Meet Me Out in the Street

Although I have nothing substantive to add to the Cheney/Edwards debate post-mortems ...

CHENEY [to Edwards]: Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

Now, some may say that's not true, but the only thing I could think of on hearing that was:

I guess that means that he never told Edwards to go "intercourse" himself.

In Decent Men's Eyes

There would be no reason to comment on this, if it didn't turn out to be the subject of one of the more obvious (well, obvious if you have the right frame of mind) disinformation efforts in the current Presidential campaign. In the Presidential debate last Thursday, Senator Kerry discussed what a President, and a country, need to do when going into war:

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world.

(I added the emphasis, because it seems that some people keep missing those words) Now, that seemed fairly obvious and clear to me. Not so to the President:

Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.

My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

The President's momentary failure to comprehend has not only been added to his stump speech (where he calls it the "Kerry Doctrine"), but has actually been turned into a campaign ad (you can watch, but trust me, they basically repeat "global test" over and over again).

The best commentary I've read (provided by Through the Looking Glass) about the President's inability (whether purposeful or not) to understand the meaning of Senator Kerry's position is this:

Worst confusion: Bush wondering what "global test" Kerry was talking about for preemptive action. Kerry said what he meant: that the maintenance of future alliances, and, as someone once said, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind", requires that you be able to offer a reasonable explanation for what you were doing afterwards. Was Bush just not listening?

I think that's a great way of looking at it - and pointing out that the "Kerry Doctrine" is not new, it's the "American Way".

The controversy which the President is trying to create, is sort of the campaign in a nutshell - taking a couple of words out of context, and relentlessly hammering home a distorted interpretation. Don't we deserve a little better?

Brilliant Disguise

Digby at Hullabaloo has an extended discourse on the President, and on a perceived contrast between his public and private faces. Among the litany of examples in that essay:

He ostentatiously calls himself a committed Christian and yet he rarely attends church unless it’s a campaign stop or a national occasion. The man who claims that Christ is his favorite political philosopher famously and cruelly mocked a condemned prisoner begging for her life. He portrays himself as a man of rectitude yet he pumped his fist and said "feels good!" in the moment before he announced that the Iraq war had begun. (One would have thought that if there was ever a time to utter a prayer it was then.) How many funerals of the fallen has he attended? How many widows has he personally comforted?

Now, I don't think that anybody would be counting days of church attendance, if the President's supporters hadn't made such a big deal about it. It's not just the Kerry "wafer watch", but also those news stories that Republicans are "more religious". And how is that determined? Why, by church attendance! So, they can't have it both ways. If the President can be both religious and an infrequent church attendee, then maybe we can stop hearing about a "religion gap" and claims that Religious=Republican?

Church attendance aside, the other examples in the above passage do seem to show an inconsistency between professed beliefs and visible actions. This personality trait was seen even before the Republican primaries for the 2000 election. An old National Review web page preserves excerpts from Tucker Carlson's Talk magazine interview with Mr. Bush from 1999, including the following:

In the week before [Karla Faye Tucker's] execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask.

Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' "

"What was her answer?" I wonder.

"Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me."

What's interesting is that the George W. Bush summed up in Digby's essay, appeared evident in the National Review excerpt from 1999:

Carlson's major theme is that Bush is "comfortable with himself" and "doesn't give a damn what you think of him." (Message: I don't care.) He has risen above the obsession with what other people think that marks most politicians. Yet the Bush who emerges from the profile is remarkably thin-skinned. Carlson notes that while "the Larry King–Karla Faye Tucker exchange Bush recounted never took place" on television, "Tucker did imply that Bush was succumbing to election-year pressure from pro-death penalty voters. Apparently Bush never forgot it. He has a long memory for slights." If this is what Bush considers payback, remind us to stay on his compassionate side.

For sheer ugliness, nothing else in the article matches Bush's remarks on the death penalty. (When he sees Carlson's horrified reaction, Bush "immediately stops smirking": " 'It's tough stuff,' Bush says, suddenly somber, 'but my job is to enforce the law.'") But the section other Republicans in the race are likely to seize on comes when Carlson asks "whether the number of abortions has gone up or down since he's been governor. 'I don't know,' he shrugs. . . . 'Probably down. Not because of anything we've done, though. We haven't passed any laws.'" Where Carlson sees a refreshing reluctance to exaggerate accomplishments, others -- including a lot of pro-lifers who have been giving Bush the benefit of the doubt -- are likely to see a breezy indifference to what Bush says he considers to be the taking of innocent human life.

Does any of this really matter? Well, yes, since religiosity is a theme for the President's supporters (his own as a positive, and an implied lack in Kerry, as a negative). I don't think the press should "tear down" anybody, but I also don't think that the President should get a "free pass", with his supporters using religion as a way to lift him up, and push down Senator Kerry.

Deja Vu (All Over Again)

One by one I see the old ghosts rising
Stumblin' 'cross Big Muddy
Where the light gets dim
Day after day another Momma's crying
She's lost her precious child
To a war that has no end

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio
Did you stop to read the writing at The Wall
Did that voice inside you say
I've seen this all before
It's like Deja Vu all over again
It's like Deja Vu all over again

- John Fogerty, Deja Vu (All Over Again)

There was a moment during the Bush/Kerry debate last night, when it seemed to me that the President was actually arguing that it didn't matter whether it was right to invade or not - now that there are troops in the field, nobody should criticize his decisions.

I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?

No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined.

Isn't that outrageous? "I'm terribly sorry your child was killed in the war, but the fact that he died protects me from all blame."

Mr. Fogerty is right. We've seen this before - and now the role of Lyndon Johnson is being played by the latest President from Texas.

(On a lighter note, did I mention that I'll get to see Mr. Fogerty perform that song, backed up by the E Street Band, at the Vote for Change concert in Philadelphia this evening?)

Sad Eyes Never Lie

The gang at Fox News did not look happy after the Kerry/Bush debate.














That's about all the analysis you need, IMHO.

That Feeling of Safety You Prize

I was thinking about a variation of the old Ronald Reagan debate question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

In the Bush/Kerry debate, which one should look at the camera and say, "Do you feel safer now, than you did on September 12, 2001?"

Personally, I don't think the President should use that line.

"I get up in the evening,and I ain't got nothing to say ..."

So if your candidate is Senator John Kerry, do you have this fear that he'll get up at the first Presidential debate (the one on foreign policy), and just stand there while being accused of "flip-flopping" on Iraq? Me, too.

Now, if I were giving him advice (not that I have the opportunity to do so), I would suggest that he cut that attack off before it begins. His opening statement should be:

"Good evening. Nearly two years ago, on October 9, 2002, I addressed the Senate before we voted to give President Bush the authority to use force, if necessary, in Iraq. And what I said that day, is what I have continued to say ever since -

By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration raised doubts about their bona fides on the most legitimate justification for war--that in the post-September 11 world the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable, and his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to return was in blatant violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power. By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public, internal debate for a rationale for war, the administration complicated their case, confused the American public, and compromised America's credibility in the eyes of the world community. By engaging in hasty war talk rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the administration placed doubts in the minds of potential allies, particularly in the Middle East, where managing the Arab street is difficult at best.
...

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.
…

"And when I voted to give the President that authority, I did so with the understanding that he would not use it unless the threat was imminent, unless there was no other option, and unless he built a real coalition, including the Arab states, so that we would be able to win the peace -

And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
…

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq , it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent" -- threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
…

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

"We know now that, after that vote, and action by the United Nations, the inspectors did return to Iraq, and were undertaking the difficult job of hunting for weapons of mass destruction, until the day President Bush told them to leave."

And, more stuff like that.

Rolling Stone Preacher

Do you see these Vote for Change concerts reaching undecided voters, or are they more to rally the energy of people who have made up their minds?

I always felt that the musician's job, as I experienced it growing up, was to provide an alternative source of information, a spiritual and social rallying place, somewhere you went to have a communal experience.

I don't know if someone is going to run to the front of the stage and shout, "I'm saved" or "I'm switching," but I'm going to try. I will be calling anyone in a bow tie to come to the front of the stage, and I'll see what I can do.

Mr. Springsteen has an interview in the latest edition of Rolling Stone, about his current outlook on politics and the Vote for Change tour coming up. Another, more serious thought from that article:

This has obviously been on your mind for a while. How did you come to this decision?

I knew after we invaded Iraq that I was going to be involved in the election. It made me angry. We started to talk about it onstage. I take my three minutes a night for what I call my public-service announcement. We talked about it almost every night on our summer tour.

I felt we had been misled. I felt they had been fundamentally dishonest and had frightened and manipulated the American people into war. And as the saying goes, "The first casualty of war is truth." I felt that the Bush doctrine of pre-emption was dangerous foreign policy. I don't think it has made America safer.

Look at what is going on now: We are quickly closing in on what looks an awful lot like the Vietnamization of the Iraq war. John McCain is saying we could be there for ten or twenty years, and John Kerry says four years. How many of our best young people are going to die between now and that time, and what exactly for? Initially I thought I was going to take my acoustic guitar and play in some theaters, find some organizations to work for and do what I could. I was going to lend my voice for a change in the administration and a change in the direction of the country.

Sitting on the sidelines would be a betrayal of the ideas I'd written about for a long time. Not getting involved, just sort of maintaining my silence or being coy about it in some way, just wasn't going to work this time out. I felt that it was a very clear historical moment.

A lot of people are feeling the frustration, of wanting to somehow make a difference this time. A lot of others seem to think that it doesn't matter. It's great to see that people who can do something in a big way, are out there saying, "This time it's really important."

I'll be at the Philadelphia show with the whole Cautious Family, including our first-time voter, the Cautious Son.

Into the Fire

May your strength give us strength
May your faith give us faith
May your hope give us hope
May your love give us love

On September 11, I think of the morning of September 12. In my New Jersey community, about a dozen miles from, and within view of, lower Manhattan, we had spent the 11th not only viewing those terrible images, but worried about the fate of friends and neighbors who worked in the towers. Some eventually made it home, and some did not.

But on the 12th, as I woke to the radio, I heard a report that a New York City Fire Department chaplain was among the dead. Somehow, I knew immediately that it was Father Mychal Judge, a Franciscan priest who had served in my parish in the town where I grew up. Although that was when I was just a kid, Father Mychal kept in contact with many, many families from the places he had served. He had baptized one of my brother's children, just a few years before. On the morning of September 11, my parents' home had two small photos of him on the side of the refrigerator, which they had received just a few months earlier. In each photo, he was wearing one of his "uniforms" – in one, his Franciscan habit, and in the other his Fire Department dress uniform. In both, he had the same wide grin and bright, excited look in his eyes.

On the 12th, there was another photo of Father Mychal, in the New York Times. In my edition, he wasn't even identified yet, he was just a man, a body slumped over being carried away from the destruction. But you could see his face, the mouth turned down and the eyes closed. He had rushed to the scene from his residence, the Franciscan friary on Thirty-First Street. He was killed as he stood ministering to the dead, the injured and the frightened, as the South Tower collapsed. Symbolically, the medical examiner designated Father Mychal as the first registered victim of the attacks, with death certificate number 1.

Less than 24 hours before his death, Father Mychal participated in the rededication of a fire house in the Bronx. As recounted in the book, Father Mychal Judge: An Authentic Ameican Hero by Michael Ford, as he addressed his fellow members of the FDNY, "Those who were present felt, in retrospect, that his words were valedictory":

We come to this house this morning to celebrate renewal, rejuvenation, new life. We come to thank God for the blessings of all the years that the good work has been done here and especially the last few days. … Keep supporting each other. Be kind to each other. Love each other. Work together … and from this house, God's blessings go forth to this community. It's fantastic but very painful. We love the job, and God calls you to it and indeed he gives you a love for it so that a difficult job will be well done. Isn't he a wonderful guy? Isn't he good to you, to each one of you, and to me? Turn to him each day, put your faith and your trust and your hope and your life into his hands. And he'll take care of you.

That picture I mentioned, of Father Mychal smiling in his Franciscan habit, can be seen on the memorial page located at this link, along with a short biography.

And that's what I think of on September 11.

"Singing Our Birthday Song ..."

Well, a whole year's gone by since the first Cautious Man random thought hit the ether. And what was my first brilliant insight? "Going forward, I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot about the approval, by the House and Senate, of resolutions authorizing military action in Iraq." Other than the fact that the resolutions are being used against Senator Kerry, and not President Bush in this election, I couldn't have been more wrong.

I just don't understand why more attention is not being paid to the fact that the Iraq invasion did not meet the criteria set by Congress. Remember, the President was authorized to use force ONLY if not doing so "will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq". Since then, we've learned that the alleged weapons of mass destruction, which we were imminently threatened with, were not there; and, that Colin Powell was given a completely phony set of arguments, to present to the U.N. Security Council in February of 2003. As I noted at the time, the sad and tragic fact is that Secretary Powell surely believed it when he said, in that February speech: "My colleagues, we have an obligation to our citizens. We have an obligation to this body to see that our resolutions are complied with. We wrote [Resolution] 1441 not in order to go to war. We wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance."

The other criterion in the authorization to use force was that an invasion would be "consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Despite the many recent efforts of the Administration to conflate Iraq and Al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission established and the fact remains that there clearly was no connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11.

So, this time last year I was annoyed that the President could not support either justification for the course of action he chose in Iraq. And one year later, we're up to over 1000 soldiers dead, in a war which everybody can see was launched without any proper authorization.

WarWhat Is It Good For?

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
War is something that I despise
For it means destruction
Of innocent lives
For it means tears in thousands
Of mothers' eyes
When their sons go out to fight
To give their lives

("War", Barret Strong, Norman Whitfield)

As of right now, Iraq Coalition Casualty Count indicates that the one thousandth American soldier has died in the Iraq war.

Just a Look and a Whisper, and He's GoneThese Are Better Days

Noooooooooooo!

[Edited to add] Curmudgeon at Mapleberry Blog was kind enough to inform me that Mr. Theogeny may still be around to help us through these troubled times.

He's Back in Town!

Like a Deus ex machina, Hesiod has re-appeared, ready to come to our aid. He reminds us that, once upon a time, George H W Bush was attacked as John Kerry is being attacked now:

Compare, for example, the way George W. Bush refuses to do the right thing and denounce these liars with the way Michael Dukakis, in 1988, responded to a very similar attack on the President's father.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the story, a tailgunner from then Vice President Bush's old Naval Air Squadron was an eye witness of the infamous occasion when Bush was shot down by the Japanese. Accord to this witness, Chester Mierzejewski, Pilot Bush prematurely bailed out, thus dooming the two crewmen in the rear part of his plane. Ironically, the allegation is detailed by none other than the despicable POW/MIA exploiter Ted Sampley in a widely quoted article circulating on the internet.
...

In 1988, however, other than the New York Post article and an Associated Press report, the whole controversy quickly died. The reason it died, despite the credibility of the accuser, was partly because the media were gutless. But mostly because Michael Dukakis, honorable to a fault, refused to make it an issue.

As reported by the New York Times:

"Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, questioned about a World War II gunner's challenge to Vice President Bush's account of being shot down over the Pacific, said, 'I don't think that kind of thing has any place in the campaign.' The Democratic Presidential nominee said the challenge to Mr. Bush's war record was 'unfair' and 'unfortunate.' Mr. Bush 'served this country,' Mr. Dukakis said. 'He served it well and with tremendous courage, and you don't fly 58 missions without enormous courage and tremendous patriotism.' The New York Times, August 14, 1988

A pretty stark difference. Not just with George W. Bush, but also between Dukakis and Bill Clinton who fought back.

And he also reminds us of an old speech of Zell Miller's - his speech to the 1992 Democratic Convention. In addition to the part he reprints, in the whole speech (via the link he provided) there's a portion which could well be part of a 2004 Democratic speech.

Americans cannot understand why the rich can buy the best health care in the world, but all the rest of us get is rising costs and cuts in coverage, or no health insurance at all.

And George Bush doesn't get it?

Americans cannot walk our streets in safety, because our "tough-on-crime" president has waged a phony war on drugs, posing for pictures while cutting police, prosecutors and prisons.

And George Bush doesn't get it?

Americans have seen plants closed down, jobs shipped overseas and our hopes fade away as our economic position collapses right before our very eyes.

And George Bush does not get it!

It's really good to see Hesiod back and better than ever.

(Edited to add) I checked back, and with some trimming Hesiod has turned it into a terrific 2004 Democratic campaign speech.

Higher Ground

Last evening, I didn't tune in to see the closing ceremonies at the Olympics, or even whatever dreadful pre-convention coverage the cable news outlets were providing. No, I'm a person with a child in high school, and in order to keep up with current trends I did what I had to do - watched some of the MTV Video Music Awards. Actually, I sort of drifted in and out of the room, catching pieces of the mostly vapid spectacle.

But, in the middle of the lip synching and bling-bling, there suddenly appeared Alicia Keys, who was joined by Stevie Wonder in performing his once-again timely song from 1973, "Higher Ground":

People keep on learnin'
Soldiers keep on warrin'
World keep on turnin'
Cause it won't be too long

Powers keep on lyin'
While your people keep on dyin'
World keep on turnin'
Cause it won't be too long

Who'd have thought that MTV would have the most powerful political statement on cable TV last night?

"Give My Love to Rose Rove ..."

I heard on the radio today that one of the celebrations related to the Republican National Convention will be a tribute to Johnny Cash. Now, I never thought of Johnny Cash as a Republican, so you can imagine what I thought his reaction would have been. Reading the news later, I found a story about someone who thought the same thing, but she decided to do something about it:

"A lot of his political songs really represented issues the Republicans don't really seem to care about very much," Erin Siegal said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I find this really offensive, for his name or his memory to be used like this."

The 22-year-old art student from Brooklyn, N.Y., launched a Web site dedicated to her cause and says she expects at least 500 people to protest at Tuesday's events. All have been asked to dress in black, Cash's signature color, and bring musical instruments and their singing voices.

It's on August 31, if you're going to be there. More information (and detailed instructions on how to dress) is available at www.defendjohnnycash.org.

"The Revolution Starts ... Now"

The revolution starts now
When you rise above your fear
And tear the walls around you down
The revolution starts here
Where you work and where you play
Where you lay your money down
What you do and what you say
The revolution starts now
Yeah the revolution starts now

Steve Earle's new album, "The Revolution Starts ... Now" comes out on August 24. As his record company says, it is "extremely political" (you can read the lyrics here, and listen to some of the songs here). For people who don't want to hear the political views of a writer or a performing artist, that's your right. But, Mr. Earle does have some thoughtful things to say, as in the liner notes for the new album:

The Constitution of The United States of America is a REVOLUTIONARY document in every sense of the word. It was designed to evolve, to live, and to breathe like the people that it governs. It is, ingeniously, and perhaps conversely, resilient enough to change with the times in order to meet the challenges of its third century and rigid enough to preserve the ideals that inspired its original articles and amendments. As long as we are willing to put in the work required to defend and nurture this remarkable invention of our forefathers, then I believe with all my heart that it will continue to thrive for generations to come. Without our active participation, however, the future is far from certain. For without the lifeblood of the human spirit even the greatest documents produced by humankind are only words on paper or parchment, destined to yellow and crack and eventually crumble to dust.

And, like everybody else these days, Mr. Earle now has a blog. I'll put it in the list, and check back there from time to time.

It Takes A Red-Headed WomanTo Get A Dirty Job Done

Meet Dr. Marilyn O'Grady, candidate for U.S. Senate for the Conservative Party in New York. Dr. O'Grady faces a tough fight in her attempt to unseat Sen. Charles Schumer (especially since there's also a Republican candidate, but apparently nobody knows much about him). In an effort to boost her candidacy, Dr. O'Grady has hit upon an apparently sure-fire scheme - call for a boycott of Bruce Springsteen. As reported by Fox News:

"He thinks making millions with a song-and-dance routine allows him to tell you how to vote," Marilyn O'Grady says in the 30-second spot. "Here's my vote: Boycott the Boss. If you don't buy his politics, don't buy his music."

In a statement, O'Grady said Springsteen "has a right to say what he thinks, but we have an equal right to speak. Now that he's moved onto the political stage to bash my president, it is entirely fair to respond."

You can view her ad from the site at this link.

As an aside, if you are reading this you may have noticed that a certain (choose one: characteristic/trademark/drawback) of this site is the (choose one: frequent/constant/annoying) use of references to the work of one particular artist, in titles and the like. There's no particular reason for that - it's just something to do while setting down these random thoughts. As a result, more than one individual did ask me why I hadn't commented before on the Vote for Change tour. After all, it has everything I've been writing about here - Springsteen, concerns about the Administration's war policy, right-wing calls for celebrity boycotts, and even some musings from Bill O'Reilly. But, in addition to being lazy the week that news came out, I didn't feel the need to add my two cents. But something about this just bugged me, so ...

Back to Dr. O'Grady, who from the video is a red-headed woman spreading some pretty ugly ideas. Remember, she wants to be a U.S. Senator, and she seems to believe that people who disagree with her should be bullied into silence. It's one thing for radio hot-heads, dime-a-dozen columnists, message board scribes or two-bit proprietors of boycott websites such as Pabaah.com (they still won't let me link from here) to "Dixie-Chick" someone. But, someone who aspires to the position of U.S. Senator, ought to have a little more respect for a basic liberty such as freedom of speech. And I don't buy this "they have to face the consequences of their actions" nonsense. Look, if an artist is giving a show to support a cause you don't support, then don't go. If they release a song with a point of view you disagree with, don't buy it. But this idea that you boycott everything involving a musician, or an actor, whose politics are different from yours, is offensive.

A boycott which is designed to change something (as in the 60's civil rights struggles), is different from this kind of boycott. The purpose of these boycotts isn't to change the political views of an artist, but to make that artist shut up (or worse, to keep someone else from daring to speak out). The only appropriate response, to speech you disagree with, is for you to speak your mind - not to force the other guy into silence.

Folks like Dr. O'Grady need to learn the difference between acting like Dr. King, and acting like Dr. Evil.

Everybody's Got a Secret, Sonny ...

... and the Governor of my state, New Jersey, had one heck of a secret, which he told us about today. The full text is at this link (courtesy of Curmudgeon at Mapleberry Blog, so you don't have to register at the New York Times to read it). It's a personal tragedy, more than anything else - a tragedy not because he's gay, but because he has felt the need to try to live his life being something that he's not. I was particularly struck by two phrases in the Governor's speech (which, love him or hate him, has to be regarded as a powerfully direct statement):

But because of my resolve, and also thinking that I was doing the right thing, I forced what I thought was an acceptable reality onto myself, a reality which is layered and layered with all the, quote, good things, and all the, quote, right things of typical adolescent and adult behavior.
...

It makes little difference that as governor I am gay. In fact, having the ability to truthfully set forth my identity might have enabled me to be more forthright in fulfilling and discharging my constitutional obligations.

That's really the tragic part, isn't it? In both his personal, and professional lives, he felt the need to subordinate who he really was, to present a different face to the world. It's a personal tragedy, because of the effect this will have (especially given the very public nature of this disclosure) on the lives of his wife and daughters. And, it's political tragedy, in light of the fact that he may well have compromised his principles as part of his effort to keep his secret.

And, unfortunately, this is a political tragedy which some may try to exploit, not just in New Jersey but throughout the country. Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog has realized the potential national use (or abuse) in Governor McGreevey's personal tragedy:

First of all, the GOP is about to make him John Kerry's running mate. Not all over the country, mind you -- you won't hear gay-bashing at the faux-moderate convention -- but on talk radio and the Internet, and probably above the radar as well, albeit in code words. And I'm sure they'd love to turn the guy who plans to sue him into the next Paula Jones. If they can make an even barely plausible case that he's truly a wronged gay lover, then all bets are off -- they can play this everywhere; they can play it as outrage at abuse of power for the swing voters while working the homophobia and aren't-Democrats-freaks? angle for everyone else.

They're certainly going to play McGreevey's decision to hang on until November as a sleazy Democratic trick -- and now the various nonsexual scandals of the McGreevey years (scroll down to paragraph 14 in this story for a brief summary) will go national. McGreevey may even bump the Swift boat Kerry haters from their spot at the top of the Fox News charts.

Unfortunately, that's an all-too-plausible scenario. And do you want to know the real funny thing about that?

It's this - I don't think any of the mainstream Republicans would want McGreevey to resign earlier, so that there was a gubernatorial election this November. That's because there's only one guy who's up and ready to go with a campaign on short notice: Bret Schundler, his opponent in the 2001 election, chair of an organization called "Empower the People", and who has been gearing up for the 2005 election. Mr. Schundler is still the favorite of conservative New Jersey Republicans - but, this being New Jersey, a lot of the Republicans (especially those in office) are more moderate. For the Republican establishment, if the choice is a quick election which Mr. Schundler is ready for, or an election next year, I think they'd choose the latter.

So, if it is true that the national Republicans will be using Governor McGreevey's situation to attack the Democrats, I think New Jersey's Republicans have their own little secret - and are happy to wait until next year for the gubernatorial election.

That's Why I'll Keep Searching 'til I FindMy Special One ...

Greetings from NJ, to anybody arriving here from a search for webpages referencing "Kerry" and "Springsteen". You were probably sent here because of the post at this link. Before you go, please leave a comment here, to let me know where you're from.

And I don't care what anybody says - as Kerry and Edwards are waving tonight at the balloon drop, I want to hear "Land of Hope and Dreams".

[UPDATE] Okay, so they went with "No Surrender" with the candidate coming up the aisle. After the speech, U2 was an appropriate selection. But, seriously, following that up with Van Halen? And not even real Van Halen, but Sammy Hagar Van Halen?

And don't even get me started about "Celebration" ("Celebrate good times, come on!"). I am well into my third decade of disliking that song.

Well, there's still the inauguration ...

Where There's a Fight Against the Blood and Hatred in the Air

If you did not catch Barack Obama's speech before the Democratic Convention, I feel sorry for you.

For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga.

A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief - I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper - that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

That's what we've been waiting to hear, isn't it? That all of these elements, these interests, these needs and beliefs reside throughout the U.S., and are not the exclusive province of a few, a few who need to tell the rest of us how "wrong", or "bad", or "un-American" we are. Unfortunately, that's a message that the current Administration is congenitally unable to convey - because it goes against everything that their strategy is built on.

[UPDATE on 7/28] The speech was so good, that Administration apologists are trying to claim that it wasn't a "real" Democratic speech, but was more conservative. It's good to know that the idea of "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper" is at the heart of the Republican Platform. Be that as it may, there's a comprehensive review of this angle at Daily Kos.

That Execution Line

From TalkLeft, I learned today that, as it is adopted tonight, "the Democratic Party Platform will not contain an endorsement of the death penalty." That post, and a linked article from the Capital Times of Madison, contain some details:

The Democratic Party platform that will be adopted tonight will include one particularly significant change from the platforms adopted by the party conventions of 1992, 1996 and 2000.

During the platform-writing process, the drafting committee quietly removed the section of the document that endorsed capital punishment.

Thus, for the first time since the 1980s, Democrats will not be campaigning on a pro-death penalty program.
...

Asked about the removal of the pro-capital punishment language, U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who chairs the committee that drafted the document, explained that "it's a reflection of John Kerry."

Kerry, who is often accused of flip-flopping by his Republican critics, is made of firmer stuff than most politicians when it comes to the issue of capital punishment. He opposes executions in virtually all cases - making an exception only after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, when he said he would consider supporting capital punishment, in limited cases, for foreign terrorists.On the domestic front, Kerry has earned high marks from death penalty critics. Last fall, when the Students Against the Death Penalty project of the American Civil Liberties Union rated the nine candidates who were then seeking the Democratic presidential nomination on a variety of death penalty-related issues, Kerry and Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Dennis Kucinich were the only two who received perfect scores.

Kerry opposes the execution of juveniles, supports greater access to DNA testing for death row inmates, and argues that studies "reveal serious questions, racial bias, and deep disparities in the way the death penalty is applied." Kerry was a co-sponsor of the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2001 and of the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2003.

Other opponents of capital punishment (such as Mario Cuomo) found that issue to be dangerous for them. And, as I've noted here previously, the Democratic governor of my home state refused to even allow a study of the death penalty, which had passed with bipartisan support.

Now, if Kerry is attacked for his opposition to capital punishment, does that mean that his opponents are being anti-Catholic?

An Honest Man, He Wanted to Do What Was Right

My local paper, the Star-Ledger in New Jersey, published a thoughtful editorial about former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean, the chair of the 9/11 Commission. I think it nicely sums things up:

Leadership that genuinely aspires to place public interest above political gain is rare at any time -- all the more so during the presidential campaign season, which often seems like a protracted bad date with a narcissist. That is why it was reassuring to hear former Gov. Thomas Kean's praise yesterday for the bipartisanship of the 9/11 commission he chaired for 19 months and why a listener could feel a sense of trust in the best intentions of the commission report's analysis and recommendations.

Much of that is a credit to what by all accounts has been Kean's exemplary stewardship of a commission that could easily have splintered into bickering factions. Critics of Kean's appointment sneered that he was too genteel to ask hard questions, ruffle political feathers or hold his ground against obstructionism by the Bush administration. The unanimous commission report, drawn from thousands of interviews and painstaking research -- including documents that had to be wrested from government hands -- is a decisive rebuke to those who underestimated him.

Clearly Kean values civility, compromise and discussion in service of a country uncertain in the face of a new threat. Those are leadership values President Bush and candidate John Kerry should seek to emulate. It's no surprise to New Jerseyans that Kean has a genuine calling to public service. The surprise, and disappointment, is that so many others don't.

The Weak Lies and Cold Walls You Embrace

The 9/11 Commission's Report was issued today. For now, I'll let wiser folks comment on the implications of its conclusions. I just flipped through it to find out what it says about a topic I've commented on before - "The Wall" separating criminal from intelligence investigations. Attorney General John Ashcroft sought to make Commissioner Jamie Gorelick solely responsible for this. In its report issued today, "without dissent", the Commission all but labels Mr. Ashcroft a liar.

Mr. Ashcroft testified in April and described the "wall" separating investigatory functions:

But the simple fact of September 11 is this: we did not know an attack was coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its enemies. Our agents were isolated by government-imposed walls, handcuffed by government-imposed restrictions, and starved for basic information technology. The old national intelligence system in place on September 11 was destined to fail. ... The single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents. Government erected this wall. Government buttressed this wall. And before September 11, government was blinded by this wall. In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning, imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the law required. The 1995 Guidelines and the procedures developed around them imposed draconian barriers to communications between the law enforcement and intelligence communities. The wall "effectively excluded" prosecutors from intelligence investigations. The wall left intelligence agents afraid to talk with criminal prosecutors or agents. In 1995, the Justice Department designed a system destined to fail.

In that testimony, while stating "I have sworn to tell the whole truth, and I intend to fulfill this obligation", Mr. Ashcroft declassified and publicly disclosed a single document, which he described as follows:

But somebody did make these rules. Someone built this wall. The basic architecture for the wall in the 1995 Guidelines was contained in a classified memorandum entitled "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations." ... This memorandum established a wall separating the criminal and intelligence investigations following the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the largest international terrorism attack on American soil prior to September 11. Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the Commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this Commission.

This was Attorney General Ashcroft's attempt to pin blame on Commission member Jamie Gorelick. As I mentioned in my April post on this issue, not only did this subject Ms. Gorelick to harrassment and threats, but it was contrary to the findings of a GAO study issued in the Summer of 2001. I suggested that Mr. Ashcroft be called to account.

Despite Mr. Ashcroft's attempt to shift blame onto Ms. Gorelick and away from himself, the Commission notes at page 210:

Ashcroft had also inherited an ongoing debate on whether and how to modify the 1995 procedures governing intelligence sharing between the FBI and the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. But in August 2001, Ashcroft’s deputy, Larry Thompson, issued a memorandum reaffirming the 1995 procedures with the clarification that evidence of “any federal felony” was to be immediately reported by the FBI to the Criminal Division.The 1995 procedures remained in effect until after 9/11.

As explained by the Commission, the problem was not the 1995 memo, but the way in which its procedures were misunderstood - a misunderstanding which was aggravated by the Ashcroft Justice Department's continuation of what it misunderstood to be the proper procedures. As stated on page 79 of the Report:

The 1995 procedures dealt only with sharing between agents and criminal prosecutors, not between two kinds of FBI agents, those working on intelligence matters and those working on criminal matters. But pressure from the Office of Intelligence Policy Review, FBI leadership, and the FISA Court built barriers between agents—even agents serving on the same squads. FBI Deputy Director Bryant reinforced the Office’s caution by informing agents that too much information sharing could be a career stopper.Agents in the field began to believe—incorrectly—that no FISA information could be shared with agents working on criminal investigations.

This perception evolved into the still more exaggerated belief that the FBI could not share any intelligence information with criminal investigators, even if no FISA procedures had been used. Thus, relevant information from the National Security Agency and the CIA often failed to make its way to criminal investigators. Separate reviews in 1999, 2000, and 2001 concluded independently that information sharing was not occurring, and that the intent of the 1995 procedures was ignored routinely.

This is markedly different from the story told by Attorney General Ashcroft, who publicly disclosed the 1995 memo, and concealed later decisions made by his office. The 9/11 Commission's Report addresses this, not directly in the text, but in footnote 83 to a different chapter, Chapter 8:

Attorney General Ashcroft testified to us that this and similar information-sharing issues arose from Attorney General Reno’s 1995 guidelines, discussed in chapter 3, and specifically from a March 1995 memorandum of then Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. John Ashcroft testimony, Apr. 13, 2004; DOJ memo, Gorelick to White, “Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations,” Mar. 4, 1995.

We believe the Attorney General’s testimony does not fairly or accurately reflect the significance of the 1995 documents and their relevance to the 2001 discussions. Whatever the merits of the March 1995 Gorelick memorandum and the subsequent July 1995 Attorney General procedures on information sharing, they did not apply to the information the analyst decided she could not share with the criminal agent ... Also, the 1995 procedures did not govern whether information could be shared between intelligence and criminal agents within the FBI, a separation that the Bureau did not begin making formally until long after the procedures were in place.The 1995 procedures governed only the sharing of information with criminal prosecutors.

Attorney General Ashcroft presented his characterization of the significance of the 1995 memo, and ignored later actions by his Justice Department, while stating, "I have sworn to tell the whole truth".  There may be some disagreement about whether he did that.

"Save the Buckshot/Turn up the Band"

From USA Today, as spotted by Just a Bump in the Beltway:

WASHINGTON -- When the Army announced recently that it was going to tap into its rarely used Individual Ready Reserve to fill vital slots for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, top military and civilian personnel said the activation was a proper response to a temporary manpower crisis.

But among the tasks included in the 5,674 jobs deemed critical to the war on terrorism are slots for two trumpet or cornet players, two French horn players, one trombonist, four clarinet players, three saxophonists, one electric bass player, one percussionist and one euphonium player.

Their call-up from civilian life -- along with intelligence analysts, human resources specialists, insect experts, construction workers, truck drivers, healthcare providers, morticians and scores of other occupations -- is crucial, Army officials say.
...

Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., a member of the Armed Services Committee, says he is skeptical of the need for calling musicians back from civilian life. "Did somebody go line by line through this and recognizing that each one of these 5,600 is a person who has a family that did not expect that they would be called back, to say: Is there not a way to do without a euphonium player? Do we need to really draft an electric bass player, to pull them back in?"

The point isn't to just wonder, "Musicians?" The real point is, what does this show about the level of planning, foresight, and wisdom currently residing at the top level of government these days. This is just one of many news stories about the ordinary people who are being called upon to make sacrifices in their lives, while others make plans or cheer on policies which increasingly appear misguided and misdirected.

Some Hazard From Harvard ...

I got home last evening, and inexplicably clicked on "Fox News" for the start of Bill O'Reilly's program (By the way, did he ever tell you about his MPA from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government? That seems to come up a lot). From his introductory Talking Points, I learned that "It's war between FOX News and 'The New York Times.' " After a litany of past slights, Mr. O'Reilly informs us that the "last straw" was apparently A.O. Scott's favorable review of the film "Outfoxed". And by "favorable", of course, we mean that the review was unfavorable to Mr. O'Reilly:

Scott doesn't care about fairness. He simply wants to demonize FOX News.

For example, he puts forth that a man named Jeremy Glick was the victim of a "belligerent, boorish interview by me," your humble correspondent. Glick, whose father was killed at the World Trade Center, is described by Scott as someone "who came to oppose the administration's military response to 9/11." Scott makes the man seem very sympathetic. But who is this guy, really? Well, on this program, Glick said President Bush and his father were responsible for his father's death. He said George W. Bush pulled off a coup to get elected. He implied the USA itself was a terrorist nation. And he called his father's death at the hands of Al Qaeda "alleged assassination." He said America itself was responsible for the 9/11 attack because it is an imperialistic, aggressive nation. Glick was dismissed from The Factor because he was completely off the wall. Security actually had to take the guy out of the building, he was that out of control.

Now, the funny thing is, Mr. O'Reilly didn't actually replay the interview in question (a la "We Report, You Decide"). By poking around the web, I found several (albeit partisan) sites with the transcript (for example, here, here and here), and even a place to download the video (here). Maybe A.O. Scott was referring to portions of the exchange, such as:

O'Reilly: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

Glick: Well, I hope she is.

O'Reilly: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

Glick: OK.

O'Reilly: In respect for your father...

Glick: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'Reilly: Shut up. Shut up.

As to whether Mr. Glick was so "completely off the wall" that "[s]ecurity actually had to take the guy out of the building, he was that out of control", you can judge for yourself from the transcript or the video.

Mr. O'Reilly closed last night's Talking Points essay with the following:

So enough's enough. And I am issuing this challenge directly to "The New York Times." I will debate any "Times" editor or columnist on the Charlie Rose PBS program. I talked with Mr. Rose this morning. He's happy to moderate such an event. So I'm calling these sleazy guys out. We'll let you know what happens. Do you think they'll show up? Yes, sure...

I hope someone from the Times does show up. But, only on the condition that, before the debate, the viewing audience is shown a replay of the Jeremy Glick interview in its entirety. You know, "no spin" and all that?