It Looks Like This (sorry, no ice cream) 

MoveOn Ads

From the San Francisco Chronicle's article on the MoveOn ad contest, this line stood out:

"And they (the ads) hew closely to the basic liberal claims that Bush policies have produced job losses, skyrocketing federal deficits and tax cuts for the wealthy."

Now it seems to me that these are empirical facts, that Bush policies have produced job losses, skyrocketing federal deficits and tax cuts for the wealthy. They are not just "liberal claims." Is there any evidence that this is not true? What, aside from fear of being tagged as part of the "so-called liberal media" could compel a writer, in this case Mark Simon, to abandon reason to include a qualifier like that in his story. As the story goes, if a Democrat observed the sky is blue, it would be reported that he had said the sky was blue, but that some believe otherwise.

And so the discourse of this fine nation continues to erode.

Everybody thought Saddam had WMD's, so Nobody's Wrong (Except that Wes Clark is

Debra Saunders' sad drift from rational analysis continues.

Is Bush in Charge?

The little I've read of Paul O'Neill's revelations of the inner workings of the Bush administration tends to reinforce my theory of Bush as a bumbling ignoramus being led by better informed, more forceful ideologues, as compared to my alternate theory of Bush actually being "in charge" and somehow more directly responsible for the messages and actions of his administration. In the end, though, either way, it's him sitting in the oval office and he who must be held accountable for the damage he has done to his country and the world.

White House Priorities

It took the Justice Department three months to launch an investigation to the uncovering of Valerie Plane, while the Treasury Department is seeking an investigation of documents displayed by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill just a day after he did so on "Sixty Minutes." This from an administration that is "strong on national security." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that these mooks' priorities lie in circling the wagons and keeping on message. What amazes me is how not only average Americans but sophisticated Washington pundits can swallow the Bush rationales whole.

The Truth Uncovered

I just (finally) finished watching "Uncovered: the Whole Truth About the Iraq War," the documentary sponsored by moveon and The Center for American Progress about the march to war in Iraq. I have a number of thoughts about this film, few of them good. It is a sobering production, well-produced and documented, exposing the machinations and chicanery of those in the Bush administration and their allies outside who manipulated a gullible media, Congress, and American public into following them into war. I would hope that anybody who has placed their faith in this government who sees this film would at least begin to question that faith, would at least begin a journey of discovery that would lead them to investigate the claims made in this film. My greatest concern is that few such people will ever see this film; I believe that the vast majority who have seen or will see it are, like me, already believers. The challenge has been, since drumbeat of war picked up its pace in the fall of 2002, and remains today, to find a way to get at least a significant minority of Americans who supported the war, or at least were not opposed to it, to stare at the truth without blinking. To see Bush, Chaney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Powell, and the rest for the mendacious unprincipled prophets of a false new world order that they are. Sadly, I don't have an answer.

The other thing that struck me while watching this film was that if we truly were afflicted by a "Liberal Media" a film like this would not have to be produced and distributed by alternative sources. We would be seeing it on "60 Minutes" and "20/20." As it is, the mainstream media not only don't produce or show programs like this, they don't even cover the existence of this particular program. And although that no longer surprises me, it still maddens me. We in this country have more constitutionally guaranteed press freedom than any nation on earth, and yet the major news outlets, who could and should take advantage of that freedom, are run as business, with their eyes on the bottom line, and minimal, at best, commitment to the business of watching and reporting on the government, big business, and others who wield power. Those who own and run the major media companies are part of that club and know better than to rock the boat. The star newspaper and magazine writers and television and radio newsreaders are given enough access to that world that, starstruck, they believe they too belong and don't want to jeopardize their "access." And most people lack the time or the inclination to look beyond what they are fed by George and William and Maureen in the press and by Dan, Tom, and Peter on TV.

What a waste.

Our President Poet

There's a really wierd story that has passed around recently, about a poem Laura Bush claimed, in a speech to the National Book Festival, was written for her by ole Georgie. More recently, on Meet the Press, she admitted that George, in fact, did not write this poem. The odd thing about it is, why would she have claimed this in the first place? I have for the most part tried to ignore Laura Bush and she has helped me in this by remaining largely un-newsworthy. So now she becomes newsworthy, albeit in a minor way, because of something she said that wasn't true. You know, a lie. And somehow this just seems so in keeping with so much about her husband's administration. They lie. They distort facts. They make stuff up. And the odd thing is that the mainstream press for the most part just doesn't care. They still seem to cling to the myth (they themselves created) from the 2000 campaign that Gore was the liar and Bush the straightshooter and so they still mostly ignore the lies. And when on those rare occasions they do acknowledge that what comes out of the White House doesn't square with the known facts, they don't point out that this is not an isolated incident but part of a large consistent pattern. Why do they do that? Is it so they can continue to have access to people who don't tell them anything that is true anyway?

Tort Reform and Medical Malpractice

One of the national "debates" in which we rarely get balanced information is that over medical malpractice and tort reform. A good example of this is the recent Newsweek cover storty which, except for a one-page description of his experience in this area by John Edwards, was largely a litany of horror stories about people burned by the current tort system. It was a poorly researched and written story that reflects poorly on Newsweek, but people with little exposure to the problem wouldn't know that. For a little more balance, I recommend this blog entry by Dwight Meredith, this "Findlaw" column by Anthony Sebok, and, for those with the time and the inclination, the book No Contest: Corporate Law and the Perversion of Justice in America, by Wesley J. Smith and Ralph Nader.

This is one of those areas that doesn't often rise into the public consciousness, but when it does it is almost always projected from the perspective of big business and their corporate lawyers, whom of course they don't want you to know even exist. I believe there is a need for tort reform in this country, but I believe it is a need for greater access to the court system for plaintiffs and far less acceptance of sealed settlements.

Yum

Nuts. It seems this might not have been the year to switch from the traditional Christmas turkey to standing rib roast.

Divisive Speech at U of W

Hmmm, didn't mean to pop back in so soon, but this caught my eye.

It seems a "bake sale" by a conservative group at the University of Washington caused an uproar because, to illustrate its point about affirmative action, the group charged different prices depending on the perceived ethnicity of the people buying the items. This was decried as "tasteless, divisive, and hurtful" by the Board of Regents President.

I really hate that political actions and speech that are characterized as "tasteless, divisive, and hurtful" are condemned on our college campuses. Although we would prefer that political differences could be resolved diplomatically and without offense to anybody, that isn't going to happen. The kind of things that spark people to get involved politically are emotionally charged, and it is the fact that people have been hurt or offended by the actions of others that compels them to get involved. People need to get over their offended sensibilities and engage in the debate instead of fighting over the terms of the debate. And there is no better time and place for people to learn that the world doesn't give a damn about their hurt feelings than while they are in college.

Oh My, the Wheels of Justice do Grind Slowly

I know it's been only three weeks since I last mentioned this, but with the recent disclosure that there was no intelligence (in any sense of the word) to support the assertion in the State of the Union address about Iraqi efforts to acquire African uranium, how's that Justice Department investigation into the Valerie Plame leak proceeding?