CNN points out McCain's oil flip-flop

This one is sweeter than light-sweet crude oil - CNN's Dana Bash pointing out John McCain's 180-degree reversal about drilling for oil off our coasts.

When I first saw this footage, I uttered out loud, "Wow." Finally, the press is starting to dig into McCain's many contradictions. His reversal on Big Oil exploration on our coasts is one example; his reversal on the Bush tax cuts is another. It's no surprise that running for president can go pretty far in modifying one's views, and McCain embodies that, to a T.

This all but signals an end (as Blitzer notes) of McSame's chances in The Golden State, and it will no doubt hurt his chances in Florida, too. Just how much remains to be seen, but there's no doubt that it will have an effect.

Hey, there's 138 days until the election, and that's plenty of time for McCain to reverse his opinion yet again, so stay tuned.

The bottom line is that oil is so 20th century - if that's McCain's solution to our energy problems, that Obama should take full advantage of McCain's myopia and use it as a political cudgel to do lots of damage.

But, Obama needs more than simply rhetoric on this issue - he needs a bold alternative energy plan. I think I'll write his campaign later today to urge him on.

One final note about this piece - McCain seems to have a Jimmy Carter fetish lately, which is beyond lame. Last week, in response to Obama calling a McCain victory a "third Bush term," McCain said it sounded as if Obama is "running for Jimmy Carter's second term." And Republicans wonder why McCain doesn't connect with younger voters, many of whom weren't even alive when Jimmy Carter left office in January 1981. Sure McSame, keep putting Carter down - it sounds so... so... contemporary.

Also, history shows that Carter was a leading proponent of energy conservation, even going so far as to install solar panels on the roof of the White House. He also gave a very famous speech in 1979 about the energy crisis in this country, which could be given again today almost verbatim, and it would still be applicable. (Please stick with the video below - I know the audio is bad, but it's only about a minute long - turn up your volume) ...

A pretty sage prophesy, at it turned out. Would Carter have really turned America around and got us off of our foreign oil addiction? We'll never know, but he at least addressed the issue. He never had a chance to carry out his plans, as he was defeated in the fall of 1980, but at least he discussed the issue, which is more than his successor Ronald Reagan did during his eight years in the White House. In fact, almost immediately after moving into the White House, Reagan had the solar panels removed from the building's rooftop.

I'm not naïve enough to believe that Congressional Democrats, along with President Clinton, deserve some of the blame about the energy crisis we are mired in. They certainly do share in the blame. But, the fact is that for 20 our of the last 28 years, a Republican has sat in the White House, and all three of those presidents have offered zero leadership on the issue of alternative energy technologies, including President George W. Bush.

Where am I going with this? McCain wants to drill more, threaten our coasts, and line the pockets of Big Oil. This is NOT the answer to our energy crisis.

I hope Obama comes up with a far and wide-reaching plan for combating this energy crisis, a crisis that will not go away, no matter how much we want it to. This crisis threatens our economy, our way of life, and our country's prosperity (or should I say prosperity in memory, because God only knows we haven't had much recently).

Get going, Barack - merely criticizing McCain's absurd proposals is not nearly enough - we need to hear what your aggressive, bold and sustainable solutions are to our addiction to foreign oil.

Oh, and way to go, CNN. Recently, I haven't had much reason to type that, but pointing out McCain's inconsistencies (to be kind) regarding energy policy is a start to what the network ought to be doing from now until the election.

Hell, I wish CNN would go more liberal. They've been called it for years, so they might as well live up to it now and act as a counter-balance to the detestable Fox "News."

Update: McCain doesn't even know his own energy policy. From his press conference yesterday:

QUESTION: The European Union has set mandatory targets on renewable energy. Is that something you would consider in a McCain administration? [...]

McCAIN: Sure. I believe in the cap-and-trade system, as you know. I would not at this time make those — impose a mandatory cap at this time. But I do believe that we have to establish targets for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions over time, and I think those can be met.

Oops. Crooks & Liars has the rest:

As Kate Sheppard explained, McCain new position is "completely out of line with his own proposal for a cap-and-trade scheme, both the plan he proposed with Joe Lieberman last year and his own presidential plan, released last month. They both would, by nature, be mandatory — hence the 'cap' in the name."

In other words, McCain doesn't understand his own policy. Or, as hilzoy noted, "The best you can say for McCain, on this point, is that he is completely unfamiliar with what is supposed to be one of his signature issues. Not knowing what 'mandatory cap' means, in this context, is like not knowing what a 'strike' is in baseball."

I love it.

McCain needs to take a long look in the mirror & be honest with himself, which would go something like this: "Well, my friends, it looks like I need to go back and study my proposals, which have been released on the Internet, before I go make an ass out of myself again."

:o)

Fred Thompson cuts a, ahem, "commercial"

This one kinda says it all about Fred Thompson - a look into his past, especially his record as a lobbyist, should not hold up to scrutiny, but whether it will or not depends on whether there is any sort of scrutiny in the first place.

Kind of like Rudy Giuliani, and how his stupid, often idiotic decisions surrounding 9-11 get pathetically little scrutiny.

Many are calling Fred Thompson the "New Ronald Reagan." Greeeeeat - that's just what we need - let's put a man in charge of the very government he dislikes and who thinks government is the problem. No, it's anti-government people like Reagan and Thompson who are the problem. Why would anyone ever think it's a good idea to put someone in charge of something he despises? I never understood that.

I found this cartoon last week about Reagan that brought back all of those unpleasant memories of him, as well as the Reagan wanna-bes in the GOP field [Click the image for a larger view]. ...

Strange Mitt Romney ad

This is one odd political ad - one of the strangest I've seen so far in this young presidential campaign. As PoliticsTV sagely points out, is this Mitt Romney ad "an ad for a candidate, the environment, or E.D. treatment?"

I can't add anything pithier than that. The Peggy Noonan reference is rather odd, too. Like all of the GOP candidates running for president, Romney has a fetish for President Reagan. Noonan was a favorite speechwriter of Reagan's, and Romney's quoting her passage in this ad is just weird:

Following the Columbine shootings, Peggy Noonan described the world as 'the ocean in which our children now swim.' She described a cesspool of violence and sex and indolence and perversions. She said the boys who had done the shootings had 'inhaled too deeply in the oceans in which they swam.'

The only people who did any inhaling were the people who thought those lines should be included in this ad, and maybe even Noonan herself. I love analogies and use them on a daily basis to get my points across, but Noonan was trying waaay too hard with that one. She's done better. And for Romney's sake, I hope his political people do better than this. It's just plain funny.

Yesterday - Quite a day in history

Some dates just stick in your mind, I don't know why, but they just do. Today is one of those for me - June 12.

On this date in 1987, exactly 20 years ago, President Reagan said the Fox News Channel's national anthem for the first time at the Brandenburg Gate in West Germany: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" (Above)

I can't believe it's been 20 years.

It's Reagan's most replayed speech, and there's no question it made a difference in the Cold War. Just how much of a difference is what's in dispute. For all of Reagan's warts, his most notable achievement was helping win the Cold War. Where I part with Reagan sycophants is not believing that he single-handedly won it all by himself. If you think I'm exaggerating, listen to the GOP presidential candidates fawn all over Reagan. You'd think the man never did any wrong, but I digress.

Also yesterday, apropos of nothing, marked 20 years to the day that I began an ill-advised career with Shoprite Supermarkets, at the tender age of 15. Thank God I smartened up - after nearly eight years, five of them full-time, I decided I didn't want to put yogurt and frozen pizza on shelves for the next 30 years. Two degrees later, here I am. By the way, the chain's old-school logo (left) is much nicer than its new one - (below right).

To this day, I carry with me several things from my time in the business - an intense dislike of going to the supermarket; pain in my knees from being in the cold, since most of my time was in the dairy and frozen departments; and an appreciation for the career I have now. After getting my first of two degrees, I vowed that I would never take a Monday through Friday job for granted, and I never have.

Weirdly enough, I still shop at Shoprite - I guess out of a strange loyalty to the place. Hey, I'm familiar with the place, and it really does have the best selection and prices. Plus, I know logistics - their annual Can-Can sale is Can't-Can't for me - I hate the mob. Okay, full disclosure - I do go stock up, but not too much, because we don't have much room in our condo, and I go early in the morning when time permits to avoid the crowds.

I know the chairman of the board of Wakefern Food Corporation, the distribution arm of Shoprite, too - I need to write him and ask him to change the Muzak station the stores use. Even though I last worked for the chain 12 years ago, it's the same songs, and I get sick of them all over again.

I now never go into a Shoprite without my iPod.

As predicted: anti-Gore coalition gears up

Well, it didn't take long. I despise Matt Drudge, but I drop by his Website daily to see how the right-wing shill is spinning the news according to RNC standards. This morning, as I was making my morning rounds on the Internet, this was the headline on Drudge's site. Of course, it's an oversimplification of what Gore really means. The headline on Drudge linked to a Time excerpt of Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason, which comes out next Tuesday.

Here's a portion of the excerpt:

Not long before our nation launched the invasion of Iraq, our longest-serving Senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor and said: "This chamber is, for the most part, silent—ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate."

Why was the Senate silent?

In describing the empty chamber the way he did, Byrd invited a specific version of the same general question millions of us have been asking: "Why do reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions?" The persistent and sustained reliance on falsehoods as the basis of policy, even in the face of massive and well-understood evidence to the contrary, seems to many Americans to have reached levels that were previously unimaginable.

A large and growing number of Americans are asking out loud: "What has happened to our country?" People are trying to figure out what has gone wrong in our democracy, and how we can fix it.

To take another example, for the first time in American history, the Executive Branch of our government has not only condoned but actively promoted the treatment of captives in wartime that clearly involves torture, thus overturning a prohibition established by General George Washington during the Revolutionary War.

It is too easy—and too partisan—to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us? Why has America's public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned? Faith in the power of reason—the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.

American democracy is now in danger—not from any one set of ideas, but from unprecedented changes in the environment within which ideas either live and spread, or wither and die. I do not mean the physical environment; I mean what is called the public sphere, or the marketplace of ideas.

It is simply no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know I am not alone in feeling that something has gone fundamentally wrong. In 2001, I had hoped it was an aberration when polls showed that three-quarters of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on Sept. 11. More than five years later, however, nearly half of the American public still believes Saddam was connected to the attack.

At first I thought the exhaustive, nonstop coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial was just an unfortunate excess—an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our television news media. Now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time: the Michael Jackson trial and the Robert Blake trial, the Laci Peterson tragedy and the Chandra Levy tragedy, Britney and KFed, Lindsay and Paris and Nicole.

While American television watchers were collectively devoting 100 million hours of their lives each week to these and other similar stories, our nation was in the process of more quietly making what future historians will certainly describe as a series of catastrophically mistaken decisions on issues of war and peace, the global climate and human survival, freedom and barbarity, justice and fairness. For example, hardly anyone now disagrees that the choice to invade Iraq was a grievous mistake. Yet, incredibly, all of the evidence and arguments necessary to have made the right decision were available at the time and in hindsight are glaringly obvious.

[Snip]

The potential for manipulating mass opinions and feelings initially discovered by commercial advertisers is now being even more aggressively exploited by a new generation of media Machiavellis. The combination of ever more sophisticated public opinion sampling techniques and the increasing use of powerful computers to parse and subdivide the American people according to "psychographic" categories that identify their susceptibility to individually tailored appeals has further magnified the power of propagandistic electronic messaging that has created a harsh new reality for the functioning of our democracy.

As a result, our democracy is in danger of being hollowed out. In order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum. We must create new ways to engage in a genuine and not manipulative conversation about our future. We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth. Americans in both parties should insist on the re-establishment of respect for the rule of reason.

And what if an individual citizen or group of citizens wants to enter the public debate by expressing their views on television? Since they cannot simply join the conversation, some of them have resorted to raising money in order to buy 30 seconds in which to express their opinion. But too often they are not allowed to do even that. MoveOn.org tried to buy an ad for the 2004 Super Bowl broadcast to express opposition to Bush's economic policy, which was then being debated by Congress. CBS told MoveOn that "issue advocacy" was not permissible. Then, CBS, having refused the MoveOn ad, began running advertisements by the White House in favor of the president's controversial proposal. So MoveOn complained, and the White House ad was temporarily removed. By temporarily, I mean it was removed until the White House complained, and CBS immediately put the ad back on, yet still refused to present the MoveOn ad.

(Note that the highlighted, bold entries in the above passages are mine, and not in the original.) The rest of the Time excerpt is Here.

Now, you be the judge - is Al Gore really saying, as Drudge implies with his headline on his Website, that "American Democracy is now in danger"? What he is saying, as explained in the excerpt above, is that our idea or brand of democracy is in danger. AND IT IS.

The MoveOn example above I find particularly disturbing and outrageous. It's one of an infinite number of examples that one can find where the White House manipulates the mass media in this country. In part, we have Ronald Reagan to thank for that. His suspension of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 has allowed corporate-owned networks to air their political views, to the detriment of the marketplace of ideas, which traditionally allowed people to hear opposing views and weigh political decisions.

Now, media conglomerates are free to express political views (and advertisements) that align with their corporate interests. I'm going to be blogging much more about the Fairness Doctrine in the near future - I don't have enough time to adequately cover it now.

Gore's example of how a significant portion of the population still believes that Iraq is connected to 9-11 is pretty telling as well. (Somewhere, Karl Rove is clapping his hands with glee.) This administration willfully lies, then denies that it's done so. Iraq is the best example of it. Lie, lie, lie, until you start to believe it is the mantra of Bush's cabal. They'll even answer the question about Iraq having anything to with 9-11 with a "no," but in the same sentence they'll bring up 9-11 anyway. And many people are falling for it.

The War in Iraq is in many ways a PR and marketing effort. It's about manipulating public opinion to maintain support of the war. Since that support is evaporating, Bush is merely turning the war into a Democrat vs. Republican ideological war. Republicans are treating withdraw from Iraq as a defeat for the party. Maybe it would be, and maybe it wouldn't, but the overwhelming concern should be the lives of American troops and American interests. But those things don't matter to this administration.

I think that's part of what Al Gore means. I'm really looking forward to his book, but I'm anticipating the right's reaction to his book even more. I'm sure Sean Hannity already has a special planned. I sure hope so.

There's lots of Gore on Time's Website. Another piece, The Last Temptation of Al Gore, talks about Gore's potential presidential candidacy next year, which unfortunately is looking less and less likely. A brief excerpt of the excerpt:

"It happens all the time," says Tipper Gore. "Everybody wants to take him for a walk in the woods. He won't go. He's not doing it!" But even Tipper—so happy and relieved to see her husband freed up after 30 years in politics—knows better than to say never: "If the feeling came over him and he had to do it, of course I'd be with him." Perhaps that feeling never comes over him. Maybe Obama or Clinton or John Edwards achieves bulletproof inevitability and Gore never sees his opening. But if it does come, if at some point in the next five months or so the leader stumbles and the party has one of its periodic crises of faith, then he will have to decide once and for all whether to take a final shot at reaching his life's dream. It's the Last Temptation of Gore, and it's one reason he has been so careful not to rule out a presidential bid. Is it far-fetched to think that his grass-roots climate campaign could yet turn into a presidential one? As the recovering politician himself says, "You always have to worry about a relapse."

I have a great amount of respect and admiration for Gore's work and activism, but I still say that he could make the greatest amount of difference by running for president (and winning). Polls still show him with significant public support, as an undeclared candidate.

Run, Al. Please.

Best protest sign ever

I forgot to post this pic the day I found it - things get easily lost on my computer desktop. I have a nasty habit of not keeping it organized, and with our new 24" screen, it's just a bigger desktop to neglect.

The protester's sign marked the number of times Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified that he "didn't recall" an event or fact during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on April 19, 2007, about the controversial dismissal of eight U. S. attorneys.

Imagine how busy this guy would have been with the same sign with President Reagan's many utterances of "I don't recall" during the Iran-Contra Scandal.

Anyway, well done - I love it that this guy thought to do that.

AP Photo/Dennis Cook

Lurita Doan: GOP hack, on the govt's payroll

This testimony just blew me away. It's Lurita Doan, the Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration, testifying before Congress about illegal political activity by the GSA.

Way to go all Oliver North/Ronald Reagan before Congress, Ms. Doan. (I'm referring to the Iran/Contra Scandal when President Reagan and Oliver North made "I can't recall" the reigning champ of political euphemisms in America, replacing I'm not a crook. Reagan's comment was knocked off the top spot by Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.")

Here's a quick explanation of the Doan controversy from WaPo's Wednesday edition:

Witnesses have told congressional investigators that the chief of the General Services Administration and a deputy in Karl Rove's political affairs office at the White House joined in a video conference earlier this year with top GSA political appointees, who discussed ways to help Republican candidates.

With GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan and up to 40 regional administrators on hand, J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, gave a PowerPoint presentation on Jan. 26 of polling data about the 2006 elections.

When Jennings concluded his presentation to the GSA political appointees, Doan allegedly asked them how they could "help 'our candidates' in the next elections," according to a March 6 letter to Doan from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Waxman said in the letter that one method suggested was using "targeted public events, such as the opening of federal facilities around the country."

On Wednesday, Doan is scheduled to appear before Waxman's committee to answer questions about the video conference and other issues. The committee is investigating whether remarks made during the video conference violated the Hatch Act, a federal law that restricts executive-branch employees from using their positions for political purposes. Those found in violation of the act do not face criminal penalties but can be removed from their jobs.

She attended the meeting, allegedly made those statements, yet this is the first time she's seeing these PowerPoint slides? Um, sure.

This is exactly the kind of abuse of power that needs to be stopped in government, and the chief reason why Democrats were sent to Congress last November - to clean up all of this corruption.

I wonder how much of this stuff has happened in the last 6+ years that we don't and may never know about?

What really peeves me is when people say, "Every administration does this sort of stuff, but these people are just getting caught." No, no, no. A thousand times NO. That does not excuse abuses of power and in some cases criminal wrongdoing by this administration and its party.

Any president and any party that partakes in this type of behavior to maintain and strengthen power should be called to task before the American people, and we are seeing that now.

Good. That's called checks and balances, and that's how Democracy is supposed to work. Asinine dolts like Tom DeLay love to try to fire up the right by saying, "This is what the next two years is going to be like." Right you are, Tom. And that's because we've suffered under six years of stupid, mindless, incompetent rule at the hands of Bush and his cabal.

And Doan is yet another example of this. She should be removed from her job if these allegations are true, and the evidence looks pretty strong.

We've all met liars in our lives - take a look at this tape and you make the call about whether she's being truthful or not. A five-year old can conclude she's not being truthful. She completely wilts under the questioning of Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA).

Doan, like so many others in this administration, should go.

Katie BOORic out of line with Edwardses

I haven't been this angry about a 60 Minutes piece since Leslie Stahl interviewed Nancy Pelosi about a week before the 2006 election and focused on her clothes and appearance with superficial, irrelevant and insulting questions and comments. However, Couric trumped that disgrace ten-fold with her interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards on Sunday night.

One of the things that annoyed me most about this interview was Couric's use of the Fersatz News Channel's well known tactic of beginning questions with "some would say" and "many are saying." That's just euphemism for "I think you should be home, Elizabeth" or "Are you sure you want to continue the campaign?" or "Should you be doing this?"

I guess I sound like a paranoid, whining Republican, many of whom have made calling the media "liberal" a cliché.

Before I take off on a serious rant, I understand that Katie Couric has a fair amount of expertise and personal experience with cancer. I'm certainly not without sympathy or empathy for all that she's endured as a wife and mother after her husband Jay Monahan passed away from colon cancer in 1998. She also lost her sister, Emily, to pancreatic cancer in 2001. And, from all that I've seen and read, she's been a wonderful mom to her children, especially in light of them losing their father at such a tragically young age.

Couric also deserves unequivocal praise for her work on behalf of cancer. She's had a mammogram and also a colonoscopy on the air while hosting NBC's Today Show. She's brought a lot of visibility, attention and awareness to cancer.

Aside from all of that, though, I still don't see how that gave her the right to be a bulldog to John and Elizabeth Edwards like she did on Sunday night.

Couric falls just short of openly criticizing Elizabeth Edwards for not being at home with her kids. From what I've read, Couric didn't leave her job for any length of time at The Today Show when her husband was diagnosed with cancer. It's a wonder what nannies can do, huh Katie? Why should the Edwardses be held to a different standard, because they both committed to public service? They shouldn't.

I wonder how Couric would have felt if a reporter asked her similar questions when her husband was diagnosed with colon cancer. Picture reporters sticking microphones in her face, asking her all sorts of questions about why she wasn't home with her husband and children. She would have resented it, and rightfully so.

What's more, John and Elizabeth Edwards are certainly setting out to do more by serving their country as opposed to doing a morning show with Matt Lauer for 15 years. I see footage like this, and it's little wonder Couric's CBS Evening News is tanking.

What irked me most was how Couric openly questioned whether Edwards could run the country while distracted [with Elizabeth's illness]. Couric might want to pick up a history book.

Here are just a few off the top of my head...

If Elizabeth Edwards' health is such a concern, how about Dick Cheney's? He was recently hospitalized for blood clots in his leg, and he has a history of heart attacks and coronary problems. Let's not forget that Cheney is without a doubt the most powerful vice president in modern times, maybe ever. And he's one tragedy away from the presidency.

Where's Couric with a question about Cheney's health? Keeping up with all of the scandals that are plaguing Dick's administration has got to be taking a toll on his health, so maybe it should be a concern.

President Reagan had three major operations while in office, including an operation for colon cancer. Yes, there were stories in the press about it, but not the kind of media attention that Elizabeth Edwards is getting. Funny how the press didn't question whether he should remain as president or not.

President Nixon had a very serious phlebitis that could have killed him while he was president, but admittedly those health problems occurred late in his presidency, when the nation's attention was on Watergate.

Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson had a record of serious health problems before and during their presidencies, and none, save FDR, affected the presidency. In FDR's case, he was clearly dying even before the election of 1944, but the nation was reluctant to change leaders during World War II, and his health was hid from the nation during that election.

But, the cases above were pre-Watergate, after which just about anything has been fair game to report in the media.

Having said all of that, it's absurd and insulting to believe that John Edwards could not effectively function as a leader while dealing with his wife's illness if he were to win the 2008 election.

If anyone's health should be speculated on and raised as an issue in this campaign, it's John McCain's. He's been treated for recurrent skin cancer, including melanoma, in 1993, 2000, and 2002. What's more, he will turn 72 in 2009, the year he would take the oath of office if he wins the 2008 presidential election. I'm not saying McCain's health should be an issue in this campaign, but it most certainly should be more of an issue than Elizabeth Edwards'.

To his credit, since his interview with his wife on 60 Minutes, John Edwards has come out and publicly stated he didn't have a problem with the questions. But, keep in mind he's running for office, and he wants to demonstrate that he can handle the tough questions.

The Couric interview was inexcusable - CBS should have known better.

Time's redesign has some seeing red

This week, Time Magazine unveils a redesign of its cover as well as the internal presentation of the news weekly. I haven't had much, ahem, time to read this week's issue yet, but I have put some thought into this week's cover photograph.

I received my copy (above) of this week's issue in the mail on Saturday. The cover caught my eye - it's a striking example of the pitfalls and ethics involved with "Photoshopping" a picture in the digital age.

Already, President Reagan's son, Michael, is decrying the use of his father with an artificial tear on the cover. While I can see Michael's point and sensitivity that it's in poor taste, my outrage doesn't match his.

This is simply a picture that has been altered for dramatic effect, and I gather that most people will know this when they look at it. Maybe in the digital age, I've just become so used to this sort of thing that it doesn't get my attention as much anymore. I'm not sure, but I just don't see what the big deal is here.

And, most importantly from an ethical point of view, Time didn't present it as an original picture, although I find the way they credited the photograph sort of weird. The table of contents lists it this way: "On the cover: Photograph by David Hume Kennerly; Tear by Tim O'Brien."

Anyway, Repubes have many, many more important things to worry about than how their folk hero (I will never not laugh typing that, by the way), Ronald Reagan, is depicted on the cover of Time Magazine.

Bill Clinton is wealthy. So what?

The Washington Post reports today that President Bill Clinton has earned more than $40 million from speaking fees in the six years since he left office, at $150,000 per speech. It's not news that former presidents become fabulously wealthy. What's not well-known, according to Bill Press this morning, at least, is that the $40 million is only from 20 percent of the speeches he made - the other 80 percent of his fees he either did pro bono, or he donated the money to his AIDS Foundation.

Tucker Carlson was upset the other day, saying it doesn't look good for a former president to become so wealthy. I would tend to agree with that, but it's the reality that all former presidents will become wealthy when they leave office. After going through all of the misery it takes to become elected in the first place, I say let them have their money, and that opinion applies to both political parties.

For instance, how wealthy do you think President Bush will become when he leaves office, with all of his corporate donors and friends? Anyone think he won't have tens of millions of dollars at his disposal? Good for him. Let's check back on this in a decade and see how wealthy President Bush is. I can't say I'll have a problem with it, really; former presidents are in demand to give speeches and be heard, and they have a right to earn money, too.

Funny how I didn't hear conservatives whining much when President Ronald Reagan earned $2 million for one speech in Japan after he left office. I also wonder how wealthy President Bush Sr. has become since he left office? The guy isn't hurting, that's for sure. But then again, as a one-term wonder, he might not be as in demand as Reagan was or Clinton is.

The bottom line here is that conservatives are angry that Bill Clinton has continuously beat the odds, and efforts to destroy him. I have a great amount of admiration and respect for Clinton - a whole lot more of both than I do for our current president. At least Clinton admitted his mistakes (albeit late). When is the last time Bush has publicly stated he made a mistake about anything?

People also forget that Clinton was basically bankrupt when he left office, with millions in legal bills that needed to be paid, mostly from right-wing funded witch hunts, which he needed to defend himself against in the courts.

But boy, Paula Jones sure did get a nice nose job from her settlement, didn't she? James Carville said it best about her - she's what you get when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park.

One great American

AP Photo/Eric Paul Zamora

I didn't know this, but Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is one of only four people in the United States who have holidays all to themselves, along with George Washington, Christopher Columbus and Jesus Christ.

It's a fitting and a special honor that should be rare. But, without question, King is deserving of the distinction.

Above, Arianna Yanez, 8, holds a portrait of MLK during the annual Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade in downtown Fresno, Calif., earlier today. Just imagine how unlikely that picture would have been just 50 short years ago - a white child holding a portrait of an African-American who was awarded a national holiday. It speaks a great deal to the progress we've made on race in America, but we have a long way to go, too.

AP Photo/Jerry Lara

Faron Lockridge carries the flag during the Martin Luther King march in San Antonio, Texas, earlier today.

Today, as I saw lots of tributes to King on TV, I thought back to one of his speeches that I read in college, Letter from Birmingham Jail. He wrote it in response to a statement made by eight white Alabama clergymen on April 12, 1963 titled "A Call For Unity," which agreed that social injustices were happening, but they believed the struggle against segregation should be fought in the courts not, the streets.

King wrote it while in jail in the city of Birmingham. It's a remarkable piece of work - if you haven't read it (or even if you have), I highly recommend it. It really captures the essence of what King stood for as a pioneer during the Civil Rights Movement.

Today also got me to thinking, shouldn't we have a separate way to commemorate two people who are connected to King, and not how they would like.

Is there some way we could honor Vice President Dick Cheney (right), who voted against the creation of a holiday for King in 1979, but then voted for it in 1983. (Wait, let's modify a quote Republicans loved to use against John Kerry in 2004: "First I voted against the holiday before I voted for it.") I won't even get started on Cheney's spotty record on civil rights while in Congress -- a that's a topic for another blog posting at another time.

How about Evan Mecham (left), the former Republican governor of Arizona, who was impeached, in part for cancelling a paid MLK Day holiday for state employees shortly after his inauguration.

I suppose we could even throw in President Reagan's opposition to the holiday, too. He was opposed to the holiday until it was passed by Congress with a veto-proof majority in 1983. He then signed it into law.

Kind of makes you laugh when you consider President Bush's remarks that Democrats haven't earned African-Americans' votes, huh?

Anyway, this is a day to remember King, but also a day to remember those who opposed him, and also those who were opposed to creating the holiday in the first place.

I'm thankful that more intelligent heads prevailed in Washington, and our government decided to rightfully honor one of the greatest Americans in history.

President Ford is discharged

I read today the President Ford is at home and resting after a brief stay at Vail Valley Medical Center, in Colorado, which is good news. I've always had a special admiration for him for how he led the country after Nixon's resignation.

At first, my heart leapt a little when I saw the headline that Ford, 93, had been released from the hospital. I had flashbacks to my Nan earlier this summer; when they released her, it was because there was nothing more they could do, and they sent her home where she wanted to spend her final days.

But, with Ford, it looks like it was a false alarm, and that's good. He's been in better health, but it looks as if he may become our oldest living president of all time on November 12 of this year, passing Ronald Reagan.

Ford is on my mind because I'm reading a very good book about his presidency, 31 Days. If I ever finish it, I will write a review of it and give you my thoughts. I've been working on it for months - I've just been so busy with other stuff, I'm waay behind on my book reading this year. But, I'll catch up at some point. My early thought on the book is that it's outstanding - I recommend it highly.