Thursday, April 17, 2008

An Opinion's An Opinion, No Matter How Small

I’d just about given up on finding anything that didn’t deal with any of the nonsense that has engulfed our media (in “dead Diana” mode, as The Eternal Molly Ivins once called it) when I came across this HuffPo post from Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

Kareem, he of the killer sky-hook shot and the five-minute movie career, has detected a problem with the new animated movie Horton Hears A Who! based on the Dr. Seuss book, of course, and voiced by Jim Carrey, Steve Carrell, Jesse McCartney, and Carol Burnett, among others…

How can a beloved Dr. Seuss story do so much harm? Well, the original book by Dr. Seuss is just fine, a timeless tale that has been delighting children since it was first published in 1954. The story of the brave elephant that is willing to endure the harshest condemnation from his friends and community in order to protect those in need is a wonderful lesson for children.

But then along comes the movie. To make the story long enough for a full-length movie, a sub-plot was added about the mayor of Whoville who has 96 cheerful daughters and one brooding son. This is where things take a nasty turn. Basically, the mayor ignores his 96 daughters in order to groom his uninterested son to become mayor. Why doesn't he groom one of his much more enthusiastic daughters? And, of course, it is the brooding son who, in the end, saves the entire world of Whoville. The daughters? They get to cheer from the sidelines.
And Abdul-Jabbar states that this movie has done more harm than the spate of Iraq war films (Rendition, Stop-Loss, Lambs for Lions, Redacted, In the Valley of Elah, etc.) have done good.

Ummm….

Well, to begin with, I should tell you that the young one and I saw this movie a few weeks ago, and being a boy, he had no trouble with it, of course. But for the benefit of anyone reading this who isn’t a parent, I should tell you that kids have a pretty highly developed sense of what is phony and what isn’t. Meaning that if this movie were really set up in such a manner that little JoJo (the boy) was supposed to be supported by his smarter sisters at every turn but wasn’t, my son would have looked up at me and said something like “Dad, how come his sisters aren’t doing anything instead?” Yes, really.

What I mean is that I don’t think it would have been possible to satisfy Abdul-Jabbar’s concerns here without fundamentally changing the original story, and Abdul-Jabbar said he was OK with it (the book of course, not the movie).

Besides, the way the story is told mainly in the movie, JoJo is kind of quiet and brooding throughout (or at least utterly bored and disenchanted), which Abdul-Jabbar admits, though he ends up recognizing that his father the mayor is right when he claims that the town is in trouble. Would he prefer that some of the girls be portrayed as indifferent also?

I think trying to read sexism into this movie (and Abdul-Jabbar goes one step beyond, as they say, by indicating that the movie condones racism because it condones sexism also - ???) is more than a little bit of a stretch. Would he be happy if the filmmakers had added a scene where one of the 96 daughters (God, is the Whoville mayor Wilt Chamberlain?) had said, “Oh yeah, I helped JoJo with that noise-making thingamabob doohickey whatsit device of his”?

(I’m trying to be polite in my criticism because, though he’s probably a peace-loving Muslim, Abdul-Jabbar is also a very tall man who, when provoked, could quite possibly kick my ass.)

I’m sure Abdul-Jabbar loves all kids, and I don’t blame him as a father for being protective. It’s an admirable instinct. However, after trying to decipher his argument, I ended up with the same headache I once had while trying to read “Green Eggs And Ham” with half a load on (nothing induces the throbbing at one’s temples such as repeating lines like, “Would you eat them in house? Would you eat them with a mouse? Would you eat them in a box? Would you eat them with a fox?” over and over and over).

Besides, based on what I noted here (third topic), boys have at least as much to be concerned about in early development as girls – maybe more, actually (and if he’s going to criticize the movie of Horton Hears A Who!, then he could at least comment on the fact that Jim Carrey, who happily is fairly restrained throughout the production, sounds an awful lot like Steve Carrell, and it’s hard to tell the two of them apart).

A Lesson In Priorities For G.B.

We know about the arrival of His Holiness in not Boston Washington yesterday, but did you know that an actual head of state as opposed to a symbolic one arrived in Washington also from overseas today…

(British Prime Minister Gordon) Brown, who is on his second trip to the United States since replacing Tony Blair last June, held private 45-minute sessions with each of the candidates at the British Embassy in Washington.
Among the topics discussed with Obama, “Calamity” Hil and John W. McBush included the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (of course), global warming and (with Obama in particular) “strengthening the Trans-Atlantic alliance.”

And as for meeting with Dubya…

Following his meeting with the candidates, Brown was scheduled to meet with President Bush to talk about the global economy.
That’s it? No state dinner? No photo-op of taking Brown to see the Washington Nationals baseball team or something (are they even in town now)? Nothing to indicate Dubya’s “Brit love” from our lapdog media?

Color me shocked (and by the way, I went to the White House web site and saw only a brief mention of Brown’s visit also).

Could this be why (as noted here)…

Brown announced last October (2007) that Britain would cut the number of soldiers based on the outskirts of the southern city of Basra to 2,500 from spring this year, and a senior government official said then that all could be home before 2009.
Just a wild guess, I know…

Update 1 4/18/08: I'm glad to be wrong here; credit where it's due to His Holiness.

Update 2 4/18/08: Back to Brown and Dubya, I wanted to note this excerpt from here...

“Listen, our special relationship has been forged in common values and history, and we’re making history together,” (Dubya) said, adding: “Our relationship is very special and it’s — I’m confident future presidents will keep it that way. There’s just such a uniqueness in the relationship. That’s not to say you can’t have other friends, and we do. But this is a unique relationship, truly is.”

Apparently not satisfied with his own answer, Mr. Bush finished up: “Look, if there wasn’t a personal relationship, I wouldn’t be inviting the man to a nice hamburger. Well done, I might add.”
Given their differences on Iraq, I was going to say to Brown, "don't have a cow, man," but it sounds like he already did (ba-dump!).

More Non-Issues With Barack Obama

In case you were wondering, the Asinine Broadcasting Company is trying to build off its historic performance (and not in a good way, of course) with the following journalistic piffle…

Last week, in order to bring some media attention to the issue, (Sen. Arlen) Specter suggested senators sign a petition to take responsibility for initial consideration of three nominees away from the judiciary committee, and wrote letters to all three presidential candidates asking for their opinion.
The post notes that only Obama responded. So you’d think Specter would be appreciative and maybe ask Hillary and “Straight Talk” McCain why they haven’t done so also, right?

Boy, are you wrong. Didn’t you get the memo? Why, this is “Pile On Barack Obama For Inane BS Time,” you great, big silly…

Obama's response drew criticism from Spector Wednesday morning on the Senate floor even though the Illinois senator was the only one to respond.

"A senator's duties are not delegable (Obama said “he'll defer to (Sen. Patrick) Leahy to schedule (Judiciary Committee) hearings and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to schedule votes”). No senator can delegate to anyone else his constitutional responsibilities. The constitution does not refer to the judiciary committee. The constitution does not refer to the majority leader," Specter declared.

"Even if it did, that would not provide a basis for a senator duly elected, sworn, sworn to uphold the constitution, as I took an oath on five occasions, and as senator Obama has taken an oath," he continued.

"Every member of this body has taken an oath to uphold the constitution. The constitution says the Senate confirms."
Remind me never to show a shred of sympathy or human decency towards Specter again, OK? What a cheap shot.

And Obama was also endorsed by a pro-gun group yesterday on the anniversary of the VA Tech shootings (as if the timing for such a vile trick by people who probably wouldn’t even give Obama the time of day is somehow the Senator’s fault), and ABC “News” is also crowing about the fact that Obama apparently forgot what he wrote on a gun questionnaire in 1996.

I don’t know about you, people, but I can barely remember if we even made our mortgage payments from two months ago, let alone twelve years ago! This is more “gotcha” BS totally devoid of any substance whatsoever.

Apparently, that pathetic "debate" last night was supposed to be the cherry on the icing of the proverbial cake after a day of Obama bashing (except for the questionnaire thing, I guess). Nice.

And by the way, the ABC blog tells a story of earmark abuse by Repug U.S. House Rep Don Young of Alaska, one of the guilty culprits in the 2006 “Bridge To Nowhere” fiasco. I’m only pointing that out for the benefit of the Bucks County Courier Times editorial board so they can read about earmark abuse for real instead of piling on Patrick Murphy yet again today for earmark requests of his own that will be revealed “in the light of day” when they are decided upon one way or the other on behalf of this district and not Murphy himself in any way (God, what a broken record - and I'd like to see one of these "Taxpayers For Common Sense" characters run for public office and get elected so I can see how well they do at practicing what they preach).

Update: And by the way, this is a great post explaining why the pundit blowhards are frothing over "Bittergate" (ugh).

Crawling From The Wreckage

(The name of a great song by Dave Edmunds and Rockpile, by the way...).

I don't have anything particularly brilliant to add to what many, many other bloggers have said so very well (posts here and here by Will Bunch are particularly outstanding, and kudos to Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher for being the first to label's last night's cringingly awful chapter in the erosion of our democracy for what it really was).

However, this is why I gave up on watching any debate whatsoever from start to finish unless it was moderated by the League of Women Voters (Bunch notes today how important it is that they be allowed to call the shots, and if last night isn't proof positive of that, then I don't know what is). They will ensure that the questions aren't insulting to a four-year-old child and provide for follow up when the answers a candidate provides are utter nonsense (and it will be harder for candidates to do that when the original question reflects a bare minimum of thought).

Do what I do; don't watch these childish exercises in utterly bastardizing what is supposed to be a participatory democracy. All our corporate media cares about is ratings. When they're not getting them any more, they'll drop these things, and then something approximating integrity will be restored to our debates.

Update: Matt Stoller has some good ideas here.

Thursday AM Stuff

(Don't know about posting today, by the way...)

K.O.'s "Worst Person In The World" from yesterday is Cindy McCain, though O'Reilly might as well be for blaming G.E. for our Iraq casualties (I don't like G.E. either, but blaming them for that is preposterous)...



...and no, this actually isn't ABC, but it might as well be.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Wednesday Stuff

There are a few ways you can channel your absolute, total disgust over the beyond-farcical “debate” brought to us by ABC tonight (the network that also brought us “The Path To 9/11,” let’s not forget), but after you contact them and tell them how you feel (212-456-7777 818-460-7477) or here) something else you can do is watch this and respond accordingly about Our Gal Condi…



…and “The Pap Attack” takes on McCain, for real.

Dubya Plays "Pope-A-Dope"

From here…

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, making only the second visit by a pontiff to the White House, on Wednesday urged Americans and their leaders to base social and political decisions on moral principles to create a more just society.
I agree, and it would have been nice if His Holiness had bothered to tell his host that you cannot have such a society when you deprive funding on behalf of those in need in favor of never-ending war, as noted here.

Three Quick Wednesday Hits

  • Seriously, I’m sorry to hear about this, and I wish Sen. Specter the best.


  • Hillary’s “Better, Not Bitter” strategy continues to work so well, as noted here in this endorsement by the Bucks County Courier Times of Barack Obama today (and I guess this means Obama is “tougher than the rest”; hope so, anyway – also, I’m not sure PA is the “lock” it once was for Team Clinton, since her little trick didn’t work after all, apparently).


  • The Virginia Tech massacre took place a year ago today, and I think the most appropriate gesture in response would be for the House to get moving on the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 proposed here by New York Dem Rep Carolyn McCarthy.
  • A Corporate Media Poster Boy At A Crossroads

    I have to tell you that New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich truly performed a service here in his Sunday Magazine profile of Chris Matthews, the host of “Hardball” on MSNBC and the walking, talking, breathing, exclaiming embodiment of all that is truly wrong with what passes for news and commentary in this country (the magazine cover, with Matthews’ mug plastered menacingly on the front, is a bit of a warning of what’s to come, since our intrepid TV host looks as if he’s about to have an orgasm).

    It’s all captured – the utterly narcissistic preening, desperate attempts at inclusion with others of his loathsome breed (with the notable exception of Keith Olbermann – I’ll get to him shortly) and pretense of regular-guy objectivity while dwelling practically every moment of his life inside his comfy Beltway bubble provided for him and his family by the corpocracy on whose behalf she shills so shamelessly (this has been highlighted elsewhere, but there’s much more in Leibovich's story to work with).

    Where to begin? Well, for starters…

    “Did you get a load of Lou Rawls’s wife?” Matthews said as he left the spin room (where the press had gathered after a Democratic debate in February). Apparently the Rev. Jesse Jackson was introducing the widow of the R&B singer at the media center. “She was an absolute knockout,” Matthews declared. It’s a common Matthews designation. The actress Kerry Washington was also a “total knockout,” according to Matthews, who by 1 a.m. had repaired to the bar of the Cleveland Ritz-Carlton. He was sipping a Diet Coke and holding court for a cluster of network and political types, as well as for a procession of random glad-handers that included, wouldn’t you know it, Kerry Washington herself. Washington played Ray Charles’s wife in the movie “Ray” and Kay Amin in the “Last King of Scotland.” She is a big Obama supporter and was in town for the debate; more to the point, she said she likes “Hardball.” Matthews grabbed her hand, and Phil Griffin, the head of MSNBC who was seated across the table, vowed to get her on the show.

    “I know why he wants you on,” Matthews said to Washington while looking at Griffin. At which point Matthews did something he rarely does. He paused. He seemed actually to be considering what he was about to say. He might even have been editing himself, which is anything but a natural act for him. He was grimacing. I imagined a little superego hamster racing against a speeding treadmill inside Matthews’s skull, until the superego hamster was overrun and the pause ended.

    “He wants you on because you’re beautiful,” Matthews said. “And because you’re black.” He handed Washington a business card and told her to call anytime “if you ever want to hang out with Chris Matthews.”



    “People are a little impressed with themselves,” Griffin went on to say, continuing his commentary about the scene. “It’s a bit of an echo chamber.” Matthews is central to that echo chamber — at the Ritz, as in the 2008 presidential campaign. He is, in a sense, the carnival barker at the center of it, spewing tiny pellets of chewed nuts across the table while comparing Obama to Mozart and Clinton to Salieri. At one point, Matthews suddenly became hypnotized by a TV over the bar set to a rebroadcast of “Hardball.” “Hey, there I am — it’s me,” he said, staring at himself on the screen. “It’s me.”
    God, I just started this post, and I already think that I’m going to be ill.

    Let’s discuss K.O. then…

    Matthews told me that the interview (about his book “Life’s A Campaign”) was a painful experience. Not only did (Jon) Stewart humiliate him, but the interview exposed an essential truth that people by and large don’t want to hear advice from politicians, a breed that, in many ways, has defined Matthews’s value system. “I think Stewart was right in that he caught the drift of antipolitics,” Matthews said.

    So has Olbermann, the host of MSNBC’s “Countdown.” While Matthews is clearly a stalwart on the MSNBC menu, he is hardly a flavor of the month, or the year. Olbermann is. “Countdown,” on at 8, is getting good ratings, usually second in its slot to “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News. Olbermann draws considerably more viewers than Matthews — about one million a night, compared with 660,000 for the 7 p.m. broadcast of “Hardball” (which typically runs third in its time slots after Fox News and CNN but is up in the ratings this year). There is a view within the TV industry that MSNBC is positioning itself as the younger, edgier, left-tilting cable network, and no one there embodies this ideal better than Olbermann. NBC executives have been promoting him heavily, and three network officials asked me why I was writing about Matthews and not Olbermann.
    But that clearly did not prevent scenes such as this…

    The morning after the Cleveland debate, Matthews was walking through the airport to catch his flight home to Washington. People kept squinting at him, double-taking, stepping in and out of his monologue.

    “I like the fact that people don’t think of me as famous, but that they know me,” Matthews said. “They come up to me and say, ‘Chris, what do you think?’ There’s no aura. It’s a different kind of celebrity. People assume they have a right to talk to me. They want to know my take.”
    Ugh (and not surprising here)…

    He’s big into the Pennsylvania primary, talks a lot to “Eddie Rendell” and urged me repeatedly to call the Pennsylvania governor’s office and “talk to Eddie Rendell about me.”

    “By the way, have you figured me out yet?” Matthews said at the end of another phone conversation the following day. “You gotta understand, it’s all complicated. It’s not like Tim.”

    Tim — as in Russert, the inquisitive jackhammer host of “Meet the Press” — is a particular obsession of Matthews’s. Matthews craves Russert’s approval like that of an older brother.
    The article points out that Russert said some uncomplimentary things about Matthews that came out in the “Scooter” Libby trial, by the way (with Matthews viewing Russert as No. 1 in the pecking order of T.V. talking heads, while he views himself as approximately No. 36) …

    Matthews has berated Russert to several people at NBC and has told friends and associates that Russert is like John F. Kennedy while he is more like Richard Nixon. Kennedy was the golden boy while Nixon was the scrapper for whom nothing came easily. It’s an imperfect comparison, certainly (Matthews is Irish Catholic, for starters, and Russert is not charismatic by any classic Kennedyesque definition), but it does offer a glimpse into how Matthews perceives himself, especially in relation to Russert. It’s also worth noting that Nixon was obsessed with Kennedy, and Kennedy could be dismissive and disparaging of Nixon.
    So, can we then envision a day when Matthews will appear on “Hardball” making a plea for his job telling everyone that “All my wife has is this cloth coat, and we just bought this little dog named Checkers”?

    (By the way, I’m very sympathetic to people facing job difficulty, but Chris Matthews has many options available to him that others don’t. If his $5 million - !!! – a year contract isn’t renewed, he’ll only have himself to blame if he doesn’t land comfortably somewhere else.)

    But at least K.O. has Matthews pegged, as noted here…

    “There is a sense at times that we are always joining Chris Matthews already in progress,” Olbermann told me. Matthews has been on 10 years, he went on to say, “and he has no idea when it stops and starts. My responsibility sometimes is to grab the wheel when he doesn’t hold it.” Matthews has also called their joint appearances “Hardball,” which annoys Olbermann and which he has not been shy about correcting on the air. “No, this is not ‘Hardball,’ I will say, and in those instances, a correction is appropriate.”

    Sometimes during commercial breaks, Matthews will boast to Olbermann of having restrained himself during the prior segment. “And I reward him with a grape,” Olbermann says.
    God, that’s funny; and as far as whether or not the people whose names are dropped by Matthews really appreciate it…

    As I began researching this article, Jeremy Gaines, an MSNBC spokesman, gave me the names of about a dozen people that Matthews recommended I speak to, all famous — everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Marvin Hamlisch. But gatekeepers for more than one of these people expressed confusion as to why Matthews would refer me to them. “Please keep us out of this,” pleaded a spokesperson for one prominent politician whom Matthews had recommended via Gaines.
    And as far as any of Matthews’ alleged journalistic skills are concerned…

    In a recent interview on “Morning Joe” with Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who had just endorsed Obama, Matthews described the “stunning picture” of a Latino governor (Richardson) standing with an African-American candidate and how inspiring it was for so many voters. “That is where we should be putting our focus, not on the feelings of the Clintons, about what people owe them and their sense of entitlement,” Matthews said.

    Richardson tried to say something, but Matthews just kept going. “We’ve got to stop talking about this as if this were a sitcom,” Matthews continued. “We had eight years of the sitcom. . . . It’s a sitcom, and it’s gotta end.” He lamented that 4,000 people are dead in Iraq “because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons.”

    Mika Brzezinski, a co-host of “Morning Joe,” then asked Matthews whether he was endorsing Obama.

    “Why would you say that?” Matthews said, looking dumbfounded.
    This man truly is not playing with a full deck, ladies and gentlemen.

    It can be amusing if slightly painful to watch Matthews’s facial expressions and body language on the set of “Hardball” when others are talking; he will, at times, bounce in his seat like a Ritalin-deprived second-grader who is dying to give an answer but has been admonished too many times for interrupting. He appears to go through the same pained exercise in his own home. Indeed, as I learned at Sunday brunch there, the degree to which the cadences of the Matthews dining room mimic “Hardball” is striking.
    The article gets into a lot more detail of Matthews’ family life, including the reaction to the episode where Matthews shamelessly ogled correspondent Erin Burnett; Leibovich said that when he mentioned her name, “it landed like a brick on the dining room table.”

    As I mentioned earlier, the article notes that MSNBC isn’t quite sure what to do with Matthews at the moment, since his contract is about to expire (I was surprised to learn that he’s 62). One possible option that was discussed is taking the job replacing Bob Schieffer as host of “Face The Nation” on Sunday mornings, which doesn’t matter to me personally since those shows have descended into parody of what they once were for the most part anyway.

    Given the status of Little Katie Couric’s contact at CBS, I’d suggest putting Matthews in her slot when she departs. It would be at least somewhat interesting to watch Matthews gyrate, twitch, and spew forth with uninformed and bellicose non sequiturs (name dropping as much as possible, of course), as opposed to Couric’s obsequious compliance to her interview subjects and authority figures in general.

    (And Eric Boehlert has much more here.)

    Update 5/16/08: To be fair, kudos to Matthews for this (h/t Atrios).

    A “Faith-Based” Iraq Initiative

    This story tells us…

    BAGHDAD – For Um Wissam, a small office packed with food aid in Shiite-dominated Sadr City is a lifeline. With her son killed two years ago, the widow has nowhere else to turn for support.

    "They're really great," she said. "They give us whatever they possibly can."

    "They" are fervent anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army.

    A new report from Washington-based Refugees International says that Muqtada and his Mahdi Army are the largest "unofficial" aid agency in the country. And they're not alone. In the patchwork quilt of sectarian neighborhoods that make-up Baghdad, almost all aid is delivered through political and religious groups, according to report co-author Kristele Younes.
    The story also tells us that the United Nations really isn’t doing much; since a massive bombing at its headquarters killed 22 people five years ago, they’ve pulled out most of their staff.

    Also…

    How about the Iraqi government? It has done little. While the rising price of oil has enabled the Iraqi government to amass $30 billion in reserves, the Refugees International Report said little funding has gone to help Iraq's most vulnerable. And there are many of them. Oxfam said more than half of all Iraqis are living in "absolute poverty."
    Another sad testimonial to the spectacular failure of the Maliki regime, which decided to try and destroy al-Sadr instead of try to work with him on behalf of innocent Iraqis at death’s door (I don’t like al-Sadr either, but he’s “the only game in town”).

    And as long as I’m mentioning Iraq, here is an inspiring story of Iraqis “standing up” so out troops can “stand down” – sure…

    BAGHDAD — A company of Iraqi soldiers abandoned their positions on Tuesday night in Sadr City, defying American soldiers who implored them to hold the line against Shiite militias.

    The retreat left a crucial stretch of road on the front lines undefended for hours and led to a tense series of exchanges between American soldiers and about 50 Iraqi troops who were fleeing.

    Capt. Logan Veath, a company commander in the 25th Infantry Division, pleaded with the Iraqi major who was leading his troops away from the Sadr City fight, urging him to return to the front.

    “If you turn around and go back up the street those soldiers will follow you,” Captain Veath said. “If you tuck tail and cowardly run away they will follow up that way, too.”

    Captain Veath’s pleas failed, and senior American and Iraqi commanders mounted an urgent effort to regain the lost ground. An elite Iraqi unit was rushed in and with the support of the Americans began to fight its way north
    .
    Of course, no one could have predicted that (uh huh).

    More Big Media Love For McCain

    I’d like to extend a big hat tip to Adam Blickstein at Democracy Arsenal for this little gem from “Senator Honor and Virtue” last night on “Hardball” (I’ll try to have more to say about Chris Matthews later, by the way - and is it my imagination, or is McCain slowly morphing into Ed Snider, or is it the other way around?)…

    MCCAIN: We can look back at the past and argue about whether we should have gone to war or not, whether we should have invaded or not, and that’s a good academic argument.
    I don’t see anything “academic” about these numbers, I should point out.

    MCCAIN: So what’s an area of disagreement? Climate change. Climate change. I believe that climate change is real. I think we have to act...
    This takes you to more information on McCain’s atrocious voting record, in particular the following…

    “Out of 535 Members of Congress, John McCain is the only one who chose to miss every single key environmental vote scored by the League of Conservation Voters last year. When it came time to stand up and vote for the environment, John McCain was nowhere to be found,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. “Every other Member who received a zero from LCV last year at least had the temerity to show up and vote against the environment and clean energy time after time. And unlike John McCain, I doubt any of them would claim to be environmental leaders or champions on global warming.”
    Returning to the “interview” (what brilliant non-follow up by Tweety, by the way)…

    MATTHEWS: You’re also- you disagree with (Dubya) on torture.

    MCCAIN: Absolutely. And could I take a few seconds on that? Because I think it’s important because I think it’s what America’s all about and what kind of country we are. We should never, ever torture anyone who is in the custody of the United States of America.
    That’s interesting given that John W. McSame voted against a bill “imposing sweeping new restrictions against interrogation methods used by the CIA” (here).

    MCCAIN: ...So my point is that for the future of this country, we have to make sure that we remain a nation that does not do things that our enemies do. And I promise you, my friends, I’ll close Guantanamo Bay and we will never torture another person in our custody again.
    If he’s serious about closing Guantanamo, then where does he plan to hold the commission hearings that Bushco is planning to hold there shortly (they’ve actually built facilities at Guantanamo for that purpose).

    Jeffrey Toobin wrote a great article about what’s going on there that appeared in The New Yorker recently; here’s a link to an abstract – I have tons of technical difficulties when I try to view or read content from The New Yorker’s web site (hint, hint).

    I could go on and on with John W. McBush over this stuff, but instead, I want to note that his wife Cindy was profiled in a USA Today cover story, yesterday for which she declined to be interviewed – the article does note her one-time addiction to painkillers (she says she’s recovered) and siphoning pills from her own charity…more from this Daily Kos link.

    Also, from what I’ve read, it appears that our dear media cousins were trying to provoke a dustup between Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama in February over Obama’s “proud of my country for the first time” statement (as if that is actually news). Based on what I’ve read, I don’t believe Cindy McCain used that necessarily for one-upsmanship (if somebody thinks I’m wrong, fire away), and I think she deserves credit for that.

    (And by the way, it sounds like "Senator Honor And Virtue" as well as MSNBC needs a math lesson too.)

    Update 1: Speaking of Michelle Obama, I thought this was a nice comeback about you-know-what.

    Update 2: And speaking of Mrs. McCain, does this now qualify as "(insert "scandal" name here)-Gate?"

    Tuesday, April 15, 2008

    Tuesday Stuff

    As a tribute to Ollie Johnston, the last of the "nine old men" who animated such great Disney films as "Bambi" and "Snow White," here's the Mussorgsky "Night On Bald Mountain" clip from "Fantasia" made in 1940 (influenced somewhat by the global conflict going on at the time I would guess - easy to mistake this for footage of the 2004 Republican National Hatefest :-)...



    ...and again, it looks like the only way to learn about what everyday Americans are dealing with, such as these folks in PA, is to watch these reports from al jazeera - yes, you read that right (gee, Hil, why don't you ask them if they're "bitter"...sorry).

    Something To Be "Bitter" About For Real

    For anyone still wondering about how legitimate a candidate for president Barack Obama still is after the media circus over you-know-what, I should link to the following interview he gave Will Bunch here noting that he “is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House,” particularly in light of Bushco’s recent admission here that “yeah, we tortured people…what are you gonna do about it?”

    And while it is discouraging to see Obama rule out impeachment (it could still be made to happen, honestly), it is at least encouraging to see a possibility that this country will one day be once more a place where the rule of law is paramount over politics.

    Obama notes the role that his attorney general would play in reviewing the prior wretched legal episodes of this cabal; I’ve been pondering this for a little while now, but I think the person best suited for the role of AG under Obama (someone to clean up the DOJ mess for good, and it would be a HUGE job) is the guy pictured right here.

    The Return Of "Prime Minister Jesus"

    Also, I couldn’t let the day go by without acknowledging the return of Silvio Berlusconi as Prime Minister of Italy once more. And aside from rehashing all of the other comical posts about this guy, I just wanted to point out something from here…

    …turnout in the politically polarized nation (for this year’s election) reached 80 percent, nearly as much as the 84 percent in the last national ballot in 2006.
    This Wikipedia article tells us the following about this country’s last presidential election in 2004…

    60.7% of the electorate voted—the highest percentage since 1968.
    Suddenly, I’m not laughing any more.

    Update 4/16/08: Interesting thoughts from the New York Times here...

    A Taxing Neocon Nuisance

    (I should warn you at the start that I’m probably going to end up calling this guy names, against my better instincts I know.)

    In anticipation of the tax filing deadline at midnight tonight (we filed awhile ago), the New York Times’ Deborah Solomon interviewed Grover Norquist in the Sunday Magazine a couple of days ago.

    You remember Grover, don’t you? That human mistake who laundered money from a casino-operating Indian tribe to Ralph Reed. That pusillanimous little toad who compared the estate tax to the Holocaust. Even a guy Tucker Carlson once called a "mean-spirited, humorless, dishonest little creep ... the leering, drunken uncle everyone else wishes would stay home" (all noted here).

    But yet, in their “wisdom,” the Times thought it was important enough to give this guy column space to plug his causes (including his new book, of course).

    Here are some particularly ripe excerpts…

    Now that we’re facing an economic slowdown, not to mention a $9 trillion national debt, is it fair to ask whether the Bush tax cuts have damaged the country? Oh, no, no, the spending has done the damage.

    The spending in Iraq? That’s what the White House says. But it’s not true. The war spending is a fraction of the spend-too-much problem. When you want an extra dollar for the war, you have to give Congress $2 for other stuff.
    There’s a lot that could be said in response, but for starters, I’ll present the following from Democracy Now! here (in which the cost of the Iraq war is estimated at three trillion dollars)...

    AMY GOODMAN: Joseph Stiglitz, the White House press spokesperson, Tony Fratto, said yesterday, “People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can’t even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9/11.”

    JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think the White House lacks the courage to engage in a national debate about the cost of the Iraq war. The Joint Economic Committee has asked the White House to come down and discuss the numbers; they’ve refused. Security is important, and we don’t deny that. The question is whether this war has been the best way of obtaining the security. And no matter what you’re going to do—you know, what you think about security, you still have to look at the cost. The costs have been important, even for the way we’ve waged the war. The reason the administration presumably did not buy, for instance, the MRAPs, these special vehicles that would have reduced the number of deaths by a very large fraction, is economics. So, you know, no matter what one says, economics is important, and the American people have the right to have an understanding of what those costs are. When we went to war, they said it was going to cost $50 billion. We are now spending that money upfront every three months, and that’s not even including the cost of veterans’ healthcare and disability down the line.
    And of course, if Bushco had ever acted like adults and tried to scale back on the war (with Iraq stepping up to pay for it instead of squirreling away its money and letting us foot the bill), then there wouldn’t be a "spend too much problem" on the war, would there?

    Are you serving as an economic adviser to the McCain campaign? I was working with all of the Republican candidates. He won, and he’s the tax cutter, so I am with him. He reciprocates by sending at least one person to each of our Center-Right meetings.
    As noted by SourceWatch earlier, that would be the Wednesday meetings of Norquist’s “Leave Us Alone” coalition, a gathering of similarly pigheaded conservatives and self-interested shills…

    The "Wednesday Meeting" of Norquist's (coalition) has become an important hub of conservative political organizing. President Bush began sending a representative to the Wednesday Meeting even before he formally announced his candidacy for president. "Now a White House aide attends each week," reported USA Today in June 2001. "Vice President Cheney sends his own representative. So do GOP congressional leaders, right-leaning think tanks, conservative advocacy groups and some like-minded K Street lobbyists. The meeting has been valuable to the White House because it is the political equivalent of one-stop shopping. By making a single pitch, the administration can generate pressure on members of Congress, calls to radio talk shows and political buzz from dozens of grassroots organizations. It also enables the White House to hear conservatives vent in private -- and to respond -- before complaints fester.
    I detest these people, but I have to admit that they have been effective.

    And of course in the interview, Norquist trots out all of the typical winger complaints, such as “having to wear a helmet when we ride a Harley…how much water can be in your toilet bowl (and) how big your car can be…”

    You can’t possibly think that American cars are too small. Everyone would have bigger and safer cars if they didn’t have those CAFE standards, corporate average fuel economy.
    Well then, Norquist should be pleased to read from here that, in typical fashion…

    Last month (January 2004), U.S. EPA chief Mike Leavitt joined Detroit kingpins in a splashy D.C. conference to trumpet the arrival of new vehicles and fuels that reduce sulfur emissions -- a notable achievement, but what Leavitt was passing off as a Bush administration success was in fact an initiative launched under President Clinton. Days later, Leavitt announced additional funding for the Clean School Bus USA program -- some $60 million to replace pre-1991 school buses with new ones that have state-of-the-art emission controls.
    This change was regarded by environmentalists as having “a negligible effect on emissions,” by the way.

    While these efforts drew lots of media attention, there was one recent car-related announcement that the Bush administration slipped under the radar, and this one is likely to have much broader effects. On Dec. 22, the Bush administration proposed a major rewrite of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. One notable outcome of the proposal would be the closing of a loophole that currently exempts vehicles over 8,500 pounds, such as the Hummer H2, from any fuel-efficiency standards whatsoever. But despite this welcome tidbit, few environmentalists were pleased with the proposal as a whole.

    "The loophole the Bush administration proposes to close may move us one step forward," said Daniel Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming and energy program. "But their proposal also includes another loophole for the auto industry that will move us three steps back."
    So Norquist can continue to drive his gas guzzling monstrosities when he wants a break from riding his Harley without a helmet if he wants.

    Also…

    Many prominent conservatives feel the movement needs to be more environmentally conscious and are recommending big-government solutions like a carbon tax. But nobody listens, because it’s nonsense.
    Here’s more about Norquist’s “nonsense.”

    The intention of a carbon tax is environmental, to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and thereby slow global warming. It can be implemented by taxing the burning of fossil fuels — coal, petroleum products such as gasoline and aviation fuel, and natural gas — in proportion to their carbon content.

    Unlike market-based approaches such as carbon cap-and-trade systems, direct taxation has the benefit of being easily understood and can be popular with the public if the tax is hypothecated or earmarked to fund environmental projects[1].

    ...

    In 1993, President of the United States, Bill Clinton proposed a BTU tax that was never adopted. His Vice President, Al Gore, had strongly backed a carbon tax in his book, Earth in the Balance, but this became a political liability after the Republicans attacked him as a "dangerous fanatic". In 2000, when Gore ran for President, one commentator labeled Gore's carbon tax proposal a "central planning solution" harking back to "the New Deal politics of his father."[2] In April 2005, Paul Anderson, CEO and Chairman of Duke Energy, called for the introduction of a carbon tax.[16] In January 2007, economist Charles Komanoff and attorney Dan Rosenblum launched a Carbon Tax Center[17] to give voice to Americans who believe that taxing carbon emissions is imperative to reduce global warming.
    The Wikipedia article also notes that Sweden, Finland, The Netherlands, Norway, Italy, The United Kingdom and New Zealand have all devised their version of a tax, so I guess they’re not listening either.

    Do you see your work as a kind of rebellion against the pro-tax activities of your mother (a tax assessor in Weston, MA)? Oh, no, not at all. She is generally with me on the need for overall lower taxes. I thought up the no-tax-increase pledge when I was 14 years old.

    What is the point of that? I feel like my children will be paying for the budget follies of this generation for the rest of their lives. Oh, good, then my kids will be off the hook.
    Maybe if your kids are born in another century, you selfish neocon turd (sorry – tried to hold back on the name calling as long as I could); this tells us that the budget deficit will likely exceed $350 billion this year, including at least $100 billion from an upcoming deficit-financed economic stimulus measure.

    I’m sure the next subject for an upcoming Times Q&A by Solomon will no doubt be Rummy now, since there apparently is no standard that the interview subjects must meet for honesty; he’s got a book coming out now too, as noted here (and no, it’s not titled “How To Commit The Most Horrific Foreign Policy Blunder In U.S. History,” but it should be).

    And in regards to the question posed by the CBC link of whether or not anyone would read his book, I got a kick out of this answer in particular…

    The question on whether I will read his book is interesting to me, because as we know, there are "known knowns"; there are things we know we know. We also know there are "known unknowns"; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also "unknown unknowns" — the ones we don't know we don't know.

    So I don't know if I'm going to read Rumsfeld's book.
    Tell you what – if someone sends me a copy, I’ll shred it and use it to line my cat’s litter box, OK (hopefully, he won't object).

    Still More "Bitter" Fallout

    Once again, I truly apologize for dwelling on the faux issue of the moment, but there is such an avalanche of media and political spin out there that some of it must be addressed; the fact that Kristol Mess AND BoBo are both chimed in, for example (the latter today) tells you something.

    What it tells you, actually, is that our media-political-industrial complex has worked itself into the greatest froth I’ve ever since I started this blog; the only thing comparable was the Terri Schiavo circus, which I fortunately missed (for posting purposes, anyway). And their goal is nothing less that to take remarks uttered by Obama that are absolutely true and use them to make the voters of this country recoil out of umbrage (and of course, since these clowns hold sway over our discourse for the most part, they seem to be doing that).

    George Will treats us to a hilarious column where he pretends to care about the middle class (sorry, but find your own link if you want). Bob Herbert criticized Obama for saying voters were “bitter” instead of “angry,” as if semantics are going to matter to someone who has lost his or her job, home, or health insurance.

    And not to be outdone by any means, J.D. Mullane of the Bucks County Courier Times tells us the following here…

    You may have heard what Sen. Barack Obama thinks of small town Pennsylvanians: They are “bitter” and “cling” to guns, religion and bigotry because they don't have good jobs.
    For the record, here is what Obama said, which Mullane actually repeats later in his column…

    “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
    As you can see, Obama clearly said nothing about bigotry; which is actually confirmed by one of the subjects Mullane talks to for this column my bad - of course, we find that out near the end of the hit piece after Mullane disingenuously sticks “bigotry” in the lead…a typically sleazy journalistic trick.

    It is nothing short of sickening that we have a ruling executive cabal that has sought to abolish, at the very least, the first and fourth amendments to the U.S. Constitution (totally supportive of torture, abuse of executive privilege, legally labeling NGOs and human rights groups as terrorism supporters, an on and on), that sits idly by while employers in this country shed payrolls while still clamoring to lift restrictions on H1B visas for foreign workers (if anything, Bushco has done all it could do to encourage it), that wages war without end in Iraq, engages in acts of typical deception on the climate crisis, that staffs the governmental agencies under its purview with utterly incompetent party hacks…and yet, it takes some wording about rural PA voters that some consider inappropriate to rankle the sensibilities of a foundering presidential candidate and the media stooges doing her bidding to keep the blood sport going for as long as possible.

    Well, just for the hell of it, here is what I did in response.

    I did a little digging and found a link to an article written by the director of the Developing Communities Project, described as “an institutionally based community organization on Chicago's far south side,” which was published in 1990. The article, “Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City,” was written by a man who had just recently enrolled at Harvard to study law.

    You’ve probably heard of the author, by the way, because the director of the Developing Communities Project was a guy named Barack Obama.

    This is what he wrote…

    The debate as to how black and other dispossessed people can forward their lot in America is not new. From W.E.B. DuBois to Booker T. Washington to Marcus Garvey to Malcolm X to Martin Luther King, this internal debate has raged between integration and nationalism, between accommodation and militancy, between sit-down strikes and boardroom negotiations. The lines between these strategies have never been simply drawn, and the most successful black leadership has recognized the need to bridge these seemingly divergent approaches. During the early years of the Civil Rights movement, many of these issues became submerged in the face of the clear oppression of segregation. The debate was no longer whether to protest, but how militant must that protest be to win full citizenship for blacks.

    Twenty years later, the tensions between strategies have reemerged, in part due to the recognition that for all the accomplishments of the 1960s, the majority of blacks continue to suffer from second-class citizenship. Related to this are the failures — real, perceived and fabricated — of the Great Society programs initiated by Lyndon Johnson. Facing these realities, at least three major strands of earlier movements are apparent.

    First, and most publicized, has been the surge of political empowerment around the country. Harold Washington and Jesse Jackson are but two striking examples of how the energy and passion of the Civil Rights movement have been channeled into bids for more traditional political power. Second, there has been a resurgence in attempts to foster economic development in the black community, whether through local entrepre¬neurial efforts, increased hiring of black contractors and corporate managers, or Buy Black campaigns. Third, and perhaps least publicized, has been grass-roots community organizing, which builds on indigenous leadership and direct action.



    Neither electoral politics nor a strategy of economic self-help and internal development can by themselves respond to these new challenges (facing the inner city and African Americans in particular – my paraphrasing). The election of Harold Washington in Chicago or of Richard Hatcher in Gary were not enough to bring jobs to inner-city neighborhoods or cut a 50 percent drop-out rate in the schools, although they did achieve an important symbolic effect. In fact, much-needed black achievement in prominent city positions has put us in the awkward position of administer¬ing underfunded systems neither equipped nor eager to address the needs of the urban poor and being forced to compromise their interests to more powerful demands from other sectors.

    Self-help strategies show similar limitations. Although both laudable and necessary, they too often ignore the fact that without a stable community, a well-educated population, an adequate infrastructure and an informed and employed market, neither new nor well-established compa¬nies will be willing to base themselves in the inner city and still compete in the international marketplace. Moreover, such approaches can and have become thinly veiled excuses for cutting back on social programs, which are anathema to a conservative agenda.

    In theory, community organizing provides a way to merge various strategies for neighborhood empowerment. Organizing begins with the premise that (1) the problems facing inner-city communities do not result from a lack of effective solutions, but from a lack of power to implement these solutions; (2) that the only way for communities to build long-term power is by organizing people and money around a common vision; and (3) that a viable organization can only be achieved if a broadly based indigenous leadership — and not one or two charismatic leaders — can knit together the diverse interests of their local institutions.
    As I read the excerpt above, it became crystal clear to me that Barack Obama has a thorough understanding of the root causes of the utter disintegration of our cities and the monumental challenge of restoring economic opportunity through a combination of government-business partnership, civic action, and individual self reliance (and after reading this excerpt, I’m tempted to try and locate the book “After Alinsky…” on Amazon.com and read more of what he has to say).

    As far as I’m concerned, this excerpt was written by someone with both the keen mind and knowledge of what it takes to try and resolve complicated issues and the courage to face the daunting challenges that lie ahead of this nation (Obama wrote primarily about African Americans, of course, but his words could apply to those of other races, creeds, ethnicities and gender persuasions also).

    It most certainly was not written by an “elitist,” who used the word “cling” inappropriately for some, as well as others who thought it strange that he ordered orange juice without coffee, or wishes to sit down and meet with Hamas (he doesn't, by the way).

    (Actually, with this in mind, I wish our corporate media cousins would all get together and come up with a list of behaviors that they consider to be appropriate and give the list to Obama; that way, he would know how to act to please them and they would thus resist the temptation to concoct such utterly ridiculous “stories” about “scandals” with a “-gate” attached at the end.)

    And with all of this in mind, I now have a message for Hillary Clinton.

    It is apparent that the only way you believe that your campaign can succeed truly is to utterly trash Obama and hope that, by some scurrilous design, the “super delegates” you so desperately wish to possess will flock to you somehow as crows descend to pick at the carcass of a dead animal (God help me, but all in the corporate media punditocracy who said this was the case turned out, despite my ridicule at the time, to be absolutely right).

    So, for that reason, go ahead and win your “victory” in Pennsylvania (which I’m sure will be delivered to you by PA Governor Ed Rendell, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, and others– I’m sure you don’t have the qualms about handing out “walking-around money” to local Philly poobahs that Obama does; and I applaud Obama for that, by the way). Rack up your 10-15 percent margin of victory, or whatever it will be. Go ahead and jog a victory lap around the clothespin at 15th and Market if you want. Fire a gun, drink a shot and a beer…whatever.

    And the next day, put an end to this utterly putrid, painful exercise of a campaign of yours for good (and take all your preferred “girl chums” with you if you want).

    The lost delegates aren’t going to come back. And Florida and Michigan aren’t going to matter either. The only way you could win would be in response to Obama’s electoral destruction, and despite your positively juvenile manufacturing of this non-issue, that won’t happen (if anything, I can’t wait to see how this boomerangs on you in other primaries).

    It’s over, and apparently, you are the last to know. You exist only as a candidate for the amusement of Fox “News,” The Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal editorial page so you can generate the negative force required to eviscerate your own party, which happens to be the only way that their favored candidate, John W. McBush, can actually win.

    The stain on our memory left by your “Insult-40-States Express” will be with us for a long, long time. This latest episode of accusing Obama of “elitism” – Obama, someone who worked as a community organizer in Chicago on behalf of residents in desperate poverty – would be laughable if it weren’t so fitting, so emblematic of your utterly failed campaign for the Democratic Party nomination for president.

    And after enduring this pitiable farce, I actually cannot imagine how you could ever hope to mount a candidacy of this type ever again.

    Update 1: And by the way, Ed's right here; the comment will be forgotten because HRC will only be a memory in November.

    Update 2: Funny how The Big Dog gets a pass for making very similar statements here but Obama doesn't.

    Update 3 4/16/08: Just for the record, MoDo wasted newspaper ink on this today also (and reap what you sow, Hil).

    Monday, April 14, 2008

    Monday Stuff

    Actress Jennifer Connelly goes to Central Park to find drinking water and dramatize the problem faced by those in poorer nations (more info here)...



    ...and step right up for that "three trillion dollar shopping spree"...



    ...and as far as Our Gal Condi Rice running for veep along with "Straight Talk" McCain, Dana Priest of the Washington Post and Richard Clarke have some good advice (though not in a complimentary manner)...



    ...and this is corny, but clever (and by the way, I officially support him now - say goodnight, Hil).

    "...And We're Working For No One But Them"

    (A twist on the last line of the song, “Taxman” by The Beatles - Blogger is REALLY acting up at the moment for yours truly, by the way…)

    In light of tomorrow’s income tax filing deadline, Parade Magazine tells us the following here…

    A 2004 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that 61% of American corporations, including 39% of large companies, paid no corporate income taxes between 1996 and 2000. Last year, corporations shouldered just 14.4% of the total U.S. tax burden, compared with about 50% in 1940.

    While companies are getting off easy, thanks to loopholes, ordinary wage earners are getting stuck with the tab. The tax burden on individuals is expected to climb from $1.16 trillion in 2007 to $1.21 trillion this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), while corporate tax receipts are expected to decline from $370 billion to $364 billion. By 2013, the CBO estimates, ordinary taxpayers’ bills may climb to $1.86 trillion while corporate tax bills drop to $327 billion.



    In one recent case, KBR—a former Halliburton subsidiary and the largest Iraq war contractor—admitted to “reducing tax obligations” through two Cayman Islands divisions, reportedly avoiding hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicare and Social Security taxes. A 2004 study by the GAO found that 24 of the largest federal contractors used Cayman Islands units to shave their tax bills.

    Oil and other multinational companies also benefit from tax breaks, some specially written for them. Most are perfectly legitimate, but companies sometimes push the envelope too far. Pharmaceutical giant Merck paid $2.3 billion to the government last year for profits related to a Bermuda partnership.

    In their defense, businesses say that U.S. corporate tax rates are the second highest in the developed world, making our country less competitive. But a study from the nonprofit group Citizens for Tax Justice found that, because of loopholes, the corporate tax burden in the U.S. is actually the world’s third lowest when measured as a percentage of gross domestic product.
    And by the way, the effort to try and close the loophole allowing U.S. companies to maintain offshore “divisions” as a means of tax avoidance was led by the late, great Paul Wellstone in 2002 here; he managed to attach an amendment to a defense bill that would ban the awarding of defense contracts to U.S. companies maintaining an offshore presence, even if it is so much as even a P.O. box, to get out of paying their fair share (and when Wellstone tried to fix this, a veritable army of former-senators-and-now-lobbyists of both parties descended on Capitol Hill to defeat it, as the Times story tells us; they ultimately did of course).

    The issue of trying to close the loophole was particularly urgent when Wellstone addressed it because 9/11, which was funded in large part from offshore sources, was still fresh in all of our minds – indeed, Snarlin’ Arlen Specter…running for another term in 2010, unbelievably enough; go, Pat Toomey! And still waiting to hear about that book deal...sponsored legislation on this that probably has about as much chance of passage as I do of entering the Talladega 500.

    And on top of this, the AP tells us the following here…

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The tax audit rates of the largest companies are less than half what they were 20 years ago while more small and mid-size businesses are coming under scrutiny, according to an organization that monitors the Internal Revenue Service.

    The Syracuse University-based Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse described what it said was a "historic collapse" in audits for corporations holding assets of $250 million or more. About 26 percent of them were audited in the 2007 budget year compared with 34 percent in 2006 and 43 percent in 2005.

    The IRS did not dispute the numbers, based on agency data. But it strongly disagreed with suggestions it was easing oversight of the biggest corporations.

    Enforcement revenues from large companies rose by one-third in 2007 from the previous year, from $10.6 billion to $14.2 billion, said IRS Deputy Commissioner Barry Shott, who heads the Large and Mid-Size Business Division.
    No word on how much of the $14.2 billion came from new assessments versus settlements of outstanding claims (upon reading the story, it sounds like smaller to mid-sized companies are taking the hit here, as opposed to those that constitute "the base" for Dubya and the Repugs).

    This will all be comforting to us as we enjoy our Mac and cheese and baloney sandwiches for dinner with a side of strained corn (yum – Wendy’s and Chick-Fil-A constitutes dining out for the Doomsy household pretty much; Friendly’s might as well be Le Bec Fin).

    Just thought I’d share that…

    Dubya's "Big Bang" For Benny

    CNN tells us here that…

    A crowd of up to 12,000 is due at the White House on Wednesday morning for (Pope Benedict XVI’s) official, pomp-filled arrival ceremony. It will feature the U.S. and Holy See anthems, a 21-gun salute, and the U.S. Army Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps. Both men will make remarks before their Oval Office meeting and a send-off for his popemobile down Pennsylvania Avenue.
    Uh, excuse me for a second, Your Holiness:

    This Wikipedia article tells us the following…

    In the United States, the 21-gun salute is used for the President of the United States as well as visiting foreign Heads of State. A 21-gun salute is also fired at noon on Memorial Day to honor the nation's fallen.
    And going back to CNN, we find out that…

    The president explained the special treatment -- particularly the airport greeting.

    "One, he speaks for millions. Two, he doesn't come as a politician; he comes as a man of faith," Bush told the EWTN Global Catholic Network in an interview aired Friday. He added that he wanted to honor Benedict's conviction that "there's right and wrong in life, that moral relativism has a danger of undermining the capacity to have more hopeful and free societies."
    “Moral relativism,” huh? Somehow I’m sure that, were Jean-Paul Sartre still alive, he would refer to Dubya as a tas de merde (I’ll let you figure out the translation).

    And Three, Dumbya, His Holiness is not a head of state, so a 21-gun salute happens to be inappropriate and thus demeans its solemnity; I’m particularly considering Memorial Day ceremonies here.

    But of course, this is part and parcel of what President Stupid Head thinks of our veterans anyway, isn’t it (also considering this)?

    Update 4/15/08: Try saying this in Boston, Your Holiness, instead of on a plane.

    I Think We Have Our Answer

    And I’m referring to the question of whether or not George W. Milhous Bush intends to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Summer Olympics in Beijing this August (and of course, we hear about it from a lackey and not the actual horse’s ass commander-in-chief himself)…

    A top White House official on Sunday criticized foreign leaders who plan to skip the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Beijing following China’s crackdown in Tibet, calling such actions a “cop out” far less effective than the “quiet diplomacy” the United States is pursuing.
    I believe, in an earlier era under another Republican president, “quiet diplomacy” was once called “constructive engagement,” by the way.

    “The whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue,” said the official, Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser. “I think it is a way of dodging what really needs to happen.”

    Mr. Hadley did not single out any foreign leaders by name. Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany have said they will not attend the opening of the Games on Aug. 8. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has said he may boycott the ceremony if China refuses to open a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet.

    “This issue is in some sense a bit of a red herring,” Mr. Hadley said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I think, unfortunately, a lot of countries say, ‘Well, if we say that we are not going to the opening ceremonies, we’ve checked the box on Tibet.’ That’s a cop out.”
    Typical Bushco – come up with the wrong answer and insult as many people in the process as possible (though, as that “elitist” Barack Obama so correctly observed here, “it’s hard to tell your banker that he’s wrong” – I for one have no desire to play a game of economic “chicken” with a country that is becoming the biggest economic power in the world…”you liquidate our debt and you lose the value of trillions in T-Bills; but meanwhile, our economy takes that ‘big slide’ into the hopper once and for all”).

    Update: More glorious AP stenography here...

    More “Bitter” Fallout

    I almost feel like I should apologize for continuing to waste people’s time with this stuff…

    Thanks to Hillary Clinton’s continued parsing of Republican Party talking points, the supposed issue of Barack Obama’s view of small-town America continues to play out in our corporate media; as I noted last night, that was the lead in the story of the “Faith Forum” in Harrisburg last night instead of the fact that John W. McBush didn’t even bother to show up.

    Today, though, we learn the following from here…

    In the wake of the uproar following Barack Obama's comments about how some voters "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," the Obama campaign has released a so-called "robo-call" featuring York, Pennsylvania mayor John Brenner. In the call, Brenner defends Obama and says "he's got it right."

    "Barack Obama understands us," Brenner says. "He's got it right, we are frustrated -- frustrated with polices that enable businesses to leave our community, pensions to be stripped, health care benefits to be taken away and homes foreclosed. Unlike his opponents, who have been part of the Washington establishment that are out of touch with us, Barack Obama will change Washington. It is policies that hurt us. He will take on the special interests and fight for us."
    And not to be outdone, “Kristol Mess” piles on accordingly in the New York Times today (pathetic that this man even has a job with these people). However, in the process of selectively quoting Obama and trying to attach some nonexistent meanings to what Obama said, K.M. doesn’t mention the quote in the speech about “anti-immigrant sentiment” in Hazelton, Pa. in particular (I mean, of course K.M. doesn’t, because that would mean acknowledging the fact that Obama is actually right).

    Update: Nice one by BarbinMD here...

    Also, I think it’s instructive to note the following concerning the Clinton and Obama campaigns; when HRC’s campaign is in spin mode, we are likely to hear from any one of a number of individuals (Phil Singer, Howard Wolfson, Mark Penn – who is still with the campaign, by the way – HRC’s husband, maybe Chelsea, or even Hillary herself), and what they say could be all over the place when it comes to either complementing Hillary or contradicting her.

    When some kind of a media dustup involves Obama, you are likely to hear from the candidate himself about 90 percent of the time on the matter, or on the rare occasion when you hear from someone else involved with the campaign, that person is unequivocal in his support of Obama and leaves nothing open to interpretation (the only exception I can think of is the case when former aide Samantha Power called Hillary a “monster,” and afterwards, she left the campaign almost right away).

    That tells me a lot (and a huge hat tip to The Daily Kos for this from Robert Reich; I haven't made it all the way through it yet, but this should be memorized by every political phony and pundit demagogue currently trying to pillory Obama over this utter distraction).

    Update 4/14/08: Uh...yep.

    Sunday, April 13, 2008

    HRC Runs Out Of Propaganda Ammo

    In a shameless attempt to resurrect every bit of Repug demagoguery against Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton tells us the following here (re: the ridiculous Clinton charge that Obama is an "elitist" for speaking the truth)...

    “You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she said.

    “You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”
    OK, "Calamity" Hil (apt, considering your campaign), we get the picture.

    But when pressed on the point here...

    After a weekend spent making direct appeals to gun owners and church goers, Hillary Clinton said Sunday a query about the last time she fired a gun or attended church services "is not a relevant question in this debate” over Barack Obama’s recent comments on small town Americans.

    “We can answer that some other time,” Clinton said at a press conference held in a working class neighborhood here. “This is about what people feel is being said about them. I went to church on Easter. I mean, so?”
    Am I crazy, or is this Hillary’s “meaning of the word ‘is’” moment we have here (“some other time” being after November 5th of this year, I’m sure).

    Because, when she was running for the Senate from New York in 2000, she said the following (here)…

    The first lady reiterated her support to require trigger locks on handguns, to hold adults responsible for their children's use of guns, to raise the youth handgun ban from age 18 to 21, to limit gun sales to one per month per adult and to have the Consumer Products Safety Commission regulate guns.

    "It doesn't make much sense that we regulate toy guns but not real guns," Mrs. Clinton said.
    And she also supported the following, originally endorsed by former Repug New York governor George Pataki…

    Mrs. Clinton also announced her support for the creation of a "ballistic database" for all new guns, requiring gun makers or sellers to fire guns before sale and send that "ballistic fingerprint" to law enforcement.
    All good ideas that I wholeheartedly support, by the way, among others.

    But getting back to the supposedly “not relevant” question of when she first fired a gun – did she do so before she turned 21? I mean, she must have if her grandfather “taught her to shoot when she was a little girl.” And since he practiced gun safety, he could not have started her out with a rifle, could he?

    Well then, if she was firing a handgun at that early age (and there’s no way she could have obtained a license yet, even in this state – I think you can actually get a license to hunt at 12…read that on a bulletin board from ’04…but I’m not positive), then her childhood recollection now stands in direct opposition to her stated common-sense gun policies articulated in 2000 when she first ran for the U.S. Senate.

    Which leads me to believe that Senator Clinton would talk common sense to her home states’ constituents (speaking what I believe to be her true sentiments, which I applaud), but then in turn shamelessly pander to the voters of this state, apparently believing that our votes could be won so easily with some cheesy photo-op in a blind with camouflage hunting small game or, absent that, some now-unverifiable recollection of a childhood encounter with a loaded weapon.

    Registered Democratic ladies and gentlemen of the state of Pennsylvania, I have news for you – Mrs. Clinton truly thinks that you and I are stupid.

    Now who’s the elitist (and kudos to Bob Casey for this).

    Update 4/14/08: Another "elitist," I suppose...