Another day, another letter to the Times

(Actually, I sent this a couple of days ago, but was reminded of it by a FAIR newsletter complaining of "False equivalency" in the media's equation Ayers with Keating.)

Sirs:

It is difficult to understand what standards of journalistic fairness would cause you to equate the racist smears and lies leveled against Obama with a legitimate questioning of John McCain's fitness for office because of his five years in a Viet Namese prison camp.
(Your editorial, Scraping the Bottom, Published: October 5, 2008)

John McCain has been secretive about his medical records and no psychiatric records were released with the thousands of pages recently released for three hours. PTSD is a real condition and often lasts many decades. Furthermore, Thomas Eagleton had to withdraw from running for vice-president when it was revealed that he had had electro-shock treatments for depression. The treatments were administered as therapy. It is probable that John McCain had electric shock torture in prison. If this is the case, why can't this be talked about? Is there a different standard for Democrats than for Republicans? This is a legitimate concern and is not a smear. And the two sides' ads are not equivalent.

Sari Kadison-Shapiro
Evanston, IL

Today's Letter to the Times

So Julie Bosman says there is "nothing that is outright wrong" in McCain's recent ad claiming that Obama was "born of the corrupt Chicago political machine." Rudolph Guiliani stated nearly the same thing in his vituperative speech at the Republican convention.

However, even the present Mayor Daley was not supported by the "machine" that had been set up by his father. Obama was not even in Chicago (or an adult, for that matter) when the first Mayor Daley presided over the "machine." What corruption exactly is this referring to?
I'd really like Ms. Bosman to elaborate on her seemingly extensive knowledge of Chicago politics and how a claim that one is "born of it" is accurate. What does that even mean?
(The antiquated view of Chicago and lack of knowledge of its politics,--"hmmm....Chicago--machine guns and machine politics"--seems to be an illustration of New York City chauvinism.)

The Times appears to have taken to heart Steven Schmidt's conference call alleging bias toward Obama and is trying to make up for that McCain-serving charge. On today's front page, they have two Republican-leaning reporters (oh yes they are), John Broder and Katharine Q. Seelye, touting McCain's alleged strengths in debating and claiming that Obama's strengths (like his eloquence or "youthful cool") are actually liabilities. They have all but declared McCain the victor and there are three days left before the actual debate. Was this the Times' makeup gift to the McCain campaign?

Also on the front page, Julie Steinhauer describes a Nevada voter who would "no sooner vote for Mr. Obama than volunteer for space travel," helping reinforce the Republican meme that Mr. Obama is exotic and alien. (Really, can you picture an Obama supporter described that way in their feelings about John McCain? Me neither.)

In these instances, the Times' attempts at balance seems a bit like Fox News'.

Primer on the Keating Five (Hint: McCain was one of them)

Here's an email someone forwarded me:

Subject: Remember the Keating Five - No it wasn't a band

Well actually they were a band of thieves!

Who Were the "Keating Five"

For anyone not aware of the Keating Five, here’s a very simple summary:
Charles Keating owned a savings and loan in California. He was illegally using the money of his bank’s customers to give loans to himself and friends that they didn’t have to repay, and to speculate on risky real estate investments, which was strictly forbidden by U.S. law (the latter was one cause of the Great Depression).
When the feds found out what was going on and launched an investigation into Keating and his company, Keating called five U.S. Senators whom he had wined, dined, and lavished with hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations and personal gifts for years.
Keating asked the five Senators to tell the feds to bug off, and the five Senators, later known as the Keating Five, obliged, meeting with federal investigators twice and pressuring them to stop investigating Keating’s crimes. They bought Keating some time, but the feds didn’t give up and eventually Keating was nailed. The reason the feds were so persistent was because Keating wasn’t playing with mere chump change. Keating blew $3.4 billion through illegal personal loans and bad investments, and the FDIC eventually had to reimburse Keating’s customers who had been ripped off. (The FDIC is a part of the federal government funded by taxpa yers dollars, so when Keating stole from his customers you a nd I were the ones who paid for it.)
(Background Info - Keating wasn’t the only Savings and Loan owner who was committing fraud, 20% of the S&L’s that failed during that three year period were found to have been caused by fraud and/or insider trading. The failure of the Lincoln Savings and Loan and other S&L’s pushed the country into a recession, costing the U.S. government $126 billion dollars in FDIC insurance payouts to investors. All of this came to a crescendo during the first year of the presidency of George H.W. Bush, who pushed through the S&L bailout plan to keep the economy afloat.)
When the involvement of the Keating Five was made public, a scandal erupted and the Senate Ethics Committee launched their own four month long hearing into whether the Keating Five senators had violated Senate ethics rules. It was a giant mess (see the Keating Five Videos section). The other four Senators left office either immediately or within one term. John McCain was formally rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising “poor judgment” for intervening with the federal regulators on behalf of Keating, but because McCain accepted Keating’s gifts of travel and vacations to Bahama while McCain was a member of the House of Representatives (he served one term there before moving to the Senate), the Senate claimed they had no jurisdiction to censure McCain. (However the meetings to pressure federal regulators occurred during the first few=2 0months of McCain serving in the Senate in 1987, so that excuse doesn’t hold up)
John McCain then went back to the drawing board and re-invented himself as “the Straight-Talk Express” and the media gobbled it up. “Tax-Evading-Criminal” doesn’t sound as catchy as “Straight-Shooting-War-Hero”.
Ever since the scandal, when McCain lies today, it’s never questioned, because he’s a “straight talker”. The man has more skeletons in his closet than any politician in history. The Keating Five is just one bone.
There are two fantastic articles about the Keating Five we highly recommend reading.
One is from 1989, written by The Phoenix New Times, called McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five. That article does a good job of capturing the anger at the time at John McCain and the other corrupt Senators. It took an incredible spin job for McCain to have survived the scandal.
The other article is from Slate.com, written in 2000 and titled, Is John McCain A Crook?

"Turn 'em upside down and they're all the same."

"All Day Coverage of Team McCain" on MSNBC"

That liberal media.

[WHY are they doing all-day coverage of McCain? Who is interested? Isn't picking an anti-choice woman like finding
a Clarence Thomas-like anti-civil rights African American?]

Question for Sarah Palin:

In your idea of an ideal world, after abortion is made illegal, what should the punishment be for someone who goes ahead and has an abortion? What should the punishment be for the woman?
What should it be for the doctor?

See this video from Libertyville, IL.

McCain's (four, seven, ten?) Houses

My letter to the Times from today:

Sirs:

In trying to appear even-handed in the "who's an elitist" debate in this campaign season, Katharine Seelye surprises me in not averaging out John McCain's 10-11 houses with Barack Obama's one house and saying that they each own an average of six houses.

To quote McCain's campaign as saying John McCain has four houses, is clearly quoting an untruth. Perhaps the New York Times could do some investigative reporting on their own? Or, perhaps report on the Times' difficulty in coming up with an accurate number? Yesterday it was seven, according to Ms. Seelye, then it was changed to eight, but only as a "he-said-she-said" claim by the Obama campaign. Clearly, four, as stated by the McCain campaign, is inaccurate. Robert Greenwald has documented that John McCain has at least six homes.
Whether those houses are occupied by relatives, as claimed in the article, would be seemingly not difficult to check. Furthermore, wasn't the actual news story, that was ignored by the reporter, the fact that John McCain did not know how many houses he and his wife owned?
Or is this deemed too volatile an issue in this time of massive numbers of home foreclosures? (There doesn't seem to be an equivalent amount of reticence in reporting on the Swiftboat-like attacks on Obama.)

At the very least, the issue of how many houses the McCains own would seem to be a matter of fact, not competing claims.

Sari Kadison-Shapiro
Evanston, IL 60201
(847) 866-8080

PS. Good catch on the part of your proofreaders (or was that MS Word's grammar checker?) when this article ended with "The Obama home....does has [sic] four fire places and a wine cellar."

Barry Blitt, Republican "cartoonist"

Remember the recent infamous New Yorker cover? The cartoonist was Barry Blitt. As an illustrator, I was trying to imagine being instructed to draw all the lies about Obama that were included in that cover. I'm fairly certain that although I would see illustrating a cover of the New Yorker as a great honor and opportunity, I would have refused to have done that work.

This week in the New York Times, to illustrate a very good and none-too flattering article about John McCain, the paper uses Mr. Blitt to do this cartoon:

I guess it's now obvious where Mr. Blitt's preferences in the presidential race lie. (In case you can't read that small type, the lines on McCain's hand say, "Honesty, Independent, Moral Courage, Will, Logic, Vision, and Acumen."
(I found this cartoon almost as disturbing in its dishonesty and pro-Republican bias as the New Yorker cover.) I have a suggestion for both the Times and The New Yorker: Use Ted Rall or Tom Toles, who arereal political cartoonists.

My Letter about McCain claiming Obama is playing “Race Card”

Here’s today’s letter:

Dear Sirs:

Let the Swift Boating begin!...in which the acolytes of Karl Rove, working for John McCain, make scurrilous charges and they're repeated ad nauseum on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers. (“McCain Camp Says Obama Plays Race Card”)

Did anyone ever stop to think that Barack Obama’s claim that he does not look like the white-haired presidents pictured on our money might be because he’s younger?

Isn’t it the McCain camp the one that’s bringing up race as an issue?

Here’s an idea: when scurrilous charges are made, why not relegate it to the back of the paper
with the obituaries, similar to the treatment given to the (huge) anti-war marches?

Today's letter to the Times

I originally started this blog to print the letters that I write to The New York Times that never get published (which is all my letters to the Times).
I haven't written since April, but since that time I've composed many letters in my head in answer to various articles or editorials that have pissed me off. I don't read David Brooks, William Kristol, William Safire or the alleged “liberal” Thomas Friedman since I don't necessarily want to start out every day by being pissed off.
I’ve also had some private correspondences with David Carr (who later had a cover story about his journey back from being a druggie in the Times magazine) and Greg Brock (an editor).
I was thinking of changing my blog focus to “My letters to the Times”.

At any rate...here is today’s letter, that I’m guessing won’t be printed:

Dear Sirs:

Often, two unrelated news stories seem to suggest a connection whether there is one or not (similar to the experience of renting two seemingly unrelated movies only to discover some common theme or shared casting. My partner and I often jokingly refer to this as “the [common theme or person] film festival.”)

The story of suspect Jim Adkisson's murder of two innocent people at a Unitarian church because of his "Hate for Liberals and Gay People" as well as his frustration at not being able to find a job, seems to suggest that if he had only had a law degree, he could have found employment in the Bush Justice Department, hired by Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling. He appeared to possess all the necessary ideologies, abbreviated by the buzz-words: "God, Guns and Gays."

[my name, town and phone no.]

Our “Leaders”

“Pentagon leaders expect the United States to have significant numbers of troops deployed in those two countries for some time to come.”

Forget that the majority of the PEOPLE in the country are against the war. Evidently, the government “of The People, by The People and for The People” has perished from the earth. No matter who is elected, it’s the “Pentagon leaders” who are calling the shots.

(Contributing to this article is Michael Gordon the IN bed, I mean, EMbed who helped Judy Miller write her propaganda.)

More “Stuff Left Out” of the Times

When I started this blog, it was with the intention of venting my frustrations with the increasingly Republican-leaning reporting of
the New York Times without constantly writing letters to the editors which were never published anyway (though they did answer some of my letters with a personal email to me...one cluelessly asked me where they could find an online posting from a PBS Frontline show that directly contradicted the White House stenography “reported” by Elisabeth Bumiller in their pages).
Here is my letter from today:

Dear Sir:

In the Robin Toner article of April 15, 2008, “With Faith in the Spotlight, Candidates Battle for Catholic Votes,” there would seem to be an obvious omission in not mentioning John McCain's enthusiastic acceptance of the endorsement by the anti-Catholic Evangelist preacher, John Hagee. (There could also be a mention of the fact that no one has called upon McCain to repudiate Hagee‘s statements.) Since Mr. Hagee has been quoted saying that the Catholic Church is the “Great Whore,” wouldn‘t this be relevant to this article?...especially when the the most incendiary comments made by Barack Obama‘s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, were aired repeatedly on your front pages?

The Republican credo

Sent to me today:

“To be a good Republican one needs to believe:

1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's Daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Viet Nam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
4. The United States should get out of the United Nations, while our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational drug corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMO's and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
10. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
11. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
12. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
13. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
15. Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.)
16. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960's is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the 1980's is irrelevant.
17. Support hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by quail.”

Great Points Made by FAIR

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3282

Activism Update

A double standard on reporters who express opinions?

Letter to NY Times' public editor Clark Hoyt

2/12/08

On February 12, FAIR sent a letter to the New York Times' public editor Clark Hoyt regarding a recent editors' note that suggested that the newspaper has double standards for reporters who publicly express opinions. The following is the letter. We encourage others who have concerns to also email Hoyt at: public@nytimes.com.


***
Dear Clark Hoyt,

The New York Times recently published an unusual editor's note about the February 4 front-page article, "Time Runs Out for an Afghan Held by the U.S."

The note concerned Andy Worthington, one of the two journalists identified in the article's byline:


Mr. Worthington has written a book, The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison, in which he takes the position that Guantánamo is part of what he describes as a cruel and misguided response by the Bush administration to the September 11 attacks. He has also expressed strong criticism of Guantanamo in articles published elsewhere.

The editors were not aware of Mr. Worthington's outspoken position on Guantanamo. They should have described his contribution to the reporting instead of listing him as co-author, and noted that he had a point of view.

There is no indication that Worthington's reporting was flawed in any way. What the paper is saying is that Worthington's critical view of Guantanamo disqualifies him from having a byline on a Times article on the subject, and must be noted whenever he contributes to such a story.

Is this rule applied to all Times reporters covering any subject? It would seem not. The Times' response to its chief military correspondent Michael Gordon expressing a point of view on national TV on the very topic he covers as a reporter provides an instructive comparison.

On the Charlie Rose show (1/8/07), the host asked Gordon if he believed "victory is within our grasp." Gordon responded by endorsing the White House's call for a "troop surge":

So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it's worth it [sic] one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we've never really tried to win. We've simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it's done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something.

The Times' public editor at the time, Byron Calame, wrote (1/28/07) that he "raised reader concerns about Mr. Gordon's voicing of personal opinions with top editors." The Washington bureau chief assured Calame that Gordon's remarks were merely "a poorly worded shorthand for some analytical points about the military and political situation in Baghdad that Michael has made in the newspaper in a more nuanced and un-opinionated way. Gordon continued to write about the "surge" for the Times, with no mention made of the fact that he had publicly voiced support for the military strategy.

Of course, Gordon is a Times staffer, while Worthington is a freelancer. But it's unclear why you would want more stringent rules for opinions expressed by occasional freelancers as opposed to staffers who write regularly for your publication.

Another perhaps more relevant difference between the two cases is that Gordon's opinion was strongly supportive of the White House, while Worthington had been critical. Was this a factor in the Times decision-making? Was the editor's note prompted by Bush administration complaints?

The Times' response regarding the Guantanamo article stands in sharp contrast to its inaction regarding a complaint brought by FAIR about another recent Times article, a front-page piece by Sheryl Gay Stolberg (1/28/08) that claimed that George W. Bush "has spent years presiding over an economic climate of growth that would be the envy of most presidents." This assertion has no basis in fact (see FAIR's Action Alert, 1/28/08), yet the Times had no response to FAIR's request for a correction. When the paper moves swiftly to distance itself from an article with no apparent factual problems, one can't help but wonder about the paper's journalistic priorities.

We look forward to your response.

Isabel Macdonald
Communications Director
FAIR

Propaganda for the Bush admin

Today I learned that McCain is a viable candidate (please don't notice that he got only 13% of the vote...he won
New Hampshire in 2000. He can do it again!) and Edwards with 30% of the vote is just about done, the article about
his candidacy is hidden in the interior of the Saturday paper.

I also learned (according to the "government") that Bush has a great legacy on his earmarking (my term, not theirs)
50 billion dollars for AIDS in Africa. Please ignore that a large chunk of that is for abstinence education.
"The government" says it is so, so Sheryl Gay Stohlberg dutifully takes dictation.

I also learned that the unemployment rate has "surged" to 5%. (Why is it that every unemployment rate figure I've heard
quoted in the last 6 years is 5%, but now that same figure is a "surge". And we all know that that figure is a LIE because only the people who are collecting unemployment checks for 26 weeks are the ones who are counted.
The long-term unemployed, the underemployed and those who don't qualify for unemployment checks are all ignored.

The Surge, in General, is Working (NOT!)

Has anyone noticed that the papers seem to be somehow invested in claiming that the “surge” is working? ...that *some*how, Dear Leader has defied all the odds, all the Democrats, the Generals, and Daddy's friends in the Iraq Study Group, and came up with a winning policy! And we know this is true because we were told that by Michael Gordon, that fabulous “embed” who wrote all those triumphant articles about “found” WMD from Iraq with Judy Miller. [Please ignore the bombing in the market on Friday, the car bomb on Saturday, and the fact that 2007 has been for our troops, the most deadly year of the war so far.]

Desertion Rate

Did everybody read about the desertion rate?
[ht to cuz Jenibird].

I think the propaganda coming out of the administration about attacks being down is directly connected to the facts about the desertion rate becoming public.
“Look! We're winning! Wise leader decided correctly with his ‘surge.’”

The comments were interesting.

GREAT Magazine Cover

Et Tu, Dalai?

So of course the “compassionate conservative” war-mongerer was chosen to give this award to the Dalai Lama right after he vetoed healthcare for poor kids.

Life Imitates Art

So the day after Stephen Colbert announces that he is going to run for president as a "favorite son" of South Carolina,
there is an article in the Times about John Edwards running for president as a favorite son of South Carolina.
How did that happen?

Him So Thorny!

So the paper of record can't even give Gore a big headline that he won the Nobel Prize. The headline has to state that he is sharing the prize. And then it goes on to say that Gore is a “thorn in Bush’s side.” I guess in the same way that Sleeping Beauty was a thorn in the Evil Queen's side. How dare he get more votes than Our Preznit! Nowhere in any news article do they mention that the presidency was decided by the Supreme Court. Only on the editorial page do they refer to that decision and say that it should have been for Gore. They should have counted the goddamn votes! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court appoints the President!
But in the news pages, they merely say that Bush won the electoral college vote but not the popular vote.
He only “won" that because of Katherine Harris' fraud. Then they describe Gore as a “vociferous” critic of the Bush administration, not only on climate change but about Iraq. I must ask: on what planet was that?
Bob Herbert correctly recalls how the news media relentlessly made fun of Al Gore but never George Bush. And then Elisabeth Bumiller, one of the guilty parties on that account, starts her news story about Gore's Nobel prize thusly:
”Al Gore's seven-year journey from loser to laureate began in bitterness...” What a C-U-Next Tuesday!
I saw no bitterness except in the disgtraceful way that Elisabeth Bumiller, Jody Wilgoren, Katharine Seeley and Adam Nagourney covered Al Gore’s 2000 campaign. And they all owe him and all of us an apology.

Do What the Clinton (Republicans) Urge!

Now the Times editorial page jumps on the CAFTA bandwagon claiming it’s what Bill Clinton has urged...Bill Clinton, who Rachel Maddow calls the “best Republican president we've ever had.” Just this week there was an article that showed that 47 countries approved of “global trade” in majorities that ranged from a low of 56% (the US) to 90%. No mention was made of Costa Rica where the people actually get to vote on it themselves in a referendum, and where there was a recent march where 100,000 people showed up to demonstrate against CAFTA.
Just sayin’.

Who's Your Candidate?

This is pretty well done:
Take the quiz.

Bet you didn't see this in your local paper

...nor was it in the Times.
Oh yes...there was this....where the protest is characterized as "several thousand people" with many arrests. And the prowar group are described as "there to support the troops"...with no indication that this was a group that was infintessimal in number compared to the (ignored) giant turnout against the war. The photo
was a close up of someone being led away in handcuffs.

Timmeh's questions:

for Dennis Kucinich: You were mayor of Cleveland when you put the city in bankruptcy, how can you be president?

for Bill Richardson: You supported a judge who voted against Roe v. Wade., New Mexico is failing in education, how can you be president?

for Hillary: Your health care plan failed. How can you be president?

for Obama: You have no experience. How can you be president?

Wait! Friend of Timmy is very concerned about second graders learning about same sex couples. Question to Edwards...do you think second graders should be exposed to same sex couples? Yes?? "THESE ARE SECOND GRADERS!"
[Who is this? Mrs. Jeff Gannon? Who is she? She is right out of a classic Second City skit on parents at a PTA meeting arguing about sex education. Alison someone...friend of Timmy gets to be grand Inquisitor and ask the same insipid question to 3 of the candidates.
Yeah, second graders' sensibilities...that's what's important! Too bad about the dead soldiers.

Now Timmeh proposes taxing every American. (Doesn't that already happen?)...We can see those headlines now...those tax-raising Democrats! INCOME TAXES for EVERYONE! Yay Timmy. You Republican shill. Did KKKarl fax these questions to Tim?
Tim tells Hillary that Bill's surplus wasn't going to last long.
Pissed Hillary off.
Timmeh is arguing about taxes with Hillary...'SIMPLE QUESTION: What can you say...I'm willing to cut taxes, raise taxes, WHAT??" (Tim so obviously has a dog in this fight.)

"Gov Richardson, Would you lift the cap for taxes?"...Tim argues with Richardson about balancing budget...HE wants his taxes cut. FUCK Social Security. Tim can't get off this...

Edwards brings up The Middle Class. Timmeh is sure to move on to another subject.

Timmeh is trying to get Biden to dis MoveON about the Petraeus ad....He's covered every Republican talking point...including the dynasty claim that the Bush and Clinton families have dominated the presidency since the 90's. (Yeah, Bush crime family dynasty same thing as husband from Arkansas who met his wife at Yale Law School.)

Timmeh: bring up Dodd's young children, maybe that will take the attention away from the May-December marriage of Fred Thompson and his child bride.

Richardson will shut down Guantanamo and not eavesdrop and not go to war....Tim has successfully gotten them to argue with each other.

Obama, is pissed at Richardson....for insinuating that he would perpetuate the war because he couldn't bring the troops home fast enough.

Hillary agrees with Barak. Who knows? Maybe we'll keep troops there, but our goal is to bring them home. And I'll vote with Biden to divide up Iraq...we try every day, but those mean Republicans stop us.

Edwards...won't commit to bring troops home...maybe 40-50,000 out of 130,000...we gotta protect our embassy.
No combat missions in Iraq like Hillary wants.

Hillary: clarification: we may have to fight Al Quaeda in Iraq.

Tim: What about Genocide?
Edwards: Let's work with the International community

Richardson: Bring the troops home now. Not like Clinton, Obama and Edwards.
"Out kids are dying. Congress has not done enought to end this war. Richardson would take our troops out
through Turkey."


Tim: Nuclear Power? Edwards: No.
Tim: Nuclear Power? Obama won't take it off the table
Tim: Nuclear Power? Kucinich: NO!
Tim: Nuclear Power? Gravel: No.
Tim: Nuclear Power? Hillary: No.

Tim: onto another subject...Ticking timebomb...can't we torture people, please?
Biden: 17 of 4 star generals said NO...doesn't work. That's why we got bad info on Iraq.
Tim: ...Ticking timebomb...can't we torture people, please? Hillary?
Hillary: No. (And I'm wearing orange).

Tim is telling Hillary that the ticking time bomb theory of torture was told to him by Bill Clinton...so you and your
husband disagree. She said "well, he's not standing here now." [ooooo. from the audience]
then a softer Hillary: big smile and "I'll talk to him later..."

Richardson brings up Waterboarding and spying.
Dodd wants to turn over the Military commissions act.

Tim keeps cutting them off...
Edwards cuts in to agree with both Richardson and Dodd...
Kucinich speaks of Strength through Peace and rejection of war as policy.
Kucinich was great. And made me laugh. They tried to cut him off when he
was speaking of what a president should be like....saying "30 seconds.."...and
Kucinich said "Tall."

Obama's tie is strobing. Tim's going after the jugular with John Edwards asking
him if he's sorry about "taking money from Rupert Murdoch".
Hedge Fund with sub-prime mortgages in the Katrina area...John Edwards and
has gone down there and actually helped down there.

Tim is now asking them their favorite BIBLE VERSE.

He's giving everyone a chance to ask his question.
Kucinich is the best...about Peace.
Richardson...Sermon on the Mount
Biden...he worries about the Pharissees.

So, will the Republicans submit to questions from Stephen Colbert?

Mahablog

The Times Minimizes a Large Antiwar Protest

I was on the West coast for the September 15th protest in Washington D.C. and thus, could not attend. There were reportedly, one hundred thousand demonstators there from all over the country. I bought the Times while I was away and read it every day, yet did not notice any mention of the demonstration. If you go to the Times’ search engine and put in anti-war demonstration, you won't find anything. Take out the hyphen and you’ll find a single article published the day after the protest that says there were “several thousand people,” yet the only person they interviewed was a counter-demonstrator who they described as attending to show “support for the troops” (as if bringing them home and thus saving their lives would not be support enough.) There is no mention of the fact that antiwar demonstrators far outnumbered the counter-demonstrators, and there is no photo to give an idea of the size of the crowd...only a photo of an antiwar demonstrator being arrested. The New York Times thus continues their marginalization of the antiwar movement.

And the Public Editor (the third one they've had since they began the program of having an alleged “reader’s advocate,” adopts the Republican talking points of being outraged by the MoveOn Petraeus/Betray Us ad, claiming that both the Times and MoveOn betrayed their best interests, and if it were up to him, Mr. Hoyt would never have allowed the "Betray Us" line in the ad. So much for free speech. No mention of the fact that Petraeus was used as a political shill for Bush's stay-the-course policy. I would have to disagree with Mr. Hoyt about the ad not being in MoveOn or the Times best interests since the Times has profited handsomely from both the original ad (regardless of the discounted price that outraged the Right) and the pandering Giuliani full-page ad in answer to the MoveOn ad (How much did Rudy pay? This wasn't mentioned.)...and MoveOn has had some of their most successful fund-raising days since being censured by congress who can't seem to express outrage or censure to those responsible for outing a spy in war time, losing 9 billion dollars or starting a war on the basis of cooked intelligence.

Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks on the MoveOn Ad

Very good video.

Misrepresenting Jim Webb

In an article entitled “Partisan Lines Solidify as Republicans Thwart Democrats again on an Iraq Vote” writer David M. Herszenhorn characterizes Senator Jim Webb’s proposal to give troops as much leave time as the time already served in Iraq before they can be called up to serve again, as a move to force “a swifter withdrawl of troops.” Further, he claims that the Democrats are the ones who characterized the bill this way. (Why do I find that hard to believe?) Then Mr. Herszenhorn marvels at Bush not even mentioning this “Republican success” (at blocking more leave time for the troops.) Who’s not supporting the troops now? Of course the Democrats can’t use that line of attack against the Republicans when the press characterizes a compassionate Democratic move to heal the “broken” army as a sneaky way of withdrawing troops. Somehow, “not supporting the troops” only sticks to Democrats and Move On ads. WHY does the Republican party get to filibuster bills for more leave for the troops and for restoring habeas corpus and then suffer no ill effects from it?

Petraeus Wins, Democrats Lose

In a screaming headline, as if this is big news, Michael Gordon, Judy Miller's writing partner, tells us “DELAY DECISION ON MAJOR CUTS, PETRAEUS SAYS”. Then they have the self-described “embed” Michael Gordon do their “news analysis.” [“He had charts!”]
The Times tells us that according to their poll, sixty-eight percent of Americans trust the military more than they trust Congress and President Bush. [“Look at all those medals! Oooh. Shiny stars too!”] No hint at all that General Petraeus may have been lying when he said that he wrote his report all by himself with no help from the White House.
The Daily Show did a brilliant montage of all the exact phrases used by Bush in his “stay-the-course” speeches and Petraeus in his report that he “wrote all by himself.” And the Times brings back Elisabeth Bumiller just in time for the elections. Under the headline “General is Quizzed by 5 Potential Bosses” she tells us that the candidates (all Democrats except for John McCain) are only potential commanders in chief in their minds. She also tells us (twice) how angry Obama was before saying that he asked questions in "similar tones" to Hillary (”sad” and “even”). Well, which was it, Elisabeth? Mad or sad?? I heard it. It was neither. Nor was John McCain anything but deferential and supportive of the Bush policy, not at all “unsparing” in his questioning. And all that counts in Bumiller's world is that the Democrats don't have the votes to override a presidential veto. End of story. No mention of the fact that Nancy Pelosi has the power and could prevent a funding bill from even coming to the floor. Then, we're treated to an illustration of what all those stars and stripes are for on Gen. Petraeus’ uniform. (Several, of course, are from President Bush.) I can hardly wait for Elisabeth to tell us all those good things the Republicans tell her about themselves, and all those bad things about the angry Democrats.

Replacement for Gonzales

Who could possibly replace Alberto Gonzales? Except for the Bushian requirement that it be a ”loyal Bushie,” and a right-wing Republican stalwart, and that pesky legal nicety that it be a lawyer, this is the only person who comes to mind as having the proper amount of mendacity to do the job:



Yeah...that’s the ticket.

Bush’s “Welcome” in Australia (video link)

“Bums for Bush”...HT to Rachel Maddow

Paul Bremer Contradicts the “Decider”

In an Op-ed today entitled “How I Didn’t Dismantle Iraq’s Army,” Paul Bremer echoes Joe Wilson’s Op-editorial “What I Didn't Find in Africa.” Just like Joe Wilson contradicting the official propaganda, Bremer contradicts Bush’s claim to author Robert Draper that Bremer was responsible for disbanding the Iraqi army despite Bush’s wishes to the contrary. Both Bush and Bremer acknowledge that conventional wisdom says this was a major mistake in the Iraq war and fueled the insurgency. Only Bremer defends the policy. Bush passed the buck to Bremer and each of them seemed to admit that the “Decider” really didn‘t decide this one (or at least take responsibility for a failed policy.) Bremer laughably calls the Iraqi military "Saddam’s war machine” and lamely defends having an armed force hostile to the US that has suddenly become unemployed. I think Paul Bremer better be looking over his shoulder, and if he has a wife, she should probably go in hiding.

Life Imitates Art Imitating Life

According to the review of Draper's book, Dead Certain, Bush is fond of imitating Dr. Evil from "Austin Powers” movies.
No, George...your dad is Dr. Evil. You’re Mini-Me.

Just Go Read Firedoglake.com

This is a perfect illustration of the Times' news reporting being way more credulous of the Bush spin than its editorials.

Good Article, Good Graphic, Good Blog Posting

The article is from the Guardian.

The graphic is from Internet Weekly Report.

The following was a very good blog post to the NYTimes
[Clark is the New York Times’ Public Editor]

August 14th,
2007
12:38 pm
Clark,
Your newspaper continues to selectively report on civilian white phosphorus casualties.
See: Jeffrey Gentleman “Rights Group Accuses Somali Interim Rulers of War Crimes” The New York Times August 14, 2007 Tuesday,
“Last month, United Nations arms monitors accused the Ethiopian military of dropping white phosphorous bombs on insurgents and killing 35 civilians in the process. Residents said the bombs melted people. Ethiopia denied even having such bombs.”
Please explain why your newspaper chooses not to report on your photographer’s own observation of Iraqi civilian phosphorus casualties and yet continues to report on the Somali civilian phosphorus casualties.
Is there something different between a Somali civilian and an Iraqi? Doesn’t your paper have a duty to disclose the Baquba incident to your readers?
Thank you for your consideration and again thank you for posting this.
respectfully,
Joe
“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.” - Abraham Lincoln
— Posted by Joseph Tessier

Condoleezza’s Legacy

Helene Cooper forgot to mention Condoleezza’s Katrina legacy. Like Nero fiddling while Rome burned, Condoleezza shopped for expensive shoes and took in a Broadway show while New Orleans drowned. She also had her security guards expel a woman from the shoe store who had the temerity to mention it. As the highest ranking African-American in Bush’s cabinet, one might have expected Ms. Rice not to ignore the crisis unfolding in New Orleans. But one would have been wrong. So, it's not just for the “smoking gun/mushroom cloud” fear-mongering in urging us to bomb an innocent country that Condoleezza will be remembered, but also her incompetence and neglect. (Remember the ignored memo "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in U.S.”? Helene Cooper didn't.)

It's the HYPOCRISY, Sheryl

Why is it that Sheryl Gay Stohlberg can only talk to Republicans about her news analyses? And, how is it possible, despite this being on the front page, that Ms. Stohlberg still appears to be trying to minimize the damage done to her favored political party? She completely misses a couple of salient points: One, that this is the party that espouses “family values” who try to make gay Americans second class citizens. Two, a point not made by Ms. Stohlberg is the poor judgement of the Republican candidates in selecting people without integrity to run their campaigns or be placed in positions of authority. Remember that Guilliani is the one who gave the nation Bernard Kerik as a candidate to head the Dept. of Homeland Security. I'm also wondering why it's not mentioned that Larry Craig's three children (alleged proof of his heterosexualilty) are actually his wife's from a former marriage.
I like Ms. Stohlberg's sentence starting with “Forget Mark Foley....” [The Times has, why shouldn't you?.] The only thing he did wrong was send explicit emails to underage pages. Ms. Stohlberg doesn't know what an Instant Message is? Because those aren't mentioned. Here's the difference, Sheryl: emails can be read later, or even deleted. Instant Messages just pop up while one is doing their work. Oh, but that's in the past. (What ever did happen to that FBI investigation?)
And of course, there's that false equivalency policy that makes Ms. Stohlberg mention William Jefferson and his 90,000 in the freezer. (What hypocrisy! Remember his railing against anyone who would own a freezer? I didn't think so.) But that wasn't a sex scandal and didn't involve a closeted gay person who voted to deny gay people their rights. Evidently, a Democratic sex scandal MUST be mentioned. So, let Stohlberg's Republican source bring up Clinton. Somehow, I don't remember Bill Clinton giving speeches about Family Values. And David Vitter? According to Stohlberg, he has survived having his phone number on the DC madam's list. (I don't recall his being re-elected, do you?) Let's not mention that other brothel madams spoke up to say he was a regular customer. And then there was the diaper fetish...That, apparently, is not fit to print.

Full Page Anti-PETA Ad Featuring Michael Vick

A full page ad in the New York Times costs somewhere upward of $100,000, I believe. Today there was such an ad with Michael Vick's photo on one side and someone in a hazmat suit holding a dead puppy on the other side. The headline asks “Who’s Killed More Animals? Vick (8) or PETA (14,400). The ad has a URL listed: www.PETAkillsANIMALS.com. At the web page under “about us” they tell us that

PETA Kills Animals" is a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the full range of choices that American consumers currently enjoy. In addition to malicious animal-rights activists, we stand up to the "food police," environmental scaremongers, neo-prohibitionists, meddling bureaucrats, and other self-anointed saints who claim to "know what's best" for you.

(Does every propaganda group have to have "Freedom" in their names?) The PETAkillsAnimals domain name is registered to Rick Berman, who is...guess what....a lobbyist for various steak houses and the meat industry. I’m not certain under what revised Bushian rules, this organization can be considered a “non-profit,” and claim that your donations are tax deductible, but you can bet that someone is profiting from this endeavor. (God bless the internet).
Here's a small list of the organizations that Rick Berman has attacked:

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
Alliance of American Insurers
American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons
American Corn Growers Association
American Medical Association
Arthritis Foundation
Center for Food Safety
Center for Media & Democracy
Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
Chefs Collaborative
Consumer Federation of America
Dakota Resource Council
Dakota Rural Action
Earth Island Institute
EarthSave International
Environmental Media Services
Environmental Working Group
Farm Animal Reform Movement
Farm Sanctuary
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani
Friends of the Earth
Georgia’s Office of Highway Safety
Greenpeace

That‘s not even half of ’em. The rest are here
PETA, you’re in good company.

“White House Memo”

In the “White House Memo” we get stenography dictated from the White House. (What ever happened to stenographer extraordinaire Elisabeth Bumiller?). We did learn that Ari Fleisher is heading a new group called “Freedom‘s Watch” (and who is it do you think they’re watching?) that has 15 million dollars to spend on propaganda supporting the war. (Ari calls this spending time with the family?) And it already appears to be working. The writer of this article, one Steven Lee Myers tells us that only the loony “passionate” Democratic base wants to end the war now. ”The pragmatic middle” who know that this carries too many risks are the sane ones who agree with George Bush. Let’s not reveal the truth, that George Bush is the delusional one with one of the lowest approval ratings ever for an American president...that a majority of the people want to end this war and that George Bush is the one increasingly isolated from his own party with more Republican lawmakers jumping ship every day. (And what's with the distracted, more-stupid-looking-than-usual photo? The online version is not cropped so we get the VFW cross on a tipsy angle...I had no idea that all veterans were Christian.)

No Longer Serving at the Pleasure of the President

Listening to George, it appears that he had another “fool-me-once-shame-on .................yew” moment.
I heard him on the radio: “This man's name was dragged through the .......................muuhd.”

What are the most likely reasons Alberto quit?

He had a good reason, but HE CAN'T RECALL...?

He wanted to spend more time lying to his family?

He wanted to be the first Hispanic Attorney General...to RESIGN?)

He wanted to devote more time, up close and personal...to his war on pornography?

Now, on to the recess appointment. Something to really piss them off.
[Do you think Bush likes recess appointments because recess was his favorite subject in school?]


Um. How about Harriet Myers?

The Times has some ’splainin’ to do

IN the article published Monday, August 20, “Two Senators Call for New Leader in Iraq” the Times says “In a conference call with reporters from Tel Aviv, Mr. Levin called on the Iraqi Parliament to vote the Maliki government from power..."
Huh?
Why was this a conference call with reporters from Tel Aviv? Is it because Carl Levin is Jewish? (That in itself wouldn’t really be a good reason, would it?) Does Israel have troops in Iraq? Why is Israel involved at all here? Is it a good idea to give Arabs the idea that Jews are colluding in this and helping call the shots? I don't get it.

Alessandra Stanley's TV Review of Karl Rove's many appearances on Sunday talk shows

Well, this was in the entertainment section, so Ms. Stanley can’t bring herself to be impolite enought to point out that Karl Rove was lying about the Plame affair and lying about Joe Wilson allegedly lying...thus continuing in the Bush Administration’s attempt to defame Joe Wilson. To be fair, David Gregory in interviewing Rove, also failed to point this out even when Rove unbelievably tried to repeat the discredited Niger/yellowcake lies that predicated the invasion of Iraq. Rove’s most laughable lie was when he claimed that Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger did turn up those aluminum tubes. (Wilson's Op-ed piece was entitled “What I Didn’t Find in Africa”). Rove repeated Bush's lies about British Intelligence supporting this claim depite the fact that they also knew that the entire lie had been based on a forgery. (The forgery did seem like a Rove MO written on stolen stationery, a stunt he pulled in college.) Rove’s “blame the Democrats” stance did make it into the second sentence of the piece, though his casting them as Captain Ahab and himself as a the big white whale, given Rove's pulchritude was probably meant to seem endearingly self-deprecating. Ms. Stanley, in keeping with the Times’ time-honored tradition of appearing to represent the middle ground of two opposing sides, claims that Rove “didn’t cut an especially heroic or villainous figure.” Perhaps she did not see Matthew Cooper, the Time reporter come on to refute what Rove had just said. Rove's villainy seemed obvious to me as he sat there lying in show after show. He had never been available before, why was he doing a media blitz now? He claimed someone else told him to, but like eveything else he said, there is no reason to believe it. He, along with the worst president in US history are guilty of politicizing every office of the government. The Justice department has become hopelessly compromised with Rove's fingerprints all over its politicization. It seems obvious that Rove was in the middle of a conspiracy involving Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Ari Fleisher and Richard Armitage, yet he tried to claim that Richard Armitage alone outed Valerie Plame. (And Richard Armitage is fine with this?) Can you spell T-R-E-A-S-O-N? [Yes, it still is against the law to out a spy in a time of war and to conspire to do so.] Isn't it sad to now realize that Patrick Fitzgerald was part of that Justice Department and apparently kept his job for a reason?

Keeping Cool Clean Tap Water (in New York, that is)

Today the lead editorial in theTimes celebrates our nation's wonderful drinking water, completely ignoring the recent news that British Petroleum's Whiting, Indiana plant plans for a 54 percent increase in ammonia and a 35 percent increase in solid waste containing dangerous heavy metals (including mercury) to be dumped into Lake Michigan, which provides drinking water to thirty million people. And the EPA has decided to let them do it. [Et tu, EPA? Has even the EPA become so politicized under Bush that they think this is OK?] The Times has had nothing about the EPA decision which was announced at a press conference on August 15th.

This year was the first time I've ever seen a green foam on the water at the beach. And I can't remember the last time I've eaten a fish from Lake Michigan, yet this is where we get our drinking water. The city I live in sells it to the cities west of here who aren't on the lake. On July 31st the Times had an article [registration required] entitled “Chicagoans Protest as Indiana Lets a Refinery Add to Lake Pollution” ...making it seem as if only Chicagoans care about this travesty. Lake Michigan's water is of global significance yet this fact is ignored by the Times. This is 1,584 pounds of ammonia and 4,925 pounds of suspended solids dumped into the lake each day. Yet the Times claims that there is little difference between bottled water and tap water, and they end their editorial saying the the public needs more respect for our drinking water (!) I believe it's British Petroleum and Indiana's Republican Governor, Mitch Daniels who need the lecture.

Cheney in 1994

Amazing that this video just surfaced two days ago. First, Move On sent it out (you’ll see their membership/donation form next to the video), then a friend sent it to me and then they used it on TDS. Why did it only surface now? Why did the person who did the interview not remember this during the run-up to the war? (And did no one at the New York Times think it was fit to discuss?)

Medical pot

Hmmm....still no mention of the recent raids of medical marijuana facilities in Southern CA. So much for “states’ rights.” Who cares if the people of California voted to keep these facilities open. I guess “states’ rights” are only for Republican priorities like being able to fly the confederate flag, restricting abortion and denying poor folks’ right to vote.

Interesting that the DEA felt it necessary to smash the glass front door.
I guess that’s what fascists do. [This takes a few seconds to load.]

Rove shit

image courtesy of The Wizard of Whimsey

Garrison Kellior writes in the Tribune:

No wonder Rove's nickname was “Turd Blossom.” He could put fecal matter on his lapel and call it a boutonniere.
[HT to RABFirst]

And Stephen Colbert said he had just hired a new political strategist whose name he would not tell us...but he’d give us a hint: his nickname was
“Feces Geranium.”

Times Ignores Real Mine Story

Just go read Arianna.

“Accuracy” in Hillary’s ad

Writer Patrick Healy claims that Hillary is being inaccurate in her ad when she states that “single mothers, veterans or people who lack health care” are “invisible” to President Bush...because he “would certainly disagree” with that!
There! Premise debunked.

If Bush were being honest (does that ever happen?) and not just campaigning, he’d agree with that statement. Do we see Iraq’s injured on TV? Has he ever attended a single funeral of a dead soldier? Has George Bush ever made a speech about people who lack health care? Sure, George Bush pays attention to single mothers and veterans...when he needs them for a photo-op.

Tuesday’s “History of Karl”

In a timeline chart called “The Architect Leaves the Picture,” (conspicuously absent from the online version of today’s Times),
anything negative is omitted...similar to the decorum expected in speaking about a dead person. Thus, it is mentioned that Rove worked for George H.W. Bush, but not that he was fired for his tactics. They mention Rove’s leading Bush’s campaign to victory for Texas governor in 1994, but not the push polls orchestrated by Rove that falsely insinuated that incumbent Governor Ann Richards was a lesbian. There’s also no mention of Rove’s racist whispering campaign about McCain‘s family in the South Carolina primary. The 2000 election is referred to as “close” but a win for Bush. And the 2004 election leaves out the role of the Swiftboaters in their slander of Kerry. The Valerie Plame leak and Rove's involvement is mentioned in passing, but all that seems to matter to the Times is that Rove was never indicted. There is no mention at all of Bush’s vow to fire anyone involved in that leak. And there was nothing in the timeline about Rove's involvement in the US Attorney firings and in one case, installing a protege of his as US Attorney in Arkansas. The whole sorry timeline is illustrated with a photo of Rove with dark hair and no pot belly.

Also missing from all discussions of Rove’s White House roles is any mention at all of Rove’s being put in charge of the Katrina reconstruction effort. How's that going, Karl? Mission accomplished? Heckuva job?

Bush’s Lyme Disease

Do a search on the Times site for Bush and Lyme disease and this headline comes up:

Annual Exam Gives Bush Good Marks for Health

I find this particularly outrageous. The headline is a lie. Every case of Lyme disease that I've heard of has necessitated a hospitalization. At some point, he would certainly be more debilitated for a longer period of time than the three hours it took to do his colonoscopy where the reins were formally turned over to Darth Cheney. AND, like the warrantless wiretapping, this deception has been going on for over a year. (Like the warrantless wiretapping, did the Times sit on this story for a year?) There was no news about it when he was treated for it, and the Times continues to parrot his doctor's assertion that Bush is in “excellent health”...(except, of course, for his bouts of vertigo.)