Bill Clinton & Jeremiah Wright pic - BFD

This picture appeared in The New York Times yesterday, which shows President Clinton shaking hands with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Evidently, this picture was released by the Obama campaign. (You will need a NYT premium account to view this article after one week.)

My only question about this picture is, "Where's the news?" (My college newspaper adviser used to say this to us when we ran a non-newsy story, or one that hadn't been adequately updated with the latest developments; I'll cop to running more of those than I should, but I was learning.)

Anyway, the fact that this is such a non-story is really the story here; that the media would even devote any time or space to it says a great deal about the levels the media will go to to get a "story" in this hotly contested Democratic primary.

First of all, it's a rather pathetic attempt by the Obama camp to divert attention away from the issue of Wright's relationship with him. I've gone on record as saying I think it's a problem, but not one that should disqualify Obama from becoming president. His speech earlier this week went a long way toward his moving past this pseudo-scandal, as I've called it. But, this is the sort of Clinton-like tactic that Obama has been complaining about since the beginning of the year. Pretty amateurish.

What's even more damning, though, is the absurd coverage the Times gives this picture - it's amazing that they actually found stuff to write about, including going so far as to post copies of the invitation from the president. (Full disclosure - it's on the Times' blog for the '08 race, The Caucus, but I question its newsworthiness.) I'm just disappointed that I didn't find out what the party favors were, or how tasty the food was, or if Rev. Wright put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance (actually, that WOULD be newsworthy, now that I think about it), or if the president put his napkin in his lap and talked with his mouth full or not.

Cripes - I don't know who's more desperate in this campaign - the press to find some sort of scoop, any scoop, or the Clinton & Obama camps, clawing, kicking and screaming to finally come out on top with the nomination.

This is why neo-con men need fact checking

I just read this from Marc Ambinder's blog over at The Atlantic Monthly: Bill Kristol, another conservative genius who obviously does lots of research before recurring bouts of political diarrhea that he spreads via print and broadcast appearances, has got one of his "facts" wrong in the Obama dust-up over Jeremiah Wright.

In his column this morning, Kristol claims:

But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright's ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That's when Wright blamed the "arrogance" of the "United States of White America" for much of the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright's preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain.

Oops. I guess Kristol doesn't know to fact check his sources. I would think that a graduate of Harvard would know the importance of doing just that, especially when it's a political smear. But, I guess since it's a Democrat, the truth takes a backseat to a good 'ole fashioned hit piece.

Oh, and Kressler? His original piece, Obama Attended Hate America Sermon, reads that Obama "nodded" his head while Wright preached these lines:

Addressing the Iraq war, Wright thundered, "Young African-American men" were "dying for nothing." The "illegal war," he shouted, was "based on Bush's lies" and is being "fought for oil money."

Both articles now have corrections. Here's Kristol's:

In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama campaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error.

Yea, I bet you do, Bill.

As the saying goes, the damage is done. I wonder how many people will go right on believing that Obama was at that ceremony. It's a safe bet that more than a few Fox News viewers, will.

Great TMW 'toon

[Click for larger image]

I haven't posted one of his cartoons in a while, but Tom Tomorrow really hit the nail on the head this week. As his blog notes, did anyone really honestly believe that the GOP fools at bottom of the political barrel, a.k.a. the GOP hate mongers Ann Coulter, Bill O'Lielly, Sean Insanity and Rush Limbaugh, were all really going to sit on the sidelines and not support McCain vs. Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Yea, sure.

They may not love McCain, but they certainly aren't going to sit idly by as one of the aforementioned Democrats makes a spirited run for the White House. It's going to be a very ugly campaign indeed, and some of the b.s. has already begun. The latest New York Times report about McCain having an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist just gives the far-right blowhards an excuse to half-heartedly get behind Judas John's candidacy.

Hillary's margin among Dems highest yet

According to Gallup, Hillary Clinton has finally reached the majority mark - 50 percent of likely Democratic Primary voters now favor Clinton by an overwhelming margin over Sen. Barack Obama and John Edwards. According to the latest polls, it's not even close. Is this good or bad for the Democratic Party? I'm not so sure. I loved former President Bill Clinton - I voted for him twice, and would have voted for him a third and likely a fourth time were it not for the 22nd Amendment. However, I'm not sold on Hillary yet. To be brutally honest, I'm voting for whomever the Democratic nominee is in 2008, and will, chances are, actively campaign for that nominee.

However, to hear some of the political pundits tell it, Hillary is not "electable." I used to buy into that bunk as well. I no longer do. To wit, author and social commentator Judith Warner, in a New York Times op-ed piece, took on the issue of Hillary's electability head on this past Friday. It's not that long, and I thought it so thought provoking, I thought I'd share it with you. My comments follow.

The shocks just keep on coming:

Hillary Clinton leads the Democratic field with 51 percent of the vote.

She beats Barack Obama by 24 percentage points among black Democrats.

She is projected now to beat Giuliani – or at the very least to be in a statistical dead heat with him in the general election.

This wasn't supposed to happen. According to the received wisdom of those in-the-know here in Washington, Hillary was supposed to be divisive, unelectable, "radioactive."

It was the fault of Bill and Monica, and the fact that you never knew when there was going to be another Bill and Monica. It was the fault of Hillary – for not taking the hard line on Bill and Monica the way a woman of her stature and standing was supposed to do. And it was the fault of voters – those people out there who would never, ever elect another Clinton.

Why? Because … everyone said so.

("I think the one thing we know about Hillary, the one thing we absolutely know, bottom line, [is] she can't win, right?" is how MSNBC host Tucker Carlson once put it to New Republic editor-at-large Peter Beinart. "She is unelectable.")

The "we" world of Tucker Carlson knew what they knew about Hillary Clinton — right up until about this week, I think — because they spend an awful lot of time talking to, socializing with and interviewing one another. [Emphasis Mine]

What they don't do all that much is venture outside of a certain set of zip codes to get a feel for the way most people are actually living. They don't sign up for adjustable rate mortgages, visit emergency rooms to get their primary health care, leave their children in unlicensed day care or lose their jobs because they have to drive their mothers home from the hospital after hip replacement surgery.

Hillary Clinton's supporters, it turns out, do.

Alongside the newest set of poll results showing Clinton's surprising levels of popularity among lower- and middle-class women, white moderate women, even black voters, was another story this week, based on a new set of data from the I.R.S.

It showed that America's most wealthy earn an even greater share of the nation's income than they did in 2000, at the peak of the tech boom. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, the Wall Street Journal reported, earned 21.2 percent of all income in 2005 (the latest date for which these data are available), up from the high of 20.8 percent they'd reached in the bull market of 2000. The bottom 50 percent of people earned 12.8 percent of all income, compared with 13 percent in 2000. And the median tax filer's income fell 2 percent when adjusted for inflation (to about $31,000) between 2000 and 2005.

More and more people are being priced out of a middle class existence. Because of housing prices, because of health care costs, because of tax policy, because of the cost of child care, The Good Life – a life of relative comfort and financial security – is now, in many parts of the country, an upper-middle-class luxury.

Given all this, you would think that Clinton's big policy announcement this week on improving life for working families would have been big news.

After all, it contained a number of huge new middle class entitlements: paid family leave and sick leave, most notably. There were a number of tried-and-true triggers for outrage from the right wing and the business community like government standards and quality controls for child care. There could have been debate stoked among the many childless workers who now feel parents are getting too much "special treatment" in the workplace (Clinton supports legislation to protect parents and pregnant women from job discrimination). At the very least, someone could have accused Clinton of trying to bring back welfare. (She supports subsidies for low-income parents who wish to stay home to raise their children.) Or someone could have questioned how realistic it really is to pay for all that – to the tune of $1.75 billion per year – simply by cracking down on the "abusive" use of tax shelters, as Clinton proposes to do.

But there was none of this. Clinton's family policy speech in New Hampshire all but sank like a stone. If it was covered at all, it was often packaged as part of a feature on her attempts to curry favor with female voters. ("Clinton shows femininity," read a Boston Globe headline.) It was as though the opinion-makers and agenda-setters, waiting with bated breath for Bill to slip up, just one more time, couldn't see or hear the message to middle-class voters.

("I do see you and I do hear you," Clinton said in a speech on "rebuilding the middle class" earlier this month. "You're not invisible to me.")

In contemplating the disconnect, as I often have done, between Hillary and her upper-middle-class peers, I find myself thinking of psychologist Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

In Maslow's theory of human motivation, needs were mapped out in a pyramid form. The broad array of physiological needs was at the bottom, followed by the almost equally wide range of safety needs: things like bodily and financial security, secure physical health and work, and property ownership. Transcendent needs, like truth, justice, wisdom and self-actualization, were in the tiniest triangle up at the top. As their "lower-level" needs were met, Maslow theorized, people moved up the pyramid; they did not – unless the material circumstances of their lives changed dramatically – move back.

The American middle class, it seems to me, is looking to politicians now to satisfy a pretty basic – and urgent – level of need. Yet people in the upper middle class — with their excellent health benefits, schools, salaries, retirement plans, nannies and private after-school programs — have journeyed so far from that level of need that, it often seems to me, they literally cannot hear what resonates with the middle class. That creates a problematic blind spot for those who write, edit or produce what comes to be known about our politicians and their policies.

Having used that Maslow pyramid analogy, I want to make clear that I do not mean to impute to upper middle class people a "higher" (in the sense of "better") form of political reasoning. I am merely trying to say that the wealth gap has brought an experience gap that is in turn producing a gap in perception — one that, I predict, will yield a wealth of surprises in this election period.

Hopefully, they'll be good ones.

Quite frankly, I'm not so sure I agree with the tone of Warner's comments.

Almost everywhere I look, people are crying out for change - looking for something new, including many Republicans I know. Compare and contrast the current atmosphere with the election of 2000. Were many people decrying how horrible the 1990s were under President Clinton? Most were not. But, so many horrifying developments have happened under President Bush's watch, it's hard to know where to begin to list them. A quick list...

• Homeland security, which is supposedly Bush and the GOP's "strong suit" - has hardly been addressed and strengthened to the level where it needs to be to reasonably thwart another terrorist attack. We are probably the most poorly prepared for a terrorist attack at any time since 9-11, despite the spin you hear from the Bush administration and GOP candidates. I just heard on television last week that more than 60 percent of bomb parts are passing through airport screeners during tests. That's encouraging - they've only had over six years to get it right. But thank God they're catching my saline solution when I forget to take it out of my carry-on bag.

• The environment exists for plundering and exploration, not preservation in the eyes of this administration.

• More people than ever are without medical coverage, yet all we get are sound bites from hapless, babbling Republican candidates about "socialized medicine" and "Hillarycare."

• Civil liberties have come under assault more on Bush's watch than under any administration in history (with the willful help of a vast majority of Republicans in Congress).

• The gap between the top one percent of wealthiest Americans and the poorest among us is as large as it's ever been.

• Thanks to absurdly reckless tax cuts, which have overwhelmingly favored the rich) we will be paying down record deficits for decades and decades to come. No doubt if a Democrat is elected in '08 and subsequently tries to fix the problem of our record deficits (which will surely need fixing), it will be those "tax and spend liberals who are raising your taxes again" when many of these taxes should never, EVER have been lowered in the first place, including dividend taxes and the GOP-spun "death tax."

• Our infrastructure is crumbling, and Bush's answer following the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis was to use "money that has already been allocated" to fix urgent problems..

• Our military is stretched to the breaking point, and they've been shit on by the Republican leadership in Congress and by Bush each and every step of the way, including turning down a pay raise (Bush said a 3.5 percent pay raise was too costly), horrific after-care when our mentally and physically wounded heroes return home, and the curtailing of leaves at home before returning to battle.

• And oh yea, that war in Iraq? That $600 billion, unmitigated disaster? We'll be paying for this catastrophic blunder for years, if not decades to come in terms of loss of life, post-traumatic stress of our troops, not to mention what this war is costing us financially and diplomatically. Remember that radical idea of diplomacy? Bush, Cheney and Condi Rice couldn't find it with GPS and a poorly armored Humvee.

I mention this laundry list because I hope it illustrates the absurd situation of our country, and the completely idiotic media coverage that the presidential race has received thus far, which has included critical coverage of candidate haircuts, abortion, lapel pins, Hillary's laugh, and other assorted non-sequiturs, irrelevant issues and nonsense.

My question to Judith Warner is, how can it be a surprise that Hillary is polling at a statistical dead heat against the Republican front runner? It shouldn't be to anyone, save for the likes of narrow-minded, far-right ideologues and their hero pundits like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Lielly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage.

And all I'm hearing from any of the GOP presidential candidates (save Ron Paul) is more of the same in the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq.

As for the talking heads like Tucker Carlson (a pundit I've all but completely lost respect for), Limbaugh and the rest of the right-wing, close-minded morons, what they mean when they label Hillary as "unelectable" is that they would never vote for her, and they're sure that men like them would never vote for her. That's why they call her "unelectable." That's rich.

The bottom line is that Republican misogynist men can't handle the thought of a woman holding the highest office in the land, or that horrible pervert Bill Clinton living in the White House ever again. That last point makes me laugh the hardest, considering the sexual deviants that are so rampant among the radical religious right, not to mention Repubes in Congress.

Murdoch quashes China stories; let's let him buy the WSJ? No way.

I found a pretty interesting article in this morning's New York Times, which reports some scandalous behavior over at the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post. (Which I refuse to read - see the headline at right for a stark reason why.)

It contains some gossip about the paper's Page Six gossip column, which makes for some amusing reading, but one passage in particular caught my eye.

An excerpt:

Page Six, The New York Post's free-swinging showcase for gossip about canoodling celebrities and cheating spouses, ran a tell-all item yesterday about a subject it does not usually cover in eye-popping detail: itself. And it had some pretty juicy details: the editor of the paper patronized a strip club, and the longtime author of the column, Richard Johnson, once took a $1,000 cash gift.

And that was not all.

The item also raised anew long-heard allegations that Rupert Murdoch, The Post's owner, had directed the Page Six writers to avoid items that could be seen as critical of China, where he was trying to do business. [Emphasis Mine]

The 675-word item was the latest twist in the long-running dispute involving Jared Paul Stern, a former freelance contributor to Page Six. He was suspended in April 2006 amid allegations that he had demanded money for favorable coverage — allegations that the authorities later declined to prosecute.

But the fight rages on. Mr. Stern now says he might sue Page Six, and as part of the legal preliminaries, his lawyer obtained a statement by a fellow former reporter for Page Six, Ian Spiegelman.

That four-page blast opens with allegations about Page Six and the editor of The Post, including the strip club and the $1,000 gift. While confirming those assertions in the item, the editor, Col Allan, was quoted as calling Mr. Spiegelman's claims a "tissue of lies."

Gossip aside (is anyone surprised that a writer for the sleazy Post would take a $1,000 bribe of sorts?), what really got my dander up was how Murdoch allegedly told Page Six staffers to avoid unflattering stories about China, because he was trying to do business there.

This is exactly the reason why Murdoch should not only be prohibited from buying The Wall St. Journal, but he should be forced to sell off part of the media empire he already owns.

Media conglomeration is a direct threat to our democracy. The argument for media conglomeration is always "let the market decide" and "I/we [CEOs and corporate boards of these companies] don't interfere with the news departments and/or editorial decisions."

But this is simply the latest example that heads of media companies DO interfere with news and editorial decisions, and our government must put a stop to it.

Murdoch is hardly the only example. In the last 10-15 years alone, CBS and ABC have also been in the middle of some heady controversies about corporate talking suits and lawyers preventing their news divisions from reporting stories that didn't serve their corporate interests.

In the case of CBS, it was the high-profile case of Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, formerly of Brown & Williamson (a very large American tobacco company that has since merged with Phillip Morris), who decided to go public on 60 Minutes with the revelation that his former employers knew full well that tobacco was not only addictive, but that B&W was adding chemicals to its cigarettes to make them more addictive.

Faced with the possibility of an enormous lawsuit from B&W, CBS coerced the producers of 60 Minutes to air a sharply edited version of the story, which later became a huge story. (It's important to note that CBS in the process of being sold to Westinghouse, and the heads of the network did not want the sale jeopardized with a high-profile lawsuit.)

I digress, but the story of CBS is an amazing one, which was turned into a very good movie, The Insider, starring Russell Crowe and Al Pacino.

But, the angle of Wigand's story that didn't get nearly as much attention as it deserved is this - when should a sale or corporate merger override the public interest, in this case the health of tens of millions of Americans? Of course, the answer is "never," unless, in this case, you happened to hold thousands of stock options in CBS or Westinghouse.

Anyway, this is the cost of mega-mergers and media conglomeration with our supposedly "free" press.

Our press is only as free as the corporate boards who run our media companies want it to be. And that scares me.

Who among us thinks it would be a good idea for Rupert Murdoch to own ANY more newspapers, radio stations, television networks, etc.? The only people who like such a move are on Wall St.

Thankfully, it looks as if his purchase of the WSJ is not going to happen, but only because the Bancroft family who owns a controlling interest in the paper won't sell, not because our government is stepping in and saying, "Nice try, Rupert - you own enough."

It's time for our government to say "enough" when it comes to media conglomeration. But, unfortunately, we will probably have to wait for those changes to take place - does anyone believe the big business fetishists in the Bush administration would put a stop to Murdoch's purchase of the WSJ?

It's *Tick Tock* for Wolfowitz

It looks like Paul Wolfowitz may have gotten himself a small reprieve in his bid to remain as president of the World Bank.

Actually, in reality, it's just a little more time to avoid the hangman's noose.

From today's New York Times:

Bowing to pressure from the Bush administration, the World Bank board agreed Wednesday to give Paul D. Wolfowitz, the bank’s president, slightly more time to defend himself against charges of misconduct before the board decides his future.

In a development that might help Mr. Wolfowitz’s fight to remain as bank president, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has lobbied European foreign ministers in the last two weeks, expressing support for him.

"She has spoken with several European foreign ministers about her positive impressions of Paul and the job he’s doing at the World Bank," Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said in an interview on Wednesday when asked whether Ms. Rice had become involved in supporting Mr. Wolfowitz.

Despite Ms. Rice’s efforts and the board’s decision to give Mr. Wolfowitz more time, bank officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are confidential, said they saw no indication that the board was any less determined to oust him from the presidency.

Mr. Wolfowitz was given until Friday evening — two additional days — to make his case in writing to the board, and it was expected that he would appear before the board as early as Monday. The board is to vote on whether he deserves a reprimand, a vote of no confidence or outright removal.

But even those plans could change. Discussions continued Wednesday on whether to proceed with a vote next week. Many bank officials continue to hope that Mr. Wolfowitz will resign, making a vote unnecessary.

I find it remarkable that Bush and Co. will do just about anything to defend yet another person from this administration with sleazy, unethical behavior.

I'm not alone. Reportedly, World Bank staffers are wearing blue ribbons to protest Wolfowitz remaining at the bank. The New York Times also reported that many staffers booed him at a staff meeting that he called to explain his reasons for fighting to stay on.

For those unfamiliar with the controversy, Wolf got into trouble when he allegedly arranged for his partner, Shaha Ali Riza, to be transferred to the Pentagon (to work for Dick Cheney's daughter), with a $60,000 raise, with guarantees of future increases. With her new salary, Riza makes more than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

His girlfriend's salary isn't the only controversy surrounding his tenure at The World Bank. I heard this opinion on The Thom Hartmann Show the other day, and I agree with it - Wolfowitz wasn't appointed president of the bank to replay a political favor to a "good guy"; he was put there to promote two important ideas on the neocon agenda...

World Bank board members and staffers have complained that Wolfowitz is imposing Bush administration policies to eliminate family planning from World Bank programs. Nicole Gaouette, in an April 19, 2007, Los Angeles Times story, reveals overly conservative World Bank policies regarding climate change, and repeated deletions of references to family planning from World Bank proposals.

In regard to Bush's motives in making Wolf president of the bank, that could certainly be called Mission Accomplished, until now.

Wolf is no stranger to controversy at the World Bank, either. Upon his confirmation as bank president, several people immediately resigned their jobs at the bank in protest.

Outside of World Bank Headquarters yesterday, a protest was held, calling for Wolfowitz's resignation. Ben Wikler, the man interviewed in the video above, is campaign director of Avaaz.org, a global activist site that tackles important issues head on, such as Mid-east peace, global warming, the War in Iraq, etc. It's a very interesting site that I recommend checking out.

Pressure is mounting for him to go - we'll see if it has any effect. European Union members are reportedly pressuring the Bush administration to show Wolf the door, and in return Bush will get to name the bank's new president (The US has traditionally named World Bank presidents).

By this time next week, Wolfowitz should know his fate.

Quick plug: a Fantastic 2008 campaign blog, from an old favorite

Before I trudge off to work, I have to give a quick shout out about a blog for political junkies (and I'm probably the last political junkie to find it).

The New York Times has a fantastic political blog that is covering both sides of the 2008 presidential campaign, dubbed The Caucus.

It's got fantastic features, polls, links to the candidates, links to other political blogs, etc. Check it out, and add it to your daily clicks. If you're hungry for campaign news behind the campaign news, this is the place to go.

Think petitions don't matter? Watch this...

This is proof positive that petitions really can make a difference. I'm glad the leadership of the Democratic Party woke up and realizing that Fox does not deserve equal billing with the rest of the news networks.

Fox is free to peddle its propaganda, but that doesn't obligate any Democrat to participate.

I've read plenty about Republicans' decrying the cancellation, but where were these same people when Bush and Cheney were calling a New York Times reporter a "major league asshole" (caught on camera) or when Cheney banished an NYT reporter from Air Force Two over the paper's coverage?

Fox is merely getting what it deserves. The "network" has already made sport out of trashing and smearing Democrats in this young campaign. Anyone remember the phony Barack Obama Madrassa story?

Bravo to MoveOn and to everyone who signed the petition. Let's hope that Howard Dean and the Democrats have used up their "stupid move" for the year.

Local DJ gets unjustly "Imus'd"

Imus, Imus, Imus - he's a black hole right now, from which there's no escape. Like a recovering addict, I've sworn off writing about him, but this week, in the aftermath of Imus' firing, the story took on an unexpected local angle.

I'm originally from the Poconos, so during and immediately following my high school years, I listened to 93.5 FM, WSBG. The station's most prominent DJ was Gary Smith (above), host of the Gary in the Morning program.

This past week, Smith was summarily fired following a skit Smith did on his radio show that was in poor taste, but more importantly, poorly timed.

On Monday morning, Smith decided to use "I'm a nappy-headed ho," as the station's Phrase that Pays, referencing what Imus said that resulted in him losing his radio and cable TV shows. The ninth person who called in and said it won some sort of prize.

A press release issued by the company that owns WSBG stated that Smith "used the phrase with full knowledge of the reaction to Don Imus' use of the exact same phrase just a day earlier, which is the reason he was terminated and not suspended."

Smith has a well-earned reputation of being a pillar in the community; he appears unpaid at many charity events, and he's entertained legions of fans during a 17-year career at the station, including me.

Smith should have been reprimanded for the dumb move, but not fired. There's plenty of differences between the Imus' needlessly making ridiculous remarks about the Rutgers University Women's basketball team, and repeating a statement as a joke when it's not directed at anyone.

I do see management's point - even repeating "nappy-headed ho," especially considering the national controversy, was ill-advised and downright foolish. But, should it cost a man, who is in otherwise good standing in the community, his livelihood? I'm not buying it.

You cannot even compare Imus to Smith. Imus has a checkered past that's rife with racial remarks that can be interpreted no other way than the guy's a racist. A few days ago, I blogged about a New York Times piece by Bob Herbert. In it, Herbert discusses a transcript from a 60 Minutes piece on Imus from about 10 years ago, during which it was confirmed that he regularly uses the "N-Word."

Smith doesn't have that past.

The bottom line here is that we have our next Janet Jackson Moment, sort of.

I'm for free speech, with certain limitations. To the people who think Imus should not have been fired, I'd ask this - walk down the aisle of cubicles in corporate America, or say it on an NFL sideline, or even bagging french fries at McDonald's. You're getting fired, and you should be.

Imus is no different.

But, what happened to Gary Smith is absurd. A trumped up charge of racial intolerance. By all accounts, he didn't do it with malice or direct the statements toward anyone.

I'm not alone in my opinion, either. There's online petition to bring Smith back to the airwaves. I signed it, and so far 600 other people have as well.

Radio personalities around the nation expressed similar outrage that Smith, under these circumstances, would be fired. Howard Stern said that he plans to offer Smith a job. Who knows? Maybe getting fired will be one of the best things to happen to Smith, if he ends up on Sirius.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

"I-Man" to "Cry-Man": CBS pulls the plug

CBS did what most expected they would do today when they fired long-time announcer Don Imus.

In the end, I believe the decision was based on three things, in this order:

First, major corporate sponsors started to walk away from the show, including GM, American Express Sprint Nextel, Staples, and Procter & Gamble, who all announced they were suspending their ads on the show indefinitely.

Secondly, major guests started to walk away from the show, too; yesterday Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham said the magazine's staffers were banned from appearing on the program. Some notable guests from the magazine have included Meacham, Jonathan Alter, Evan Thomas, Howard Fineman and Michael Isikoff.

Lastly, the ferocity of the protests, along with protests to come, played a part in the decision, no question, and most likely sped up the first two developments. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton met today with CBS President and CEO Leslie Moonves. The two let Moonves know that a major protest was planned for this weekend outside of CBS Headquarters in New York.

In an AP story, Moonves was quoted as saying, "There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society. That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision."

What a crock. If CBS felt that way, they would have fired him right from jump, but they didn't - they suspended him. Money drove CBS through the morality car wash during the last few days. Only when sponsors began walking away did CBS show Imus the gate.

The New York Times played more than a minor role in Imus' firing as well. Today in an editorial, Bob Herbert cites a 60 Minutes transcript from an interview for the news show that aired in July 1998:

In a 60 Minutes interview with Don Imus broadcast in July 1998, Mike Wallace said of the Imus in the Morning program, "It's dirty and sometimes racist."

Mr. Imus then said: "Give me an example. Give me one example of one racist incident." To which Mr. Wallace replied, "You told Tom Anderson, the producer, in your car, coming home, that Bernard McGuirk is there to do nigger jokes."

Mr. Imus said, "Well, I’ve nev — I never use that word."

Mr. Wallace then turned to Mr. Anderson, his producer. "Tom," he said.

"I'm right here," said Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Imus then said to Mr. Anderson, "Did I use that word?"

Mr. Anderson said, "I recall you using that word."

"Oh, O.K.," said Mr. Imus. "Well, then I used that word. But I mean — of course, that was an off-the-record conversation. But ——"

"The hell it was," said Mr. Wallace.

The transcript was pure poison. A source very close to Don Imus told me last night, "They did not want to wait for your piece to come out."

Scoop, there it is.

Nice reporting, Mr. Herbert.

However, Herbert isn't the only one with an Imus story to tell.

Howard Stern, a bitter enemy of Imus', has been saying for years that on one occasion while the two worked together at NBC Radio, Imus called an African-American secretary the n-word, to her face (an allegation Stern repeated this morning on his show).

I've been listening to Howard for years, but I've never heard him use any of the words Imus has used to describe African-Americans. Howard is edgy, obnoxious and vulgar - that's not in dispute. But, I've never, EVER heard him refer a group of people in a racially hateful way. The first time I hear that, I'm tunin' out.

Actually, I take that back - I did hear him do a joke about the Holocaust once, in my younger days. It so incensed me I didn't listen to him for a year. (I think Howard thinks he has immunity and cover to do jokes about the Holocaust because he's half Jewish. He doesn't, and wouldn't if both of his parents were Jewish.) I did come back, but the more I think about it, I wouldn't forgive this time. I'd like to think I'm wiser and less tolerant of intolerance with age. I think Stern's learned his lesson, though, before the Imus firing, and now, as a refresher course of sorts.

If Imus' dismissal cleans up Howard some, that certainly wouldn't be a bad thing. But, I've listened to Stern for years, and his show isn't even in the same ballpark as Imus' show, or that of hate-infested right-wing talk radio. He does humor, which often pushes boundaries, but not hate.

Anyway, I'm done writing about Imus - there are much more important developments happening right now in the Middle East. The death toll in Baghdad from the attack on the Iraqi Parliament building is up to eight, and will most likely go higher.

Lots to write about when I get home.

Fox smear 101: a montage of Obama love

I posted this some time ago, but it's worth posting again for a number of reasons:

1. Fox, specifically people like Sean Insanity, will do just about anything to try and make Barack Obama look bad. Wait, excuse me, it's Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Can these people possibly be any more childish? This is behavior fit for a playground.

2. This video is a reminder of what political activism can do. I'm not saying that Fox Attacks or any other one organization or event single-handedly caused the Democrats to pull out of the Nevada Democratic Primary Debate that was scheduled for this August, but Democrats signing petitions, sending e-mails, and voicing their extreme displeasure at the whole idea in the first place most certainly played a major role in the party's decision to cancel the event. The only question I have now is, what were the Democrats thinking in the first place?

In recent days, I've heard some argue that cancelling the even on Fox News deprives the Democratic candidates of a chance to reach out to a new audience of voters. There is some validity to that, I suppose, but I feel the overriding concern here is the network's continuing, systematic effort to paint Democrats in an overwhelmingly negative light. And I you think I'm serving up steaming b.s., watch the video clip above, again.

3. Since the bogus "Madrassa" story about Obama, the presidential candidate has shunned Fox News, and that's led some conservatives to decry the "censorship." That's pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Does anyone remember Dick Cheney kicking the New York Times off of his plane for a time when he didn't like the coverage he was getting? Most who criticize Obama's decision conveniently forget Cheney's activities.

Another example - anyone remember Cheney and President Bush caught on camera calling a reporter from the New York Times "a major league asshole"? I do.

Way back in 2000, during a September campaign appearance in Chicago (from Salon.com):

Then Bush spotted New York Times reporter Adam Clymer, who has been with the paper since 1977, serving as national political correspondent during the 1980 presidential race, as polling editor from 1983 to 1990 and as political editor during the successful presidential campaign of Bush's father in 1988.

"There's Adam Clymer -- major league asshole -- from the New York Times," Bush said.

"Yeah, big time," returned Cheney.

###

Yea, Democrats are the only ones who take steps against media coverage they don't like.

Right!

Clownin' on Coulter; Ducks in a barrel next

I'm really through with going off about Ann Coulter.

Okay, if you believe that, you'll also believe that I'm running for president in 2008. Please send money.

Seriously though, she's so far beyond even being worthy of hatred. I'm now convinced there's something very mentally wrong with her. (Some of you might think I'm a little slow on the uptake.)

Maybe Coulter and Britney should be sentenced to go away for a long, long time. I've got an idea - send them both to the South Pole to watch the glaciers melt. What's the difference? They're both going to be very, very lonely people when they get older anyway. And if they're not, it'll just be because they have money, or at least enough money to hoodwink some unlucky soul to spend any time with either one of them.

At any rate, my outrage at Coulter has achieved a sort of numbness. I'm actually now grateful for her, because she serves as an effective benchmark for the normal, sane people walking the planet.

For example - if there's someone out there who's a conservative, and maybe even a fringe conservative, a barometer of the craziness could go something like this:

"Yes, I know Conservative So-and-So is a little out there, but is he/she Ann Coulter crazy?"

Coulter's latest publicity stunt to make headlines sounds like something out of MTV's The Real World. Yesterday, at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Coulter called Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot."

"I was going to comment on John Edwards," she told conference attendees, "but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you say the word faggot."

What's more, only moments before her comments, she was introduced by presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Oops.

The only question now is, will she be marginalized by the right, and the candidates who have cozied up to her?

I seriously doubt it.

Her résumé of hate is long, sparkling and distinguished, if you're a fan of the hate mongering far right. Let's take a look at her checklist, shall we?

● Questioning the legitimacy of former Georgia Senator Max Cleland's war wounds while serving in Vietnam. (He lost three limbs)

● Accusing 9-11 widows of "enjoying their husband's deaths"

● Calling liberals "Godless" people "Who hate America"

● Questioning the legitimacy 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry's three purple hearts

● Accusing former President Bill Clinton of a whole host of crimes, for which he was never changed or convicted

● Stating that any country responsible for 9-11 should be bombed and their people converted to Christianity

● Saying this of the New York Times during an interview: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building"

● Saying anyone who doesn't "support the troops" "hates America"

● Calling 2008 Presidential Candidate John Edwards a "faggot"

I wonder what could be next?

What's more, I wonder what she could possibly say to make her irrelevant and ignored? Fat chance of that happening.

As long as there are young, horny neoconservative men who will vote for a Republican at any cost, Coulter will always have a ready-made audience who will snap up her books and fawn over her every word.

The only way you can affect someone like Coulter is to put your money where your mouth is and not buy her books. As long as she has an audience, she will continue to pimp this made for headlines hate to sell books and make money.

I thank God that my country has free speech, but Coulter is the downside to that free speech. I guess we have to live with tolerating the intolerance, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

As of 3 p.m. today, I haven't heard or read of any Republican presidential candidate condemning Coulter's remarks. We'll see how this one plays out.

UPDATE:
McCain, Romney and Giuliani have all condemned Coulter - I just read it in a story on the New York Times Website. However, nothing on AP's Website, and nothing from the New York Times in today's story about the CPAC conference. The Washington Post's story today about the CPAC conference buried any reference to Coulter's comment, putting it in paragraph seven, but the paper did not print the word "faggot." The Times only ran a story about Coulter's remark when McCain, Romney and Giuliani spoke out against her. By the way, the Post and Times are typically accused of being two of the most liberal papers in the country.

One final note ~ not one of the Republican candidates' Websites has any reference to Coulter whatsoever, so this is anything but a strong condemnation.

I read this on another blog this morning, and it about sums it up:

John Edwards and John Kerry stated the truth, that Mary Cheney is a lesbian (to
point out the GOP's
hypocrisy on gay marriage), and all hell breaks loose.

Coulter calls Edwards a
faggot...

[crickets]

McCain declares, Joe Biden style...

...with a major gaffe.

Last night, Judas John McCain appeared on David Letterman to basically announce that he is going to announce that he is running for president in 2008. No real surprise there.

What WAS a surprise is when he mentioned that "we've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure over there [in Iraq], which is American lives.

I wonder how the neocon talking head morons will spin this one? Michelle Malkin comes to mind first, considering her diatribe on Barack Obama after he made a similar remark last month.

Every candidate for president is going to have gaffes along the way, and Judas John is no exception. I'm not going to crucify him for that, but in the overall context of McCain's recent position changes is quite amazing. If it's not obvious to you that this man will say or do anything to be elected president, it soon will be. McCain switches positions more than Jenna Jameson.

Anyway, what irks me more than anything is the coverage that McCain's announcement on Letterman received the next morning. Some major media outlets didn't even mention McCain's gaffe in stories about his announcement. What's that all about?

The proof is in the pudding. I went to these Websites and read the stories firsthand. Take a read. Bear with me, I know there's a lot here, but it's worth reading...

From the March 1 edition of The New York Times:

In Newly Usual Way, McCain Says He’ll Run
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Senator John McCain of Arizona took the platform of a late-night talk show Wednesday and said he would formally announce his campaign for the presidency in early April. His remarks erased entirely whatever doubt could have existed about his ambitions for the Republican nomination.

"The last time we were on this program — I’m sure you remember everything very clearly that we say — but you asked me if I would come back on this show if I was going to announce," Mr. McCain told David Letterman. "I am announcing that I will be a candidate for president of the United States."

"Oh," Mr. Letterman replied with what seemed at least a glimmer of surprise.

Mr. McCain is known as something of a free spirit, and his aides suggested that his remarks to Mr. Letterman were, if formal-sounding, extemporaneous rather than a result of careful planning by his campaign. Nonetheless, aides said, his appearance clearly fit into the campaign’s effort to stir as much excitement and interest as possible in his plans — a point Mr. McCain himself made as he and Mr. Letterman bantered on.

"By the way, I’ll be making a formal announcement in April," Mr. McCain said. By way of explanation, he added: "This is the announcement preceding the formal announcement. You know you drag this out as long as you can. You don’t just have one rendition. You’ve got to do it over and over."

Acting a bit downcast, Mr. Letterman responded, "How do you think that makes me feel?"

The exchange was the latest example of how the customs of presidential campaigns are changing. Not all that long ago, an announcement was a defining moment in the evolution of candidates, in which they truly opened their campaigns. For 2008, on the other hand, candidates have been not only announcing but also pre-announcing on Web sites and various television shows and in random interviews.

In truth, Mr. McCain has been running for the White House for nearly two years and, ever since forming a presidential exploratory committee in November, has repeatedly told interviewers that there are no circumstances he can foresee in which he would not run.

He has assembled a full campaign staff, and his organization has been churning out nearly daily pronouncements of the latest political figure to endorse him. In Iowa two weeks ago, he talked at three events about what he would do as president. And he is going to the West Coast this weekend to raise money.

Mr. McCain’s aides said Wednesday that they would not disclose any details about the announcement tour until later, no doubt in anticipation of drawing yet another round of publicity. "Details on the formal announcement will be forthcoming," said Brian Jones, campaign spokesman.

From the March 1 edition of The Washington Post:

McCain Says He'll Seek Presidency, Plans to Make It Official in April

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 1, 2007; A01

Sen. John McCain of Arizona declared last night that he will join the 2008 race for the White House and will formally announce his candidacy in April.

McCain used an appearance on CBS's "Late Show With David Letterman" to say what has been clear for many months, erasing whatever doubts may have existed that he intends to battle for the Republican nomination, which eluded him in 2000.

"I am announcing that I will be a candidate for president of the United States," the former Navy pilot and Vietnam War prisoner told Letterman.

McCain's decision to use the program to declare his intentions followed a pattern increasingly common in this presidential contest, as candidates have used multi-step announcement schedules to garner maximum attention for their bids.

In this case, however, McCain, 70, may have additional motives for using the late-night comedian's show, as he tries to rekindle some of the spontaneity and unpredictability from his first campaign. He cast himself as an insurgent politician in 2000, but this time, weighed down by a supportive position on the Iraq war that is out of step with the public even as he methodically woos the GOP establishment, he has struggled to project the buoyant personality of his first effort.

McCain lost a bitter contest for the Republican nomination to George W. Bush in 2000. But he emerged as the early leader in the race for the 2008 GOP nod, in part because of his support for the president's leadership on the Iraq war but also because he has spent months courting Bush loyalists and the Republican establishment that had spurned him.

In recent months, however, his star has been eclipsed somewhat by that of former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who now leads McCain in many national and some state polls testing the Republican field. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday showed Giuliani leading McCain 44 percent to 21 percent. A month ago, Giuliani's advantage was much narrower, at 34 percent to 27 percent for McCain.

McCain advisers said the decision to declare that he will join the Republican race was not a direct result of concern that Giuliani has gained ground in the past two months but rather part of a long-planned strategy to make his intentions known around this time.

McCain is one of the leading congressional advocates for Bush's troop increase in Iraq, a position that has tied his presidential aspirations to progress in the conflict there. McCain has been highly critical of the administration's management of the war, describing what has taken place over the past few years as a "train wreck" and calling Donald H. Rumsfeld "one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."

In addition to McCain and Giuliani, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is seen as a potentially strong candidate for the GOP nomination. The McCain and Romney camps have been circling each other for months, attempting to corral activists and major fundraisers both nationally and in states with early contests next year.

Other Republicans already in the race or contemplating running include former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, former Wisconsin governor Tommy G. Thompson, former Virginia governor James Gilmore and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) may also join the race, although he appears likely to wait until at least late summer before deciding.

McCain was one of the first Republicans to establish a presidential exploratory committee, filing papers with the Federal Election Commission weeks after the GOP drubbing in the midterm elections last November. At that time, McCain also filed a statement of candidacy, in essence a declaration of his intentions to run.

He recently made his first trip to Iowa as a prospective candidate and made clear that he would run hard for the Republican nomination.

The 2000 race was hard-fought and highly negative. Bush entered as the dominant front-runner, while McCain, who had often parted company with the GOP, was seen as a dark horse.

McCain chose to skip the Iowa caucuses that year and concentrate on New Hampshire, where independents play a more significant role in the process. His maverick style and "Straight Talk Express" theme caught fire and he soundly defeated Bush in the nation's first primary.

That set up what turned into a nasty clash in South Carolina, where McCain was the subject of scurrilous attacks. His advisers blamed the Bush camp for the attacks, but Bush advisers said they were not responsible. Bush won the primary and McCain and his team emerged angry and bitter.

McCain would later find himself in conflict with religious conservatives after he delivered a speech sharply critical of the influence of Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson, among others, describing them as "agents of intolerance."

Those kinds of remarks have soured some conservatives on McCain as a potential party standard-bearer. Some doubt his commitment to social issues, despite a long record opposing abortion rights, and others believe he has not been a strong advocate for supply-side tax cuts, which have been at the heart of GOP economic philosophy since the administration of President Ronald Reagan.

Some Republicans who opposed McCain in the past have warmed to the prospect of his candidacy, in part because they see him as a potentially strong candidate. But those moves to court conservatives have cost some support among independent voters, and the issue of the war has further complicated McCain's ability to project himself as a nominee who could attract Democrats and left-leaning independents.

And finally, from The Los Angeles Times:

California titans join McCain's campaign team

Although the GOP senator hasn't officially joined the presidential race, he tells David Letterman he is in

By Dan Morain, Times Staff Writer
March 1, 2007

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) unveiled a presidential campaign finance committee Wednesday dominated by Californians and New Yorkers, including some of the biggest donors to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and President Bush.

McCain's 13 national finance committee co-chairmen include five Californians: Orange County billionaire Donald Bren; investor George Argyros; Univision Chairman A. Jerrold Perenchio; Cisco Systems Chief Executive John Chambers; and San Francisco venture capitalist J. Gary Shansby.

Altogether, McCain named 70 Californians, 68 of them men, to his finance team. They will be expected to raise $100,000 or more for the campaign.

"I'd be very disappointed if I didn't raise over $2 million," said Shansby, former chairman of Shaklee Corp., who helps run an investment fund.

The California list includes executives in the entertainment, investment, banking, telecommunications, real estate, gambling and alcohol industries, and current and retired politicians.

Other co-chairmen include New York Stock Exchange Chairman John A. Thain; JP Morgan Vice Chairman James B. Lee; New Jersey banker Lawrence E. Bathgate; GOP fundraiser Lewis M. Eisenberg of New York; and former New Jersey Rep. James A. Courter, chairman of the telecommunications firm IDT Corp.

Though McCain hasn't officially announced his candidacy, he said in a taping of the "Late Show With David Letterman" on Wednesday that he was running and would "announce" it in April.

The release of his finance committee is aimed at showing other candidates the depth of his support and convincing donors that he is the front-runner.

Perenchio is one of at least eight Californians on McCain's list identified as a Bush "pioneer," meaning he raised in excess of $100,000 for the president's campaigns.

Perenchio is Schwarzenegger's largest single donor, at $4.8 million. McCain also tapped Schwarzenegger's lead fundraiser, Marty Wilson, as part of his California
finance committee.

Argyros, Bush's first ambassador to Spain, has spent more than $960,000 on federal campaigns since 1997, including $200,000 on Bush's 2005 inaugural.

Chambers has given more than $1 million to federal campaigns since 1997, and his company has accounted for $1.6 million during the last four years.

Bren and his wife, Brigitte, have given $267,000 to federal campaigns since 2003. Bren's Irvine Co. has accounted for $250,000 to Schwarzenegger.

Shansby has been a relatively small federal donor in the last decade, giving $35,000, Federal Election Commission records show. But as managing director and chairman of TSG Consumer Partners, a San Francisco-based fund that invests in consumer products, he has the potential to raise significant sums.

Damn liberal media!

Absolutely absurd and inexcusable that three of the leading papers in the country would fail to report McCain's gaffe. And a deadline is no alibi here; there is plenty in each story on McCain about not only his announcement, but quotes from the "I'm announcing that I'll announce" candidate.

A special shout out has to go to Media Matters - an organization that does a fantastic job of monitoring stories just like these.

Great PBS piece on pre-war press "coverage"

Check out this piece from this week's edition of Frontline.

It seems like a world long, long ago when there wasn't a War in Iraq. Also, with 20/20 hindsight, it seems unfortunate, sad and an outrage that the press not only didn't do its job adequately, it scarcely did its job at all during the run up to war.

The next time you hear someone say (or maybe even you believe) that the New York Times is a liberal paper, think back to or even look up the stories that Judith Miller's penned leading up to the war. (The Times later ran a mea culpa of sorts, and while it didn't name Miller by name, most of the stories that editorial discussed were written or co-written by Miller.)

From my chair, the press has been out to lunch since September 11 until sometime last year, when it began to wake up to the fact that the War in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. It's about time that some leading media outlets are starting to play the role that The Fourth Estate was originally intended - that of governmental watchdog.

It's about time.

Even Bob Woodward, the stereotypical hungry reporter who was previously thought to not care where a story took him no matter what wrote two tomes early in the Bush Presidency that were nauseating suck-ups: Plan of Attack and Bush at War. At least he made up for it with State of Denial, Bush at War, Part III.

But, the coverage is changing.

Better late than never.

The New York Times lays it out

Good morning, all - I know this is hard to see, but just at first glance and judging from the colors, you get the idea on which way the political winds are blowing. To get a better view, click on the map and it will redirect you to an article on New York Times Website, where you can view the map in adequate resolution.

Well, the gist of it is that it's looking good for the Democrats, but I'm counting no chickens yet. But, the map is a good roundup of what to expect on Tuesday.

If you really are poll crazy and want to look at some races in your individual state, I'd recommend you go to http://www.electoral-vote.com/ (you can see the projected make-up of both Houses of Congress on the right of my blog). I went to this site every single day during the '04 campaign - it ended up being pretty damn close to what the actual election turned out to be, too. And it doesn't seem to have much of a slant, either - it uses polls for objective sources (or as close to objective as one can get, I suppose). What I mean by that is that it doesn't use polls from individual campaigns - it relies on the polling services like Zogby and many university polls.

Anyway, lots more to come today ~ I know I promised lots yesterday, but I got sidetracked in the late afternoon, then I came home and fell asleep early. But, Sunday is devoted to listening to Meet the Press, Face the Nation, many political podcasts, and writing! (Can anyone say information overload?!?) But, like I wrote here yesterday and like I told Vandra, this is like the Super Bowl of politics, except it only happens every two years, so it's a pretty big deal to me.

And, I'd argue it should be a pretty big deal to us all. Yes, yes, yes, I know, many think that politics doesn't affect them, or they are bored and/or sick of it all. In many respects, I'm a bit tired of it, too, but I'd counsel you to muddle through it, get to the polls and make an informed decision. I'm going to stop qualifying some of my remarks with "I don't mean to be preachy," because this is my blog, and I do mean to be preachy, I suppose. I just hope I'm not doing it in an obnoxious way, but sometimes I guess I am.

Well, I'll stop blabbering and get on with it. I have a great video I'm posting shortly - it gave me goosebumps the first time I watched it. Polls open here in Philadelphia in about 49.5 hours. It's about 5:30 a.m. here, and I'm wide awake after falling asleep early last night, so my fingers are dancin' on the keyboard as I down Dr. Peppers and come to life.

Hey GOP, can you smell what the donkey's cookin'?

Must-see movie #2: The U.S. vs. John Lennon. In theaters now.

Have to bring you one more trailer this morning. This is another must-see movie that I will write about soon.

Watching this trailer, there are too many paralells to count between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War: Nixon/Bush, Vietnam/Iraq, Silencing voices of dissent in the 60's/70s and now, Lennon/The Dixie Chicks, and I could go on and on.

Amazing that Nixon considered Lennon a threat and they even started deportation hearings on him. How American. I often wonder if the right would have forced our government to do the same against the Dixie Chicks, if only they were born in a foreign land.

This film would have been thought provoking regardless of release date, but it brings up a number of important contemporary issues apropos to the War in Iraq and the erosion of our personal freedoms, all in the name of protecting the country against terrorism.

The U.S. vs. John Lennon is proof of what people in power can do to silence voices of dissent in time of war. All Americans should see this movie, regardless of their opinions on Bush or the War in Iraq.

No one puts it better than The New York Times' Adam Cohen in a Sept. 21 editorial about Lennon titled, "Editorial Observer; While Nixon Campaigned, the F.B.I. Watched John Lennon." Take a quick read:

In December 1971, John Lennon sang at an Ann Arbor, Mich., concert calling for the release of a man who had been given 10 years in prison for possessing two marijuana cigarettes. The song he wrote for the occasion, ''John Sinclair,'' was remarkably effective. Within days, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered Mr. Sinclair released.

What Lennon did not know at the time was that there were F.B.I. informants in the audience taking notes on everything from the attendance (15,000) to the artistic merits of his new song. (''Lacking Lennon's usual standards,'' his F.B.I. file reports, and ''Yoko can't even remain on key.'') The government spied on Lennon for the next 12 months, and tried to have him deported to England.

This improbable surveillance campaign is the subject of a new documentary, ''The U.S. vs. John Lennon.'' The film makes two important points about domestic surveillance, one well-known, the other quite surprising. With the nation in the midst of a new domestic spying debate, the story is a cautionary tale.

It focuses on the late 1960's and early 1970's, when the former Beatle used his considerable fame and charisma to oppose the Vietnam War. Lennon attracted worldwide attention in 1969 when he and Yoko Ono married and held their much-publicized ''bed-ins'' in Amsterdam and Montreal, giving interviews about peace from under their honeymoon sheets. Lennon put to music a simple catch phrase -- ''All we are saying is give peace a chance'' -- and the antiwar movement had its anthem. Two years later, he released ''Imagine.''

The government responded with an extensive surveillance program. Lennon's F.B.I. files -- which are collected in the book ''Gimme Some Truth'' by Jon Wiener -- reveal that the bureau was monitoring everything from his appearance on ''The Mike Douglas Show'' to far more personal matters, like the whereabouts of Ono's daughter from a previous marriage.

The F.B.I.'s surveillance of Lennon is a reminder of how easily domestic spying can become unmoored from any legitimate law enforcement purpose. What is more surprising, and ultimately more unsettling, is the degree to which the surveillance turns out to have been intertwined with electoral politics. At the time of the John Sinclair rally, there was talk that Lennon would join a national concert tour aimed at encouraging young people to get involved in politics -- and at defeating President Nixon, who was running for re-election. There were plans to end the tour with a huge rally at the Republican National Convention.

The F.B.I.'s timing is noteworthy. Lennon had been involved in high-profile antiwar activities going back to 1969, but the bureau did not formally open its investigation until January 1972 -- the year of Nixon's re-election campaign. In March, just as the presidential campaign was heating up, the Immigration and Naturalization Service refused to renew Lennon's visa, and began deportation proceedings. Nixon was re-elected in November, and a month later, the F.B.I. closed its investigation.

If Lennon was considering actively opposing Nixon's re-election, the spying and the threat of deportation had their intended effect. In May, he announced that he would not be part of any protest activities at the Republican National Convention, and he did not actively participate in the presidential campaign.

After revelations about the many domestic spying abuses of the 1960's and 1970's -- including the wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr. -- new restrictions were put in place. But these protections are being eroded today, with the president's claim of sweeping new authority to pursue the war on terror.

Critics of today's domestic surveillance object largely on privacy grounds. They have focused far less on how easily government surveillance can become an instrument for the people in power to try to hold on to power. ''The U.S. vs. John Lennon'' would be a sobering film at any time, but it is particularly so right now. It is the story not only of one man being harassed, but of a democracy being undermined.

###

Well said, Mr. Cohen.

I'll review this movie soon as well.

Next must-see movie - The War Tapes

This one is going to be one helluva ride. The War Tapes is a movie about five soldiers from a New Hampshire National Guard unit - C Company, 3rd of the 172nd Mountain Infantry - who taped their experiences in Iraq. To be up front, it's not a political movie, so far as I can see.

I listened to a Podcast interview the other day with the director of the movie, Deborah Scranton, and she had this to say:

"I wanted to really get to as close to the experience of war as possible; to climb inside and feel it all around," said Scranton. "The comments that we're getting is that the level of authenticity has never before been seen."

Scranton maintains that it's not a political documentary/movie - there are some political beliefs in the film spoken by some of the soldiers, but the movie is not made from the persepective of being pro-war or anti-war. That's Scranton's position, but viewers will have to decide.

However, Staff Sergeant Zack Bazzi, one of the soldiers who shot footage for the documentary, agrees with her on that count, saying, "I think she has succeeded in making a non-political film about the war."

Bazzi had some pretty powerful things to say about the movie and the war in this same Podcast.

"I do believe that Americans should know what war is like," said Bazzi. "I don't care if you are for the war or against the war. The fact is, you can't take a position on something you do not understand. And if that [the footage] happens to be gruesome, tough luck. [The war] is being done in your name as a country. I think it's a moral and political responsibility to [see the effects of war]."

I have no way in knowing, but it's my guess that most Americans have no idea about the cost of this war. Maybe in financial terms, yes (and it's quickly running into the hundreds of billions of dollars). But, in terms of death, mayhem and destruction, both on U.S. soldiers and the citizens of Iraq, no.

Many on the right paint dissenters about the war as unpatriotic, un-American or "sympathisizing with the terrorists." I have nothing but a giant fuck you for people of this ilk, but also something slightly more intelligent to say: You don't understand America.

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"?

Often when I criticize Bush, (and that's often) especially in the presence of right-wingers, I get this doozy - "If you don't like America, leave!" So, that's what we've come to? A half-baked witticism (and that's being kind) when you hear a political belief you don't happen to agree with? Now, people should leave the country if they disagree? Puleeze. My own half-baked response to those people? If you love Bush's war so much, what are you still doing here? Shut up and ship out.

Anyway, I think this is an important film, and I'm not alone. Here's a few quotes from the movie's Web site:

"Riveting! Compelling!... Gives a stronger taste of the Iraq war experience than any film I can remember."- Stephen Holden, The New York Times

“The first indispensable Iraq documentary.”- Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly

"Remarkable. Very moving. Very real."- Mark Bowden, author of Black Hawk Down

"The single best document (book, film or article) you could see" on the war in Iraq - John Fisher Burns, the New York Times' Baghdad bureau chief and two-time Pulitzer Prize winning foreign correspondent

##

Not bad words, coming from the author of Black Hawk Down and the New York Times' Baghdad bureau chief.

This movie is a must see. As usual about movies I write about here, I'll review it when I see it.

The War Tapes opens August 9th.

Bill O'Lielly earns his nickname... for the 1,244,956th time

Aaaah - Bill and Ann. I just can't get enough, I know. They're such idiots, it's just too fun. Hey, I'm not called a political junkie for nothing.

Anyway, this just in - again. Bill O'Reilly is a liar who will say just about anything to his audience, truth be damned. I've come to the obvious conclusion, along with, oh, probably about 100 million other people - that the man HAS to know some of the shit that comes out of his mouth just isn't true.

For example, according to Media Matters, on his August 1 broadcast of The Radio Factor, O'Leilly falsely claimed for at least the third time in recent weeks that The New York Times has "sat ... out editorially" the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

As Media Matters for America notes, O'Leilly claimed on the July 19 edition of his TV show, The O'Leilly Factor, that the Times editorial board was "sitting ... out" the conflict, because in his estimation, "[m]any American Jews are liberal," and "the Times cannot afford to alienate its liberal base." In fact, by then, the Times had published three editorials commenting on the conflict.

On the July 24 Radio Factor, O'Leilly apparently modified his claim, stating that the Times was "basically sitting ... out" [emphasis added] the issue, dismissing the paper's July 18 editorial on the conflict, summarized below, as "just garbage." O'Leilly then reverted to his claim that the Times was "absolutely sitting it out editorially" during that evening's O'Leilly Factor. From the time O'Leilly made the initial claim until the most recent instance on August 1, again, according to Media Matters, the Times published four more editorials on the conflict, bringing the total number to seven.

Well, one thing is clear. If O'Leilly maintains this pace of lying, he will outpace the number of times the Times DOES actually comment on the Mideast crisis, but he still has some catching up to do. Get going, Billie.

Meet the 21st century's biggest non-nuclear threat

Recently, much has come to light about global warming, and just about none of it is good news. This growing problem and concern should be on every American’s mind, now and into the foreseeable future. I know that isn’t going to happen, but I hope and pray that our next president, no matter Democrat, or heaven forbid, Republican, makes this important issue a top administration priority, because our current president’s indifference is sending this horrible message to the rest of the world: “We’ve got bigger things to worry about.” The good news in all of this is that the latest scientific data should jolt even the most hearty of global warming deniers out of their smog-induced drowsiness.

New evidence strongly suggests that much of what dozens of government agencies report about on science is edited with a heavy hand at the White House, according to Rick Pilts, NASA’s top scientist on climate change. Recently, Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes interviewed Pilts about climate change, and what he had to say was highly disturbing.

His thoughts? “The strategy of people with a political agenda to avoid this issue is to say ‘There’s so much to study way upstream here that we can’t even begin to discuss impacts and response strategies. There’s much too much uncertainty,’” said Pilts. “And, it’s not climate scientists who are saying that. It’s lawyers. It’s politicians.”

Pilts, much like the much-maligned Richard Clarke (the former anti-terrorism chief – more on him in a future post), has worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations; he worked under President Clinton as well as current President George W. Bush. Every year, he wrote a report on climate change called, “Our Changing Planet.” He was responsible for writing and editing this report, and he sent a review draft to the White House. “It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy, by the chief of staff of the council on environmental quality, Phil Cooney.” When asked if Cooney is a scientist, Pilts responded, “No, he is a lawyer, he was an environmental lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute before going into the White House.”

This is unsettling, to say the least, but hardly surprising considering this administration’s environmental record. The 60 Minutes report offered up hard evidence – first Pilts’ notes, then the final copy of the report. Take a look at these examples:

One line in the Pilts draft that read, “Earth is undergoing rapid change” was rewritten as “Earth may be undergoing change” in the final report.

Further down, “uncertainty” becomes “significant remaining uncertainty.”

Another line that said, “energy production contributes to warming,” was crossed out altogether.

“He was obviously passing it through a political screen. He would put in words ‘potential’ or ‘may,’ or weaken or delete text that had to do with the likely consequences of climate change,” said Pilts.

In one section, Cooney added the line, “The uncertainties remain so great as to preclude meaningfully informed decision making.”

60 Minutes obtained the final report, and Cooney’s edits made it into the final report. Pilts, clearly seeing that there was no room at the White House for people who disagree with the administration, resigned. Sound Richard Clark-ish to you? Sure does to me.

Wow, I feel so much better about global warming knowing that our president has former lobbyists who share values with oil companies making edits on climate change reports to Congress. Clearly this administration has its collective head in the smog when it comes to global warming.

More damning evidence that the administration doesn’t acknowledge/doesn’t care about global warming: In a Web exclusive I just watched the other day, 60 Minutes' Pelley had this to say about global warming, and I’m paraphrasing here:

Dr. James Hansen heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which is the agency’s preeminent institute for studying the Earth and the Earth’s climate. Way back in the 1980s, Hansen was one of the first scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases were causing the Earth to warm. Since then, his research has been cutting edge in a number of ways. A few weeks ago, the Goddard Institute found that 2005 was the hottest year on record. The White House continues to say that we need more time, that there is so much we don’t understand, that we can’t conclude anything just yet. Hansen says the research and the data are in, and that there is no doubt that the Earth is warming, rapidly.

*****

When I hear and read things like that, I can’t help thinking our planet is sitting on the stove, the burner’s on high, and the water is starting to do more than simmer. So, just what is America doing about it? Our politicians stall and debate, while Earth cooks. What the hell are we waiting for? What’s even more sickening to me, and I’m sure to a significant portion of the rest of the world, is that the United States has about 5% of the Earth’s population, and we contribute anywhere (depending on where you are getting your numbers) from 25 – 33% of the Earth’s greenhouse gases. Stevie Wonder could see the disparity with those figures.

To be fair, Pelley also reports that the administration is spending billions on research on climate change, probably more than any other administration. That’s encouraging, but what this administration is not doing is acknowledging the fact that much hard, credible evidence is conclusive now, and the time to act is yesterday. In my view, what Bush is doing is simply postponing (Read: Until January 20, 2009) the necessary tough choices that will affect industry, jobs and the lifestyle that Americans are accustomed to.

Republican sycophants are quick to jump up and down and say, “But Bush recently proposed alternative fuel sources, like ethanol and hydrogen cells!” Yes, but simply putting forth these ideas, and actually offering real and tangible incentives for companies to aggressively pursue these technologies are two different things. It’s a typical Bush strategy that I’ve become all too familiar with these past 5+ years – he puts forth an idea or suggests something, then later shrugs his shoulders and says, with a straight face that Congress isn’t doing anything about it. He counts on and usually is rewarded by the public’s two-week memory span. He then later substitutes his “idea” for “doing something about the problem.”

Remember Bush’s proposal a few years ago for the U.S. to have a manned mission to Mars? It’s a lofty and admirable goal for Americans to achieve. Too bad he didn’t have one suggestion or solution to how we would pay for the $100+ billion price tag. His proposal was greeted with so much enthusiasm, he failed to mention one word about his Mars mission proposal in his State of the Union speech just days later.

Time recently ran an entire series on global warming in the April 3, 2006 issue. The report contained a number of eye-popping statistics, not the least of which is this passage:

If everyone lived like the average Chinese or Indian, you wouldn’t be reading about global warming. On a per capita basis, China and India emit far less greenhouse gas than energy-efficient Japan, environmentally scrupulous Sweden and especially the gas-guzzling U.S. (The average American is responsible for 20 times as much CO2 emission annually as the average Indian.)

It makes me shake my head in amazement that other countries don’t resent us more than they do. It’s pretty breathtaking that we aren’t taking a leadership role in the world in curbing greenhouse gases, thereby cutting down on what could be humankind’s biggest scourge since the dawn of the nuclear age.

To be fair, the Clinton Administration deserves blame here, too. Following Kyoto’s creation in 1998, Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors did a thorough analysis of the potential impact of the treaty on U.S. GDP. The conclusions were that GDP impact could be significant. I ask you, if sea levels rise 5 feet, 10 feet or more, what impact will that have not only on U.S. GDP, but all Americans and humankind?

Although Clinton deserves some blame, President Bush earns marks that are no better on global warming. In fact, his record is substantially worse. For beginners, his thoughts on Kyoto, as found on Wikipedia:

“This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto. . . . America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. …Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.”

So, Kyoto is seemingly dead – Clinton did not and Bush will never present Kyoto for ratification in the Senate. I’m not an expert on Kyoto, and of course an environmental treaty as far reaching as this one deserves careful consideration.

But, the U.S. should be showing much more leadership on global warming. Perhaps we could come up with our own alternative, or at least work on our own to drastically cut greenhouse gases? Bush simply throws his hands in the air, says the treaty is flawed, and then proceeds to pretty much ignore this growing threat.

Prior to the 2000 election, candidate Bush ran on a promise to make mandatory cuts in carbon dioxide (greenhouse) gases. After taking office, Bush proposed voluntary emission cutbacks by companies. This is akin to telling a drug addict, “I think you should stop, so I’m asking you to cut back on your crack cocaine use, but I’m not going to make you.” Yea, right.

The scary part about our lack of leadership on global warming is its effect on the two sleeping, but quickly awakening, economic tigers in the world – India and China. To be blunt, without even factoring in the U.S. contribution to greenhouses this century, China and India could quite literally hold the fate of the world in their hands. Ask yourself – how worried should they be about their emissions when the U.S. continues to stall and even deny that there is a real problem?

Put yourself in the positions of both India and China and consider the problem from their perspectives: The United States has been burning and belching fossil fuels into the atmosphere since the mid-to-late nineteenth century, while in the process getting rich and forming the world’s largest and most expansive economy. We’ve profited, polluted and pilfered. Fast-forward to now – it’s very obvious to just about everyone that the Earth is warming at a rapid rate, the bill for the environment is due, and we’re walking out on the check. Why should China or India have their economies stymied in the name of environmental recovery when we refuse to even adequately address the problem?

A few startling facts from Time’s report:

“Barbara Finamore, director of the National Resources Defense Council’s China Clean Energy Program, estimates that China’s total electricity demand will increase by 2,600 gigawatts by 2050, which is the equivalent of adding four 300-megawatt power plants every week for the next 45 years. India’s energy consumption rose 208% from 1980 to 2001, even faster than China’s, but nearly half the population still lacks regular access to electricity – a fact the government is working to change. ‘They’ll do what they can, but overall emissions are likely to rise much higher than they are now,’ says Johnathan Sinton, China analyst for IEA [International Energy Agency].”

Time also reports that “India’s greenhouse-gas emissions could rise 70% by 2025, and the increase in China’s emissions from 2000 to 2030 will nearly equal the increase from the entire industrialized world.” Frightened yet? You should be. This will not only affect our children, but their children, and their children, and their children. This is a planet-threatening problem, yet few people seem to take notice. But, the Indian and Chinese governments are taking notice at U.S. inaction. To wit, also from Time:

“‘Our issue is that, first and foremost, the U.S. needs to reduce its emissions,’ says Sunita Narain, director of the Center for Science and Environment in New Delhi. ‘It is unacceptable and immoral that the U.S. doesn’t take the lead on climate change.’”

It’s tough to disagree with him. Bush’s position is that developing nations should be made to curb their emissions. True, but we had no restraints when we were developing and experiencing an industrial revolution, so why should other countries? True, our industry boom was before anyone realized the drastic effects on the environment, but it’s not a stretch to see our government’s hypocrisy. We need to take the lead, and take it now. Discovering not only alternatives to fossil fuel, but also ways to reverse global warming is a much bigger undertaking than flying to the moon, curing Polio, and inventing nuclear weapons put together. In fact, it’s a much bigger undertaking than all of humankind’s inventions in history put together. No one on the plant is immune to global warming’s effects.

Frustrated at our government’s inaction? Turn your frustration into determination. Here’s a small list of things you can do to make a difference, and don’t say to yourself, “I’m just one person, what kind of difference can I possibly make?” Imagine if Jonas Salk felt that way, or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. At the risk of sounding like a desk calendar, a 1,000-mile journey begins with one step. So, take these steps to limit your contribution to energy consumption, trash and pollution. Conserving water, waste, electricity or any natural resource has an impact on the manufacture of goods and environmental impact. Here’s a quick list of things I’m doing/trying to do as much as possible.

1. Grocery store plastic bags – reuse the ones you do get, and refuse a bag when you don’t need it. I know this sounds like a simple one, but these bags are made from petroleum, if I’m not mistaken, and think of how long they will sit in a landfill. Most grocery stores give you a few cents per bag with each shopping visit, so you can save dozens and even hundreds of bags a year simply by bringing in old ones. Ever go into a convenience store and they offer you a bag when you buy as little as a pack of gum? I experience this all the time, and I refuse a bag every time. If I absolutely need a bag, I reuse it. I read somewhere that the average person uses 250 of these bags a year. Imagine if you reused the ones you already have, while using maybe 50 new ones a year and you reuse them! It would make a big difference. Now, multiply that difference by millions of people, and hundreds of millions of bags could be saved a year.

2. Turn off those lights and lower/raise your thermostats for the season. I know, I know, easier said than done, but even a few degrees makes a difference. I’m not talking about when it’s 100 or 10 degrees outside, but in the moderate spring and fall seasons, wear a t-shirt to cool off or a sweater to warm up. Every bit helps. Also, consider energy-saving bulbs. Yes, they are a bit more expensive, but they last up to 5 times longer (some more) and use a fraction of the energy. Another energy saver: turn off your computer monitor. If you have to leave your computer up and running, use the energy saver mode, and turn off your monitor when you walk away.

3. Walk! I know, again, easier said than done, since I live in the city. But, do it whenever you can, or ride a bike. With gas skyrocketing (and we may never see, no I take that back, we will NEVER see $2 a gallon again), it makes all the sense in the world to hit the pavement when you can. It becomes surprisingly addictive once you get started. And I don’t need to talk about the benefits of walking – more exercise, savings in automobile costs, weight loss, etc.

4. When you buy your next car, pick one that is fuel-efficient. Hybrids are becoming all the rage. If I were buying a new car right now, it would be a Toyota Prius. Good looking, and amazing on gas. Better yet, take mass transit when you can. Coming to the city? Why not take the train? A word of caution about the “hybrid” label though – read the fine print. Like “organic” and other buzzwords, it’s often abused for the positive PR effect. Make sure if you are buying a hybrid, you truly are getting a hybrid with the benefit of significant fuel savings.

5. Purchase from companies who are being good corporate citizens in environmental ways – be it recycling, pollution, emissions, philanthropy, whatever. Hey, even Wal-Mart is becoming a bit greener now, and if that company can do it, just about any company can. It pays to do your homework.

6. Recycle. It’s so obvious, but it’s one of the best things you can do to prevent/reduce the manufacturing of new bottles, bags, cans, glass, paper, etc. On Earth, nothing happens in a vacuum. If more paper is recycled, in theory that reduces the number of trees felled to produce the paper… more trees means more absorption of carbon dioxide… which means a cooler Earth… etc. And once you think about it, there are sooo many things that can be recycled; mobile phones – take them to your nearest Verizon store, and they get refurbished and donated to Hopeline, an org. that gives mobile phones to victims of domestic violence; ink cartridges – take them to Staples and get $3 off of your next purchase (it doesn’t even have to be the purchase of another ink cartridge), etc. You get the idea – from computer monitors, old tires, appliances and clothing – chances are, most things have a way to be recycled or reused.

7. Get politically active and demand that global warming become an important issue in campaigns both big and small. The best way for politicians to hear your voice is with your vote. When elected leaders see that the electorate is taking the matter seriously, they will take it seriously. You can be heard not only by who you vote for, but by writing letters advocating recycling (or more of it) in your area, supporting mass transit, etc. Sitting around and complaining about it does nothing. I fell in love with a bumper sticker I saw the other day – “Quit Bitching and Start a Revolution.” Exactly right.

8. Join one or several of the many organizations dedicated to preserving and saving our environment. The list is endless. One site I found that I’m taking an interest in is Our Energy. It’s worth a look, but there are many others – Greenpeace and the Sierra Club to name a few. I just joined both – I want to put my beliefs into action. If you find more sites and/or organizations or have recommendations, please leave a comment at the end of this post and I will pass it along. And of course I will be writing more about global warming in future posts.

These are just a few of the things you can do, and it really does become addicting and gratifying once you start to find all of the little ways you can make a difference. Plus, it can be a real money saver to boot. Americans need to wake up and realize that we are having a significant impact on the environment, but if we all work together, we can help cool down global warming. Let’s lead by example and show the rest of the world how it’s done – most notably, China and India.