Damozel: Versus.

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 10:28:21 GMT

I am relocating my blog to the following address:

http://theflatlandalmanack.typepad.com/ (THE FLATLAND ALMANACK)

I will continue to maintain this site and everything posted here but will do all my further posting there!

Do stop by for a visit!

Embryo Huggers v. PETA---Round 2

Tue, 01 Aug 2006 23:37:56 GMT

HI! I've moved to a new address. TO JUMP TO THE UPDATED VERSION OF THIS POSTING IN MY NEW WEBLOG, PLEASE CLICK ON THIS LINK.

Embryo Huggers v. PETA (Round 2): PETA responds with the facts.

Also: The self-defeating conservative tactic of "undermine the 'liberals', one liberal idea at a time."

In an earlier posting, I quoted from a column/article from Mr. Steven Milloy at Fox asserting, based on various examples, that the People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) demonstrably care more for animal than human life. Fox has posted a response from PETA by its director of medical research, entitled "PETA Responds: Animal Testing Yields Junk Science."

In my posting, I attacked the logic of his argument. The PETA letter attacks his premises and corrects all of the factual errors, of which there were an astonishing number.

I am assuming that Mr. Milloy won't mind being caught out in a few trivial errors of fact. Among those pushing any Right-wing agendum, "MADE YOU LOOK!" is the name of the game. If you don't care whether you're right, as long as you're Right, a few teensy factual errors don't matter.

And---who knows?---perhaps Mr. Milloy really does know more about PETA' s policies and practices than PETA's Medical Director of Animal Testing Issues. But in the interest of fairness, and keeping things balanced, here is a pertinent portion of PETA's response at Foxnews.com.

The response, by Sadhana Dhuvrakar, begins: "In his July 20, 2006, column for Foxnews.com, ("PETA: Sacrifice Human, Not Animal Life for Medical Research"), Stephen Milloy blatantly misconstrued and misrepresented PETA's position on embryonic stem cell research. Mr. Milloy attributed positions to PETA that we do not hold and that he did not, in any way, verify with PETA; he then proceeded to point out supposed inconsistencies and contradictions in these fictional positions."

The letter further states in pertinent park:

[quote from Foxnew.com article, "Animal Testing Yields Junk Science" begins]

[T]he bulk of Milloy's article focused on embryonic stem cell research rather than on the issue of animal evacuations. I am a Harvard- and Cambridge-educated scientist, but it doesn't take an Ivy League degree to understand that Milloy's article was based on neither science nor facts.

The only source that Milloy used was a factsheet about stem cells that is available on PETA's Web site. The topic of this factsheet is stem cell use, not embryonic stem cell use, and this is an extremely important distinction.

Stem cells can come from adult tissues as well as from umbilical cords and placentas--in fact, most of PETA's factsheet focuses on stem cell research involving adult tissues and not on the controversial issue of using stem cells from human embryos.

Mr. Milloy characterizes our comments on stem cell research as an endorsement of embryonic stem cell research, which is inaccurate. PETA has no official position regarding this type of research.

Thus, the main thrust of Mr. Milloy's tirade, that "PETA supports ESC research as a way to end animal research," is 100 percent wrong.

Mr. Milloy also falsely asserts that PETA endorses the use of animals in stem cell research as a "compromise" in an effort to end animal testing in the future. While PETA's factsheet acknowledges that "unfortunately, the majority of stem cell research is done on animals," this certainly does not constitute an endorsement of the use of animals in such research. PETA advocates the use of human stem cells harvested from donated human tissue in this research....

[quote from Foxnews.com ends; link in original]

To read the rest of a good, satisfying smackback, I urge you to read the rest of the article. It demonstrates the value of a measured and temperate response to this sort of attack

Mr. Milloy is not the only person who is confused about the distinction between stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, of course.

The problem with this sort of fomenting---based on insufficient data--- is that it gets a lot of people worked up about non-issues. Instead of trying to find out what PETA is really about, such people will simply indignantly include that this long-suffering animal protection organization really does value animal life over "human life" (a concept stretched in the original article to include human embryos). That in fact PETA has not in fact taken a an official stand on the embryonic stem cell issue is treated as beside the point.

It's the sort of give-a-dog-a-bad-name-and-hang-him method of attack which our learned friends on the right have been working to perfect since the days of Bill Clinton and Whitewater. In fact, the self-appointed spokespeople for the Right do this all the time: they pick on some organization or person that espouses what they consider to be "liberal' causes and go on the attack without caring whether or not they understand the organization or person's actual mission. The purpose of this ploy is to discredit liberal philosophy in general and to put liberals on the defensive.

Of course the person/organization then has to issue a correction, which is only going to work if the reader is interested in the facts. The reader for whom articles such as the one to which PETA is responding doesn't say, "Man, this guy needs to check his facts before he spouts off," but instead turns to his or her spouse and grunts, "I reckon this guy told PETA! He's got 'em on the run now, yessiree!"

In other words, the whole point of the original article was to make people who aren't capable of parsing through its logic hate and despise PETA using the same arguments put forward to make them hate and despise other organizations with little in common with PETA. The purpose of such bloviations is to undermine what the Right appear to view as "liberal agenda." Another "liberal" cause is going down---damn the facts and full speed ahead! This really shouldn't trouble liberals as much as it does, because the only people who are likely to be swayed by it are people who are unlikely to qualify for the noble and beautiful label of "liberal" in any case.

In fact, the seek-them-out-wherever-they-are-and-destroy-them school of Right-wing warfare against those they please to designate "the Left" is just one more thing about them for us to mock. Intelligent people aren't going to be fooled more than once or twice before they start to feel disgust at these schoolyard tactics. Indeed, this is already happening.

Republicans capable of understanding the real arguments in favor of conservatism, and who are conservative for the right reasons, are becoming disgusted and embarrassed by being tarred with the same brush as the likes of Ann Coulter, Melanie Morgan, and the other junkyard dogs the extreme wing of their party has unleashed. Many lifelong Republicans---e.g., my very own mom----are sympathetic to PETA and are not sympathetic at all to the rights of stem cells. "That's the silliest thing I ever heard," she said, of the whole embryonic stem cell flap. "It's too stupid to talk about."

I know of quite a few lifelong but centrist Republicans who are beginning to rethink their loyalties and am hearing more and more of others. Most of them are Republicans of the sort I used to be (yes! my first vote ever was cast for Gerald Ford and against Jimmy Carter). In other words, Republicans who want to be free to live their lives with minimum interference from the government and with the right to decide for themselves how to dispose of their money. They are often religious, but abhor the very notion of imposing their beliefs on others. They still adhere to the values expressed by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton and feel apprehensiveness as deep as mine when they hear the words "unitary executive power"; like me, they fear the religious agenda of the Right, even if they agree with the underlying principles. They are fully capable of seeing and despising error and hyperbole and distinguishing it from fact.

For liberals, the correct response to articles which miscast or reframe the beliefs and objectives of liberals is either a calm and measured rebutttal such as PETA's or---which is more fun if less useful in elevating public discourse----pointing and laughing.

Which is what I'm all about.

Mel Gibson's remarks

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:31:43 GMT

Hi! I've moved to a new address. To jump there, click on this link.

Plenty of condemnation left over for Mel, as well.

Mel Gibson. If the remarks attributed to him are true, and it appears they are, ugh, ugh, ugh. I was never a fan---he's not the sort of guy I'd ever find attractive; he looks like an old frat boy---but I didn't put him down for this sort of game.

Plenty of people have already expressed disgust and outrage more eloquently than I could ever do, so I'm keeping it short. Here are some samples:

Ari Emanuel: The Bottom Line on Mel Gibson's Anti-Semitic Remarks.

Patt Morrison: Ladies and Gentlemen, the Secretary of State -- Mel Gibson.

Martin Lewis: Letter to "Braveheart" Mel Gibson.

Since there isn't enough alcohol on the planet to make me or anyone I know make the sort of anti-Semitic remarks attributed to Gibson, the only possible inference is that he is indeed deeply anti-Semitic and that alcohol just loosened his tongue. Being drunk is no excuse. As Nick said, alcohol can't make an anti-Semite.

I didn't see his hideous exploitation of the death of Jesus, and I tried hard not to judge him for failing to study history sufficiently to put the events (and especially the anti-semitism in the Gospel of John) in context. A lot of Christians are equally willfully ignorant.

This isn't the sort of behavior I can mock. It's not an error in judgment or reasoning; it's a fundamental failure of understanding. What if he apologizes? I honestly don't see how it could possibly help the fact that he's revealed himself as an anti-semite, until such time as he proves that he no longer is---if that's even possible.

You can apologize for saying something offensive---as indeed he absolutely must--- but how can you expect people to accept an apology for the belief that made you say the offensive thing in the first place. He could say, "I'm so sorry I made an anti-Semitic remark," and he had certainly better say it over and over again. But what's left is that he is a person who (obviously) is anti-Semitic. What can anyone say about that?

Damn, Mel, I'm sorry too. (What do these anti-semitic "Christians" think Jesus was, or was doing at the Last Supper, I wonder?)

POSTED IN CATEGORY: VERSUS

Drawn by Tenniel; painted by Damozel!

Chronicles for July 30

Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:11:18 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses! Please jump to the new version of this blog here.

Condemnation: The Easy Bit.

Note: since yesterday, I've rethought this emotionally violent reaction.

Permanent Solutions?

According to the New York Times, Khofi Anan is calling for the world to condemn the killings in Lebanon.

[quote begins]

Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the Security Council today to “condemn in the strongest possible terms” the killing of Lebanese civilians in the bombing of Qana, and he reiterated his call for an immediate halt in the fighting between Israel and the Hezbollah militia.

In an emergency meeting of the Security Council requested by the Lebanese government, Mr. Annan said, “We meet at a moment of extreme gravity, first and foremost for the people of the Middle East, but also for the authority of this organization, especially this council.”....“No one disputes Israel’s right to defend itself,” Mr. Annan said. “But by its manner of doing so, it has caused and is causing death and suffering on a wholly unacceptable scale.”

[quote ends (links in original)]

I am fully prepared to join with him in that. But then there's this:

[quote from NY Times Article begins]

The United States has refused to back Mr. Annan’s call for a cessation of hostilities, saying that any halt must be one that removes the threat to Israel from Hezbollah.

John R. Bolton, the American ambassador, said, “Our view for quite some time has been and remains that we need to work toward a permanent solution for the problems of the region.”

[quote from The NY Times article ends (links in original)]

Am I the only person who shivers reflexively at the words "permanent solution"? Not just because of their bad associations, but because I know and you know, though apparently Bolton doesn't know, that there will be a permanent solution to the Mideast when pigs fly. Any peace they attain is going to have to be a step-by-step one-day-at-a-time daily reaffirmation and it can't be constructed out of rubble. (Barring, of course, the event anxiously awaited by certain fellow Christians of mine. Is that the final solution we are waiting for? Because I don't think, you know, that it's a legitimate basis for diplomacy.)

I see the headlines and I think, No, go away, this is wrong; this is awful. But of course they've been coming at me all day, all week. This is another tragic mistake.

"Fresh pain; old wounds."

Earlier in The New York Times:

Airstrike brings fresh pain to town with old wounds.

[quote begins]

QANA, Lebanon, July 30 — It was pitch black when the missiles came to this small mountain village. The children were asleep. Suddenly, a roof and a second floor were punched in on top of them. Dirt was forced into mouths. Bodies were broken.

The bombing continued through the night, and it was not until this morning that neighbors and emergency workers were able to reach those buried inside. Digging under the rubble, they pulled out 28 bodies. Twenty of them were children. The youngest was 10 months....

And then there was the risk of the road. Dozens, including 21 refugees in the back of a pickup truck on July 15, have been killed on roads in Israeli strikes since the war began.

“We heard on the news they were bombing the Red Cross,” said Zaineb Shalhoub, a 22-year-old who survived the bombing and was lying quietly in a hospital bed in Tyre.

“There was just no way to go.”

[quote ends]

When are the friends of embryonic stem cells going to become equally irate over the death of Lebanese children in the current doomed and therefore pointless conflict?

From Fox.news ["Fair and Balanced"]: Bush Expresses sorrow at Lebanese Loss of Life.

It's something, I suppose.

[quote begins]

"Our hope for peace for boys and girls everywhere extends across the world, especially in the Middle East," the president said before the start of a T-ball game at the White House.

"Today's actions in the Middle East remind us that friends and allies must work together for a sustainable peace particularly for the sake of children," Bush told the teams of youngsters and visitors."

[quote ends]

It reminds me that war never works out the way people intend. You don't put an end to attacks on your own citizens by killing children. No, I'd say that killing children is practically a foolproof way to ensure that a feud will be perpetuated for at least another couple of generations.

You would think I'd be used to this, growing up as I did in the Vietnam Era and living through so much violence in the Middle East. But as I get older, I find that I'm less able to tolerate it. It's always the many who pay the price for the violent.

You think I'd be used to it, having grown up in the Vietnam era during a war when everyone was apparently presumptively guilty, including the people on our side. I have never been able to get out of my head the image of that little girl (not much older than I was) screaming her way down the street, burning from the napalm---or from photographs of melted limbs and useless, horrific suffering by very young people who had got in the way of the warring armies. I can't believe that this is ever right or excusable or a good solution.

Done listening to rationalizations.

I'm so done with the rationalizing of the Israelis and of my Jewish friends, however beloved, who support them (sorry guys...). When the oppressed become the oppressors, they are no longer entitled to the support and sympathy of people like me---in other words, the significant portion of the population who believe that other people, even those who hate you, must be treated at all times as ends and not means.

What are the Israelis telling themselves, I wonder? "Now they know how it feels"? But the they who are being punished are not the they who are responsible for the original harm.

If there were a way to wipe out hatred by killing people indiscriminately---as if discriminate killing has any sort of meaning or would be okay---their actions would be understandable if not morally justifiable, but surely the Israelis of all people know that this is not the way to wipe out hatred.

Arianna Huffington---whom I normally love for various reasons----explains all this in a lengthy blog, but of course the people who need to hear it aren't listening. And such explanations are pointless anyway because they've heard it all before and they either don't believe it or they don't care about the consequences. For this reason, I find the Sunday-school-lady tones of this posting really irksome. It's as if she and the liberals at HuffPost really believe that the problem is lack of understanding. It isn't. People bent on inflicting punishment can know that it's just going to make things worse and not care. That's a hard reality for liberals to accept, it seems. So, Arianna, they know. They know.

What are you going to say to them, knowing that? That is the question!

Hard to take the moral high ground.

Unfortunately, it's a little hard for Americans to take the moral high ground here. We set a precedent for preemptive war; and that was the wrong thing to do. Furthermore---and I remind myself of this whenever I read the outcries of the dear people at Huffpost whose blogs I so much enjoy---this war is not the Administration's War; no, it was endorsed by the people's representatives on both sides.

Nor does the "we were lied to!" excuse cut the least ice with me. A preemptive war is a preemptive war. If Congress, meaning most of Congress, had not authorized it, it would not now be taking place. If Bush got it wrong, so did the people's representatives. Until the Democrats fully own it, they will never really regain their credibility or the confidence of voters like me.

Anyway, I'm at least grateful to see this: Israel OKs Suspension of Aerial Activity, though the article itself is heart-breaking and the response (read on) infuriating.

[quote begins]

Israel has agreed to a 48-hour suspension of aerial activity in south Lebanon while it investigates an attack on a Lebanese village that killed a number of children, U.S. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said Sunday.

The airstrike killed at least 56 Lebanese, mostly women and children, when it leveled a building where they had taken shelter. The deadliest attack in nearly three weeks of warfare forced Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to cut short a Mideast mission and increased world pressure on the United States to back an end to the fighting....

The attack in the village of Qana brought Lebanon's confirmed death toll to more than 510. Throughout the day, workers pulled dirt-covered bodies of young boys and girls dressed in the shorts and T-shirts they had been sleeping in out of the rubble of the three-story building.

Two extended families, the Shalhoubs and the Hashems, had gathered for shelter from another night of Israeli bombardment in the border area when the 1 a.m. strike brought the building down.

"I was so afraid. There was dirt and rocks and I couldn't see. Everything was black," said Noor Hashem, 13, whose five siblings were killed.

Noor was pulled out of the ruins by her uncle, whose wife and five children also died.

[quote ends]

The pay-off:

[quote begins]

Israel apologized for the deaths but blamed Hezbollah guerrillas, saying they had fired rockets into northern Israel from near the building. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the campaign to crush Hezbollah would continue, telling Rice it could last another two weeks.

"We will not stop this battle, despite the difficult incidents this morning," he told his Cabinet after the strike, according to a participant. "If necessary, it will be broadened without hesitation."

[quote ends]

There are no words, except for ones I would not like my friends and my family (particularly those sympathetic to Israel) to read.

"End Times" Christians: Inducing Rapture?

In the meantime, the 'end times' Christians apparently see this as the chance to drag Jesus back into history, whether he likes it or not. While I doubt that statistically there are a large number of Christians who believe this nonsense, some of the ones who do are in Congress; and I have a problem with the thought that there are people content to let this go on because it is predestined or because Jesus wants it; or whatever. It just adds to my distress to imagine all those people sitting around their living rooms waiting for "The Rapture" and---of course--fulfillment of the further prophecy: conversion of the Jews. If innocent blood is spilled, what does it matter to them? They're certain that Jesus will redeem the blood of the innocent---after, of course, all the true believers are "taken up."

Flip-flopping: when it's the right thing to do

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:30:57 GMT

Hi! I've moved to a new address! To jump to an updated version of this article, please click on this link.

Flip-flopping: It's never the Right thing to do (though sometimes, it's the right thing to do).

Certain Republicans managed to convince people a long time ago that revising an opinion---which they call "flip-flopping"---is invariably a sign either of weakness or of a politician's willingness to say anything to get votes . I remember a North Carolina campaign where the Democratic candidate was labelled "Senator Flip-Flop" and somehow managed to convince people that this was a sign of "pandering." Kerry spent so much time backpedalling about his initial support for the war in Iraq that he didn't really talk about the things that really matter.

So it's a relief to hear a politician---and a Republican!---say straight out that he has changed his mind about the appropriate policy, based on his subsequent experience. Everyone---even politicians---ought to be able to make adjustments to a position if the evidence requires it.

[quote from Associated Press article by Allison Hoffman begins]

Immigration is shaping up as a major campaign issue this fall, just as it was in the 1994 gubernatorial race.

Republican Pete Wilson won that race after embracing Proposition 187, which called for denying illegal immigrants many government services. The initiative passed handily but later was tossed out by the courts. It also moved many Hispanic voters to the Democratic camp.

Schwarzenegger has acknowledged supporting Proposition 187 and suggested he came to regret that vote after working with the children of illegal immigrants in after-school programs before being elected governor.

"I could be criticized for flip-flopping, but better to say I was wrong than to hold onto something that isn't my view," Schwarzenegger told reporters on his campaign bus.

The governor addressed the issue a day after he told La Opinion, a Los Angeles-based Spanish language newspaper, that "looking back, it was the wrong decision" to support the ballot measure.

Angelides, the state treasurer, seized on the governor's comments, accusing Schwarzenegger of pandering to Hispanics.

"He will do anything and say anything to get re-elected," Angelides charged.

Congress is wrestling with immigration reform and Schwarzenegger has split with many in the Republican Party - particularly in the House of Representatives - who favor a get-tough approach to illegal immigrants. His thinking is closer to that of President Bush, who has called for better border security, a guest worker program to ensure businesses have the workers they need and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who have been in the country for a significant period and not broken the law.

Schwarzenegger has long faulted the federal government for lax border security and praised efforts by the Minutemen to fill the gap. California has more illegal immigrants than any other state - an estimated 2.4 million.

[quote from Associated Press article by Allison Hoffman ends]

I certainly agree with Schwarzeneggar that you can't deny services to people who are living here. They are people who are here. They include children and the elderly. Whatever you mistakenly think the deterrent effect of such a denial will be, the position is morally rephrehensible. I don't think that anyone doubts that illegal immigration is a problem; but a resolution that denies basic services isn't a good solution (or one that will prevent desperate people from coming here anyway).

But even if I didn't agree more with Schwarzeneggar's current position than with his previous one, I have to give some [Ali G voice/] Respect! [/Ali G voice] to any politician who will stand up and say, "Based on further evidence, I have concluded that my previous position was erroneous."

I am giving Schwarzeneggar the benefit of the doubt here, of course. It's possible, I suppose, that he is trying as alleged to garner a few votes, but on balance it seems sort of unlikely. Isn't it just as likely to alienate voters who support the proposition?

I wonder if voters in general are as stupid as politicians believe? History suggests that a label like 'flip-flopping' can stop people from thinking; instead of asking why the person changed position, voters just accept the "Liar/Panderer" label and go with the other person who is so consistent that he---or she---would never change position no matter how much evidence that it is wrong has accumulated since the position was first announced.

At any rate, I'm 100% behind this:

"I could be criticized for flip-flopping, but better to say I was wrong than to hold onto something that isn't my view," Schwarzenegger told reporters on his campaign bus."

More homage to Governor Schwarzeneggar for once again doing the right thing rather than pandering to the most extreme voters in his party...

Myths About Stem Cell Research

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 05:59:52 GMT

Hi! I've moved to a new address. To jump to an updated version of this posting, please click here.

Things Your Representatives Don't Know About Embryonic Stem Cell Research

This posting at Wired.com (by Steven Edwards) is essential reading for those of us who want to jump into the stem cell debate. There is a lot of long information out there, it appears. Entitled "Congress' Top 10 Stem Cell Flubs," it identified 10 examples of wrong information that various members of Congress have cited in support of their various positions.

According to this article, it is not IN FACT the case that embryos are either used in research or thrown away, as both Senator Arlen Spector (R-Pennsylvania) and Senator Christopher Dodd (R-Connecticut) have stated. According to this article, these statements are misleading. [quote begins] "A 2002 study found at the time that 88 percent of the 400,000 embryos in frozen storage at fertility clinics across the country were on hold for families who might want to have another baby. Only 11,000 embryos were specifically donated to research." [quote ends; link in original]

Like the senators, I overstated the case in my recent posting---I assumed that MOST embryos are either going to be used for research or thrown out, and it turns out that only about 11,000 are actually allocated for research purposes. This information doesn't change my conclusions since the 11,000 donated embryos WILL be either used for research or thrown away. The others aren't in danger of being used for research anyway.

For those who want to get it right, here is a 'cheat sheet' published at Wired.Com that gives information about stem cells, what they are, how they are currently being used, and what the real issue really is.

Good News from Senator Inhofe

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 05:27:07 GMT

Hi! I've moved to a new address! To see an updated version of this posting, please click here.

Good News on Global Warming: Inhofe alleges Gore "Full of Crap;" Climate change a hoax!

Phew, that's a relief. As we're shufflling toward the Apocalypse, at least I don't have to worry about the pesky problem of climate change. For a sea-level dwelling Floridian in particular, this announcement is most welcome. According to this posting from Think Progress, Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) debunks the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Check out the link; you'll enjoy it.

As Senator Inhofe modestly states, "It turns out that I was right all along." Whereas you and I might have had the impression that the IPCC relied on the reports of thousands of scientists, Inhofe has learned that they relied on only one.

[quote from transcript portion included at Think Progress]

[T]he more I checked into it, the things started with the United Nations, the International Panel on Climate Control, and they used one scientist. And his name was Michael Mann, the famous hockey stick — remember that — where he plotted the temperatures that went all the way across on a horizontal line, then you got to the 20th century and it started going up.
Well, one thing they forgot to do is put in the medieval warming period, which was from about 900 to 1400 A.D., when it was warmer then than it is now.... So in all of the recent science, as I`ve mentioned on your radio show, it confirms that I was right on this thing. This thing is a hoax.

[quote from transcript portion included at Think Progress ends]

Before reading this article, I had only Lord Wakeham's assurance that a little global warming isn't necessarily a bad thing to console me, particularly after Al Gore's cruel film (in which the homeless, drowning polar bears desperately seeking a piece of ice to rest upon were a particularly nasty twist of the knife).

So thanks, Senator, for setting the record straight! Now assure me that the victims of last year's hurricanes are housed and safe, that there will be no further hurricanes this summer, and that things are going to work out fine in the Middle East, and I can rest easy once more.

A Slam from the Right

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:47:44 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses. To jump to an updated version of this posting, please click here.

Pat Buchanan slams Bush for Israel policy; asks "Where are the Christians?" Let's ask them!

As I write, I am watching the mass burials in Lebanon on BBC World. The damage to civilians is heart-breaking. In the meantime, Israel is warning Lebanese citizens to flee for their lives. And they blame America.

I haven't exactly chosen sides in the Mideast. Jewish friends of mine have sat me down and tried to explain to me why what Israel is doing is the right thing; Muslim friends have given me the other side.

I am not going to argue that point with representatives of either side. I don't know whether what Israel is doing is the right thing for Israel, but that's a separate issue from whether it's right for the U.S. to support or condone it through inaction. I can't condone it.

To me, this is starting to look frighteningly like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in July 1914 in Sarajevo. And that was just one shot.

I can't understand what the Administration is thinking. Is this some sort of neocon "Slouching Toward Armageddon" tactic? I have never taken completely seriously the argument that the Extreme Right WANT war in the Mideast because, you know, "Come, Lord Jesus." Ready or not!

People from other parts of the country might be surprised by the strong pro-Israel feeling in certain parts of the country. In the Bible Belt where I grew up, people were the REVERSE of anti-Semitic. Protestants were generally pro-Israeli. As the article linked below reflects, they believe that God gave Israel as a gift to the Hebrews and that they are thereby entitled. But there's more to it.

On the one hand, this (from BBC.co.uk): Evangelical Christians plead for Israel

[quote begins here]

More than 3,400 evangelical Christians have arrived in Washington to lobby lawmakers as part of the first annual summit of Christians United for Israel. ....Pastor Hagee, the main organiser, said the event was the first of its kind. The thousands of Christians in Washington - who came and are staying at their own expense - will be urging the US government "not to restrain Israel in any way in the pursuit of Hamas and Hezbollah", he said.
"We want our Congress to make sure that not one dime of American money goes to support Hamas and Hezbollah or the enemies of Israel." John Hagee is the pastor of the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, and a long-time fervent supporter of Israel. ...In common with many American evangelicals, he believes that God gave the land to the Jewish people and that Christians have a Biblical duty to support it and the Jews.
His latest book, Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, interprets the Bible to predict that Russian and Arab armies will invade Israel and be destroyed by God.
This will set up a confrontation over Israel between China and the West, led by the anti-Christ, who will be the head of the European Union, Pastor Hagee writes.
That final battle between East and West - at Armageddon, an actual place in Israel - will precipitate the second coming of Christ, he concludes.
It is not clear how many evangelicals believe literally in those type of prophecies.....
Two in three evangelicals believe that the establishment of the state of Israel fulfils Biblical prophecy, the survey found. And what they see in the news only reinforces their faith, according to Timothy Shah, a scholar at the Pew Forum. "When they see what's going on in the Middle East, a whole range of enemies arrayed against God's people, they see God's word being played out on their television sets," he said.
"They see Israel triumphing over its enemies as proof that God's promises remain."
[quote ends here]

Gaaaaaah! Do these lunatics really believe that God wants us to allow the maximum amount of suffering? The promise they want God to keep is the second coming of Christ. Like Christians in eras past, they don't want to wait for it; unlike them, they live in a time when there is technology to create the circumstances which they believe (based on the book of Revelations) will yank Christ back into history.

If I were an Israeli or a pro-Israel Jewish American, these people are the LAST supporters I would want. They envision a kingdom of heaven founded on Israel's blood (at the end of which, of course, comes 'the conversion of the [remaining] Jews.') They are TRYING to make Revelations a self-fulfilling prophecy. The "kingdom of heaven" that they envision (and which is nothing at all like the one Christ seems to have had in mind) will then displace Israel.

Pat Buchanan disagrees with them. He has, of course, been an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration's Mideast Policy. On MSNBC, he and Chris Matthews slammed "war-mongering' Republicans." The story by Dave Edwards and the transacript are here at here at The Raw Story. Here's the part that some of these people who are enabling the Administration's current policies in the name of Christianity should read.

[quote from transcript begins]
MATTHEWS: Do you think we are creating another thousand year war by killing so many Arabs? I've been afraid of this war from day one because I've always felt, based on history, every time you kill somebody, you've got his brother, his mother, his family coming back to get you. We've killed 50,000 Iraqi's in a war that was supposed to be a two-day wonder.

When are we going to notice that the neocons don't know what they're talking about. They're not looking at this country's long term interest. They're bound up in regional and global ideology and they have had no experience, I'll say it again, in even a school yard fight. They don't know what physical fighting is all about. They went to school and were intellectuals but they want our government to be their big brother. I don't get it. I don't know why we keep falling for it. And the president, you say, is he free of these guys or not?

BUCHANAN: Well, the president, he fell for it after 9/11 when they put that little pre-cooked meal in front of him, after they knocked down Afghanistan. And so they said, "Let's do Iraq now." And Wolfowitz and all the rest of them.

But let me say this, Chris. I think the president realizes now, that we went into Iraq to pursue weapons that did not exist, a country that did not attack us, did not threaten us, and now we have created a great base camp for terrorism in the Anbar providence that did not exist. In response to Mr Shrum, you attack Iran, Hezbollah will retaliate against the 25,000 Americans in Lebanon. You will have massive hostage taking and killings. Are these people nuts? You've got to ask yourself. I certainly hope the president is not listening to them because I really question whether they've got America's national interest at heart. They're calling for wars against people that never attacked us. I don't care how bad they are. There are wicked people all over this world but you don't go after people unless they come after you.

[quote from transcript ends]

And before leaping on the Evangelical bandwagon, the so-called 'Christians' who are giving unstinting support to the invasion of Lebanon might want to reflect on Buchanan's position in this column from World Net Daily, entitled "Where are the Christians?"

[quote from column begins]
The Lebanon that Israel, with Bush's blessing, is smashing up has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its airstrikes, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights....

Let it be said: Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counter-attack against Hezbollah and Hamas, a right to clean out bases from which Katyusha or Qassam rockets are being fired and a right to occupy land from which attacks are mounted on her people.
But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. It is un-American and un-Christian.
But where are the Christians? Why is Pope Benedict virtually alone among Christian leaders to have spoken out against what is being done to Lebanese Christians and Muslims?
When al-Qaida captured two U.S. soldiers and barbarically butchered them, the U.S. Army did not smash power plants across the Sunni Triangle. Why then is Bush not only silent but openly supportive when Israelis do this?...
Already, Bush is ranting about Syria being behind the Hezbollah capture of the Israeli soldiers. But where is the proof?
Who is whispering in his ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that he would be Churchill, that U.S. troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?
How much must America pay for the education of this man?

[quote from column ends]

I'm a bit surprised to find myself quoting Buchanan with [heavily qualified] approval. That in itself may be a sign of the Apocalypse. The thing is, it's a foregone conclusion that the Evangelicals who are up in Washington advocating no restraints for "the Lord's first love" aren't going to listen to the likes of me. Maybe their own will be able to persuade them that they shouldn't mix up religion and politics or confuse Revelations with the requirements of a Christian life.

RELATED POSTINGS

“Christianity” v. Christianity [Christianity v. Christianism]

Condemnation: The Easy Bit

Image drawn by Mr. Tenniel; painted by Damozel!

Schwarzeneggar Steps Up

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 06:25:40 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses. To see an updated version of this posting, please click here.

Schwarzeneggar Steps Up

I am heartened by this:

Schwarzeneggar Gives $150 million stem cell loan.

He said:

[quote from article begins]

"I remain committed to advancing stem cell research in California, in the promise it holds for millions of our citizens who suffer from chronic diseases and injuries that could be helped as a result of stem cell research," Schwarzenegger said in a letter to his finance director.

[quote from article ends]

It's a reminder that there is still plenty that can be done at the state level. According to the same article the governor of Illinois has diverted $5 million from the state budget for stem cell research.

The Faulty Reasoning Almanack: Embryonic Stem Cell Huggers

Fri, 21 Jul 2006 03:35:04 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses! To jump to the updated version of this posting, please click this link.

The Faulty Reasoning Almanack Part 1:

The Embryo Huggers vs. PETA

PETA: Sacrifice Human, Not Animal Life for Medical Research. PETA's support for embryonic stem cell research shows that the organization values animal life over human life. By foxnewsonline@foxnews.com. [FOXNews.com]

It's so sweet when they try to support this position by recourse to reasoning. Well, reason of a certain sort. But when you start from your conclusion and work backwards, the process always requires some awkward sidewise leaps and painful twists and turns.

This article ought to make me furious or very sad or something, but instead it made me laugh out loud.

The argument goes (roughly) this way.

PETA overvalues animal life at the expense of human life.

PETA say that animals are entitled to the same consideration as people. Stem cells are people (assumed, not stated).

If an action constitutes cruelty to a live animal, it follows that the same act constitutes cruelty if performed on a nonsentient clump of cells.

PETA opposes animal research.

Some of the people who oppose animal research are the same people who support stem cell research and some of those might be in PETA.

PETA is therefore saying that people aren't even as important as animals and that it's okay to be cruel to people but not to animals.

CODA: Gloria Steinem should support animal research if she's so damn concerned about women's health issues.

Hee! Of course, the whole argument is premised on the notion that an embryo arising from the fusion of a human ovum and a human sperm is a human child. If I actually believed that, I would have to oppose the cultivation of embryos in the first place because it would be really mean to put a bunch of children in cold storage, but, you know, EMBRYOS ARE NOT PEOPLE. And the difference between embryos and even a baby animal is that the baby animal is designed by nature to feel pain. Pain is nature's signal to animals, including us, that we need to change our circumstances, and I could certainly make an argument that some of the methods used in research may inflict pointless suffering.

I'm not going to make the argument, though. It's something I try very hard not to think about (the harm we do to the innocent). But I don't have any trouble at all thinking about things that could be done to embryos.

Note that PETA can tell the difference, as the author acknowledges:

[quote from Fox Online article by Steven Milloy begins]

As it turns out, PETA supports ESC research as a way to end animal research.

While PETA acknowledges that “unfortunately, the majority of stem cell research is done on animals,” PETA sees the research as having “the potential to end the vast majority of animal testing.”

[quote from Fox Online article by Steven Milloy ends]

Um, and....? I could quarrel with the 'unfortunately' if I really understood what PETA means here, but a clump of cells is a clump of cells. It can't feel in the sense in which a human child or a baby animal can; the receptors haven't developed. It's the nature of life to resist death (otherwise, no entity forced to endure stress would put up with it long enough to carry on the species) but a rudimentary aversive response isn't pain as we understand it. We use living tissue all the time in many medical procedures; the fact that it's the product of meiosis rather than mitosis surely shouldn't make that much difference.

The whole "reasoning" process on the stem cell issue is one big slippery slope that starts with the notion that a fetus at any stage is the same as a baby. And I guess if you think that a human fetus that is too undifferentiated to be distinguishable from a horse or cat fetus has a human soul, then you have to think that the fertilized embryo is as well. What about the sperm and ovum? Do they have souls or does the soul only happen when they fuse or when the first division takes place?

I don't know what has happened to people. None of this is a political issue; it's philosophical, religious, ethical, and reasonable people differ. It's not something that we should be making laws about at this stage of civilization under a government that isn't meant to be a theocracy.

It's not the business of the government to punish sinners for sins or to prohibit sins not traditionally recognized as crimes. Nor is it the business of the Executive branch to resolve disputes between science and faith.

If the protectors of stem cells are the only Christians among us who are going to Heaven, here's hoping for their sakes and God's that God either has a sense of humor or that he isn't much brighter than the people who presume to speak on his behalf. Otherwise, God is going to get really bored and fed up with them. As for Christ, I have a feeling that some of the people who are most vehement in his name wouldn't actually like him very much. His priorities seemed to be somewhat different from theirs.

Since I am so certain that God has a fantastic sense of humor and is way brighter than these people seem to be giving him credit for, I feel free to shake my head and laugh over the ways his followers find to waste time and resources in his name. Did Christ go through all that he went through so that those who call themselves Christians can ignore the poor, starving, homeless and hopeless to fight over the civil rights of fertilized eggs?

God & Stem Cells

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 02:51:58 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses. To jump to the updated version of this posting, please click on this link.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research & the Veto; also the Middle East. A bad moon on the rise.

House Sustains Bush's Veto of Stem Cell Bill. The House was unable to override President Bush's veto of a measure that would ease limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. By foxnewsonline@foxnews.com. [FOXNews.com]

"These kids are not spare parts," Bush said over the cheering of people who clearly can't tell apples from oranges, shit from shinola, or a cluster of frozen cells from a human child. He was referring to the chubby-cheeked little former embryos who got turned into children.

But are human embryos the same as children? Are they even very similar? To say yes is OF COURSE an example of the typically faulty reasoning that the GOP constantly deploy for fine rhetorical effect. They don't believe it; I don't think BUSH believes it. But the GOP wants the votes of those who do.

Man, it's one thing to speculate that an embryo growing in a womb is a child and that it has a soul. But a cluster of cells in a petri dish?

Here's Tim Grieve's War Room at Salon.com. Farhad Manjoo succinctly sums up the egregious fallacies underlying the whole 'stem cell research = murder issue' and Bush's position on it"

[quote from THE WAR ROOM begins]

As far as I can tell, George W. Bush, who opposes destroying human embryos for stem cell research, has never referred to such destruction as "murder," a word that some on the right often reach for when fighting embryonic science. But today, Tony Snow, his spokesman, used that word:

"The president believes strongly that for the purpose of research it's inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder; he's one of them," Snow said when asked why Bush plans to use his first veto to block passage of a bill that would increase federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Snow went on to say that "the simple answer is he thinks murder is wrong."

But if Bush thinks that destroying embryos amounts to murder, he sure has a funny way of showing it. As Bush knows -- and as Snow pointed out Tuesday -- under federal law and in most U.S. states it is perfectly legal to destroy human embryos using private funds. Such destruction isn't rare -- it occurs all the time, and research on stem cells derived from embryonic destruction has led to many breakthroughs in stem cell science. According to Bush, this destruction must be something like mass murder. But Bush does not favor making it illegal to destroy embryos. He only supports preventing federal funds from going to research on cells derived from destroyed embryos.

Isn't this an odd way to respond to murder? If you believed that people were being killed for research, wouldn't you speak out in their favor? Wouldn't you try to go after their killers? Wouldn't you do more -- much more -- than simply blocking the money going to fund the murderers?

Not Bush. Indeed, he has actively resisted outlawing embryo destruction. In 2004, when some conservative Republicans attempted to insert a plank in the Republican platform calling for restrictions on stem cell research, the White House fought them. What's more, Bush supports in vitro fertilization treatments for infertile couples, a process that necessarily creates and destroys "spare" embryos....

[quote from THE WAR ROOM ends]

As for the unused embryos that are not needed for manufacturing new humans, they will simply be chucked in the furnace and therefore wasted or else the poor little souls---assuming arguendo that they have souls---are going to be stuck in suspended animation indefinitely. Is that better than curing Michael J. Fox? I have always loved Michael J. Fox and to see him on BBC World now almost unable to speak and looking completely unlike you remember him is heart-wrenching.

And what about Reagan? What about him, eh? Would all these people who have touchingly decided to remember him as a the greatest President EVA not have wished to save him the indignity and lingering death through Alzheimer's?

I am trying hard to be heartened that there WAS enough support to get the legislation passed (if not to override the veto), making it a virtual certainty that once Bush is gone, the legislation will be passed. What is WRONG with these people? Why do they care more for a cluster of undeveloped cells than they do for their living fellow human beings? The 'they' in question isn't everyone; sane people (other than politicians) know that an embryo isn't a child.

I continue to maintain that it is because your basic Evangelical Christian---not including the politicians who feed on their souls--- is all too often (not invariably, but often) a self-satisfied self-serving complete bastard who focuses attention on the sins of others to avoid confronting the mess in his or her own interior.

Boy howdy, do these people need to review some of Christ's withering denunciations of the "righteous" people of his own day. The perils of sanctimony are many. I really believe that today's Right-wing Christians would be the FIRST to denounce Jesus if he returned. They wouldn't recognize him; he's nothing at all like they keep telling everyone.

I am trying to believe that there are enough Christians of good faith and intelligence to ensure that eventually, not too far in the future, the stem cell bill will pass so that we can do more to help our fellow suffering human beings. That's the heartening bit.

As for the Middle East, it's tearing me apart. I don't know what to think, but I know how I feel: apprehensive. Sad. Apprehensive & sad....

RELATED POSTINGS

Heartening or Heartbreaking? Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the Veto

The Faulty Reasoning Almanack: The Embryo Huggers v. PETA

Schwarzeneggar Steps Up! [homage]

What Your Representatives Don’t Know About Embryonic Stem Research

Drawn by Mr. Tenniel; painted by Damozel!

Coulter vs. Morgan

Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:06:57 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses! To jump to the updated version of this posting, please click on this link.

Ann Coulter & Melanie Morgan Throw Down Over the Question of How To Execute the Latest "Traitor"

I'm inclined to treat the latest developments in Lunatic Fringe Queen Bee vs. Lunatic Fringe Queen Bee Wannabe with the amusement their antics usually evoke, but it's really too disturbing.

You know, I was really concerned that Morgan might actually have out-Coultered La Coulter with that first round of nonsense about sending Keller to the gas chamber, but OF COURSE AC wasn't going to sit still and let this Coulter-come-lately. Nope, she jumped right in the ring, and now the two are duking it out to see who can be the most 'outrageous' under the guise of a 'friendly' exchange of death penalty preferences.

Clearly my girl Ann---the Dems' secret weapon---is becoming desperate as more and more women rush in to compete for her place as Queen of the Lunatic Fringe. This Melanie Morgan---how dare she?!--- is clearly trying to wrestle for Ann's scepter.

Not in this lifetime, Mel! Left-wing Coulterphiles everywhere agree that even the most extreme crazy-ass fascist-type statement that an aspiring capital W wingnut can utter falls flat and sounds stupid if not backed up by Coulter's enormous, seemingly limitless rage at all things liberal. Not to say that Coulter's rants don't sound stupid, but they sound stupid in the scary way that hatred backed by real rage. Morgan is an amateur at the shock-the-donkey game compared to AC and I refuse to take her seriously as competition for La Coulter. I really get the feeling that she is TRYING to be offensive; but to beat out AC, you have to BE offensive and we Dems, damn it, can tell the difference.

According to this article by Joe Conason in Salon, Morgan seems too thin-skinned to carry off Coulter's crown.

[quote from Conason's Salon Article begins]

Like many right-wingers, the KSFO crew can dish it out, but they can't take it. Their feelings get hurt when anyone slaps back. On July 10, New York Times columnist Frank Rich published a Sunday column identifying Morgan as part of a "get the press lynch mob." Although Rich didn't urge any summary punishment for her, Morgan reacted the next day by calling him "one of the meanest liberals that's on staff there in the columns department" and wrongly accused him and other Times staffers of having "lied about what I've actually said." (In the same breath she made a similar bogus complaint about a column I wrote for Salon.)

[quote from Conason's Salon Article ends; links in original]

I'm usually quite pleased to hear that the dear ladies of the Extreme Right are sounding off because having them masquerade as normal Republicans so appalls and outrages the actual Republicans I know that they begin to feel themselves shift involuntarily back to the center where good Republicans belong. [I'm talking about the many, many people who still touchingly believe that Republicans are against big government (Hahahaha), the intrusion of government into private life (BWAHhahahaha) or are fiscal conservatives (MWAHhahahahahahhah).]

So I normally am not in favor of silencing even the stupidest and most grotesque extremism from the Right. But a merry debate about the merits of one gruesome form of execution over another for a supposed 'traitor' is really beyond the pale.

In their eagerness to be Top, er, Lady Dog, the ladies in question really are getting into potentially dangerous waters. Do they really want the morons who listen to them and take them seriously to start debating the merits of one form of death for the alleged traitor over another? It's in this way that lynch mobs are formed, my angels.

Here's a sample of the witty and intellectual dialogue on offer by Morgan and her co-host, again according to Joe Conason's article:

[quote from Conason's Salon article begins]

Then she and her crew came up with a new position regarding what should happen to those journalists whom she deems traitors. Not what should happen, actually, but how it should happen.

"I really do believe that anybody who publishes classified information that results in a charge of treason should be fried! Fry 'em! Trial, conviction, death penalty!"

At that point one of her co-hosts cheerfully interjects, "You originally called for the gas chamber ... but we kind of like Ole Sparky," meaning the electric chair. To shrieks of laughter from Morgan, he launched into a gruesome description of execution by electrocution: "Their hair would go up and everything, smoke, electrical jets shooting out of their eyeballs ... We'd take Bill Keller, put him in the electric chair -- after a trial -- and then fire it up." He then launched into a series of oral sound effects -- buzzing, screeching, hissing and blubbering sounds meant to simulate the high-voltage end of the Times editor.

[quote from Conason's Salon article ends]

Wow, that is some awesome trailer park-style "wit and intellect" there, Morgan and co-hosts! High fives!

I note that MM prefaces each heartfelt wish for the death of a human being (even including an editor) with a reference to "trial" and "conviction"---as though conviction is a foregone conclusion---in an attempt, I infer, to cover her butt in the event that one of the loonies in the listening audience decides that she is broadcasting special instructions to him to make her dreams of electrocution and asphyxiation a reality. Which just goes to show---and this is the UNFUNNY part---that she is aware that this is at least a possibility. It's happened before.

And permitting these two 'pundits' to merrily debate death penalty preferences ("if he were legally tried and convicted as a traitor in a court of law, this would be the punishment I'd enjoy most!") creates not only the danger that someone will take them literally as to the person in question, but the CERTAINTY that a certain number of yuck-yuckers who are listening in are going to learn that it's acceptable to find joy and humor in contemplating the violent death of another human being.

And that is not funny at ALL.

I've been a bit pissed off at my fellow Dems lately, but this latest is enough to cause me to renew my cry:

THANK GOD I'M A DEMOCRAT.

Drawn by Mr. Tenniel; painted by Damozel!

My House Divided

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 04:28:41 GMT

Hi! I've moved to a new address. To jump to an updated version of this posting, please click here.

My House, Divided! And you know the rest of the line.

See, this REALLY ANNOYS ME:

Arianna Huffington: Bill Clinton: Dems Shouldn't Be Divided By Differences Over Iraq.

[quote from Arianna Huffington's blog begins; I left in her links in case you want to look at the sources]

The headline grabber was, of course, Joe "Greater Loyalties" Lieberman filing papers to form a new party called Connecticut for Lieberman, just in case this whole letting-Democratic-primary-voters-decide thing doesn't work out in August. Cue Simon & Garfunkel: "Where have you gone, Joe Lieberman, a Party turns its disgusted eyes to you. Woo woo woo. What's that you say, Mrs. Boxer, Boltin' Joe has left and gone away? Hey, hey, hey."

Lieberman's desperate move only serves to highlight what went underreported: Bill Clinton saying on Friday that Democrats "ought to be whipped if we allow our differences over what to do now over Iraq divide us." Is he serious? He makes it sound as if the debate over the war is petty squabbling on the level of whether one should wear white after Labor Day.

There is no way a politician as savvy as Bill Clinton could be this clueless about just how seismic a division Iraq is for Democrats, so I can only assume it was the guilt talking -- the former president trying to make up for the wrong-headed advice he's been giving Hillary about adopting a Bush-lite, "centrist" stance on the war. A stance that means she has to keep assuming, in the face of all evidence, that everything will turn out okay in Iraq -- an assumption that with each passing car bomb explosion and sectarian massacre becomes more and more divorced from reality and puts Hillary, and all those who agree with her, on the wrong side of history.

[quote from Arianna Huffington's blog ends (links in original)]

[The Huffington Post |

Also at HuffPo, RJ Eskow: EXTRA! Lieberman Declares War.

[quote from RJ Eskow's blog begins]

He's made it official: Joe Lieberman has declared war on the Democratic Party, and he's done it in a way that's designed to inflict maximum damage. His words today are a frontal assault. Dems like Chuck Schumer who think they can "work with Joe" as an "Independent Democrat" are in for a rude awakening: if Lieberman's re-elected as an independent, he's showing every sign that he'll turn Republican.....

Here's another Lieberman gift to the GOP, from the same Times article:

He added later that when he disagreed with his party, it was on the basis of principles. "I think that saying 'you've got to be with us for everything' is the road to defeat for any political party," he said.

Again, this is rank nonsense. People usually vote based on principles. What Lieberman and his supporters are betraying with these remarks is a hatred for both Democrats and democracy. But, once more, he's providing great material for the Republicans - in this case, that the Democrats 'rigidly' enforce doctrine.

[quote from RJ Eskow's blog ends]

Um....????? Isn't that EXACTLY what is going on? This is just patently absurd. For example: I disagree completely with Lieberman's stance on Iraq. On the other hand, I deny that his position proves that he hates Democrats or is secretly a Republican. If he wanted to be a Republican, he would be a Republican. They are clearly prepared to welcome him. Why would we want that to happen?

God almighty, have we reached the point where you HAVE to oppose the war to be a Democrat? What is WRONG with you people?? We need every voter we can get right now.

Then there is this, by Cenk Uygur, Note to Dense Mainstream Media -- Why We Hate Lieberman.

[quote from Cenk Uygur's blog begins; links in original]

I am constantly amazed by how uninformed people are when their job is to inform others. Every press article or editorial I've seen on the Lieberman issue completely misses the point. We are not against Joe Lieberman because we are leftists who require ideological purity. We are against him because he aids and abets an out of control Republican Party.

I have been a centrist all my life and I was a Republican until five years ago. Lieberman doesn't offend my non-existent leftist ideology. So why would a centrist be so angry with a senator who claims to be a centrist and tries to find common ground between the two parties? Because the Republicans today are so far to the right that going over to their side is abandoning centrists in favor of siding with right wing zealots.....

That's going out of your way to support not just their ideology and their war, but to support their demagoguery. It's ugly and it reeks. We get plenty enough of that from Republicans, we don't need any of that from so-called Democrats....

He shares an ideology, a mind-set and a worldview that sets him apart from the rest of us, the reality-based community. He isn't coerced or intimated by the Republicans like some of the other Democrats. He is part of the apparatus of coercion and intimidation.

[quote from Cenk Uygur's blog ends]

Aaagh! Aaaaagh! Is opposing the war now the ONLY benchmark now for a Democrat? What if Connecticut is full of voters who support the war but also support raising the minimum wage? Working toward universal health care? Abolishing the death penalty? Preventing the abortion issue from being made a matter for the states to decide?

Don't we need a few conservative Democrats to give the party credibility with, you know, CENTRIST DEMOCRATS who are actual VOTERS?

Beloved fellow Democrats, GET A GRIP. As Lieberman himself has said, there is more to being a Dem than this one single issue. Isn't there? Well? Isn't there?

I am not thrilled with Lieberman's decision either, but for completely different reasons and---for the record---I favor his opponent.

But I know MANY Dems who are what is now called 'centrist' and who share his views and who would take these jabs at Lieberman personally. I would hate for them to begin to think of switching allegiance RIGHT AT THIS CRITICAL JUNCTURE. Let's NOT drive the sheep that don't baaa in synch with the rest of us from the fold, eh?

Sorry for all the caps, but this is just really agitating me. We're right on the path to bringing about ourselves the EXACT result that we fear.

You Can't Be More Down than Dead

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 06:17:27 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses. To jump to the updated version of this posting, please click this link.

The Death of Ken Lay: Let the Offensive Pious Moralizing and Unseemly Gloating Begin! or, When Good Democrats Act Like Bad Republicans.

Is it just me? I find the following most distasteful (as well as in extremely poor taste).

Ross M. Levine: May He Lay in Peace. Kenneth Lay, dead? Did we hear right? Felled by heart stoppage in the night? [The Huffington Post | Raw Feed]

The worst thing is that it isn't even great as a piece of satire---it goes on for too long and loses whatever bite it might have had. Presumably this Levine was in a hurry and wanted to be first in the field.

Setting aside my more-expert-opinions-may-differ literary reservations, I HATE IT when my fellow Democrats and nonRepublicans behave in the patented Republican manner (gloating over the death of criminals; gloating over the downfall of 'enemies.') I don't believe in the death penalty. If Ken Lay had been executed for the harm he did, I would find it disgusting. I am sorry that he has died and put himself beyond the reach of any chance to redeem himself.

Marginally better, but only marginally, is this:

Russell Shaw: Don't rejoice over Ken Lay's death-learn from it instead.

[beginning of quoted material from Huffington Post raw feed]

It is a fair bet that at least in a few of the households where Enron's financial antics caused 401 (k)s to crash and retirement hopes to be dashed- these words will be uttered tonight- "he got what he deserved."....My personal feeling is that whatever it, or who, it is that metes out death is beyond our understanding. As a more practical matter, I also believe that expressing gratitude over the death of one that has ruined your life - an ex-spouse, a bad business partner, a convicted executive such as Lay- is nothing but vengeance. We, and you, can do better.

[end of quoted material from HuffPo's raw feed]

This commendable restraint is, regrettably, followed by a short sermon regarding the connection between (what? Lay's death?) and the author's commendable agenda. As I say, it's better than the first...but still offensive in the circumstances.

We can do better; we can shut up and recognize for whom the bell tolls. As Russell Shaw states, death doesn't prove anything about Ken Lay or anyone else. I wish he'd left it there; then I'd be 100% behind him.

Anyway: SHUT UP, GLOATERS AND CERTAIN SANCTIMONIOUS MORALIZERS NOT QUOTED HERE.

That's the Republicans' game. I'm all for going after the crooks and liars until they have been brought to their knees, but it's wrong to keep kicking someone who is down.

And you can't be more down than dead.

The 'lesson' to be learned from Ken Lay's death is this: If you've got to feel something, feel pity and terror. That is the appropriate response when hubris levels the proud, as the ancient Greeks knew. It is much more cathartic than gloating or sanctimony.

How do you expect me to go on saying THANK GOD I'M A DEMOCRAT when you give me THIS to cope with?

Don't Put Out More Flags: reprise

Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:38:05 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses. To jump to the updated version of this note, please click on this link.

Worth repeating.

What I had to say last year continues to hold true. With all this talk about the 'treason' and the 'godlessness' of the 'Left' (meaning, I guess, Democrats) by my BFF Ann Coulter (Hi, Ann!) and others, it seems if anything even more so. Nothing's changed to make any of this less true.

Happy 4th of July from a proudly "left-leaning" American! And if you're going to fly the flag today to show just how patriotic you are, at least treat it with respect!

Don't Put Out More Flags

I don’t generally display my country’s flag, even on the 4^th of July. I don’t have a proper place to display or store it; and it almost always rains on the 4^th where I live nowadays. (Not that I think it’s due to Global Warming, having been assured otherwise). I also don’t have proper illumination for it if I were to fly it at night. I see little point in patriotic gestures if you can’t take the trouble to do them properly and, you know, respectfully.

In the last several years, I've seen multiple instances of people who like flags and own them simultaneously engaged in flag-waving and flag-disrespecting. It's a metaphor in action. It's an object lesson with flags.

I’m thinking about this today because my mom recently had a battle with the post office in my hometown over the sorry, shabby state of their flag. It was not only faded, but it was faded around the edges, virtually torn into fringes. Mom called last week to tell them that they should be ashamed of themselves on the eve of our “patriotic holiday” and the flag was replaced by the next day. Good for her! She’s not young, my mom, in fact she’s elderly, and she doesn’t generally bother these days with causes. “Men”—she’s in her late seventies, okay?—“are dying for that flag,” she said.

After 9-11, there were flags going up all over my city. One local business owner painted every commercial building he owned red, white, and blue, and put patriotic slogans in every window. People put them on their cars, outside their houses, outside buildings where there’d never been flags before.

But having affirmed their passionate patriotism, that seemed to be it. The same flags are still there---I mean the very same flags. An English friend asked me in genuine puzzlement a few weeks back, “What flag looks like the American flag, but has yellow stripes instead of red ones? Is that some state flag?” You see them everywhere, flapping sadly in this summer’s seemingly endless rains. At night the American flags hang as limply as rags. At one of the local clubs, someone put out a whole row of those little ‘personal’ flags a couple of weeks ago to celebrate a local event. They’re still there: dirty, limp, filthy, and frayed.

It’s not that I am one of those people who get exercised about flags. I don’t have the feeling for it that my dad did. When I was growing up in my house along a certain riverfront in a different state from this one, he used to put up dozens flags every July 4^th. Big ones and tiny ones, they were everywhere---hanging from the balconies, flapping in the breeze on our dock and on the boathouse roof; waving merrily from the flagpole he’d had installed on the terrace.

He was strict about the display and care of flags; except for the one on the flagpole, which was properly illuminated, the others had to come down at nightfall and be put away properly. They could not appear---and remember, this was the sixties---incorporated in the design of your jeans or handbag, or as part of anything that wasn’t actually a flag. He refused to do business with a particular store that had on display outside a gigantic American flag because he felt that the outsized flag was being used as a substitute for a billboard to call attention to the business. He was just that strict.

I grew up in a part of the country where people often confuse the symbol with the thing it symbolizes. During the days of flag-burnings by American citizens, my dad used to go purple with fury at the very thought. If you didn’t love and respect the flag he and others had fought for, you didn’t deserve to call an American! We once got into an argument over whether the first amendment freedoms that the flag, among other things, supposedly symbolizes are in fact more important than the symbol itself. I did not persuade him that it was.

I don’t even think he understood my point, except as a personal attack on him and on my country. He lived in fear, I guess, that I would suddenly decide to be a hippie and start demonstrating against the Vietnam War and maybe hitchhike to California or get shot by the National Guard on my college campus. Or something. I actually never understood him any better than he understood me.

In the Girl Scout Handbook---yes, I was forced to be a Girl Scout; kids back in the seventies could quite easily be forced to do things their parents wanted them to do because we didn’t exactly have any recourse against them---I remember a whole chapter on displaying flags, taking them down, folding them properly, and storing them. There is a right way and a wrong way to do that, actually. Do people not know that nowadays?

There are right ways and wrong ways to show your patriotism. It’s---really, really, really--- not enough just to stick up a few flags, all “I am considerably more patriotic than you are,” and then just leave them there to take care of themselves. Just announcing yourself as “American!” isn’t enough to show you’re also a patriot. If you love your country, you are diligent in monitoring its state of moral credibility and the welfare of all citizens, even those who are not you. You can’t just vote for the candidate of your choice and leave him and his minions to wreak havoc without taking any notice of what’s happening.

The Presidency seems to have replaced the flag as the symbol that you can’t mock or defame. Somehow, certain people have allowed themselves to be persuaded that the man now temporarily occupying the White House is the symbol of our country, so that anyone who dares show personal disrespect for the man himself (as opposed to the office) is somehow failing in the citizen’s duty of loyalty for the country.

That's not so, though. My father---who was wrong about a lot of things, but not this---used to say, “You give your respect to the Office, not the man [because it’s always been a man, people!] holding it.” And I am duly respectful of our system and structure of government and of the Office of the Presidency.

But that does not mean I have to like George Bush, approve of his ethics or his actions, or submerge the very real fear and foreboding for the future of America that he and people like Karl Rove engender in my very patriotic soul. I resent the way he and his fellow Republicans (excluding---I meant to say---my own dear and exemplary family in the Carolinas! Hi Mom!) have managed to wrap themselves in the American flag, as though they, the flag, and the freedoms that it symbolizes were all a single entity. (The fact that I am nervous about posting this rather mild rant at an anonymous website makes me frightened).

They’re not the sole custodians of America's honor. I love my country, I fear for it, and I’m horrified that Americans after all we’ve been through just in my lifetime, and with access to information unparalleled in human history, are content to blindly follow the current Administration down the path we're now on. I'm entirely appalled that people who call themselves patriots are content to do watch complacently while those in power slowly but surely disassemble policies and programs designed to protect the poor, the oppressed, the elderly, the disabled, and the environment. I'm horrified that self-styled flag-waving patriots care more for the welfare of Bush's cronies and for the 'instant gratification' of a promised savings in tax than they do about the destruction of the environment. I'm aghast that they are so indifferent to the reputation and honor of this country in the opinion of all the rest of the world. I love my country; I can't stand to see anyone dishonor it in the eyes of the world, especially people who are waving the flag while they destroy the very things it stands for.

Putting a flag outside to show your national pride.....it’s not enough, people. Just putting up a flag and leaving it there till the threads rot, it’s covered with stains, and the red has faded to a cowardly yellow? It’s not enough. So don’t wave your ‘patriotism’ in my face. Patriotism is a virtue if it means that you want your country to be respected and honored, but it can also be, to quote Samuel Johnson, ‘the last refuge of a scoundrel.’

As Bill Maher has said, flying a flag is really the least you can do.

RELATED POSTINGS

XXX (Of a Sort) from the Mother Country: Mr. Rumcove & the Very Cruel Poll [English culture]

Deliver Us, Bill Maher! + Heroes’ Corner: Bill Maher, George Clooney, & Edward R. Murrow

Oh, I kid Bill Maher, sort of.

Thank God I'm a Democrat, Again, Some More

Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:23:17 GMT

Hi! I've moved to a new address! To jump to the updated version of this note, please click on this link.

Coulter Out-Coultered! or, Thank God I'm a Democrat, Some more.

From the Huffington Post, the following:

[quoted material begins]

Greg Sargent: Right Wing Talk Show Host Says "Any Newspaper Editor" Who Publishes Classified Info Should Be Murdered By Family Members of Slain Troops and Sent to "Hottest Corner of Hell".

Actually, no, that isn't parody. I've been conducting a rather bracing on-the-record email interview with Melanie Morgan, the sometime guest on MSNBC and right-wing talk show host on San Francisco's KSFO-FM. You may recall that Ms. Morgan recently said that she'd happily countenance the slow and agonizing execution of Bill Keller over his decision to publish the big Times piece on the U.S.'s secret financial surveillance program. In yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle Morgan was quoted saying this about Keller:

"If he were to be tried and convicted of treason, yes, I would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber."

After emailing her for confirmation of the quote -- which she granted -- I sent her, just for the heck of it, this extended description of the horrors of dying in a gas chamber, and asked the following: "Given that definition of the gas chamber, Is it really true that you'd countenance the above-described lengthy and excrutiatingly painful death for Bill Keller for printing that story?"

Here's the emailed reply from Morgan, in full knowledge that it was on the record:

"Let me answer your question with a question. If, by leaking classified information that resulted in the deaths of American soldiers -- let's just say that a terrorist purchased all the ingredients necessary for an IED and detonated against a convoy of 18, 19 and 20- something Marines, killing them -- do you honestly think I would give a rat's rear-end how the editor who leaked that information dies? Do you think I actually CARE if he or she goes slowly, banging away on the prison bars or is extinguished immediately? The answer is NO. I DO NOT CARE.
"However, the best solution that I can think of to deal with any newspaper editor, whether it's from the NY Times, LAT, WaPo, or the Wall Street Journal who is responsible for leaking national security classified information, is to be locked in a steel cage with the family members of slain troop members who would happily deliver the ultimate punishment of death. And then sent to the hottest corner of hell." (Emphasis added.)

Melanie Morgan has her own talk show, ladies and gentlemen. She's a sometime guest on MSNBC. Those are both valuable platforms. Memo to MSNBC brass: Please take a moment to read her thoughts and think about them a bit before booking Melanie Morgan on one of your shows again. Please?

I know, I know, there's no point in engaging with these people or giving them attention, right? It's just schtik, right? Waste of time, right? But what the heck. Now that she's basically said that any editor leaking classified national security information should be murdered, maybe it's time to check in with the corporate owners of her local station.

Adapted from a post at The Horse's Mouth.

[quote ends]

I'm not going to make the obvious joke here about "the horse's mouth" because it's really a Republican sort of a joke, don't you think?

Can you in your wildest dreams imagine a Democrat saying something like this? Seriously, can you?

The people I should feel sorry for are normal, non-rabid, good faith Republicans. Yes, there are some. There are. A number of them are my family members. My Mom is one of them (just for example). And Mom would not approve.

As I said before, the reason I don't feel sorry for them is because of all the nonsense I had to put up when Bill Clinton told his Big Ol' Lewinsky lie, thereby making the world unsafe for Democracy.

I do disagree with the concluding paragraph. There is every reason to engage with these people and give them attention. It's important to make it clear that to them and those who employ them that statements so utterly lacking in judgment or common decency will be taken as proof of unfitness to occupy the position of 'pundit,' on MSNBC or elsewhere.

Furthermore, it's important when you see people (including Neocons or Right wingnuts) behaving stupidly to point and laugh.

PS. I don't know who this Melanie person is but she can't really send anyone to the gas chamber, let alone to "the Hottest Circle in Hell."

RELATED POSTINGS

Susan Estrich on Ann Coulter: Sympathy for the Mean Girl.

Secret Left-Wing Coulterphiles!

An Interview with Bill Maher; Piggy Republican “Humor” at the Expense of a Veteran White House Reporter

Secret Left-Wing Coulterphiles Alert: Coulter “Praises” Senator Lieberman

Coulter Out-Coultered, or Thank God I’m a Democrat, Some More

Melanie Morgan and Ann Coulter Throw Down over How to Execute the Latest “Traitor”

The Faulty Reasoning Almanack: The Embryo Huggers v. PETA

Wendy McElroy, Stop Making Sense! Oh, wait.

I Know You Are, but What Am I?

Without A Hitch.

Suffering Fools Gladly: The Consolation of Mockery

Image drawn by Mr. Tenniel; painted by Damozel!

Compare and Contrast: Hamdan

Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:33:44 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses. To jump to the updated version of this posting, please click on this link.

Compare and Contrast: Remarks on Hamdan

The Supreme Court clips Bush's war wings. In a major rebuke to the president's draconian tactics, the court rules that secret military tribunals for terror suspects fundamentally violate U.S. and international law. [Salon]

[quote from Salon begins]

Probably the most compelling passage in Stevens' opinion is this four-word sentence: "That reasoning is erroneous." The octogenarian justice was rejecting the government's cherished argument that not one syllable of the Geneva Conventions applies to alleged al-Qaida captives at Guantánamo. Stevens held that, at minimum, Hamdan and his companions on the American-held tip of Cuba are covered by the portions of the Geneva Conventions that regulate the treatment of prisoners in civil wars and similar conflicts.

Marty Lederman, a Georgetown law professor who contributes to SCOTUSblog, was among the first to grasp the implications of the Geneva Conventions portion of the opinion. As Lederman recounted in a Thursday afternoon interview, "When I saw it, I thought it was the big kahuna." Under Lederman's reasoning, if al-Qaida members are covered by at least portions of the Geneva Conventions, as the opinion confirms, then so would be American soldiers and CIA operatives. Not only do these treaties set fair-trial standards for military commissions, but they also (much to the horror of Cheney and company) mandate the humane treatment of prisoners.

Further:

In the Hamdan decision the court also vigorously dismissed the claim that Congress had already ceded to the president any power he wants to assert under the guise of battling al-Qaida. Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University and the author of "The Most Democratic Branch," a just-published portrait of the Supreme Court, said, "They completely rejected the notion that the president can do whatever he likes because of the post-9/11 'Use of Force' resolution."

[quote from Salon ends]

Bush's War Powers: How Much of a Setback? The Supreme Court's ruling in the Hamdan case could have an effect far beyond the military tribunals that have been ruled illegal. [Time Online]

[quote from the Time Online article begins]

The most bruising blow today to the Bush Administration's approach to the war on terror was not simply the Court's decision that the special military tribunals the White House had designed were illegal. It was how dramatically the decision seems to dial back the clock to pre-9/11 legal thinking.

The Court ruled that that the Geneva Convention does apply in the case of prisoners like Salim Hamed Hamdan, an admitted supporter of al-Qaeda captured in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration has spent almost five years arguing just the opposite. And if the Geneva convention applies in the case of Hamdan, it presumably applies for all 15,000 detainees held worldwide in the war on terror.
The most immediate effect of the ruling will be to scrap the Administration's current military tribunals. The court did leave open to possibility that the White House can ask Congress to have its special court system enshrined in law. But that is a humbling alternative for an Administration that has long held that the President's inherent war-time powers allow him to conduct such tribunals without consulting Congress.
The court issued a strong rebuke to the President in other ways as well. Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion reafirmed a standing legal precedent that the President's authority is limited in areas that have already defined laws — even, Kennedy pointedly adds, in "time of crisis." This could call into question the President's authority to authorize domestic wiretapping without a warrant.
What's more, the court's ruling that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to a detainee at Guantanimocould open the floodgates for courts to decide whether other parts of Common Article 3 also apply — such as the language that prohibits "outrages of personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" of prisoners. This is particularly relevant as the Pentagon is in the middle of rewriting the Army Field Manual governing the treatment of prisoners. The Administration has maintained that the guidelines for handing detainees don't have to be in line with Common Article 3, but the Court has just made that argument much more difficult to" make.

[quote from Time Online article ends]

Harry Shearer: What The Supreme Court's Saying, Maybe.

[quote from Shearer's blog begins]

I certainly haven't caught all the strands of commentary on the Court"s Hamdan decision, but what I've heard and read seems to me to ignore the real point of the opinion: that the Court took the case for consideration at all. As I dimly recall my Con Law studies, Supreme Courts are nototiously hesitant to review Presidential powers during wartime. Think of the Court refusing to prevent the incarceration of perfectly innocent Japanese-Americans during World War Two.

Think of the Court refusing to slap down Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War.

To even reach the point where this decision could be considered, the Court majority had to reach the conclusion that the War on Terror isn't really a war. Politicians--especially of the HWC stripe--cannot make this case in public, and apparently Supreme Court Justices can't, either. But it's impossible to conceive of this, or any, Supreme Court slapping down the President in World War Two, or One, or the Civil War. Korea? The Court did challenge Truman's attempt to seize the steel industry, but Korea was a United Nations police action, or so it said on the official papers.

[quote from Shearer's blog ends]

The Court majority may be sending the sub-textual message that the war metaphor is too much hat and not enough cattle.

From CNN.com:

[quote from CNN.com begins]

President Bush:

"One thing I'm not going to do, though, I'm not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people," Bush said, adding, "I understand we're in a war on terror, that these people were picked up off of a battlefield."

He said the White House will work with lawmakers, with some senators seeing "a way forward with military tribunals in working with the United States Congress."

Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said Thursday afternoon that he would introduce legislation after the Fourth of July break that would authorize the military tribunals.

"To keep America safe in the war on terror, I believe we should try terrorists only before military commissions, not in our civilian courts," Frist said.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina, already has offered to work with the White House to draft legislation that would allow the administration to try the Guantanamo detainees before a military tribunal.

[quote from CNN.com ends]

RELATED POSTING:

Don’t Put Out More Flags (A Reprise!)

Image drawn by Mr. Tenniel; painted by Damozel!

Secret Left-Wing Coulterphils Alert

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:27:26 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses. To jump to the updated version of this posting, click on this link.

Secret Left-Wing Coulterphiles Alert! Ann Coulter "praises" Senator Lieberman.

I don't know about the rest of you, but my week would not be complete without a word from our li'l fire-brand. Disappointingly, her comments are (by Coulterphil standards) fairly tempered and free of the sort of outrageousness that causes such rejoicing among liberals everywhere. Damn it, I like my Coulter over the top and overflowing with bile and vitriol!

The pull quote from the Huff post got my attention, but it turns out that AC is only saying about Lieberman what many Dems have said: For a Democrat, he's a credible Republican. She didn't really say she admired him; she said that she admires him less than "your run of the mill garden-variety Republican" but more than your average Dem. He must be so happy!

Anyway, in case you didn't already see it, here's a link and a quote.

[quoted material begins]

Ann Coulter: "I Would Admire A Politician...Like Lieberman"....

COULTER:....I would admire a politician, not as much as basically your run of the mill garden-variety Republican, but as far as Democrats go like Lieberman, who apparently does want to defend America and fight the war on terrorism. He is the one facing a primary fight.

CAVUTO: You know, there is talk about him maybe bolting to a third party. The seeds are there for a third party movement. Do you buy that?

COULTER: I think he should come all the way and become a Republican. He wouldn’t be our best Republican but at left he’d fit in with the party that wants to defend the country.

[quoted material ends]

After all, she's only saying that as a Republican Lieberman wouldn't be the best, which is basically the same thing the Democrats seem to be saying about him as a Democrat. Nevertheless, it's not very nice of Ann Coulter to praise him for it. You can't deny that she is a clever girl, at least when it comes to prodding the Dems' sore spots. Lots of angst around today about the lack of unity among the Democrats.

Poor Senator Lieberman. Just for the record, I get his position and I definitely feel [Ali G. voice and gestures] RESPECT[/Ali G. voice and gestures]. And while the infighting among Dems is troubliing in a way, I think the party needs people on both sides of the liberal spectrum.

I actually do NOT think that Democrat should = Left Wing in the way that Republican is more and more coming to mean "Right Wing." I think that over time the more inclusive party will end up with the greatest number of voters and that---barring some sort of crisis that of course we can't rule out----the hegemony of the GOP is on borrowed time.

I don't want a monolithic party with a rigid platform; and I'm basically against the whole "united front" line of thought because dissent is so valuable in getting people to examine their views. On the other hand, I have to agree with this that Dems should keep their attacks on one another focused on the issues, not each other. I wish I could believe that's what's going to happen.

So I worry about Senator Lieberman. Agree with him or not, we Democrats of all shades need him and conservative Dems like him. I hope being faintly praised by Ann Coulter doesn't discourage him too much.

Bill Maher 6-22-05

Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:27:09 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses. To jump to the updated version of this post, please click on the link.

"People need to laugh all the more when things are bleak."

Bill Maher's new stage. Read full story for latest details. [CNN.com - Entertainment]

Why my hero Bill Maher thinks Al Gore should be the next president; what he thinks Bush has done right. A good read...

And to jump to the updated version of this post, click here.

...But you, Representative, are no Bill Maher.

Republican Congressman apologizes to Helen Thomas. I quote:

Rep. Steve King, a Republican from Iowa, apologized to Helen Thomas on Wednesday for disparaging comments he made about the veteran White House correspondent.

Last Saturday, Rep. King, while discussing the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi at the state Republican convention, said "There probably are not 72 virgins in the hell he's at." He added, "And if there are, they probably all look like Helen Thomas." [www.editorandpublisher.com, Iowa Congressman Apologizes for Rude Helen Thomas Reference (staff)].

[Cue snare drums]

Klassy, huh? There are so many things wrong with that statement that I ordinarily wouldn't know where to begin. Just ask yourself: Can you imagine a Democrat---any Democrat---saying something like that? And according to the article, "The remark drew wide laughter and applause" at his state Republican Convention.

Helen Thomas is 85 years old according to the above-linked article. I suppose that it is part of the Republicans' macho posturing to find this sort of thing risible. First of all, there's the unseemly ridiculing of a belief apparently held by a number of Muslims; second, the perhaps understandable but certainly childish and tasteless gloating over a death (even the death of a wretch like Zarquawi); and finally, the completely out of order ridiculing of a woman's appearance (with a simultaneous rude implications concerning her sexual history).

Nicely played, Rep. King and extremely easily amused Iowa Republican-convention attendees!

I say it to myself every day, but it bears repeating: Thank God I'm a Democrat.

Secret Left-wing Coulterphiles

Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:28:37 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses. To jump to the updated version of this post, click this link.

Don't You Cry No More, Steve Young

In PLEASE DO NOT READ THIS ARTICLE ABOUT ANN COULTER...You May Have CRD, Steve Young says:

"I'm so tired of articles about Ann Coulter. It's just giving her more free promotion to hype her psyche and sell her book(s). There are those out there who know better and wouldn't waste their time by reading this, that is only gives credence to her...."

[The Huffington Post | Raw Feed]

I'm a secret Coulterphile too, Steve. She is your and my secret weapon against the so-called "Right." The last thing on earth any of us should want is for her to shut up. She is so endlessly diverting---in the sense of "diverting attention from those who are reasonable-seeming (though wrong)."

Let's start appreciating her for her consistently over-the-top constant discrediting of her own positions. Don't wring your hands about your (and my) fascination with La Coulter, dude, or worry about "Coulter rubbernecking disease." Just keep on pointing and laughing.

So I say: GO, ANN! You go, girl! Enough of your entertainingly unhinged-sounding diatribes, and all right-thinking Right-leaners will be tilting back centerwards.

Estrich on Coulter

Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:00:00 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses. To jump to the updated version of this post, click on this link!

Estrich on Coulter: Sympathy for the Mean Girl

I loved this article by Susan Estrich (here at Fox.com). Just to whet your appetite, here is a little taste of one conservative woman's view of what a woman must do to get a little attention paid to her views here at the turn of the century:

In Ann's case, because I do respect her intelligence, I am forever trying to bring her in from the edge and her response is to point out that it is only because of where she stands that anyone sees her at all. If she weren't outrageous---if she didn't take those extra steps---"no one" wouuld pay attention.

That is the thesis of Ann's life.

If she were not a thin, gun-toting, half-naked, over-the-line arch-conservative, long blonde haired bombshell-- that is, if she were just a size 4, well-suited, TV coiffed conservative woman-- she'd go nowhere. And she always laughs at me because I, of all people, know that. It isn't just ideology, stupid. It's gender, too.

And here's the test of it: Show me a more moderate Ann. Show me a more moderate version of Ann who has made it by taking the essence of Ann's ideas and eating more and going to fewer extremes

Quoted from Ann Coulter and Me, Tipper and Hillary.

So. “The thesis of Ann’s life”: she's the nasty child who sits in the front row and torments the other children to get the “negative” attention she so desperately needs. Her disastrous recent comments about the 9-11 widows don't reflect her true views; she just said it to make people pay attention to her. It's nice to have my opinion of Coulter confirmed by people on her team.

I love it that conservatives think of her as “intellectual” and “over the top” rather than a self-serving right wing Barbie doll whose opinions are never more than half baked. I love it that this is the best that Estrich (who can’t “bury” Ann because she is "all about giving women a voice") can come up with in her defense: Coulter says what she says to get attention. She's a mean girl because otherwise no one would listen to her.

At the end of the day, I've ended up feeling a bit sympathetic to Coulter. Even conservatives are spinning out of control to distance themselves from her recent statements. It's really so unfair and do you know why? Because I will bet you anything you like that she was only saying in public what many of them have said to her in private about the 9-11 widows. She bravely said out loud and in public what many hardliners have doubtless said among themselves in private about the 9-11 widows: "Ignore them; they just want attention." Now everyone on the playground is running away from her as fast as their little legs can carry them. Now even her friends won't play with her!

Poor Coulter, though; could any amount of scorn be more humiliating than the defense that she's the mean girl of the playground because it's the only way anyone would look at her otherwise? Because no matter what she says here, Estrich can't possibly believe that the only way a woman--even a conservative woman--can get people to listen to her is by saying things that she doesn't really mean. (Or does she mean that conservatives will only listen to a woman who is strident and a provocateur? Hmmmmm....)

Liberals who really want Coulter to go away should just laugh indulgently at her antics and get on with the more important business of calling public attention to issues that really require the public's attention. I personally am not sure I do want her to go away; her playground taunts don't make me feel ashamed or victimized in the least and watching her pals spinning out of control to distance themselves amuses the hell out of me.

If I were like Ann Coulter I might engage in speculation about why she is so apparently angry all the time, but I'm just not that interested (and as my mother used to say, "Don't you stoop to her level!").

So I am completely satisfied with Estrich's apologetics: Coulter fears that if she weren't a superficially "glamorous" ---I guess Estrich means "appealing to Republican men"---and stridently offensive, nobody would ever pay attention to her at all! Since she is what she is, everyone gets crazy every time she screams "Neener Neener Neener! Democrats suck, I hate you all and so does Jesus! I wish you would all die!""

To Democrats everywhere: Calm down. Calm down. Just because Ann Coulter wishes we would all die painfully doesn't mean we are going to. It doesn't mean that all Republicans/conservatives wish we would die; it's increasingly clear that Coulter speaks for Coulter.

But if you don't secretly enjoy watching Ann Coulter make a spectacle of herself (as I've recently admitted to myself I do), and if you want her to go away, give her taunting the response it merits and ignore it. You can't shame people who don't have any shame and you can't reason with people whose attitudes aren't based on reason. And fighting back just gives her exactly what she wants: more people looking at her.

As for Estrich, does she even know what century this is? It's demonstrably not the case that women, even conservative women, can only get a hearing, or a book deal, by being perpetually on the attack or scrawny harridans with age-inappropriate hair and clothing. Just for example, there are the two women (Hillary and Tipper) Estrich takes on in the rest of her article. Whatever you think of them, you can't deny that they have made themselves noticed and that HC has made herself noticed big-time, as a potential presidential candidate. Or---if you must---take Condoleeza Rice. I won't say "Take Susan Estrich herself" because she knows better than I do whether people pay attention to her...

How to Talk About Ann Coulter

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:34:16 GMT

I've changed my address! To jump to the updated version of this note, click on this link.

Come on, She's Good for a Laugh: How to Talk About Ann Coulter (if We Really Must)

What Would Ann Coulter Do?. On campus, a new conservative women's anti-feminist group is rising, and both their liberal counterparts and conservative mentors are taking notice [TIME Magazine Online: Top Nation Stories]

The answer to that question is, "Write a book of fulminations by the pot against the kettle," e.g., Godless. Ann Coulter may be many things to many people but she certainly does not exemplify the spirit that will inherit the earth.

She is not an 'anti-feminist'; rather she's the apotheosis of the right wing version feminism. In a world where feminism did not exist, Ann Coulter would be relegated to her broom. Put together all the atavistic male fears evoked in the breast of right-wing males by the word "feminism" and what do you get? You get Ann Colter: hollow-eyed, gaunt, and hungry looking, scary, brimming over with free-floating vitriol, castrating, humorless, seeking whom she may devour.... She's Lilith, not Eve, and if she were really as powerful as she aspires to be, she'd eat alive any conservative who dared to challenge her world view with the same gusto as she would devour a Liberal.

I am sure that many puffy pink Republican men who read her books must be simulataneously terrified and ecstatic to find their views and misgivings "confirmed" in her writings.

I can only hope that any network of young conservative women that may be "arising" on college campuses will read the comments that have been attributed to her before deciding to follow in her footsteps. For them, the solution to Ann Coulter is "critical thinking." I am not yet at the point where I believe that all conservatives (and particularly the young ones) are incapable of it.

The problem with these articles---Why Coulter Matters and James Love: Freakshows, Ann Coulter, and Politics---is that both attribute to her more power than she actually has. Nobody could possibly take her seriously except the sort of people who could take Ann Coulter seriously. We don't want them on our side anyway. We don't want her either. She's a mouthpiece for the far right, not a fountainhead of conservative thinking. She exists to tell people who already hold certain views what their views should be, e.g., How to Talk to a Liberal (if You Really Must). If she did not exist, some other right-wing fury would emerge to fill the ecological niche she occupies.

In his article (here) James Love suggests that she could be a very useful Republican icon ---for the Democrats. In pertinent part, he writes:

"Andrew Sullivan says she is a "form of camp . . . The minute you take her seriously, you lose grip on her reality. She's not a social or political commentator. She's a drag queen impersonating a fascist. I don't even begin to believe she actually believes this stuff. It's post-modern performance-art."

Who else with much media viability says plainly they supported apartheid in South Africa, or claim that slave trading is the "only" African institution "America" adopted, and offer countless insults to Arabs, Muslims, moms, widows and just about anyone else who might be useful in generating shock....

Maybe she will be useful mascot for the Republican party - if the Democrats were willing to use her in that way. "As your apartheid supporting friend said......" "Does Ann Coulter speak for the Administration on the need to convert the heathens in the Middle East?" ...."

He's right. So come on, guys. Stop clutching your pearls and start laughing loud and long. She may look like the bad fairy from your worst nightmares but just dump a cauldron of water on her and get on with your Liberal life of sloppy good will and gooey concern for others. The only way to marginalize her is to stop expecting her to make sense and (especially) to stop reacting with horror when she doesn't.

As to anything else she has to say on religion? A few months back, a conservative college took a lot of heat for removing her from their list of scheduled speakers after a student sent them a list of choice Coulter opinions. See: Tim Grieve, An Ann Coulter Speech? Thanks but no thanks at Salon.com.

She is the exemplar of contemporary "Christianity" (as opposed to Christianity) and the Church of God without Christ. Praise the Lord and pass the Constitution!

Bill Maher's Closing Summation

Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:13:57 GMT

Hi! I've changed addresses. To jump to the current version of this post, click this link.

Bill Maher's Closing Summation from Last Week's

Real Time with Bill Maher.

Quoted in The Huffington Post here. Cold...yet blistering....and yet I laughed till I started to cry. As always, he dares.

Don’t Put Out More Flags (A Reprise!)

Suffering Fools Gladly: The Consolation of Mockery

Oh, I kid Bill Maher, sort of.

Deliver Us, Bill Maher! + Heroes’ Corner: Bill Maher, George Clooney, & Edward R. Murrow

Image drawn by Mr. Tenniel; painted by Damozel!

Edward R. Murrow (George Clooney film)

Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:23:57 GMT

Hi! I've changed my address. To jump to the current version of this note, click here.

Where Have You Gone, Edward R. Murrow? A Nation

Turns its Lonely Eyes to You.

"We know that the media have not always been so venal," one of my friends said sadly, "or so cowardly. We can still remember. Where did it all go wrong---seriously, where? They were all over the Monica Lewinsky thing like ugly on an ape. Did 9/11 really silence them? And if so, how? And why?" Like me, she is old enough to remember a time when the press served an indispensable role in guarding truth and liberty---when they saw it as their job to hold elected officials accountable even when the American people didn't want to hear. Like Socrates, the press was a stinging gadfly that politicians often detested and ridiculed, but could not intimidate, no matter how furiously their slaps in its direction.

Ah well. Look what happened to Socrates.

Anyway, thanks, George Clooney, for bringing us a well-timed reminder of what the press has been and still might become again. A Salon.com article by Kelly Lauerman discusses his upcoming tribute to Edward R. Murrow. From the article:

But George Clooney's "Good Night, and Good Luck," a stirring examination of CBS News legend Edward R. Murrow's historic showdown with Sen. Joseph McCarthy, is a passionate argument for a revitalized press, one that's willing to operate in pursuit of larger truths, and not just larger profits. Clooney's second turn as a director (after the underrated "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind") is a tribute to Murrow (played by a pitch-perfect David Strathairn), a man of moral certitude and great elegance. But it also memorializes a time when the media kept a higher purpose, and maintained a higher tone. Who won't rue the whiplash crudeness of TV news when watching Murrow, during the scathing report on McCarthy that helped finally make him vulnerable to public opinion, turn a clumsy Shakespearean allusion by the Wisconsin Republican against him with agility.... (links appear in the original)

What does George Clooney know about it, you ask?

Clooney (who appears in a decidedly unglamorous supporting role as Murrow's producer and CBS legend Fred Friendly) has made no secret that the movie was inspired by current events -- "We use fear to attack civil liberties," he has said -- and his intentions are likely to be discussed and debated by the pundits in the evenings to come. Clooney is himself a student of journalism; his father was a TV anchor who frequently ran up against management (he ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2004), and the younger Clooney studied the profession at Northern Kentucky University before turning his attention to acting.

Could this film be any better timed? Could this tribute be more fitting at a time when the press has truly degenerated into a pack of yapping dogs who apparently rate the Michael Jackson trial and the war in Iraq as 'news' of equal importance and worthy of equal attention?

I don't know anything more about this film than appears in the article. But I know that the subject is one that needs to be moved to forefront of political discussion. A free press is of little value if its own invisible masters have pinioned and fettered it.

Are you among those who feels 'disillusioned,' as a Republican friend claimed, by Bush's performance in the recent disaster of New Orleans? If so, you need to place at least some of the blame squarely where it lies: on our cowardly, trivial, and simplistic news media, which has devolved into a yapping corps of reporters obsessed with entertaining at the expense of informing and which constantly---and insultingly---plays to the lowest common denominator.

George W. Bush is what he is. He has been straightforward, according to me, about what he offers to America. America chose him. But would America have done so if the press had delved a little deeper---had focused on the White House with the same attention (never mind unseemly and malicious glee) that they brought to their discussions of Whitewater and the Monica Lewinsky debacle? If they had queried the 2004 election and its outcome with that same fervor? If they stuck to the stories that matter?

I don't know the answer to that question. But I don't believe that Americans generally are as stupid as the national news media apparently believe we are. If we had TV networks prepared to position themselves as antidotes to Fox, for example, I don't think they'd find it hard to find an audience (and CNN has been better than some, but not good enough). But of course none of the networks really are looking for 'an audience'----they and their all-important advertisers want everyone, but especially (or so I understand) the demographic consisting of the young and hormonally challenged who have short attention spans and little interest in learning anything they don't already 'know.' [Hey, it's just a stage, so I am never going to understand why people too young to have any money or any understanding of the world are invariably the 'target audience' for advertisers.]

Thank God for access online to the BBC news, The Independent, The Guardian, and---yes---The Telegraph. Thank God for Salon.com, The Huffington Post, and National Public Radio. Thanks, HBO, for Real Time with Bill Maher. Thanks to them, I'm not as stupid or blinkered as I would otherwise be.

And thanks again to George Clooney. Maybe the film will wake up some of the newly minted journalists who haven't yet sold out. Maybe it will remind the news media of its real job---to speak the truth fearlessly, without regard to the corporate bottom line, to the preferences of advertisers, shareholders, or viewers/subscribers.

Don’t Put Out More Flags (A Reprise!)

Suffering Fools Gladly: The Consolation of Mockery

Oh, I kid Bill Maher, sort of.

Deliver Us, Bill Maher! + Heroes’ Corner: Bill Maher, George Clooney, & Edward R. Murrow

Image drawn by Mr. Tenniel; painted by Damozel!

Wrong Then or Wrong Now

Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:04:05 GMT

I've changed my address! To jump to the current version of this post, click on this link.

Read all About it! 'Amazing' ‘Revelations’!

Did the mainstream press get it wrong then or are they wrong now? Whose side are they on, anyway? Which way is the wind blowing?

I’ve been furious with the press for a long time. But I am particularly angered by the current frenzy of fury at President Bush---not because I don't think he deserves a time out, but because I happen to think that the press have played a key role in enabling exactly the sort of policies and practices for which they are now pillorying the Administration. It makes me crazy to see them all, "The scales have fallen from our eyes!" and turning on Bush like a pack of dogs when the lead dog is down. “If they finally got with the program, don’t crap on them,” one of my progressive friends said to me brusquely. “Be glad they finally did. It's high time.” But I don't see it that way. If what they are now saying reflects the facts, and if they are indeed getting it all right for the first time, I think the members of the mainstream press has failed in their way as outstandingly as they are now claiming that Bush has failed in his.

During an interview with Anderson Cooper during Real Time, Bill Maher (my personal hero) noted that Katrina seems to have given us back our press. Anderson Cooper seemed miffed by the remark; I was miffed too, for different reasons. If Katrina has given us back the press, where has it been in the interim? What sort of courage does it take to suddenly become bold in attacking an Administration in the face of declining public approval?

Now that they are clutching their pearls around their lily white necks and injecting whispery gossip about his personal failing into their reports of the disaster, it’s really hard to take them seriously. It seems to me that we’ve had a very painful demonstration that they

The gossip, by the way, is all about the President’s alleged personal policy of remaining in a state of pure, clear, untainted ignorance concerning any news out there in the world that he might find upsetting. It would upset me very much to get this information now if the rumors were new. They are not.

Tim Grieve in Salon asks the question that should be troubling everyone who still retains a shred of faith in the disinterestedness of the mainstream press: Have magazines like Time and Newsweek known all along who the president really is, or is new information coming to light? If it’s the former, why haven’t reporters shared their insights before?

And in a Salon article dated September 7, Eric Boehlert discusses the ‘jolting’ of the Press by Katrina. And he exactly tracks the criticism that I’ve been hearing for years from the non-mainstream media and from my progressive friends:

Forgive some of us for not celebrating the press's coming-out party. The fact that this kind of aggressive questioning of people in power during times of crisis now passes as news itself only highlights just how timid the mainstream press corps has been during the Bush years.

It's hard to decide which is more troubling: that it took the national press corps five years to summon up enough courage to report, without apology, that what the Bush administration says and does are often two different things, or that it took the sight of bodies floating facedown in the streets of New Orleans to trigger a change in the press's behavior.

But now they are all knocking each other over now to tear strips out of his teflon coating. Though the fact that they mention the following points only in passing indicates that they, along with the rest of America, are still underestimating and understating the significance of the following information about the president’s accessibility (and access to critical information).

These rumors about Bush’s management style have been around for a long time. Are they true? I don’t know. But I do know that these allegations are not new.

Exhibit A: A Newsweek article by Evan Thomas is called 'How Bush Blew It.' Note the following:

It's a standing joke among the president's top aides: who gets to deliver the bad news? Warm and hearty in public, Bush can be cold and snappish in private, and aides sometimes cringe before the displeasure of the president of the United States....

President George W. Bush has always trusted his gut. He prides himself in ignoring the distracting chatter, the caterwauling of the media elites, the Washington political buzz machine. He has boasted that he doesn't read the papers. His doggedness is often admirable. It is easy for presidents to overreact to the noise around them.

But it is not clear what President Bush does read or watch, aside from the occasional biography and an hour or two of ESPN here and there. Bush can be petulant about dissent; he equates disagreement with disloyalty. After five years in office, he is surrounded largely by people who agree with him. Bush can ask tough questions, but it's mostly a one-way street. Most presidents keep a devil's advocate around. Lyndon Johnson had George Ball on Vietnam; President Ronald Reagan and Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, grudgingly listened to the arguments of Budget Director Richard Darman, who told them what they didn't wish to hear: that they would have to raise taxes. When Hurricane Katrina struck, it appears there was no one to tell President Bush the plain truth: that the state and local governments had been overwhelmed, that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was not up to the job and that the military, the only institution with the resources to cope, couldn't act without a declaration from the president overriding all other authority.

From the same article:

There are a number of steps Bush could have taken, short of a full-scale federal takeover, like ordering the military to take over the pitiful and (by now) largely broken emergency communications system throughout the region. But the president, who was in San Diego preparing to give a speech the next day on the war in Iraq, went to bed.....

Bush was told at 5 a.m. Pacific Coast time and immediately decided to cut his vacation short. To his senior advisers, living in the insular presidential bubble, the mere act of lopping off a couple of presidential vacation days counts as a major event. They could see pitfalls in sending Bush to New Orleans immediately. His presence would create a security nightmare and get in the way of the relief effort. Bush blithely proceeded with the rest of his schedule for the day, accepting a gift guitar at one event and pretending to riff like Tom Cruise in "Risky Business."....

Late last week, Bush was, by some accounts, down and angry. But another Bush aide described the atmosphere inside the White House as "strangely surreal and almost detached." At one meeting described by this insider, officials were oddly self-congratulatory, perhaps in an effort to buck each other up. Life inside a bunker can be strange, especially in defeat.

And in Exhibit B Time has had this to say about that (in an article by Mike Allen):

In addition, former aides say there has always been enormous pressure on White House officials to take only the most vital decisions to Bush and let the bureaucracy deal with everything else. Bush does not appear to tap sources deep inside his government for information, the way his father or Bill Clinton did, preferring to get reports through channels. A highly screened information chain is fine when everything is going well, but in a crisis it can hinder. Louisiana officials say it took hours for Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco to reach Bush (although when she did, he talked to her soothingly, according to White House officials). "His inner circle takes pride in being able to tell him 'everything is under control,' when in this case it was not," said a former aide. "The whole idea that you have to only burden him with things 'that rise to his level' bit them this time."

A related factor, aides and outside allies concede, is what many of them see as the President's increasing isolation. Bush's bubble has grown more hermetic in the second term, they say, with fewer people willing or able to bring him bad news--or tell him when he's wrong. Bush has never been adroit about this. A youngish aide who is a Bush favorite described the perils of correcting the boss. "The first time I told him he was wrong, he started yelling at me," the aide recalled about a session during the first term.

"Then I showed him where he was wrong, and he said, 'All right. I understand. Good job.' He patted me on the shoulder. I went and had dry heaves in the bathroom."

Grieve cites a January 2004 story in Newsweek by Richard Wolff demonstrating its previous deference toward the Bush Administration and produces, as the facts in evidence, quotes indicating the ‘previous deference’ of the mainstream press toward this Administration:

Witness its cover story by Richard Wolffe from Jan. 24, 2005, timed to coincide with the president’s second inaugural….

Wolffe described the president as a man whose "leadership style belies his caricature as a disengaged president who is blindly loyal, dislikes dissent and covets his own downtime" -- a caricature that looks like a dead ringer after the vacationing president’s reaction to Katrina. …

Wolffe: Bush is "a restless man who masters details and reads avidly" and "digs deep into his briefing books." When he’s not "poring over white papers," he also enjoys the occasional novel…..

Wolfe: Bush’s "style in policy briefings is to narrow the debate with a series of questions, crystallizing the competing opinions and exploring the disagreements between his staff."

The pull quote for the January 2004 article? “He's hands-on, detail-oriented and hates 'yes' men. The George Bush you don't know has big dreams—and is racing the clock to realize them.” Have a look for yourself and make your own comparison. Tim Grieve has his own theory about the reason for Newsweek's earlier sycophancy. I don't know enough to speculate whether he is right or not, but I don't think there is any explanation for the disjunct that could fully restore their credibility. When a contradiction on this scale is pointed out to me, I feel entitled to a personal explanation from Newsweek. If he was a brilliant, efficient, and innovative 'hands on' leader then, how in the space of a few short months has he evolved into a president who doesn't exist when the cameras are off? Unless he's been taken over by aliens, both these stories can't be right.

In short: If the reports currently in circulation are true, did Time and Newsweek and all who sail in them really not know? And if they have been true all along, how could they not? And if they did, how could they not report it as soon as they knew?

Did they get it wrong then or have they got it wrong now? Or---much more disturbingly----have they just been telling us all along what they think we want to hear? Or---even more disturbingly---what they think they can get away with? What's the story behind the stories? The President is what he is, but what the hell has been going on with the mainstream press?

And---to be fair---it's OF COURSE not just Time and Newsweek; they're just the easiest targets at the moment; there are plenty of other examples. It's the press generally. And the mainstream press---to ensure 'access'? to keep from pissing off advertisers or shareholders? to keep from losing viewers or subscribers?---apparently not been doing its job, unless it is misleading us all now.

I really don't see how they can have it both ways, can you?

So as there is evidently plenty of blame to go around, let's put a big chunk of it on the press which---assuming arguendo that their reports are accurate--- has all along been enabling the very policies and practices for which the Administration is now being pilloried.

And as for celebrating their 'courage,' I'll celebrate when I see whether it lasts through the next change in the political wind.