Dark Days

Yep, it's pretty dark days here in Frananbananaland. I've poked my fingers into the cyberspace over at Television Without Pity and LTH Forum (Chicagoland foodie discussion board), but otherwise have not had the interest or inspiration to blog, much.

It hasn't even been fun to read my regulars, such as Talking Points Memo or Daily Kos. I do check in with the brilliant James Wolcott (god, do I wish I could write like that), but even so I was away for several weeks. And bless his heart, Bob Somerby is still doing God's work at the Daily Howler, but my ire cannot be raised. This is post-election despondence.

Bush and company are still up to their shenanigans, perhaps even worse now with their so-called man-date. The media went into spasms over Scottie Petersen; has anyone else noted that wife-killers are a dime a dozen? Didn't think so. Yet still Iraq quags further into the mire, and more young men and women are maimed and killed. I have felt hopeless and powerless since the election. Really, what is there to say or do at this point?

I listened with more than usual melancholy yesterday morning to the Nine Lessons and Carols from King's College in Cambridge. It was originally created in 1918 as a way to bring imaginative worship to the Christmas Eve service. I am moved, as I imagine the young Dean of King's, fresh from his service as an Army chaplain, creating an oasis of peace and joy following such monstrous despair and destruction he and his entire generation had experienced. It is some comfort that dark days do inspire such expressions.

Perhaps I will suit up following the New Year, raise my ire, my dander, and sharpen my fangs. Perhaps.

Blogging Blues

I find myself greatly admiring the bloggers who have carried on valiantly following the election. My heart isn't in it right now. I'm still visiting the blogs, and reading the news, but the election results have taken the wind out of my sails.

I find myself spending more time on Television Without Pity and Fametracker and following the horror known as Star Reynolds (nee Jones) Big Gay Wedding. Nothing comforts the mind like silly television shows and pseudo-celebrity excesses.

Still, the political world invades. Colin Powell retires, to be replaced by Condi Rice. Here's an SAT analogy for you...
Jesus Christ:Mary Magdalene::George W. Bush:
a) Barbara Bush
b) Condoleeza Rice
c) Helen Thomas
d) Karen Hughes
e) Laura Bush

OK, it's not easy. But I'm going with (b) Condoleeza Rice. (If Karen Hughes were still in the administration, she'd be my choice.) I predict disaster. With little real management experience, and owing her political career to the Big Dick, Condi's real benefit to the administration (but not to the country as a whole, nor to the world) will be as the handmaiden who carries out Bush's every wish and desire.

Also worthy reading is Media Matters' fine analysis on why "moral values" did not REALLY affect election decisions. Just as I thought, although I didn't take the time to do the legwork. So, thanks Media Matters and David Brock.

Now, back to lick my wounds and watch The Gilmore Girls on TiVo.

Three Days Later...

It's taken me this long to begin to consider a post-election blog. I read through the opening of my last post on Tuesday morning, when I had jitters in my stomach but that same cautious optimism I'd had the last few weeks prior to the election. Fueled by decent polling numbers and continuing bad news and defections from the Bush camp, I was hopeful.

In hindsight, the piece of information that most pointed to the election result was this study: "Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program, Supported al Qaeda" from the University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes. The meta-analysis goes on to point out that:

• 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%).
  
• 56% assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD
  
• 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.
  
• 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda
  
• 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found.
  
• 60% of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts
  
• 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.
  
• 69% assume incorrectly that Bush supports Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
  
• 72% assume incorrectly that Bush supports the treaty banning land mines
  
• 51% assume incorrectly that he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty.
  
• After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he favors it.
  
• An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements.
  

"The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," according to Steven Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters."

Well, there you have it. I probably should have been far more worried and pessimistic after reading that study's findings.

There's been quite a lot written about the "moral values" of the exit polling, and I'm sure this is only the beginning. Without more information other than the talking heads and the bloggers, I can't begin to comment on it, or even fathom the meaning of that phrase.

What I do know is that slightly more than half this country wants desperately to believe in our President. And believe they do despite all evidence to the contrary.

Faith and emotions carry a lot of weight -- if there's anything I've learned from my many years in the marketing world, people don't make decisions based on logic. It's not that you can't reason with some people -- most people are immune to reason and seek comfort and security. As the good prince Hamlet said,

"Give me that man
That is not passion’s slave, and I will wear him
In my heart’s core..."

For me, knowing what I know about the President and his minions, I was completely willing to put my comfort and security in the hands of John Kerry. Beyond all logic, I felt, and still feel, deep in my soul, my heart, and my bones, that President Bush is rotten. Corrupt, wrongheaded, mendacious, calculating, and deceitful.

For those who believe in the President, the challenger did not offer enough. My consolation is now that Bush will have to live with the mess he had made, and perhaps he will have to face up to them. We must make him face up to them.

Iraqi Dead Estimated at 100,000

I know, I know. It's Election Day. I should be wringing my hands (OK, I am), engaging in nervous eating (check!), and making optimistic predictions (Kerry will win the popular vote and the electoral college).

But I thought I would address the crimes against humanity that we have perpetrated against the Iraqi people in our zeal to bring them democracy.

A recent study by the U.K.'s Lancet medical journey estimates that 100,000 non-combatant Iraqis have died in the 18 months since we invaded Iraq in March 2003. Without going into the details of the survey methodology (The Guardian has more info), it is certainly better than the complete lack of information provided by the "Coalition" forces.

This is 0.4% of the Iraqi population, which would be equivalent to 1.2 million American. Imagine that!

When I recently brought this statistic up to a friend (Bush supporter), his response was:

• Well, we would expect civilian deaths if we were invaded, too.
  When I mentioned that we invaded Iraq without cause, and that there would be an unbelievable outcry if we lost 1.2 million people due to some invasion or attack; where was the equivalent outcry about the injustic to the Iraqis? We are blind to our own destruction.
  
• The next response was: Saddam was a danger to us. We need to get rid of tyrants. What if we had gotten rid of Hitler in 1933?
  Oy, the Hitler argument. I completely absolutely totally reject the equivalency of Saddam to Hitler. I agree that Hitler was a danger, and we fought a long and bloody war to rid the world of him. Saddam was not a danger to us, though, any more than Pol Pot, or Robert Mugabe. Saddam was contained. He had no weapons programs. He was a bad baddie, but he was not a danger to the U.S. I could make a good case that we should be more worried about Kim Jung Il or Musharif where we have real documented evidence of nuclear weapons.
  
• The last point: Saddam was murderous thug to his people, and he killed far more people and would keep on killing them unless we stopped him. There were 300,000 bodies found in mass graves -- women and children.
  This put me in a difficult spot, because I ain't going to start definding Saddam Hussein. But that 300,000 number seemed awfully big. But being open-minded, I wanted to check out the sources for that. I could find a lot of sources for the 300,000 number, which seemed to originate at Human Rights Watch, which estimated 290,000 Iraqis dead in mass graves. But that was from May 2003, right after we "won" the war. Since then we've had a chance to find all the mass graves (and the WMD). So what's the latest?

There are many many many sources who repeat (or even expand) Saddam's death toll at 300,000, but not a single stitch of post-invasion documentation of that number. There is certainly recent evidence of mass graves, and women and babies in them. CNN reports finding hundreds of bodies in October 2004. The article repeats the 300,000 murdered estimate, but gives no support for it.

But there was a single article in July 2004 in the Observer that stated:

Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves.

So far, I haven't found this same story in any U.S. newspaper. I'm still waiting for evidence.

Wages Slaves, Be Sure to Vote!

Many states require employers to give employees time off to vote.

In Illinois: Employee may take two hours off to vote. Must apply in advance. There is no so specific provision that you will be paid for your time; however, the statute provides that the voter shall not be liable for any penalty for absenting himself to vote. The statute has been interpreted that non-exempt employees will not be paid.

In Kentucky: Employee may take off four hours to vote. Must apply for leave in advance. There is no specific provision that employees will be paid. The statute provides that no person shall be penalized for taking a reasonable time off to vote, unless under circumstances that did not prevent him from voting, he failed to vote. It also states that such a person may be subject to disciplinary action. The Kentucky attorney general has issued an opinion stating that employees of private employers need not be paid for time off taken to vote.

In California: Employee may take time off if there is not sufficient time outside working hours to vote. Employee must give two days notice of need for time off. Employer must post notice of right to take time off to vote 10 days before election. Employee must be paid, for no more than two hours.

In Ohio: Employee may take a reasonable time off to vote. Employee may not be discharged or threatened for taking time off to vote. Violators may be fined from $50 to $500. It is unclear whether employees must be paid. The statute has been interpreted to mean that an employer’s refusal to pay an employee who is employed on other than a piecework, commission, or hourly basis for taking time off to vote, if done to induce or compel a person to refrain from voting or to vote in a certain way, would violate this law.

In Florida: No provision. Figure it out and vote on your own time!

This list shows all the state statutes.

Friday cat blogging

Bush Takes Shamelessness to a New Low

After spending the last year and a half or so TRASHING the current Democratic leadership and villifying his opponent, Bush has the gall to hearken back to great Democrats of the past (Roosevelt, Truman & Kennedy) -- guess he doesn't think much of old Eisenhower, although his granddad Prescott Bush was quite a fan -- and attempt to make the truly lame case that HE is the true inheritor of Democratic values.

Ha! Double-ha! As NDOL.org says:

We have no way of knowing if the president is going to continue this laughable effort to steal the clothes of great Democrats right up until election day, or if this gambit is as disposable as his 2000 campaign promises to "change the tone in Washington" and serve as a "uniter, not a divider." It is pretty clear that his words in Wisconsin probably didn't reach too many Democrats in real time, since anyone bearing visible Democratic insignia is banned from his campaign appearances. Moreover, he was surrounded on the platform by a host of Republican candidates eagerly seeking to reinforce the GOP's iron partisan control over Congress, a place where Democrats are being treated with a degree of contempt rarely seen since the 19th century.

Vote this man out.

New Yorker Makes an Endorsement

Usually I resist reading the New Yorker online before I receive the magazine. I love reading the magazine itself. Flipping the pages, seeing what the "talk" is, checking the reviews, glancing at the cartoons, seeing who has the fiction piece that week.

But really, I read on Laura Rozen's excellent blog that the New Yorker has actually endorsed a presidential candidate for the first time in its long history. So of course I had to check it out. The editors systematically take down Bush for his lack of "uniting," his ill-advised tax cuts, his environmental policy, his breaching of civil liberties through the Patriot Act, his hostility to science, and last, but not least, his incompetence in monitoring the terrorist threat prior to 9/11, and his complete botching of the Iraq War.

You can read all that bad stuff about Bush yourself. I'd like to tell you what they say about John Kerry:

But when his foes sought to destroy him rather than to debate him they found no scandals and no evidence of bad faith in his past. In the face of infuriating and scurrilous calumnies, he kept the sort of cool that the thin-skinned and painfully insecure incumbent cannot even feign during the unprogrammed give-and-take of an electoral debate. Kerry’s mettle has been tested under fire—the fire of real bullets and the political fire that will surely not abate but, rather, intensify if he is elected—and he has shown himself to be tough, resilient, and possessed of a properly Presidential dose of dignified authority. While Bush has pandered relentlessly to the narrowest urges of his base, Kerry has sought to appeal broadly to the American center. In a time of primitive partisanship, he has exhibited a fundamentally undogmatic temperament. In campaigning for America’s mainstream restoration, Kerry has insisted that this election ought to be decided on the urgent issues of our moment, the issues that will define American life for the coming half century. That insistence is a measure of his character. He is plainly the better choice. As observers, reporters, and commentators we will hold him to the highest standards of honesty and performance. For now, as citizens, we hope for his victory.

Beautiful day. Beautiful family.

Beautiful day. Beautiful family
Originally uploaded by franabanana.

This photo was taken last spring, on a blustery day by Lake Michigan.

When bloggers make me laugh...

From Attaturk, at Rising Hegemon: Atrios and Steve Gilliard point out that Bush is supposed to be in Crawford on his potemkin ranch this weekend.

Bwah! Potemkin ranch! (Here's the trackback link. We'll see if it works.)

Definition of Potemkin Village: Something that appears elaborate and impressive but in actual fact lacks substance.

Sounds about right.

Greatest Writer of All Time Hates Bush

Yes, I'm quite partial to John LeCarre novels. And John LeCarre's politics have much to recommend them as well, especially when we writes:

Maybe there's one good reason — just one — for reelecting George W. Bush, and that's to force him to live with the consequences of his appalling actions and answer for his own lies, rather than wish the job on a Democrat who would then get blamed for his predecessor's follies.

Read the rest (requires free subscription to LA Times).

It Just Goes to Show Ya ... Not All Bushes Are Bad

I like these people. I really like them!

Bush Relatives for Kerry.

Bush Is Not a Man of Faith

As good as Ron Suskind's NY Times Magazine article "Without a Doubt" is, something was just a bit off. The issue left unchallenged is that nearly everyone, including Suskind, takes Bush's profession of faith at face value.

But he is not a man of faith. (See also my earlier post on E.L. Doctrow's elegant bashing of Bush's lack of compassion and empathy.)

Ayelish McGarvey writes oh-so-insightfully inThe American Prospect, taking Bush's faith at face value

is a huge mistake, because when judged by his deeds, an entirely different picture emerges: Bush does not demonstrate a life of faith by his actions, and neither Methodists, evangelicals, nor fundamentalists can rightly call him brother. In fact, the available evidence raises serious questions about whether Bush is really a Christian at all.

Ironically for a man who once famously named Jesus as his favorite political philosopher during a campaign debate, it is remarkably difficult to pinpoint a single instance wherein Christian teaching has won out over partisan politics in the Bush White House. Though Bush easily weaves Christian language and themes into his political communication, empty religious jargon is no substitute for a bedrock faith. Even little children in Sunday school know that Jesus taught his disciples to live according to his commandments, not simply to talk about them a lot. In Bush’s case, faith without works is not just dead faith -- it’s evangelical agitprop. ...

Judging him on his record, George W. Bush’s spiritual transformation seems to have consisted of little more than staying on the wagon, with Jesus as a sort of talismanic Alcoholics Anonymous counselor. Bush came to his faith through a small group program created by Community Bible Study, which de-emphasizes sin and resembles a sort of Jesus-centered therapy session.
...
Save for a few standout reporters, the press has done a dismal job of covering the president’s very public religiosity. Overwhelmingly lacking personal familiarity with conservative Christianity, political reporters have either avoided the topic or resorted to shopworn clichés and lazy stereotypes. Over and over, news stories align Bush with evangelical theology while loosely dropping terms like fundamentalist to describe his beliefs.

Once and for all: George W. Bush is neither born again nor evangelical. As Alan Cooperman reported in The Washington Post last month, the president has been careful never to use either term to describe his faith. Unlike millions of evangelicals, Bush did not have a single born-again experience; instead, he slowly came to Christianity over the course of several years, beginning with a deep conversation with the Reverend Billy Graham in the mid-1980s. And there is virtually no evidence that Bush places any emphasis on evangelizing -- or spreading the gospel -- in either his personal or professional life.

Al Gore Lives in My Heart

From Al Gore's speech at Georgetown yesterday:

It appears to be an important element in Bush’s ideology to never admit a mistake or even a doubt. It also has become common for Bush to rely on special interests for information about the policies important to them and he trusts what they tell him over any contrary view that emerges from public debate. He has, in effect, outsourced the truth. Most disturbing of all, his contempt for the rule of reason and his early successes in persuading the nation that his ideologically based views accurately described the world have tempted him to the hubristic and genuinely dangerous illusion that reality is itself a commodity that can be created with clever public relations and propaganda skills, and where specific controversies are concerned, simply purchased as a turnkey operation from the industries most affected.

George Orwell said, “The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

Give em hell, Al. The Emperor has no clothes! The Wizard of Oz is just a man working the levers!

"We'll always have ... Poland?"

Thanks to my brother Michael (my real brother, not my "bra'"), I will never forget Poland. To have the same experience, visit You Forgot Poland!

Rise Up Against the Corporate Media

Frank Rich writes a powawful indictment of the interests of corporate media in this insightful article:Will We Need a New "All the President's Men"?.

Like the Nixon administration before it, the Bush administration arrived at the White House already obsessed with news management and secrecy. Nixon gave fewer press conferences than any president since Hoover; Mr. Bush has given fewer than any in history. Early in the Nixon years, a special National Press Club study concluded that the president had instituted "an unprecedented, government-wide effort to control, restrict and conceal information." Sound familiar? The current president has seen to it that even future historians won't get access to papers he wants to hide; he quietly gutted the Presidential Records Act of 1978, the very reform enacted by Congress as a post-Watergate antidote to pathological Nixonian secrecy.

Please read it! (The New York Times requires a free subscription.)

Best Debate Questions Came from Regular People

With the last debate over, Kerry and Edwards did exactly what they needed to do. Even without Bush's Debate 1 Meltdown (Blinky McWired); Cheney's tired growling (Grumpy McScary); Bush's Debate 2 aggression (Shrieky McFury); and Bush's Debate 3 Frat Boy Jokiness (Giggly McCreepy), Kerry Edwards still scored points with specific rhetoric, mature demeanor, and respect for the process and for their opponent. Kerry did not get rattled; he may not have always given the best answers, or responded with the greatest force, but he did enough to show himself as a strong candidate to those voters only exposed to Bush's lies.

Bush will not recover from the impression formed in the first debate; of course his supporters will continue to support him, but he has reached his ceiling.

As for the "debate" format, I say let them all be town halls. The moderators were awful; the town-hall folks were awesome (I guess Gibson gets some credit for choosing the questions. But still).

Lehrer: The questions weren't that bad, but he allowed Bush to jump all over him, taking extra time. Is everyone in the press afraid to challenge Bush?

Ifill played weird word games: Talk about what your ticket would do, but DON'T USE HIS NAME. Easy for Cheney, since he never mentions Bush anway.

Schieffer lobbed multiple softballs to Bush: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice? What kind of issue is immigration? Talk about your personal faith. Your strong woman. BLECH. (Edited to add this link to Somerby's Daily Howler column from Thursday, Oct. 14. Scroll about halfway down to see his criticism of Shieffer's lame-ass questions. He also notes the inherent bias in the questions directed at Kerry.)

Give me the intelligent, engaged voters of St. Louis. They brought specific, direct and tough questions to both candidates. Unliked the overpaid self-important blowhards of Da Media, they were not afraid to confront Bush (or Kerry).

Quickie book review

I just started reading Joyce Carol Oates' new novel The Falls. It is one of the best beginnings I've read in years. I'm only a few chapters in, and I woke up this morning thinking about the characters. If nothing else is good in this book, it's worth it.

I must stop blogging and read.

Like I Said, These People Are Scary

Nevada. It's the new Florida. From Las Vegas CBS affiliate: Dem Voter Registrations Trashed:

The out-of-state firm has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.

Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats.

"We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right in front of us. I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assisatnt to get those from me," said Eric Russell, former Voters Outreach employee.
...
The company has been largely, if not entirely funded, by the Republican National Committee. Similar complaints have been received in Reno where the registrar has asked the FBI to investigate. 

We must take these people down. And keep working for democratic (small "d") values even after the election. These are very very very evil bad folks.

News Flash: Tribune Does Not Like a Republican

Yup, a recent Trib editorial came out against Tom DeLay.

In the clubby halls of Congress, getting spanked by the in-house ethics police is pretty rare. Last week, DeLay was walloped not once but twice, on top of a separate trip to the woodshed the week before. Unfortunately, the Texas Republican's conduct lends support to the most cynical view of how the nation's top lawmakers carry out their duties. And his angry reaction to being admonished by his peers shows that DeLay is too arrogant to mend his ways.

You go, guys.

It would be nice to see the same spanking for Dubya. An endorsement for Kerry, perhaps? Nah, that would be too good to be true.

Slightly Less Cautiously Optimistic Today

A few weeks ago, I told my dad that I was cautiously optimistic about Kerry's chances. I feel even less cautiously optimistic today. Perhaps it's been two solid debate performances from Kerry, along with a weak Dubya in Debate 1, and a mediocre Dubya in Debate 2.

Perhaps it's that Dubya has nothing substantive to offer about himself, his achievements, or his goals -- he merely repeats and repeats and repeats the John Kerry = bogeyman meme until your brains start to rattle around in your head.

Perhaps it's that certain media outlets (see ABC, the Washington Post) are finally "getting" that Bush lies, distorts, misleads, misrepresents, dissembles, falsifies, invents, makes shit up....

Perhaps it's that Bush seems strangely off (or read it here) and possibly wired for sound, and the major media are not ignoring the story.

Perhaps it's the everyone who's anyone is shrill when it comes to Bush's policies on science, terrorism, Iraq, the economy, health care, jobs, and the environment.

I am still cautious because these guys are evil and scary. Sinclair Media is trying to throw the election to Bush by airing a 90-minute Swift Boat Veterans commercial rehashing already discredited lies about Kerry. Bush's support is weakening, but not enough to be comfortable.

And Karl Rove will stop at nothing to win.

Wouldn't It Be Pretty to Think So

Once again, James Wolcott (this link works, too) expresses my deepest darkest desires. There's only one more debate: Frisk Bush! Frisk Bush!

Bush Hates Democracy; Campaign Spokesman Lies

In the ongoing coverage of the Bush campaign, one particular feature has stood out to me. Bush campaign events do not allow dissenters to enter. This has been documented many times, by The Boston Globe; The Washington Post; and even far across the pond in The Guardian.

Apparently, John Kerry puts no restrictions (other than tickets required) on who "gets" to see him on his campaign stops.

Nina Totenberg reported on this story on Morning Edition today. I have paraphrased some of her reporting, but the quotes from the individuals are correct.

I begin in media res with the set-up quote from Bush's campaign spokesman:

Bush campaign chairman Ken Mehlman denies any filtering of crowds: “The crowds aren’t screened. We love the fact that these events are usually huge. We certainly welcome very much folks that want to listen to what the President has to say, regardless of their affiliation regardless of who they intend to support.“

The campaign provided one name of someone who had been kept out of Kerry campaign event, but she did not return calls.

However, there are many reports of people kept out of Bush events. Even high school students.

At Lee Summit H.S. in Missouri, school officials let students out early so they could attend a rally. The campaign ordered the removal of some students because they had buttons or Kerry stickers. The school district did not return calls, but there were reports of youngsters in tears.

Now it’s official. Dubya makes kids cry. Moving along...

Kathy Meade, of Traverse City, MI, Identifies herself as a registered Republican, but is leaning toward On the way into the event, she bought a small Kerry sticker and put it on her lapel. When she went through the second level of security she was told she had to take it off.

“I said, ‘Really? In a democratic society shouldn’t I be able to wear this sticker?’ And at that point, someone else came over and immediately started ripping up my ticket and ripping up my sticker and told me I had to leave immediately.” She was appalled. ...

Barbara Miller of Midland MI calls herself a swing voter who has voted for both republicans and democrats for president. In
August she got tickets to go to bush rally with her husband and daughter. But Miller had on her arm a pro-choice shirt.

“They said, ‘No, we don’t let in any pro-choice non-republican paraphernalia in this event .’” Miller put the shirt on a table and went in without it. But close to the time the president was supposed to arrive, the same man who had stopped her at the door, came over to them and ordered the family to leave. “We said, ‘No, we’re here to see our president.’ We were just dumbfounded. They said, 'If you don’t leave, we’re going to have to call the secret service and you’ll be put in jail.'"

OK, I’m skipping a couple incidents…

Jason Nelson is an iron worker and a first-term county supervisor in Appleton WI. He had been to a small Kerry rally earlier in the day, and had on a Kerry shirt under his long-sleeve denim shirt. When a security search revealed the t-shirt, he like the others was turned away and threatened with arrest when he protested.

“You would have thought that I was like one of the biggest terrorists that was.”

He was directed to a secret service agent.

“He showed me his ID, and I showed him my drivers’ license, and at that point I was telling him, ‘What’s going on? Was this illegal to have this t-shirt on or what?’ And they were e like, “No, we do this for everybody. You just can’t be here.”

And then Totenberg goes to the experts: what's annoying in her wrap-up is that neither seems to point out that only BUSH practices this unprecendented limitation of access and first-amendent rights.

Totenberg interviews the Post’s EJ Dionne, and some guy who works for, get this, the George Bush School of Government. Sure, he’s objective. They point out that campaigns are more scripted and that campaign events play more to committed supporters rather than the general public. OK. That’s probably true. But which campaign requires loyalty oaths? Stops people from attending? Makes high school students cry? That’s right. And it’s not John Kerry.

Yeah, John Kerry lets anyone come in and listen to him – even hecklers. Bush keeps out anyone who even glances to the left.

Good Men Always Leave ... Bush

Not only has GWB managed to keep and encourage incompetence around him (I've got my Manson lamps trained on you, Condi, Paulie, and Donnie.), he has pushed away, excluded, humiliated and insulted others who have shown competence and effort in moving policy forward.

First, there was John J. DiIulio Jr., who headed up the President's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives for about 6 months. He left for the pat "family and personal reasons," but later wrote to reporter Ron Suskind of Esquire in October 2002, "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus.... "What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis." See the full article here. (Given my previous post, I don't think Machiavelli would very much approve of this administration.) Smears and threats ensued. We move on to...

Next came Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, who had made a name for himself getting to know Bono and actually seeming to care about debt in the developing world. He was fired from the administration in December 2002. O'Neill told Ron Suskind (Hey! It's That Reporter Guy!) in their collaborative book, The Price of Loyalty:

In the book, O’Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."

This is what O'Neill says happened at his first hour-long, one-on-one meeting with Mr. Bush: “I went in with a long list of things to talk about, and I thought to engage on and as the book says, I was surprised that it turned out me talking, and the president just listening … As I recall, it was mostly a monologue.” (Source: CBS News 60 Minutes, January 11, 2004)

So what happens? O'Neill is smeared, and accused of releasing classifed documents. Anything come of that? Nope.

Next we hear from Richard Clarke, in his book Against All Enemies, and in his riveting testimony to the 9/11 Commission. Clarke said in a March 20, 2004, 60 Minutes interview, " I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on the Cold War issues when they came back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back, they wanted to work on the same issues right away -- Iraq, Star Wars -- not the new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years." What happened to Clarke? Yup! Personal attacks and smears.

Moving along to...military leaders, such as General Eric Shinseki, a four-star Army Chief of Staff, who had the gall to at least be mildly optimistic (but realistic) when estimating that we would need 300,000 troops to invade Iraq. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld went on to publicly rebuke Shinseki and humiliate him by announcing his successor 1 1/2 years before his term was up. As James Fallows noted in a Frontline interview:

When Paul Wolfowitz was asked why he thought Shinseki's estimates were so wildly off the mark, first he used the sort of standard Pentagon line, especially under Donald Rumsfeld, which was really, "The future was unknowable." Of course the future is unknowable, although that line was used to excuse a failure to give any financial estimates, which was more irresponsible than it was unknowable.

Then he went on to say, first, he thought many things would go fairly easily. Countries like France were likely to help us in the reconstruction, that this was likely to go more easily than most people thought. Then he went on to make the crucial point that raised the main philosophical difference between the Army and the civilian leadership. Wolfowitz said he found it hard to conceive that it would be harder to occupy Iraq than it had been to conquer it. This was a thing that was difficult to imagine, he said.

Far from being an imaginary concept, this idea that the occupation was the hard part was the heart of the Army's prewar argument.

Where else to go for people who have abandoned Bush? John Eisenhower, son of a GOP President. Foreign service officers, both Democrat and Republicans. Lots of military leaders (OK, a lot of these guys were never WITH Bush -- work with me people). Families of 9/11 victims.

Bush clearly cannot handle the truth. Faith-based policy, indeed. Now of course, the administration disses its own State Department's intelligence and the CIA. Or distorts them mightily to make their point.

Veep Debate: Richard III meets Henry V

The thought of watching His Royal Evilness, the Power Behind the Throne, crouched behind a desk, spewing attacks and lies is too delicious to resist. I will watch, perhaps sometimes with my hands over my eyes, Lou Abbott style, in order to blunt the horror, the horror.

My theory is that Cheney insisted on a desk-style talk show format because he is not able to stand for more than 90 minutes. Actually I'm sure it was to blunt Edwards much more energetic and engaging personality. Look, John Edwards can walk around. John Edwards can smile. John Edwards is charming and charismatic. It's like Richard III vs. Henry V (Shakespeare versions, not historical).

Cheney has much to answer for:

• Where are the WMD?
  
• Where is the link between Iraq and al Queda? Why are willing to discuss that fully with minimal evidence, but not to address the links between Saudi Arabia and al Queda?
  
• Who did you meet with on the energy advisory council? Why won't you release your notes? Why do you thwart a transparent government?
  
• How come you did not listen to advisors in both budgeting money and troops to fund the Iraq war?
  
• Where have all the flowers gone?

I'm sure I could spend more time on this, but I have to work today. As the lovely Elizabeth Edwards said in her blog, "Now if we could only get Mr. Cheney to debate for one and a half days rather than one and a half hours." May it be so. Keep him on the ropes, John Edwards, and remember you are doing God's work here.

Why Is Bush's Team So Incompetent?

It's not the team. It's the leader.

Those who think that every Prince who has a name for prudence owes it to the wise counsellors he has around him, and not to any merit of his own, are certainly mistaken; since it is an unerring rule and of universal application that a Prince who is not wise himself cannot be well advised by others, unless by chance he surrender himself to be wholly governed by some one adviser who happens to be supremely prudent; in which case he may, indeed, be well advised; but not for long, since such an adviser will soon deprive him of his Government.

If he listen to a multitude of advisers, the Prince who is not wise will never have consistent counsels, nor will he know of himself how to reconcile them. Each of his counsellors will study his own advantage, and the Prince will be unable to detect or correct them. Nor could it well be otherwise, for men will always grow rogues on your hands unless they find themselves under a necessity to be honest. Hence it follows that good counsels, whencesoever they come, have their origin in the prudence of the Prince, and not the prudence of the Prince in wise counsels.

Read Machiavelli's The Prince.

Wish I could say I found this quote myself. Nope. Credit to the most excellent Brad DeLong.

Cautiously Optimistic Election News from my Alma Mater

Well, ya just never know where a tidbit of election info would come from. Here in my inbox this morning was a newsletter from my alma mater, the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, College of LAS.

And therein is a link to this article: Kerry vs. Bush-- Past voting patterns give the edge to the Democrats this November. So it seems that one Professor Peter Nardulli has spent the last 20 years of his life analyzes state-wide elections from 1828 to 2000. The conclusion is...

According to Nardulli, the Democrats have not begun a presidential campaign in such a strong position since 1944.

“Practically speaking, all the Democrats need do is win the states in which they have a meaningful normal vote advantage to capture the presidency,” says Nardulli. “If the Democrats can do this they need not win any Southern states in which the Republicans hold an electoral edge, including Florida.”

Moreover, even if Ralph Nader matches his state-level returns from 2000, this by itself will not be enough to overcome the Democrats' electoral advantage in states that are essential to attaining an Electoral College majority.

The Democrats enjoyed such a strong starting position in the 2004 campaign because of the cumulative effects of gradual shifts in normal voting patterns across a wide swath of states outside the South. These trends began in the 1970s, Nardulli says, and “have eroded what once were sizeable Republican electoral advantages in a number of key states.”

“At the national level, the net electoral effect of these gradual shifts is comparable to most critical realignments in U.S. electoral history. Comparable periods of secular change benefited the Republicans in the first quarter of the 20th century and between 1932 and 1976."

Not all is rosy, however, for the Dems:

But does this mean that the Democrats have the 2004 election “sewed up?”

“Absolutely not,” says Nardulli. “The Democrats' edge in the size and distribution of their electoral base does not mean they have a lock on this election. Electoral upsets such as those that occurred in 1912, 1916, and 1976 demonstrate that even overwhelming normal vote advantages do not guarantee electoral victory. State normal vote advantages simply provide parties with ‘comfort margins' that help them deal with election-specific departures from normal voting patterns that are driven by such factors as increases in unemployment, inflation, or crime. Or scandals such as the Teapot Dome Scandal, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the Monica Lewinsky affair.”

Given all the current efforts in voter registration, which seem to be favoring the Democrats, this is cause for hope. Visit Peter Nardulli's web site for more info.

The Two Faces of Bush

More on the public and private personae of Bush, this time from digsby at Hullabaloo. (Forgive the lengthy quote, but it's all so good...)

The truth is that since George W. Bush entered politics he has always had two faces. In fact, virtually everything you know about his public persona is the opposite of the real person.

He claims to be a compassionate, caring man, often admonishing people to "love your neighbor like you loved to be loved yourself." Yet, going all the way back to Yale, he is quoted as saying he disapproved of his fellow students as "people who felt guilty about their lot in life because others were suffering." His business school professor remembers him saying that poor people are poor because they are lazy. This from a man who was born rich into one of America's leading families and relied on those connections for everything he ever achieved.

He lectures on responsibility, saying that he's going to end the era of "if it feels good do it" and yet he failed to live up to his responsibility as a young man in the crucible of his generation, the Vietnam war. In fact, if it felt good, he did it and did it with relish --- for forty years of his fifty eight year life. He has never fully owned up to what he did during those years spent in excess and hedonism, relying on a convenient claim of being “born again” to expiate him of his sins. Would that everyone had it so easy.

He ostentatiously calls himself a committed Christian and yet he rarely attends church unless it’s a campaign stop or a national occasion. The man who claims that Christ is his favorite political philosopher famously and cruelly mocked a condemned prisoner begging for her life. He portrays himself as a man of rectitude yet he pumped his fist and said "feels good!" in the moment before he announced that the Iraq war had begun. (One would have thought that if there was ever a time to utter a prayer it was then.) How many funerals of the fallen has he attended? How many widows has he personally comforted?

He portrays himself as a salt of the earth "hard working" rancher, clearing brush on his land in an artfully sweaty Calvin Klein-style t-shirt. Yet in the first 8 months of his presidency leading up to 9/11, he spent 42% of his time on vacation. His "ranching" didn't begin until he bought his million dollar property just before he ran for president in 1999. He has lived in suburbs and cities since a brief period in his childhood in the 50’s, when he lived in the medium sized boom town of Midland before going to Andover.

There is no doubt that whether it's a cowboy hat or a crotch hugging flightsuit , George W. Bush enjoys wearing the mantle of American archetypal warriors. But when he goes behind the curtain and sheds the costume, a flinty, thin-skinned, immature man who has never taken responsibility for his mistakes emerges. The strong compassionate leader is revealed as a flimsy paper tiger

Paul Waldman on the Rhetorical Presidency

Paul Waldman at the gadflyer writes a positively brilliant and cutting analysis of the Bush presidency's committment to saying things -- lots of things.

Bush's campaign has come down to this: The things that I say are superior to the things that he says. I will continue to say good things, strong things. Because nothing is more important that what you say. So I'll be saying things. My opponent won't say things the way I will. If you re-elect me, I will continue saying things, giving signals, sending messages. God bless America.
...
Say this about President Bush: he says what he says.

Check out the link--Waldman lists the many ways Bush says things from the debate on Thursday.

The Daily Show put together this a cutting satire of Dubya's convention film: George Bush: Words Speak Louder than Actions.

Register to Vote!

The Illinois deadline for voter registration is Oct 5, 2004.

Suburban Cook County voters can check here to make sure they're registered.

Other Illinois voters can look here for county clerk information. Or, go to Move On to start the process.

If you're not registered, you can't vote!

And, if you plan to be out of town, look here for absentee ballot requests (Cook County, IL), or contact your county clerk board.

Marry Me, Jon Stewart!

Woops, I'm already married. And so is he.

Oh well, listen to this great interview of him on Fresh Air, broadcast Sept. 30, 2004. Dave Davies, while he's no Terry Gross, did a nice job.

Wolcott: "The trees are alive with the sound of Kerry"

Please read James Wolcott's assessment of last night's debate. He is a much better writer than I am:

The notion that Bush is "likeable" has always been laughable. It takes a Washington pundit to be that dumb. He's an angry, spoiled, resentful little big man--I use "little big man" in the Reichian sense of a small personality who puffs himself up to look big through bluster and swagger but remains a scheming coward inside--and next to a genuinely big man like Kerry, shrunk before the camera's eyes.

Funniest Debate Moments

KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, The enemy attacked us.
 
Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaida attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one criminal and terrorist.
...
BUSH:First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.

Oh, really?

Or, perhaps it was when Bush spoke of the Iranian "myoolahs" we needed to talk to about "nyookular" weapons.

Or, when he accused Kerry of sending "mexed missages."

Or, when he insisted, twice, on reminding us of how much support we have received from the good people of Poland.

View the transcript.

OK - I couldn't resist debate talk

Thanks to Wonkette who came up with a drinking game for the debates, so I don't haaaaaave tooooooooo.

Finish the Bottle If:
Anyone challenges anyone to a duel
The moderator rips off his mask to reveal his true identity is Karl Rove

Nancy Drew -- My Heroine

I know, I should be writing about the debates, which are tonight.

But I thought I would have a little reminiscence about Nancy Drew. I LOVED Nancy Drew as a girl. Between the ages of 9 and 12, I think I read every Nancy Drew book I could get my mitts on.

Now, when I take my son to the library, and I hang out in the kid's section as he runs around playing with puppets and listening to music, I pick out a Nancy Drew mystery and read the first few chapters.

The one I just picked up was "The Bungalow Mystery," which I think is no. 3 in the series. Believe me, I used to know all the mysteries and their order. I believe my very first Nancy Drew was The Spider Sapphire Mystery. Gosh, just the titles of these books get me intrigued -- or nostalgic. Not sure which.

Skimming through the books, I've noticed the descriptions and the characters are both wholesome and pulpy. Everyone is defined by their body type, eye color, and clothing.

I've noticed that "class" is much more obvious in the books: I think perhaps 40-50 years ago when these were written, the fact that there were rich folks, middle folks, and poor folks might have been admitted to. Even though today we are much more divided economically, everyone thinks they are middle class.

There I go, getting into economics when I just wanted to praise Nancy Drew. Read Nancy Drew, girls! And not the newer, cleaned-up versions. Read the old ones. They're not quite so sweet, edited and "PC" as the updated ones, but what girl truly is?

Thoughts on the New Year

With the weather finally turning crisp, Saturday felt like a High Holy Day.

This is the first year in many that I was able to attend a full day of Yom Kippur services, with a fast until about 7 pm. What an interesting experience - the light-headedness, crankiness and fatigue that set in by the end of the day, but combine that with the sense of self-denial, of solidarity with other Jews around the world, and if only superficially, of the hunger and deprivation that many experience around the world.

Early the next morning, I suited up in my "Run Against Bush" t-shirt and ran 7 miles (still my longest run distance). I felt great; strangely empowered and dedicated to my goal. I definitely received more strange looks on the path, and one woman shouted at as she ran in the other direction, "Love your shirt!" I lifted my head, shouted back, "Thank you!" and felt my step get a little extra spring in it.

We then went to Synagogue and I learned more about Sukkot in 2 hours than I had learned in my entire life. Next year, a sukkah!

I have also started on my much belated path to a Hebrew Bat Mitzvah, scheduled for summer 2005. Block off your calendars. I'm brushing up my aleph-bet and basic prayers now.

The President Does Not Mourn

This is perhaps the most eloquent description of the President's "character" from E.L. Doctorow :

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

...

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.

Thanks to Eric Alterman for this link.

One Cartoon Says It All

Thanks to Josh Marshall for linking to this Danziger cartoon.

Bush Is In Denial

Here I thought I had this brilliant new insight into Bush's character: He's a dry drunk! He never received any treatment for his alcoholism, so he continues to exhibit the destructive characteristics of a drunk (impulsive, selfish, childish, egotistical, stubborn, fixated, etc.).

This most recent press-conference with Allawi hit home. Bush is addicted to his Iraq policy, and Allawi is a co-dependent enabler. They are both in denial. As Dr. Phil might say, "Get real!"

So I started to write my thoughts, and to augment them, I did a quick google on "dry drunk." Lo! and Behold! folks have been writing about this theory for several years!

Woops.

So anyhow, here are some more links on this.

Addiction, Brain Damage and the President by Katherine van Wormer
Is Bush Making a Cry for Help? by Alan Bisbort.
George Is Drunk by Bruch Schimmel

And, you be the judge yourself: A general definition of the Dry Drunk.

I ain't the first to have this theory - but I did come to it independently. (If you believe that...Would Franabanana lie to you?)

George, please go into recovery and don't take your addictions out on us.

Tribune Public Editor Feels He Has to Justify Kerry Coverage

Don Wycliffe, public editor of the Chicago Tribune, had an amazing column today. Not amazing in its content - but amazing that he felt he needed to address this issue at all.

Apparently a lot of rabid Bush fans from the Land of DuPage, including one Barbara Critton of Naperville, did not like the front page banner headline coverage in the Sept. 21, 2004, Tribune of Kerry's speech on Iraq. Wycliffe's column quotes this woman's phone message:

"Why would you possibly put [Kerry's speech on top] and a huge picture of him and a very small picture of our president who gave a wonderful speech in New Hampshire--why would he be below Kerry? ... Why aren't you fair and balanced like a newspaper should be?"

Anyone note the "fair and balanced" lingo? Mayhap her eyeballs are stuck to FOX News and her brain is leaking out her ears. If she read the editorial pages or John Kass at all, she'd realize that The Trib is on her side .

Wycliff's column continues:

Critton would have made CBS' apology for using phony memos in a story about Bush's Air National Guard service the lead story. Another caller agreed with her and voiced the suspicion that the CBS story, which appeared just below the Kerry story and above the fold, did not lead the paper because it was an embarrassment to the media industry.

Yet another caller felt the story of the beheading of kidnapped American Eugene Armstrong by Islamic militants in Iraq ought to have led the paper. (Incongruously, that same caller lamented all the "good news" stories we let go by.)

I am happy to say to these and all other readers who had a different notion of what should have led the Tuesday front page: You may be right.

He goes on to justify the wholly justifed coverage like this:

Quite simply, [Kerry's speech] was civically more important than any of the others, and the newspaper's civic role is paramount. The Democratic presidential nominee had made a frontal assault on perhaps the single most controversial policy decision of the Republican incumbent, in the hope of forcing the "great national debate on Iraq" that should have been had before the war began.

Come Nov. 2, many Tribune readers are going to have to perform the most important duty of their offices as citizens: They'll vote for a president. They'll be passing judgment on George Bush's decision-making on Iraq, either approving it by voting for him or disapproving by voting for an opponent.

Arguably, from now until Nov. 2, the Tribune and other serious news organizations have no weightier duty than to see that citizens are informed on the key issues of this presidential campaign. Without question, Iraq is one of those.

So there's my take on that Tuesday story and headline. And, I am happy to say, I may be right.

MAY be right?! Harumph! You are right, Don! Good God, the major challenger is addressing the incumbent on the key issue the incumbent is running on! The challenger will likely win the majority of votes in the city and the state (OK, but probably not Naperville). Don't we voters deserve to see this critical coverage dominate the news? After months of coverage in which the RNC and Bush has harped on Kerry's alleged flip-flopping on Iraq, not taking a stand, blah blah blah -- here is Kerry with his point of view. Wouldn't even Republicans in the deep dark bowels of Naperville be interested in that?

Nah - why challenge these folks devoted to "fair and balanced" with reality?
Note: Chicago Tribune links are up for one week. The Tribune requires registration.

Steady Leadership? Me No Think So.

Thanks to MyDD and AMERICAblog for pointing out the many (still counting) reasons Nookleeyar George has given for going to war in Iraq.

Let me (that is, AMERICAblog) count the ways:

1. War on Terror
   
2. Prevention of the proliferation of WMD
   
3. Lack of Inspections
   
4. Remove Saddam Hussein regime
   
5. Saddam Hussein is evil
   
6. Invading Iraq would allow us to gain favor in the Middle East
   
7. Example to other terror states
   
8. Liberate the Iraqi people
   
9. Broken Promises - Iraq had made commitments to the UN and the world
   
10. Revenge for Iraq's attempt on the life of President H.W. Bush
    
11. Threat Saddam posed to the region
    
12. Because We Can - There would be little conflict or struggle, little price to pay for entering the country, the war would be easy.
    
13. Cleaning up unfinished business in Iraq from the first Gulf War
    
14. War for Oil - The US' oil interests in the Middle East and Iraq serve as a reason for wanting to invade the state and topple its leader.
    
15. Sake of History - Pres. Bush claimed history had called on the US to take action against Iraq
    
16. Disarmament - total elimination of ALL weapons in Iraq
    
17. Safety of the World - Iraq as a terrorist nation could sell weapons to other terrorists and thus posed a threat to the entire world
    
18. Commitment to the Children - America should give its children and the world's children a better future.
    
19. Imminent Threat - The uncertainty of Iraq's weapon power and future plans.
    
20. Preserve Peace - Iraq posted a threat to the peace of the world by its continued terrorist involvement and its increased tension in the Middle East
    
21. Threat to Freedom - By oppressing its people and threatening the world with possible terror acts, freedom was prevention from spreading through the Middle East and was lessened in those nations that feared terror in their backyards.
    
22. Link to al Qaeda
    
23. Iraq Unique - Rumsfeld declared that Saddam Hussein in combination with the weapons potential in Iraq made Iraq different than the other "axis of evil" countries, and therefore a great immediate threat.
    
24. Relevance of UN - The UN was put on notice that it would face illegitimacy if it did not support the cause of the United States.
    
25. Iraq had broken international law - Colin Powell said that violations of UN resolutions broke international laws established in the UN Charter.
    
    I would also add 2 more that Bush announced in the past few days:
    
26. Saddam "hopes" to "some day" get WMD (as compared to he "has" WMD).
    
27. Saddam had an "ability to work with terrorist organizations" (as compared to actually "working" with terrorist orgs).
    

Maybe I could add a few myself:

• Saddam Hussein smelled bad.
  
• Afghanistan was not enough. We needed more WAR!
  
• Just cleaning house for the rapture. Really. See Bill Moyers' article linked below.
  
• Needed to destroy irreplaceable items of immense historical value.
  
• Nothing like body counts to give you something to, well, count.
  
• Oh, don't forget collateral damage. It's no fun unless you can euphemize away thousands upon thousands of deaths of innocent civilians.
  
• Bush presidencies' (41 and 43) popularity only goes up in wartime. In all other times their incompetence is too noticeable.
  

Bill Moyers Is Bringing Me Down

I wish I could plug my ears and go, "Lalalalala, I can't hear you, Bill Moyers." But everything he has to say about Journalism Under Fire in Progressive News is heartbreakingly true.

I recently watched Moyer's NOW program on the Bush administration's (lack of) response to terrorism in the build-up and immediate follow-up to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. I am sorry that Moyer's courageous voice will soon be lost. He is retiring at the age of 70, and I guess PBS reporting will be left to Tucker Carlson, John McLaughlin and the News Hour. Sigh.

Sopranos Put a Bullet in the West Wing's Head

All right! Finally, the best show on TV got an Emmy. OK, they got many Emmys. And not the lead actors this year (sorry Edie and Jimmy) - which is pretty shocking since they were both so good. But there were much-deserved awards for writing (Terence Winter, Long Term Parking), and acting (Michael Imperioli and Drea De Matteo, who tore up the small screen this year in "Long Term Parking").

Recognition also went to Angels in America - I think Jeffrey Wright was so good. I think I would like to have him over for coffee and thank him for just being so, well, good. Al Pacino was very Al-ish (over the top and annoying, but sort of hard to argue that he wasn't good) and Meryl Streep was best as Misguided Mormon Mom. But, Jeffrey Wright, you were really really really good. And I guess Kushner and Nichols deserved their Emmys too - without em, not much of a story or show.

Yes yes yes the Daily Show rocked and rolled over Dave, Jay and other stupid talk shows with really smart writing and just the bestest funniest on air talent.

And finally, finally, I completely blew off watching the Emmys this year. I not so fondly remember last year's Emmy telecast, when I groggily awakened in a puddle of drool after nearly 14 stultifying hours of boring speeches and clips. So this year, I just let the magic happen without me. And yes the show went on. And it just goes to show you, it doesn't really matter if I watch or not, because I would have been there, rooting for the Sopranos the whole time, hoping against hope that my rooting would affect the outcome. And lo! and behold! my presence in front of the TV was not needed.

Although the joy of seeing Drea, Michael and Jeffrey pick up their Emmys might have been worth waking up in a pile of drool. Oh well.

And I did miss seeing all those bony women in their fancy dresses. But I guess that's what US Weekly is for!

Why Gallup Is Wrong

Steve Soto at The Left Coaster gives a cogent reason why the latest Gallup poll numbers are way off, which show Bush-Kerry at 55%-42%. Apparently Gallup asked likely voters in the following breakdown:
GOP 45% of sample
Dem 33% of sample
Independent 28% of sample

Interesting that in the 2000 election, the breakdown of actual voters was:
GOP 35% of electorate
Dem 39% of electorate
Independent 26% of electorate

If anything, Gallup should be oversampling Democrats! Sheesh. If I were conspiracy-minded, I might think Gallup is trying to stack the deck. Soto suggests that it's not that off base:


The real problem here is that Gallup is spreading a false impression of this race. Through its 1992 partnership with two international media outlets (CNN and USA Today), Gallup is telling voters and other media by using badly-sampled polls that the GOP and its candidates are more popular than they really are. Given that Gallup’s CEO is a GOP donor, this should not be a surprise.


Read the details.

Run Against Bush

I just joined Run Against Bush. Yes, I am a complete whore for CoolMax t-shirts. But still. I figure that since I already run, and I'm trying to get better, this may inspire me to move my butt just that much faster. I'm running to lick Bush! Hee, yes I'm 12. So sue me.

Al Gore Lives on My Street

The New Yorker published a very moving profile of Al Gore by David Remnick in the Sept. 13 issue. Gore comes off as not so tortured as you might think, though clearly the mantle of Man Who Would Be President weighs on him. It weighs on me too. I know the rest of the blogworld is focusing on what to do to get Bush out, but this is a brief look back over our shoulder at what might have been.

The sweetest (maybe bittersweetest) part of a bittersweet profile is the song that Gore's neighbor, Bob Orral, wrote about him. Listen to the song; here are the lyrics:


Al Gore lives on my street,
Three-twenty-something, Lynwood Boulevard.
And, he doesn’t know me
but I voted for him. Yeah, I punched the card!
I don’t know how he lives with knowing,
That even though he won the popular vote
He still lives on my street, right down the street
From me.

One time, I had a bike
And I was a kid, and someone stole it from me
And still I’m mad about that,
Carrying anger, I just can’t let it be.
I need to be more forgiving, I know it,
’Cause even with the popular vote,
Al Gore lives on my street, right down the street,
From me.

Life isn’t fair, don’t tell me, I know it
’Cause even with the popular vote,
Al Gore lives on my street, right down the street from me [repeats]
President Gore lives on my street, right down the street from me.


Sigh.

LIAHS!

Thank you, Krugmeister! Paul Krugman's 9.10.2004 column highlights the lies our administration perpetrates; Krugman focuses on economics, which is his speciality. But you could easily take a look at many other categories: foreign policy, where Bush was on Sept. 11, Bush's opponents, or Bush's own military service.

I don't care how many times Bush's lackey stamps his foot and says, "But he did get permission to skip his physical and blow off his training. Really, he did. And he was honorably discharged. So he couldn't have done anything wrong."

From what I've heard from reputable sources (my Dad, who served in the Kentucky Air National Guard), if you didn't show up for your training, they sent the marshals after you. Unless you were the son of a well-connected Ambassador, I guess. Or maybe Kentucky was just tougher on their Champagne unit.

Also, it's not that hard to get honorably discharged if the Guard decides you're more trouble than you're worth. From his string pulling and leaping over the chain of command, I'm sure Dubya was a more attractive officer OUT of the guard than IN.

I am anxiously awaiting his next honorable discharge from service to our country, this coming November.

Edited to add: My dad clarified that the real scare if you didn't show up for your Guard training is that you be shifted to active duty and sent off to Vietnam. Guess this must have happened to a few guys, but not our Dubya.

Ali G Makes Me Squirm & Laugh

This full-blown trend of fake news and "Punk'd" has found its ultimate expression in The Ali G Show. Sacha Baron Cohen delivers wicked commentary on how far people will allow themselves to be pushed and pulled by an idiot. While my husband is partial to "Borat," an anti-Semitic Kazakh journalist with totalitarian leanings, I'm in love with the title character Ali G, who is so obnoxiously obtuse and stupid that I writhe in pain for those subjected to his interviews. Believe it or not, I haven't seen any episodes with Bruno, the Austrian model and expert on all things fashionable.

Respek!

Dick Cheney -- Incompetent?

Yes, indeed. Thanks to Rolling Stone, who recently did a great profile on Bill O'Reilly as well. Read it and weep, veep.

Flip Flop is Crap Crop

I could use a break from the constant barrage of the "flip flop" talking point coming out of Dubya's campaign. It seems no matter what John Kerry says, Bush counters that it's a "flip flop." Nevermind that Kerry has been remarkably consistent in his attitudes toward the "War on Terror" and the war in Iraq. (Note that they are two different things. Wake up, world.)

So as far as I can tell, Kerry's positions have been:
1. We should have fought longer and harder in Afghanistant to take out Al Qaeda leaders and operatives
2. It was right to give the President the power to go into war against Iraq.
3. The way the President handled the war was wrong: lack of diplomacy, lack of a post-invastion plan, lack of leadership, lack of intelligence, lack of WMD and other justifcation for war.

Has he wavered from these positions? Nope. Has he explained them over and over. Yup. Are they a bit more complex than what Dubya communicates to the world? Yup. And there's the rub. Unfortunately for Kerry, who tends to think stuff through, Dubya is quite comfortable with black and white, and that comfort and simplicity is easy to communicate. So what if the War on Terror is being waged (incorrectly) in Iraq, which has been shown to have NOTHING to do with Sept. 11. So what if the rationale for the Iraq War was incorrect? It's all bad, and they're all against, so keep fighting.

Who's the real flip flopper? It's Dubya

Why Franabanana?

I wish I could say something clever like, "because I'm yellow" or "my peel is dangerously slippery" or "I'm a tasty fruit that's worth 2 points on Weight Watchers." But really, I've been using "franabanana" as a log in name for several years now and I just like how it sounds!

I think "Franabanana" is far more whimsical and silly than plain old Fran Diamond. So here I am, ready to blog on the whimsical and the silly, maybe the serious and political, the media and the massage.

But right now, I have to pick my son up from his afterschool program.