Category: America

A post on the WyethWire mocking Instapundit as an adherent of Newspeak made me think a little bit about some of what we’ve seen this week. After months of statements calculated to link Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq to the 9-11 attacks, President Bush stated that there was “no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.” Isn’t that just a little bit like “No, we’re not at war with Eurasia”?

Interesting that the confession, which has long been obvious to most people who paid attention to the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were Al Qaeda and not Saddam’s imperial guard—and led by Osama bin Laden (gee, whatever happened to him? Haven’t heard Bush say his name since, oh, last year some time), was made in response to a comment by the VP on Meet the Press that Iraq was the “geographic base” for the 9/11 terrorists. No, Dick, that would be Saudi Arabia…

Would it be too much to ask for an administration that would tell the truth?

Update: Ted Kennedy calls BS on the president. About time.

Former Senator Max Cleland, in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, drops the V-bomb on the Bush administration with a stinging editorial that points out not only the damning parallels between the Vietnam War and our current extended occupation in Iraq, but the damning fact that “the people who drove the engine to get into the war in Iraq never served in Vietnam.” Former Senator Cleland should know on both counts, since he lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam.

Side note: his attack was remarkably factual and even-tempered from a man who was smeared with Republican 2002 campaign ads accusing him of being on the side of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden because he voted against Homeland Security legislation that denied civil service protection to the employees of the new Homeland Security administration.

Looks like Greg and an old Virginia friend, Sarah Shalf, have teamed up to fight the good fight in Atlanta. They’re starting an Atlanta chapter of the American Constitution Society, an organization of progressive legal professionals that aim to counter the narrow conservative view of American law. Good luck, guys.

One year ago today we marked a year of mourning. Should we still mourn today? Greg points to some provocative thoughts about how best to address the day:

Soon the columns, weblogs and airwaves will be full of people instructing us that we must “never forget” what happened in New York City, Washington DC and the sky above western Pennsylvania two years ago. As if any of us could or would forget the despicable acts that took place that day, the heroism, the damage, the wasted lives. What they really mean is not “remember,” but dwell. Obsess. Lingeringly finger the scab. And most of all, fall in line when assured that some grand policy, however wise or unwise, is put forth in the name of that day and the atrocities that marked it.

For me, I think if we’re still in mourning even as we invade and remake nations, we are in danger of seeing the decisions we must face through eyes clouded with the smoke of the past. So I am going to let others remember the day, and I’m going to continue to do my part by asking questions about actions taken in the names of the fallen that I believe do them no honor.

Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, the honorary chair of the Republican Unity Coalition, writes in today’s New York Times against the proposed constitutional amendment attacking gay marriage. He argues that the real purpose of the proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as being “a union between a man and a woman” has nothing to do with strengthening families but would tear them apart, and that it represents a power grab on the part of conservatives for the federal government. Which is ironic, as Simpson points out, because conservatives usually argue violently when the federal government tries to “usurp” “issues better left to the states, like abortion or gun control.” It’s a brilliantly written argument that rings all the conservative chords and points them solely against those who argue that destroying the lives of gays somehow “preserves families.”

I’m a little late on posting this one, but I had to link to another judicial victory for common sense over conservative ideology: Court blocks US media rules. On Wednesday—a day before new rules that would allow a single company to own TV stations that reach 45% of the national market and to own radio, TV, and newspaper outlets in the same city would have gone into effect—a federal court blocked the rules pending a full judicial review, citing irretrievable harm to the petitioner, the Prometheus Radio Project.

One question that might be asked of FCC commissioner Powell: what was the damned hurry in the first place? These rules, the most sweeping revision of media ownership laws in recent memory, were pushed through with no public debate and, until folks like MoveOn squawked, no congressional inquiry. I’ve said it before: thank God for the common sense of the court, who both noted the possibility that there would be someone harmed and that the big media giants could certainly wait while the review was conducted.

I hadn’t heard of the Prometheus Radio Project before, but reading their stay motion—which notes that the Congress is moving to overturn the FCC ruling, that the FCC acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner by failing to analyze fully the impact of their actions, that their limited analysis is contradictory, that they didn’t include the public, in fact everything but that they quartered large bodies of troops among us—I like them a lot.

Thanks to MediaMouse for the links.

Excerpted in Salon (membership or day pass required), the introduction to Al Franken’s Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look At The Right. Good parody even in the intro about writing nonfiction in the Internet age:

“Look, God, I’m flattered, but I think you got the wrong guy. The kind of book you’re talking about would require months of research.”

And God said, “LET THERE BE GOOGLE. AND LET THERE BE LEXISNEXIS.”

Salon: Lenny Bruce died for our sins (membership or day pass required). Fascinating look back at Lenny Bruce’s legal fights and the history of obscenity law, with a nod toward Singin’ John Ashcroft’s recent porn film busts. Quote from Supreme Court Justice William Brennan:

At the end of his career, in an extraordinary interview, Brennan admitted that his Herculean attempts to come up with a workable obscenity formula — he penned seven obscenity decisions — had failed. Speaking to journalist Nat Hentoff, a staunch Bruce defender and free-speech advocate, Brennan said, “I put 16 years into that damn obscenity thing. I tried and tried, and I waffled back and forth, and finally I gave up.” The key point, for Brennan: “If you can’t define it, you can’t prosecute people for it. And that’s why … I finally abandoned the whole effort.”

The article posits that, absent strong legal standards, only social mores are left, and that if society is confused about how to deal with the problem, the most powerful voice wins. It suggests that in this light, Ashcroft’s actions are best read as a power play.

Our attorney general in a power play? Say it ain’t so.

Salon: federal judge Denny Chin threw out Fox’s attempted injunction against Al Franken’s new book, which uses “fair and balanced” (a phrase trademarked by Fox) in its subtitle. The judge appears to have had a field day slamming Fox, suggesting that they could be in danger of losing the trademark if they pursued the suit further, and getting in some fabulous zingers:

…the judge pointed out that one of O’Reilly’s own books is titled “The O’Reilly Factor: The Good, the Bad, and the Completely Ridiculous in American Life.” “Is that not a play on ‘The Good, The Bad and the Ugly?’” Chin asked, noting that the movie title is also trademarked.

“I don’t know,” replied [Fox lawyer] Hanswirth.

“You don’t know?” asked the judge…

Hanswirth went on to argue that Franken has diluted Fox’s trademark by using it “to ridicule Fox’s No. 1 talent, Mr. O’Reilly.” She then suggested that, because Coulter is on the cover, “somebody looking at this could determine Ms. Coulter has some kind of official relationship with Fox.”

“The President and Vice President are also on the cover, are they not?” asked Chin. “Are consumers likely to believe they are associated with Fox News?”

God bless the judicial branch, which appears to be the only part of our government that has retained any common sense.

Regarding this little toy, just a few questions:

1. Was the White House consulted when this toy was being designed?
2. Or did the White House call BBI with the idea?
3. Either way, is taxpayer money paying someone in the White House to work on the production details for this doll?
4. Does the White House get a cut of the $39.99 per doll? Does George?
5. Does the doll come with a Greg Jenkins doll to make sure it’s only photographed in strong, manly poses?
6. Does the doll make your car move ten times slower than normal to facilitate said photo ops?
7. Does the doll go missing from your child’s collection for up to a year at a time?
8. Will there be a Singin’ John Ashcroft doll? How about a Poindexter? A Rumsfeld?

Thanks to Esta, among others, for the link.

Paul Krugman in the New York Times: “how can Congress or the public make informed votes if both are fed distorted information?” He’s writing about the trend of government agencies under this administration, in this instance the Treasury Department, to release incomplete information in a way that suppresses information that could put the Administration’s tax policies in a bad light.

The original article, by Martin Sullivan in Tax Notes, sounds like it would be a good read, except of course Tax Notes is behind a pay-wall. Another analysis by Robert Greenstein at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is good reading.

It looks like I was wrong
to allege that the Bush policy on logging national forests to
save trees was cynical and a sell out of government resources to
support industry. This article in the New York Times reports on an

accidental experiment that showed that thinned forest patches
that had been subjected to prescribed burns—controlled forest
fires—stopped a rampaging non-prescribed burn dead in its tracks. Note that Charlie called this one in the comments to my original post.

Now that people have finally decided to take the Presidential lie problem seriously (why this lie, as opposed to the other ones, is anyone’s guess), it’s interesting to watch the articles pop up blaming just about everyone else in the administration: from the administration’s scapegoat, the director of the CIA, to Dick Cheney, to Rumsfeld’s Office of Special Plans (Salon link, day pass required; story also here).

Folks, unless you’re claiming that this President is like Ronald Reagan and can’t expect to be held accountable for the decisions he signed up for, and the things he said, and the actions of the people that worked for him, the blame can only accrue to one person.

Seen via Hooblogger Half the Sins of Mankind, the “What threat to the Bush Administration are you?” quiz. Apparently, the author has me pegged:

Threat rating: High. The Bush administration is
concerned that it may not get a second term.
Therefore, we are going to change the rules so
that each Democrat vote only counts as 0.2
votes because Democrat is a shorter word than
Republican

What threat to the Bush administration are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Won’t you join me and Greg in raising a glass to that home of liberty (and Bordeaux, and Fauré, and the second best cuisine in the world after Italy’s), America’s oldest friend and ally, what Thomas Jefferson called “the most agreeable country on earth”?

No, not Great Britain…

(Incidentally, one of the sweatiest performances I’ve ever given was a summer sing in July at the Washington National Cathedral (no air conditioning!) at which we sang the entirety of the Marseillaise. And then proceeded to swoon with something in between patriotic fervor and heat prostration. Ah, the glories of amateur music.)