Timmerman Goes 'Nucular'

Ken Timmerman, right-winger from newsmax.com, just did something unintentionally hilarious.

The man who wrote, "Countdown To Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran," just promoted his book on MSNBC's Tucker Carlson program, using King George's pronunciation of 'nucular!'

It should be noted what WaPo said about his book (I am quoting the review found on amazon.com):

Timmerman's thesis is simplistic and provocative: Iran is America's most militant, relentless enemy and has been involved in nearly every terrorist attack against the United States since 1979. Iran is also actively seeking the bomb -- not for deterrence, but to menace the United States and its allies. After all, as the author suggests, "Only one Iranian nuclear-tipped missile needs to penetrate Israel's Arrow antimissile defenses to devastate Israel's highly concentrated population, destroy its economy, and effectively smash the state. Israel is a 'one-bomb' country and the Iranians know it." Timmerman dismisses any challenge to such claims as evidence of the pusillanimous nature of the U.S. intelligence services, the fecklessness of American politicians and, of course, the crass inclination of European appeasers to subordinate principle to commercial gain.

Timmerman, the author of earlier books attacking France and Jesse Jackson, begins his book with the outlandish claim that Iran was complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, atrocities. In his retelling of history, a craven CIA, determined to exonerate rogue states that sponsor terrorism, has deliberately withheld this information from the American public. The conclusions of the numerous congressional investigations and journalistic inquiries into Sept. 11 are simply ignored. The one independent examination that Timmerman does cite, the 9/11 Commission, is faulted for missing what he considers the all-too-apparent Iran link. The reader gets the impression that Timmerman would rather not bother with facts precisely because they undermine his conspiracy theory.

So why is this genius, who can't even pronounce the word 'nuclear,' though he has written a book on the subject, being given so much time on MSNBC at all? So much for credibility, Tucker (not that we expected much).

Aren't there saner individuals who can talk about the arrests in Britain over an alleged conspiracy to blow up planes with liquid explosives?

People wonder why the left has lost all confidence in the cable news networks.

Maybe it's just that we're all going 'nucular.'

Lieberman's Bush Democrat Tactics

Sen. Joe Lieberman is showing himself to be a Bush Democrat in more ways than one.

On Friday, trailing in the Connecticut primary to Ned Lamont by double digits in the latest polls, Lieberman chose to appear with Ed Schultz, but not Randi Rhodes. Rhodes, while interviewing Lamont, claimed that a call to Lieberman's people to appear had not been returned. Meanwhile, he had been on shortly before with Schultz.

On the Ed Schultz program yesterday. Listen to this audio link from 9:13 in and you will hear Schultz painfully get Lieberman to say that Rumsfeld should be replaced.

You will notice that he doesn't call for Bush to ask him to go, as he indicates, "Rumsfeld serves at the President's pleasure." Even more importantly, Lieberman says that a change at the top will "open some minds and rebuild some public support here in America." In other words, replace Rumsfeld as a public relations move to get support for the invasion in Iraq.

Lieberman's decision to avoid a challenge from Democratic hosts who are not Lieberman-friendly was echoed in today's Connecticut Post.

In an article entitled,"Lieberman, somehow, resists Cocoa Puffs' call," by Pam Dawkins, she writes this, concerning Stephen Colbert's attempts to get Lieberman as a guest on "The Colbert Report," on Comedy Central:

"Marion Steinfels, Lieberman's campaign spokeswoman, said she believes the senator knows about the invitation, that he heard it from a reporter. When asked whether he was going to appear, or why not, Steinfels said the senator is in the midst of a 10-day bus tour of Connecticut.

"'We are focused on in-state media' rather than national shows, because the campaign is about getting out Connecticut voters', she said."

Hmmm. Sen. Lieberman wasn't shy about being on with nationally-syndicated Ed Schultz and we know his fondness for Sean Hannity.

Considering that George Bush has made an art-form of appearing with a very select hand-picked few, it is clear whose style Joe Lieberman is emulating here.

Hoyer Calls Out Cynical Republicans On Minimum Wage

I have to admit, Democrats seem to be rising more to the challenge these days, and forcefully responding to the GOP shell game.

Nothing was as nakedly obvious about where the GOP's heart lie than in the dubious intermingling of a minimum wage bill with the proposed reduction of the estate tax.

Do they really think that they will be able to go to the voters in November and charge that it is the Democrats who are opposed to an increase in minimum wage? If the Dems use the right strategy...pull back the curtain and show exactly what the GOP is doing...this will boomerang. When Sen. Frist goes on record saying that linking a minimum wage increase to a repeal of the estate tax is "all-or-nothing" than it is relatively easy to connect the dots.

For a change, it seems that the Dems are learning how to counter such chicanery a bit more forcefully.

In that spirit, witness the following statement from House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer:

“Republicans cynically linked an increase in the minimum wage to a virtual repeal of the estate tax, intending to give political cover to their most vulnerable Members while ensuring that no increase would be enacted and hoping to blame Democrats.

“This Do-Nothing Republican Congress has such misplaced priorities that they refuse to pass a minimum wage increase even though the overwhelming majority of the American people and bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate support it. Republicans point to small businesses to justify their unjustifiable opposition, but 86 percent of small business people say that an increase won’t affect them.

“Holding a pay increase for millions of Americans hostage for huge tax breaks for the wealthiest estates was a cynical game that left working families on the losing end once again. Americans are tired of the game playing and are looking for a change. Democrats will take our country in a new direction, including a fair increase in the minimum wage.”

Since it's all about sound bites, the "Do-Nothing Republican Congress" has a nice ring to it, don't ya think?

How Ya Gonna Keep 'Em Down On The Fetal Farm?

The bizarre story that got very little play the day that Curious George vetoed a bill that would have federally funded embryonic stem cell research was the "Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006."

The bill, sponsored by that intellectual giant, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, passed 100-0. The aim of the legislation was to "amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes, and for other purposes."

I'll bet we are now all breathing a sigh of relief that we will not be creating a new line of designer embryos for our mad scientists to be experimenting on. Frankenstein will have to wait for a less godly House and Senate, I suppose.

It is obvious that this bill was introduced with the goal of diluting the reaction to the Bush veto, so that right-wing politicians would have another non-issue to appeal to their evangelical base. However, it is hard for pandering to be effective when you can't use the issue for divisive purposes. And how can one be divisive on an issue with 100% support?

Further, as Media Matters correctly reported, media handling of this was once again botched.

As Media Matters noted, coverage from the NY Times and CNN mentioned the passage of the legislation without mentioning that 'fetal farming' does not exist, nor has anyone proposed that it should. In the above link provided, Media Matters gives a pretty good history of the legislation and why it was introduced.

I chose to mention it today, because of the absurdist comments I noted when I checked out the website of Concerned Women for America (an ill-named group, if ever there was one). They specifically refer to the House bill, without mentioning Sen. Santorum and the Senate legislation.

From the CWA site comes the following:

"Concerned Women for America (CWA) commends President Bush and Congress for passing legislation known as The Fetus Farming Prohibition Act (H.R. 5719) introduced by Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Florida). This life-saving legislation will prohibit the creation and development of humans in order to harvest organs, body parts and tissue for research.

"'The creation of pre-born children to extract their organs and tissue for experimentation may seem unreal, and yet it has already occurred with animals,' said Wendy Wright, CWA’s President. 'Creating human embryos for research was denounced until it was discovered that a fertility clinic was creating embryos solely to experiment upon. Cloning was universally denounced until it was announced that American scientists were attempting it. The time to ban scientific atrocities against helpless humans comes before unethical scientists work up their propaganda machines to claim that destroying human beings is justified to benefit science. Banning the inception of a pregnancy to obtain the baby’s tissues for research also protects women from being exploited, used as incubators.'

"'As the law stands, purchasing fetal tissue from an induced abortion is punishable by fines and/or up to 10 years imprisonment,' said Lanier Swann, CWA’s Director of Government Relations. 'Now these same penalties will be applied to anyone violating the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act.

"'The House has acknowledged and prevented the damage fetus farming could have done had it been allowed. Although the idea of harvesting humans for research sounds like science fiction, it is becoming a shocking reality. We praise representatives in the House for realizing that ethics should never be checked at the door in lofty hopes of advancing immoral scientific schemes.'"

Life-saving legislation?

Shocking reality?

Immoral scientific schemes?

I am so glad that, with all the global violence and hunger we are faced with, CWA was able to come up with an issue that they could sink their teeth (and claws) into.

I am willing to bet that the sheep that flock to them will reward them with more gold to line their concerned wallets with.

After all, isn't that the point?

The Obscene Profits Of Exxon Mobil

Today, Exxon Mobil reported the 2nd biggest profit ever for a publicly traded company, 10.36 billion dollars in the April-June quarter.

That number is 2nd, only to the 10.71 billion that the same corporation recorded in the last year.

According to the Associated Press, EM's Veep of investor relations, Henry Hubble, said, "We continue to see demand growth year over year....We're selling everything we can make."

So, let's see. Profits are up 36% over a year ago and 12% from the last quarter alone.

During that same period, with Americans now saddled with much higher gasoline prices, raise your hand if you saw ANY increase in real disposable income. Not too many hands waving out there, outside of oil companies and the corporations that have profited off the war.

Not that a compassion-less administration gets it, but there are families that struggle with balancing filling the tank with putting food on the table.

Have we asked these money-grubbing corporations to give back some of that excessive windfall to the nation? Have we tried to use some of the excess profits to try and thwart any of the economic pain being caused by high-priced oil?

Of course not.

Instead, the Bushies have followed an international policy that thrives on violence in the Middle East. It is a policy that boosts the record profits for the companies that are the true power behind the Republican Party.

Seriously, doesn't it seem a tad odd that we are not trying to slow down the bloodshed in Lebanon one bit? Since when has America suggested 'wait it out' in this particular global powder keg?

As for Iraq? Our willingness to let chaos rule is evident.

Blood for oil. Maybe it isn't so far-fetched after all.

Apology or Snow Job?

Tony Snow has now apologized for suggesting that President Bush equated embryonic stem cell research with murder.

However, as we already know, Bush also stated that such research involved, "the taking of innocent life."

Those words were very carefully chosen. Pro-ban extremists usually use the terms 'murder' and 'taking of innocent life' interchangeably. Some examples can be found here and here among countless other similar writings.

So when can we expect an apology from Mr. Bush?

Nazis & Stem Cell Researchers: The Origin Of The GOP Talking Points

Reading Frank Rich's column today (subscription required), I was interested in his singling out of Michael Steele, a GOP senatorial candidate from Maryland, for linking embryonic stem cell research to Nazi experiments on Jews during World War 2.

The comparisons of researchers to Nazis is not an original proposition.

I remember hearing James Dobson say the same thing on a radio talk show this week, so I searched and, sure enough, back in August of last year, Media Matters referenced Dobson's inappropriate comments from his August 3rd radio show.

At the time, Dobson said, "In World War II, the Nazis experimented on human beings in horrible ways in the concentration camps, and I imagine, if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind."

The link is here.

Bush Accuses Stem Cell Researchers Of Murder

It's bad enough that the worst President America has ever known used his first veto to ban federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. What could be worse than that?

Blatantly suggesting that those who engage in such conduct are murderers.

In his veto speech, in which the shameless George I was surrounded by exploited 'snowflake babies,' unused fertility clinic embryos that got 'adopted,'Bush equated stem cell research with "the taking of innocent life."

Need it to be any more clear? The politically tone-deaf Press Secretary, Tony Snow, added: "He simply thinks murder's wrong."

So those who would put to use, for the public good, embryos that would have been utilized for research to help end human suffering, are killers? It's better to throw them out? And, if those who would perform stem cell research are killers, exactly what does that imply about those people who run fertility clinics? And what of couples who have destroyed embryos in their pursuit of a fertile egg?

Tom Harkin, Democratic Senator from Iowa has it right when he says, " If that's murder, how come the president allows that to continue? Where is his outrage?"

According to Charles Babington, in the Washington Post, Senator Harkin also added that the Bush veto was "a shameful display of cruelty, hypocrisy and ignorance."

And what of the vast majority of the American public that favors embryonic stem cell research, according to opinion polls?

Obviously, Bush feels we approve of murder.

We need to show him what he think of his disgusting and inhuman politics in November.

Senators that need to be defeated for allowing Bush to do this can be found here. It includes Nebraska Democrat Nelson.

I will be adding links to the House roll call vote in a future post.

What The Mid-Term Ads Should Say

Observing King George's behavior at the G-8 summit is almost unbearable. Oops, wadda ya know, the mike is on!

Could it be any more embarrassing than having this putz be the face of America?

What's worse is that the insanity is not even close to reaching its zenith. Just wait til our Commander-as-Chimp make his first veto the one that stifles stem-cell research.

This fool will go down in history as the most incompetent leader of a major power EVER.

If the Dems are smart (see, I really do hope for miracles) they will make the following type of message part of the ad campaign in every race.....

(start commercial by showing one of the many embarrassing Bush moments and fiascos....'mission accomplished' will fit in nicely here)

Announcer: Thanks to a GOP stranglehold on Congress, George Bush has been seeking to have unlimited, unchecked power and Congress has not allowed a single investigation into misdeeds or incompetence to go forth.

For example, has Halliburton mis-used billions earmarked for Iraqi and post-Katrina reconstruction? Have the oil companies set up our energy policy to insure record profits? What mistakes were made to have created the current debacle in Iraq?

We'll never know. Republicans will not allow any charges to be looked into. They will not allow important questions to even be asked, so that we avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.

President Bush knows he answers to nobody (show a graphic of a rubber stamp).

If you want the checks-and-balances needed in order to let America govern responsibly...in order to make our nation's leaders accountable to the people...elect (insert name here).

Bush: Indian Deaths For Political Capital?

Interesting evolution of Bush the politician today.

According to AP, Bush, while speaking at a shoe factory, couldn't even initially express sorrow over the tragedy, saying "no comments today, thank you very much."

Huh? The leader of the U.S. makes THAT his initial response?

As the day wore on, his advisers must have sensed the opportunity these deaths offered, as he later said "such acts only strengthen the resolve of the international community to stand united against terrorism and to declare unequivocally that there is no justification for the vicious murder of innocent people."

Not to be cynical, but anybody want to lay odds on Bush and the Republiclones using this senseless slaughter as an opportunity to push his 'War on Terror' agenda?

You know, the plan that exploits human tragedy for the purpose of gaining more executive power, at the expense of civil liberty.

How many days before he plays that card? Or has it already arrived?

More Carnage In Baghdad

CNN today is reporting the following:

"Gunmen roaming a Baghdad neighborhood on Sunday killed at least 40 unarmed Iraqis as soon as they identified them as Sunnis."

The report quotes a Sunni politician calling it, "one of the biggest massacres of Sunnis." Women and children are included in the victim count.

So, can we expect the media to challenge, or even question, the repeated assertions by the Bush monarchy that this is not a civil war?

This type of story is not exactly an aberration. Every day, we hear reports about the escalating sectarian violence. When does this, or our involvement as facilitating occupiers, end?

What, exactly, is our role? When will our 'mission' be accomplished? How many more of our troops will lay down their lives before our government honestly answers these questions?

The Neo-Cons that have hijacked this country ignore the political realities that exist in Iraq and the result is that our troops will continue to shed blood to help the ExxonMobils of the world improve upon their record profits.

What's A Fallen GI's Life Worth?

What's a fallen GI's life worth?

The lockstep parrots in the GOP-dominated Congress have decided, not very much.

In fact, last month, 19 GOP Senators cast a 'No' vote on an amendment that would "express the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States."

Remember these names:

Wayne Allard of Colorado
Kit Bond of Missouri
Jim Bunning of Kentucky
Conrad Burns of Montana
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
Thad Cochran of Mississippi
John Cornyn of Texas
Jim DeMint of South Carolina
Mike Enzi of Wyoming
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
Chuck Hagel of Nebraska
Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma
Jon Kyl of Arizona
Trent Lott of Mississippi
John McCain of Arizona
Jeff Sessions of Alabama
Ted Stevens of Alaska
Craig Thomas of Wyoming
John Warner of Virginia

This July 4th, I was curious how the Middle Eastern press was celebrating America's birthday. Bahrain, the epicenter of Arab-American bipartisan greed had some uncomfortable news.

According to the following AFP wire report in the Bahrain Tribune:

"Iraqi Shia leader Abdel Aziz Al Hakim, the head of parliament’s largest bloc, said yesterday he favours extending an amnesty to insurgents who may have killed US troops.

"He also accused US-led coalition troops of contributing to the worsening security by being “sucked into a quagmire” they were unqualified to handle.

"'Yes, they should be covered regardless of their religious or ethnic affiliations,' Hakim said.

"Hakim’s position would contradict that of his government ally Maliki, who said on Wednesday that there would be no amnesty to those who killed US troops, foreigners or journalists."

Think the story is getting much play in America? Think again.

Add to the that, the continued hatred being stirred up against our troops, and you have a no-win situation for our soldiers.

In the same issue, the Bahrain Tribune had a commentary that was extremely anti-American. The commentary, which takes the U.S. military to task for wartime abuses, begins with the following, "American soldiers have not - absolutely not - understood nor realised how much shame and odium their acts of barbarism have brought on their country, touted as the First Democracy in the world from five-star podiums."

The commentary partially blames the problem on the "western soldier’s lack of respect for non-western cultures based on ignorance and false presumptions."

This comes from a relatively pro-Western Arab source. The level of anger, hatred and vitriol is far greater on the less American-friendly Arab press and the resentment seeps from the blogs of ordinary Iraqis trying to get on with their day-to-day lives amidst the chaos and bloodshed.

It seems that the GOP 'stay-the-course' strategy, is let the troops be sitting ducks, and if some die in the process, we should not hold their killers responsible.

So which is the party that truly supports the troops? Something to consider on our nation's 230th birthday.

Mary Heartless, Mary Heartless

I was doing a bit of web research on the apparent failure of Mary Cheney to successfully parade her status as 'token GOP lesbian daughter' and found the telling observation at PageOneQ:

"Purchasers of Cheney's book, according to Amazon..., also purchased the books by authors recognized by many on the gay community as non-supportive of lesbian and gay equal rights. Other books purchased by buyers of Cheney's book include Godless: Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter and Can She Be stopped: Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States unless... by John Podhoretz.

"In another section of the same page, Amazon offers a discount for buyer's of Cheney's book. For $35.52 customers may purchase Cheney's and Coulter's books as a pair, a discount of almost 40%"

That book, of course, is "Now, It's My Turn," a memoir which reportedly netted Cheney a 1 million dollar advance from Simon & Schuster. By the way, that price for the pair has just dipped down to $32.52.

Cheney and Coulter...strange bedfellows? Not really. Actually, Coulter is far more honest about who she is.

The PageOneQ article notes, "Sales numbers from Neilsen Bookscan, as reported by the Advocate, indicate that during the week of June 3, the books sold 574 nationwide. This number, the Advocate reported, is 77% less sales than the number sold during the book's first week on the shelves, 2,445."

So why didn't the public buy a book from the GOP poster girl for self-interest?

The Mary Cheney who thought it was horrendous to be outted by John Edwards (as if she never served as a gay liaison flak for a beleaguered Coors Brewing Company), doesn't seem to have minded George W. Bush pronouncing her bond with her partner to be a threat to our nation's moral fibre.

The Mary Cheney who now seeks to capitalize on who she chooses to love (thank goodness for big advances from S&S), doesn't seem to mind that her father is campaigning for an outright homophobe, Minnesota's Michele Bachmann.

I really enjoyed Gene Stone's take on the hypocrisy. Stone writes, "the openly gay Ms. Cheney seems to support gay rights only to the extent she can get money from it. Otherwise, she supports those who oppose it."

As Stone also notes, in discussing the relative failure of the book, "When an author's only interest seems to be herself, it doesn't really matter what her background is, conservative, liberal, middle of the road, gay, or straight. No one other than the author cares."

Touché.

No Plan..No End

As I watched the news readers at MSNBC spew out the "cut-and-run" charge in their coverage of the Senate debate on Iraq, it registered that the Democrats need a simple, yet concise way to counter the charge.

My idea, when holding the GOP accountable on Iraq, is this:

NO PLAN..NO END

It spells it out. The GOP has no plan for Iraq (they never had one) and the result is that the occupation will never end. It also puts the GOP on the defensive.

I am in the media and I am fully aware of the short attention span that exists, both by broadcasters and our audience.

Maybe we can lobby our politicians and spokespeople to start using the term, to turn the tables on the GOP.

Rove knows how to strategize to manipulate public opinion. Dems could stand to be a bit more Rovian ourselves.

NO PLAN..NO END

The Stolen '04 Election

I will be the first to admit, I feel that the biggest problem America faces is safeguarding the electoral process. If we cannot guarantee fair and tamper-free elections, our entire way of life will eventually be in shambles.

In the past, I have touted Mark Crispin Miller's excellent book on the stealing of the 2004 election, "Fooled Again." In fact, I have endorsed it enough on other blogs to wonder if folks might think I am a PR man for the book. I am not.

At any rate, I find it rather frustrating that so few have been clamoring about this. When Karl Rove recently mentioned his fear of the Democrats committing election fraud, I felt a chill go up my spine. As Miller writes in his book, this is a tactic that the GOP uses so when they actually go ahead and commit voter fraud, the media will not realistically investigate because it is allegedly being done by both parties. It is a way for Rove to toss out a red herring and confuse the issue.

So, imagine my surprise, and relief, to see other voices emerge. Major voices.

In an article for Rolling Stone, Robert Kennedy Jr., comes right out and says the '04 election was stolen. Thank goodness, this problem is finally getting to see the light of day.

Check out this very important article here.

Howard Kurtz Botches Another One

Sometimes an allegedly objective columnist can miss the mark by such a wide margin, and write something so misleading, that one wonders what the true motivations behind the column were.

Today, Howard Kurtz' Media Notes column in the Washington Post astounded me.

In his column, Kurtz delivered a mind-boggling blast at the protest of Senator John McCain's commencement speech at New York's New School.

After bragging about his commitment to free speech, Kurtz writes, "if someone like John McCain comes to your school--even if you strongly disagree with everything he stands for--why not listen to what he has to say, instead of trying to block him from stepping foot on your campus?

"Sure, the students who do that, or wave signs, or heckle, or otherwise protest such appearances, are expressing their free-speech rights as well. But what message are they sending? We feel so strongly about our views that we simply refuse to listen to anyone else?"

Doesn't Mr. Kurtz read? Because it was made abundantly clear that Sen. McCain was giving the exact same speech that he had given at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, as well as Columbia University. The exact same address!

The fact that everyone knew exactly what was going to be said was what motivated student Jean Sara Rohe to refer to what McCain was about to say!

One would think that a commencement speech would take into account the individual institution where the address was being given. Instead, McCain delivered for consumption the same message he delived at the ultra-right-wing Falwell institution. Verbatim! How fair was it for the students there to be subjected to a stump speech? This wasn't a message prepared specifically for them. It was a means to further McCain's campaign posturing for '08.

After railing about the student's refusing to hear what McCain had to say, I expected at least some acknowledgment that many already knew the content because the prior addresses had been posted on the Internet. But, dishonestly, he left that fact out.

Instead, Mr. Kurtz deceptively makes it appear that the only reason that people protested McCain was his politics.

Student speaker Rohe was very clear on her motivations. In a Huffington Post blog, she writes:

"Had he been speaking at something other than our graduation, or had he spoken about almost anything other than his life and his position on the Iraq War and Darfur it might have been OK. But what did he expect? Campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination at the New School is like trying to catch fish in a swimming pool. It was just totally out of place. Many thanks go to the people in the audience who managed to capture with a few yelled and widely-quoted phrases, just exactly what was going on there."

And, she added:

"More importantly, I feel obligated to respond to one thing that McCain told the New York Times. 'I feel sorry for people living in a dull world where they can't listen to the views of others,' he said. This is just preposterous. Yes, McCain was undoubtedly shouted-out and heckled by people who were not politely absorbing his words so as to consider them fully from every angle. But what did he expect? We could've all printed out his speech and chanted it with him in chorus. Did he think that no one knew exactly what he was about to say? And it was precisely because we listen to the views of others, and because, as I said in my speech, we don't fear them, that we as a school were able to mount such a thorough and intelligent opposition to his presence. Ignorant, closed-minded people would not have been able to do what we did. We chose to be in New York for our years of higher education for the very reason that we would be challenged to listen to opposing viewpoints each and every day and to deal with that challenge in a nonviolent manner. We've gotten very good at listening to the views of others and learning how to also make our views heard, even when we don't have the power of national political office and the media on our side."

What part of that does Howard Kurtz not get and why does he choose to deliberately mislead his readers by not reporting on this aspect at all, making it seem as if the issue is merely one of intolerance?

Could it be an agenda? I suppose we'll find out if we see Mr. Kurtz fawning over Sen. McCain's every word come campaign time. It would not surprise me.

Big Brother Knows No Bounds

Part of the problem with the lack of oversight of the Bush administration's trashing of civil liberties, in the guise of fighting terrorism, is that there really are no limits to the abuse that is being perpetrated.

If we do not say no...when we hear of illegal prisons
If we do not say no...when we hear of torture
If we do not say no...when we hear of illegal wiretaps, allegedly only affecting international communications
If we do not say no...when we hear that all of our phone records are being collected in data mining projects

...then we have nobody to blame but ourselves when we wake up one day to find ourselves in a fascist, police state controlled by 'big brother.'

No oversight means that those in power can use the information they collect against their political enemies.

This all seems to tie in with today's revelation...the records of ABC news reporters are being examined to find out who in government they are speaking with.

Whatever sources have revealed the illegal goings-on that this government is involved in are the true patriots.

The levels that this administration will go to in violating our constitutional rights is chilling.

Hopefully, this message is starting to resonate loud and clear.

Those Hope-less FEMA Trailers

Since we are just a few weeks away from the start of the official hurricane season and we are hearing how the Bush Administration is now totally prepared to deal with a crisis, I got to wondering....whatever became of those more than 10,000 trailers?

You know, the ones that are being stored in Hope, Arkansas, but never got used.

This is how CNN covered the story back on February 19th, after the story had been languishing for just under a week:

"(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

"MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: There are about 10,000 mobile homes in this field in Hope.

"WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: At a cost of, what, $300 million?

"CHERTOFF: Well, that's the purchase price. Now they will eventually be used. Some of them will be used with respect to areas of the Gulf that are not in a flood plain. Some of them have been used with respect to wildfires, people who lost their homes to wildfires in Oklahoma and Texas. Some will be used in hurricanes season this year. For example, in we have hurricanes in Florida or other places where there's wind damage but not flood damage. So this is not going to go to waste.

"(END VIDEO CLIP)

"LIN: FEMA managers acknowledge that some of the trailer homes parked in Arkansas are sagging under their own weight but they insist that all of the mobile homes will be used in the future."

Of course, by then, it wasn't even a top story on CNN. As they put it, they were all "abuzz" about a Powerball lottery winner. And preparing us for the upcoming dangers of bird flu.

The news life of this story was shorter than Ryan Seacrest's relationship with Terri Hatcher. And that is saying something.

However, the unused trailer story remains in the news. It's just that nobody is covering it.

Among the latest developments, Ralph Nader made an appeal to President Clinton. In a letter dated March 15th, Nader appealed to the 'man from Hope' to get those trailers out of Hope and off to where they could provide some good.

On April 5th, Nader got the following response from the Clinton, "I have worked to right this wrong since I first heard reports of the trailers' existence. Many communities have been unwilling to host the trailers because they don't want them in their neighborhoods, lack the capacity to house them, or face utility problems."

So I guess this is now a NIMBY issue. NIMBY, as in 'not in my backyard.'

"From the horse's mouth, here is a FEMA factsheet, dated April 20th:

"More than 10,000 (10,112 as of April 20) of these fully-maintained and ready-for-use mobile homes are staged in Hope, Ark.—easily accessible to housing operations in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. In addition, the units are also available for other disasters in which there are needs for direct housing, such as the areas ravaged by tornadoes this spring.

"FEMA mobile homes staged in Arkansas are fully habitable, available and properly maintained. These mobile homes represent one component of FEMA’s comprehensive housing strategy which has already helped more than 825,000 hurricane victims from Katrina and Rita with temporary housing assistance."

However, there is a caveat. Early reports suggested that the mobile home foundations were not especially stable and were becoming more unstable as the homes settled. And then of course, was this early nugget from CNN on February 13th, from CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen:

"FEMA says these mobile homes aren't allowed in a flood plain, which pretty much rules out most of southeast Louisiana. Why did FEMA order them in the first place if they can't be used in areas where people need them? That's what I asked, but nobody seems to know. So the mobile homes sit there, immobile, 450 miles away from the Gulf Coast."

Well, if we ever get another hurricane, that does not affect an area in a flood plain, these trailers will really come in handy.

Oh, by the way, was anybody held accountable for this exceptional misuse of taxpayer money? Nobody? How surprising.

At any rate, I am sure everybody is happy that our Commander-in-Chief is boldly prepared to step up to the plate in the upcoming 2006 hurricane season. According to the AP, on his visit to New Orleans a little over a week ago, Bush said, "Pray there is no hurricane this coming year, but we are working together to make sure if there is one, the response will be as efficient as possible."

Sure it will, George. Sure it will.

(Photo courtesy of AP)

Why Can't News Outlets Just Tell The Truth?

Today, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was strongly challenged at a speech in Atlanta. Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, accused Rumsfeld of lying. When Rumsfeld denied the charge he was met with his own quotes.

Anyone watching "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" got to see the supportive evidence that Rumsfeld was indeed lying. So why does coverage often not reflect this?

This is how CNN covered it online, using a thoroughly incomplete AP story:

"Protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday, and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence in an unusually vociferous display of anti-war sentiment.

"'Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?' asked Ray McGovern, the former analyst.

"'I did not lie,' shot back Rumsfeld, who waved off security guards ready to remove McGovern from the hall at the Southern Center for International Studies."

Mr. McGovern used verbatim quotes by Sec. Rumsfeld that the Secretary denied making. But those quotes were, in fact, correct, and part of the public record. Why would AP not report about that?

Meanwhile CNN's Paula Zahn, interviewing McGovern, asks him if he has an axe to grind, instead of discussing the implications of Rumsfeld being caught in a lie.

If an official is shown to lie isn't that at least peripherally newsworthy?

Instead, the entire story is about the fact that critics are able to challenge this insular White House at all.

As we continue to note these news institutions as MIA, it makes it easier to understand the role they played in helping lead us into war.

The Neutered Press

I finally finished watching George Clooney's excellent flick, "Good Night, And Good Luck," and it left me depressed, to say the least.

Clooney's movie, which focused on legendary journalist Edward R. Murrow's decision to take on Joe McCarthy, serves as a testament to the power and responsibility that the press has, in confronting the abuse of governmental power.

What makes it depressing is that it reminds us that there are no Edward R. Murrow's around today to set the record straight.

That movie takes on especial irony as I read today that the Clooney appearance at the White House Correspondents Dinner was one of the main attractions. This, as the clueless press ignores the implications of Valerie Wilson's attendance, all the while slavishly praising the dueling dubya's and simultaneously trashing Stephen Colbert's brilliant skewering of our fearless leader.

I did appreciate Josh Orton's blogging of the event on the Huffington Post.

One comment Mr. Orton makes is especially telling:

"The program began, and the Correspondents Association President began by noting yet another challenging year for the press corps...and how catching heat from both political parties proved that once again, the press got it right."

In other words, unlike when Clinton was president, moral equivalency rules the day.

It's the reason that watching "Meet The Press" or "Hardball" is the entertainment equivalent of getting one's dog spayed.

No matter what Dubya and his GOP lapdogs inflict on America, the press will bend over as much as possible to neuter the implications of the GOP's ruinous policies.

Unfortunately, it's America that winds up getting screwed.

The Clooney portrait of Murrow was not entirely shot behind rose-colored lenses. The movie makes clear the influence that Murrow's on-camera smoking and his program's Kent sponsorship, had on the health of Americans.

However, there is nobody of that stature operating today. Katie Couric's ascendancy to CBS anchor tells you all you really need to know.

It's the entertainment, stupid.