBERMANN: Any indications that we have learned some lessons? Another professional opinion; we watch the vice president threaten. We listen to the president make references to World War III. We see the press secretary very politely drumming the beat for a war or conflict of some sort with Iran. Those are sort of a layman’s point of view.

You have dealt with intelligence. You’ve dealt with Iran. What should we be looking at professionally? What are the questions that we should be asking that we haven’t been asking, yet, about this topic?

WILSON: There is no doubt that there is malevolent intent on behalf of Iran, that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There’s no question about that. But, we are a great country, and I believe that as a great country, we can afford to speak to everyone, even our enemies. And, the idea of not using every single tool that we have available to us, primarily diplomacy, is unfortunate. And, obviously our international credibility, moral authority has been severely eroded in the debacle in Iraq.

OLBERMANN: Let me turn to the book, and your story of this last four years. One particular thing jumped out; how much do you believe, with all the information that you have had about this, that your boss at CIA, George Tenet, knew about the province (scope) of the leak when he asked for the investigation of it?

WILSON: I don’t know about that. As I write in the book, the only senior agency official that I spoke to after the leak was the head of the DDO (deputy director of operations, CIA), Mr. Jim Pavitt.

(Background: Pavitt, a 31-year veteran of the CIA, resigned as DDO in 2004, announcing his resignation on June 4, the day after CIA Director George Tenet resigned. Pavitt had served as DDO longer than any other person in 30 years.)

WILSON: So no one ever reached out to me. I have no idea. All I know is that the CIA referred this to the Justice Department at the end of September of 2003, because they thought that a crime should be investigated.

OLBERMANN: The promotional material about this book says some accounts have come close to the truth. Others have veered from it. Anybody get it right? And, in the whole process, has this given you insight that maybe we don’t have about the nature of the news media and whether or not we can rely on us?

WILSON: Well, the different accounts that I have read—and there is so much in the public domain—I sure was surprised. Some of it gets it really right. Some of it is way off base. It has been interesting to see as it all sort of washes over. As far as the media in the Libby trial, I think there was—that was sort of laid bear, the sort of symbiotic relationship between the media and the White House and their need for access. I was—what I was taken with was how easily the mainstream media took what was spoon fed from the administration without digging deeper, without using shoe leather to investigate, talk to maybe mid-level managers about the preparation for the war in Iraq, post-war planning, that sort of thing.

(This is exactly what Bob Woodward’s “State of Denial,” published three years after Plame Wilson’s identity was leaked, does.)

OLBERMANN: Is there anything from the entire experience that stands out at you at this point and makes you say, I can’t believe they got away with this? Or, I can’t believe the media or the politicians ignored this? Any of the things that happened to you that still are somewhat undervalued in this story?

WILSON: Well, I’m just coming off a really—what felt to me like a very ferocious battle with the Agency (CIA) over the censorship. As you know, there are lots of black lines in the book, and I would maintain that most of those redactions deal with the Agency’s position that I’m not permitted to acknowledge my Agency affiliation prior to January 2002. And, I would say that they (the redacted lines) have very little to do with national security, and everything to do with further punitive action by this administration toward me and Joe (Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson).

And, furthermore, I think it also was an attempt to diminish me and my responsibilities at the CIA, because if you diminish me, then the crime is diminished.

OLBERMANN: How antithetical to everything you were trained to do, everything you’ve done for 20-plus years before this happened, is the process of a book? I mean, you were on the side of the people putting the black lines over the books, not the people writing the books.

WILSON: Indeed. If none of this had happened, probably right now I and my family would be serving overseas. And, I would be working on something from which I derive a great sense of satisfaction: counter-proliferation issues. So, all of this is really strange. But, I am—finally, after four and a half years of everyone else talking about me, I get to tell my story, and it is an important one, because it is a story of the consequences of speaking truth to power and the importance of holding your government to account for its words and deeds.

OLBERMANN: Was it worth it?

WILSON: Which part?

OLBERMANN: Knowing that you had an impact on holding the government to its words and deeds when there were probably about 10 people in the country even trying?

WILSON: Absolutely. If we, you know, knew what we know now, then would we still do it? Absolutely. Joe wrote his op-ed piece (“What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” New York Times, 6 July 2003, LINK) as a matter of principle and conscience. We have small children that we have to answer to one day when they grow up and read about this, and ask us, “Well, you mean, you knew this, and you didn’t say anything?” So, there is no question.

And, Joe and I have always been very clear that although everything that has happened to us, and it has been very painful—it’s been a long, strange journey—that is, it is mere inconvenience compared to the news of American families who have their sons and daughters fighting in Iraq, and they get the worst possible news, because of the policies pursued by this administration.

OLBERMANN: Valerie Plame Wilson; the new book is “Fair Game.” It will certainly be one of the great original sources of American history as we live it. Great thanks for coming in and all the best.

WILSON: Thank you for having me.

***

To order:

“State of Denial,” Bob Woodward: LINK

“Fair Game,” Valerie Plame Wilson: LINK

My beef with J. K. Rowling

2007-10-23T08:30:00.000-04:00

“Harry Potter” author J. K, Rowling told 2,000 fans at Carnegie Hall Friday night that the beloved headmaster of Hogwarts is “gay.”

I’ve read the 4,000-plus pages of Ms. Rowling’s seven books, and, as she states, there is no reference whatsoever to Albus Dumbledore’s sexuality.

I have no problem with Rowling’s perception of Dumbledore. My beef with the author is: why bring it up now?

When the first book was released there was a loud, right-wing outcry against teaching little kids to love witchcraft. The roar of the Religious Right died down in the face of Ms. Rowling’s genius – she had created a master work of wizardry for the ages – and for all age groups.

Now, the protests will rise again as fundamentalists ponder, in their own weird way, the “damage” these books have inflicted upon a generation of young readers.

All this from folks who’ve never read the books. I need a butterbeer!

If Rowling’s revelation deters one reader – young or old – from Harry Potter’s magical pages, one of the most rewarding literary experiences ever will be lost.

***

Please take my poll to the left, and don’t miss the next post.

10/24/2007 update:

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly aired a segment last night titled, "Harry Potter's Gay Agenda." I saw that one coming a mile away.

O'Reilly's guest from Entertainment Weekly "opined" that she thought Rowling was trying to teach "tolerance."

What she should have told O'Reilly, who stated he didn't have time to read books about wizards, was, "It's not in the damn books, Bill!"

Bloviate that!

If it's Tuesday, it's OMST!

2007-10-23T05:14:00.000-04:00

My dear Sir Cumspect:

I am a couple of nip/tucks away from getting a cable news assignment, LOL.

Lots of confusion this past week over three little words: “can,” “may” and “might.”

Simply put, “can” denotes the ability to do something. “May” gives permission; “might” is supposition.

“Can” and “may” are not interchangeable. Ditto for “may” and “might.”

You might think this is elementary, my dear, but one can hear examples 24/7 on cable news.

Yes, you may quote me.

Respectfully,

OMST

Bush v. America

2007-10-22T00:15:00.000-04:00

After six years of a Republican-controlled Congress, George W. Bush located his veto pen. He has used it four times to date: twice on stem-cell research, once on Iraq redeployment and now on a health insurance program for children.

In doing so, Bush has pitted himself against the will of the American people.

To rationalize his SCHIP veto, Bush lied. Here’s an example:

The president told Americans that families making $83,000 a year will receive help from SCHIP. “That doesn’t sound like poor children to me,” he said.

The $83,000 was a waiver which New York State applied for and failed to get.

Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas attempted to bust this myth:

“This bill does not grant SCHIP coverage to children whose families have incomes more than $40,000. In fact, the only way a state can cover children in families at higher income levels is if the administration grants approval for the state to do so. This is already current law, and this bill does not change that. However, this bill for the first time puts tough standards into place to ensure states are truly focusing their programs on low-income children.” LINK

A sufficient number of Republican House members, as well as two Southern Democrats, bought this myth and other talking points, including claims the bill would cover children of illegal immigrants, which it does not.

I have a serious question for my representative in Congress, J. Gresham Barrett, 3rd District, South Carolina, and I want a serious answer:

Sir, are you a member of the legislative branch of government, or the executive?

Who voted against overriding Bush’s SCHIP veto? LINK

***

A brief post follows.