Watch. Learn. Vote.

Keith Olbermann produced an absolute masterpiece this evening.

This is real Must See TV.

But while it has become conventional wisdom, although debunked by the 9/11 Report, that Mr. Clinton dropped an offer from Sudan to hand over bin Laden… it is rare to hear anyone discuss whether similar… but real feelers were extended to Mr. Bush.

And it is, we suspect, even more rare, to see this tape, of the Bush White House addressing reports of such feelers in February, 2001, after we knew al Qaeda had attacked the Cole:

Q: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States would drop its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take that and get back to you on that.

There is no record of any subsequent discussion on the matter.

Every American should watch this the next time they consider whether this Administration has made, is making, and will make America safer.

I'm not a buisness man I'm a buisness, MAN

Well the names have all changed since you hung around,
But those dreams have remained and they're turned around.

....

Welcome back

Are you sure?

Coltrane hits the nail on the head below...same product launch, new year. The least these guys could do is bring out a different fall line. But all this Administration knows is fear, as if they read the cliff notes to 1984 every monrning before breakfast and think "Hey, that could work."

But I digress...

What caught my eye today was these words out of the mouth of Jeffery Toobin in an interview he did on CNN yesterday...

So even if the president gets his proposal through, it is not at all clear that the court will approve it, especially given one provision we didn't discuss much ... secret evidence. And this is something that Sen. Lindsey Graham has focused on a lot. And he said, "Look, there's no court in America, especially the Supreme Court, that is going to uphold executing somebody ... based on evidence he never saw."

And I think Sen. Graham raises a very profound point there. So that's something that we've got to keep in mind. The politicians can agree or disagree, but they don't have the last word.

Those nine folks across First Street in Washington, they have the last word.

I never thought I would say this in my country, but I feel like we are one SCOTUS vacany away from not being able to be so sure that Sen. Graham is correct. Go back and read the dissenting opinions of the Hamdan ruling, and you quickly realize that certain justices are much more interested in protecting this President, than upholding the Constitution of the United States. The Congress has already decided they are no more than a rubber stamp, an with the recent Supreme Court appoints, SCOTUS isn't far behind.

As they say, absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

This is for all the marbles. Either we stand up to this end run around the Constitution and everything that makes us Americans in good standing in the civilized world, or we give in to our inner demons by acting like the bad guys and...let me quote The Decider here..."We let the terrorists win".

What He Said

Billmon speaks...you listen...

What will be on the table then is the question of whether a nation as powerful and potentially dangerous to others as America (the proverbial bull in the china shop) can survive on brute force alone -- without moral legitimacy or political prestige, without true allies (save for the world's other leper regimes) and without "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind"

We're not there yet, but that is the direction we're heading, and a unilateral decision to redefine the Geneva Conventions (without actually admitting that we're doing it) would take us another few hundred miles down the road.

Click the link and read the entire thought provoking post.

Are we ready to surrender everything that has made us American, that easily?

Are we still the land of the free, and the home of the brave?

Racism alive and well in America

As Katrina showed us a year ago, and Sen. George Allen showed us as recently as last week, we still have long way to go. The fact that over 40% of Americans think everything went a-ok in Katrina's aftermath, and over 30% of Virginians don't find any fault with Sen. George Allen's statement's says a lot about the state of our nation.

Well, as if you needed more evidence, along comes this story from Lousiana that absolutely takes the cake....Did African American's civil rights get revoked when Rosa Parks died???

Black Students Ordered to Give Up Bus Seats to White Children

COUSHATTA --Nine black children attending Red River Elementary School in Louisiana were directed last week to the back of the school bus by a white driver who designated the front seats for white children.

The situation has outraged relatives of the black children who have filed a complaint with school officials.

....

After Richmond and Williams filed complaints with the School Board, Transportation Supervisor Jerry Carlisle asked Davis to make seat assignments for her passengers, Sessoms said.

"But she still assigned the black children to the back of the bus," she added.

And the nine children had to share only two seats, meaning the older children had to hold the younger ones in their laps.

As Survivor tries to create racial tension, it seems as though they may be leading indicator as opposed to an outlier. Consider these two points...

1) The driver still hasn't been fired...10 days later.

2) This hasn't been discussed anywhere that I can find in the national media?

If that doesn't make you sick to your stomach, I don't know what will. It is time to wake up and smell the latte my friends...

Drop the Q, Add an N

From the here we go again files...

via Billmon...

Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says

   Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.

    Bloomberg News

    Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days

    April 12, 2006

My own highly placed sources in the intelligence community tell me this report is based on the debriefing of an Iranian defector codenamed "Spitball." But that's classified, so don't tell anyone except Judy Miller.

Are we really going to be using the exact same playbook?

Hey, why not.  It worked just dandy the last time.

So how did they come up with this estimate?

Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.

``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.

Journalists, what would we do without them?

Notice how there is no date as to when they will move to the 54,000 centrifuge configuration.  But somehow, we have a headline that would lead one to believe Iran is 16 days away from having a nuclear bomb, RIGHT NOW.

Ahh...truthiness at its finest.

Hey, while they are at it, why not throw a few more numbers out there to see if they stick...

Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use.

So now it is 13 years...big difference huh?  16 days, 13 years.  What's 12 years, 349 days between friends?

One would think that would be enough from this esteemed journalist, but low and behold, another magical estimate appears even deeper in the story...

Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said.

``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said.

You mean the same Natanz you used to come up with the headline number of 16 days?  The same one used to write the nonsensical headline!!!!

Ok...that is it.  My head officially hurts...

Does Bloomberg have an ombudsmen?

Let's be clear.  New product season is on the way in September.  An Iran Resolution of some sort will be on the table in the House and Senate before the mid-terms.  

And this is just the warm-up...

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that we are really in for a doozy come this fall and the only question is how obedient the media will be this time around.  Your guess is as good as mine.

I know you have read it before, but this quote remains as scary as ever.  

Goering: Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or

a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Goering: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

--- Hermann Goering, made privately to Gustave Gilbert, during the course of the Nuremburg Trials

Will the United States of America be the first country to break the mold?

All-In: Political Poker and How Democrats Start Winning

Can someone please get me into the weekly Senate Democrat poker game? I have got to believe it is one of the biggest fish tanks in the world.

This week's past events related to Senator Feingold's censure resolution unquestionably demonstrates Democratic Leadership gets outplayed at every turn. They don't realize that you have take a stand at some point and come over the top. When are they going to go all-in?

Check out the flop below to see why Democrats could use a good poker lesson and how it will take some real sharks to get rid of the current regime.

Have these people ever asked themselves the following question? If the Republican's didn't want there to be a debate on censure, what would be their response and talking points? I am betting it would go something like this

'Bring it on, we dare you to try it'...

What is their alternative? "Oh please Democrats, don't censure the President?" Get real!!!

It is pure poker and Democrats are amateurs. They look at their hand and take the action without considering their opponents hand. Let's put this into poker terms.

The Democrats look at their hand. "Wow, a flush!!!" Republicans, sensing the Democrats have a very good hand, and knowing their hand "a pair" is suspect at best, decide it is time for a little table talk.

Republicans: I know my hand is better than yours. You better fold or you are going to lose all of your money!

Democrats: Darn, I only had a flush. Why are you so lucky? I guess I have to fold. :(

Rinse and Repeat.

From getting Democrats to apologize for accurate statements, to making them run and hide on judicial votes, to running from the current censure resolution, it is same old story and Republican's have the Democrats game down pat. The Democrat's table image is atrocious.

How do you counteract this nonsense?

A professional poker player rarely considers their own hand. They review their opponents actions, assess what the believe is their opponent's most likely hand, determine what their opponent would want them to do, and they do the opposite (if it benefits them).

Mike Caro's Great Law of Tells states: "Players are either acting or they aren't. If they are acting, then decide what they want you to do and disappoint them."

Great players take advantage of the slightest edge and exploit it to it the fullest extent.

In this case, their opponents have a hand that includes a brewing rebellion in Congress and an incompetent President with polls in the toilet. It is actually pretty simple.

In other words, Republicans and short stacked and desparate.

Boxers are trained to bounce on their toes or even smile after they've been hit hard so that the judges won't think that the opponent scored a blow. It's called smiling through the face of adversity

But the Democrats don't take their table image, or their opponent's actions into consideration. They simply continue to play the same lazy, lackluster, poker game they have played for the last 20 years. It is a leak, in poker terms, of tremendous proportions. Unwilling to take any chances, Democrats keep getting their blinds stolen from them because they are unwilling to stand up to the bully at the table.

Republicans appear to understand the game and have continuously used this expertise to their advantage. Karl Rove simply looks at his opponent's hands and does the opposite of what is expected. If you don't believe me, see his recent campaigns against John Kerry and John McCain. He could have cared less about his hand; the ineptitude, incompetence, and ridiculous "record of failure" of his candidate. He knew his opponent's hand and expectations, and then proceeded to represent the hands that would beat them, pushing his opponents off of the winning hand.

Represent: To play as if you hold a certain hand...

For instance, if you raised before the flop, and then raised again when the flop came ace high, you would be representing at least an ace with a good kicker.

For example, the swift-boating of John Kerry was a classic semi-bluff in poker sense. It was a calculated risk, where you are behind, but could pay off if your opponent folds immediately; or if his opponent called, he still had a chance to win if his hand improved with the next card. As you know, Kerry essentially kept calling and Rove kept raising, eventually getting the result he wanted, by ruining Kerry table image at the time of courage and strength.

The proper play in many situations, especially if you have an advantage, is to RERAISE!!! The key is to put pressure on your opponent and continuously put them to the test by forcing them to make the tough decisions. It doesn't matter what is in your hand. It is more important to understand your opponent's tendencies and take advantage of them. Republicans know this, Democrats apparently don't.

Just know that showing weakness under duress can only make the problem worse. Your ability to conceal your hand is often your best negotiating tool.

Any time a major raise has been put into the pot the last six months, Republicans reraise all in, usually calling for an immediate vote, and win without having to showdown there hand because the Democrats fold instead of calling their bluff. That is power and the Democrats need a refresher course, stat.

POWER: When you can get what you want and the other party still wants to do business with you, you have negotiated successfully. You set the stage for this when you take the time to walk in the other party's shoes.

Someone needs to teach Democrats that they need to change the table image, and change their game. The first step is to get rid of their tight passive image.

They play very few hands and when they do decide to play, they rarely bet or raise. They are content to sit back and wait for an absolute lock and will take whatever the pot will give them.

...

Tight passive players rarely win. This is due to paying blinds and winning so few pots which are often small.

Fortunately, they are playing against loose, aggressive Republicans, who while tougher to beat, can be brought down with a disciplined, but not risk averse, strategy.

Loose aggressive players will often raise with inferior hands. They will bet for no reason and overuse bluffs.

....

Loose aggressive players can obviously be beat. Keep in mind that when playing against a loose aggressive player you will need the best cards to win. Don’t get caught up in trying to prove that they play bad hands by calling when you shouldn’t. Be patient, wait for your moment and you can lure loose aggressive player into a huge pot with poor cards.

Well, the Republican's cards are not going to get much worse. Their leader has BROKEN THE LAW, and their disapproval numbers have not been higher since the Nixon regime. Democrats need to learn to attack aggressively when they have the advantage. They need to stop playing amateur poker. They need to forget their hand and start playing like professionals. They need to determine what their opponent's want them to do, and then disappoint them. Censure is a great start.

GO ALL IN!!

What I learned in the Washington Post today...

The Washington Post was in fine form today. And I was lucky enough to have an entire plane ride to take it all in.  They really outdid themselves.  Their sources, opinion writers, editors, and editorial board really went out of their way to boost the sales of advil today.

Lesson 1:  If a newspaper reserves space for your story on a protest no one attends, write a story about a different protest, but go ahead and keep you original headline.

Let's see.  There is a protest that 400 people attend.   Hmm...that may make it difficult to fill two pages worth of copy.  What should a reporter do?

First, start out by not mentioning how many people attended.

The afternoon rally was tiny in comparison with Saturday's antiwar demonstration, for which D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey gave a crowd estimate of at least 100,000.

And then, dedicate 65% (19 of 29) paragraphs to the protest.  Use the other 10 paragraphs to bury the story about anti-war protest across the city on the same day, WITH MORE PEOPLE.

In the ballroom of a Holiday Inn on Capitol Hill, about 350 "jurors" sipped coffee and ate desserts as they watched a mock trial of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, former CIA chief George J. Tenet and U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. The men were accused of violating U.S. law and the Geneva Convention in supporting torture.

"Obviously, this isn't a real court of law," said Jennifer Harbury, a coordinator of the program. "I don't expect Mr. Rumsfeld to show up here and answer questions."

....

A few blocks away on the Mall, about 200 people who planned to be arrested today if President Bush would not agree to meet with them gathered in tents for a workshop on what to expect from police.

Ah..the smell of false equivalence in the sky on a fall day.  The Washington Post and the DC Media at its best.

Lesson 2:  Learn the mantra.  If something is repeated over and over, then it must be true.

In an actually pretty well-thought out and informative article regarding evolution, I find this gem.

Asked to provide examples of non-obvious, testable predictions made by the theory of Intelligent Design, John West, an associate director of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based ID think tank, offered one: In 1998, he said, an ID theorist, reckoning that an intelligent designer would not fill animals' genomes with DNA that had no use, predicted that much of the "junk" DNA in animals' genomes -- long seen as the detritus of evolutionary processes -- will someday be found to have a function.

(In fact, some "junk" DNA has indeed been found to be functional in recent years, though more than 90 percent of human DNA still appears to be the flotsam of biological history.) In any case, West said, it is up to Darwinists to prove ID wrong.

As soon as Mr. West proves the Theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is implausible, I will embark on this effort.  May Mr. West be touched by his noodly appendage

Lesson 3: A course is a course, of horse of horse...horsesh** that is

Now I have heard of moving the goalposts, but is it politically legal to morph them into a lottery ball drum of randomness?

President Bush and other administration officials continue to speak about Iraqi democracy in glowing terms, but you don't hear similar language from the military. After watching Iraqi political infighting for more than two years, they're more cautious. "I think we'd be foolish to try to build this into an American democracy," says one general. "It's going to take a very different form and character." The military commanders have concluded that because Iraqis have such strong cultural antibodies to the American presence, the World War II model of occupation isn't relevant. They've sharply lowered expectations for what America can accomplish.

What Abizaid and his commanders seem to fear most is that eroding political support for the war in the United States will undermine their strategy for a gradual transition to Iraqi control. They think that strategy is beginning to pay off, but it will require several more years of hard work to stabilize the country. The generals devoutly want the American people to stay the course -- but the course they describe is more limited, and more realistic, than recent political debate might suggest.

Got that...Everyone needs to stay the course, as soon as we get around to telling you what this week's course is...Can someone please give me a call when David Ignatius returns to the english speaking world?

Lesson 4:  The Washington Post Editorial Board has hired mind readers.

Fred Hiatt and company apparently have performed a mind meld with John Roberts.

A second important factor is temperament. One reason Judge Roberts seems so different from conservative justices such as Antonin Scalia is that he does not project a desire to use the bench to wage a war for the future of American society. Rather, he portrays the court as a place to resolve disputes between parties that cannot do so on their own. Mr. Bush should once again avoid a nominee who displays a grandiose vision of the judicial function. Similarly, nominees who display a commitment to precedent are far less threatening to those who disagree with them than ones who appear eager to overturn decisions with which they disagree. Justice Clarence Thomas is the court's most radical justice precisely because of his blithe willingness to revisit holdings that are decades old.

You know what, after reading the following quote from the confirmation hearings, they may have a point .

"I think overruling a case or reconsidering a case is a very serious matter. Certainly, you would have to be of the view that a case is incorrectly decided, but I think even that is not adequate. There are some cases that you may not agree with that should not be overruled. Stare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision-making, I think it is a very important and critical concept. A judge that wants to reconsider a case and certainly one who wants to overrule a case has the burden of demonstrating that not only is the case incorrect, but that it would be appropriate, in view of stare decisis, to make that additional step of overruling that case."

Well, if you put it that way, who would dare label this person a radical justice.  OH WAIT!!!

That was Clarence Thomas in 1991.  MY BAD.

It is nice to know that psychics now are writing for a national news source.  However, I will stick with actually waiting for Judge Roberts to make a few rulings before I determine his judicial "temperament".

......

What a privilege it was to be a Washington Post reader on such a glorious day...I needed good laugh that early in the morning.  I just wish I was reading the comics while I was laughing.  My head also hurts.

Pass the advil.

Blair vs. Rove

Based on the quotes below, I would love to hear what Karl Rove and President Bush think about Tony Blair's approach to the War on Terror, if I were a member of the elite Washington press...

Karl Rove - June 22, 2005

Rove, in a speech Wednesday evening to the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, said, "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Tony Blair -- July 9, 2005

In an address on British Broadcasting Corp. radio Saturday, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Britain must defend against terrorism _ but must also strive to understand the underlying causes of the violence, which he identified as deprivation, lack of democracy and ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

"I think this type of terrorism has very deep roots," Blair said. "As well as dealing with the consequences of this _ trying to protect ourselves as much as any civil society can _ you have to try to pull it up by its roots."

That meant boosting understanding between people of difference religions, helping people in the Middle East see a path to democracy and easing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, he said.

I wonder if anyone in the Monday White House briefing will be interested in finding out the President's opinion on this dispute between Mr. Rove and Prime Minister Blair...

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Via Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing...

Joe Hagan writes in the Wall Street Journal about how the Newsweek story has again raised questions about anonymous sourcing.

" 'We get bashed for all the anonymous sources but the administration is the one that insists on it,' says Dana Priest, who covers national security for the Washington Post. 'I don't think people realize that.'

Which is sort of analogous to saying "My husband beats me, but I stay because I love him."

If the media is continually ridiculed for respecting the requests of The White House, who in turn bashes them for using the same techniques that they requests, why on earth would the media continue to use these journalistic practices. It is like some strange twilight zone self fulfilling prophecy.

Two Words: Access & Money.

The press is profit driven, and they somehow believe that being first to market translates into dollars. If the CBS and Newsweek experiences are not enough for them to figure out how outlandish the pitfalls of this approach, they deserve exactly what they get and I have no sympathy for them.

I agree!

On my way home today, I heard a conservative radio host on the radio state that there should be a thorough investigation into the negligence of those who put United State's Soldiers in harm's way by relying on single sourced evidence of wrongdoing that could not be later confirmed and appeared to be politically motivated.

I agree wholeheartedly.

And when the investigation into the manipulation of facts to suit the Administration's Iraq policy is completed, it may be a good idea to look further into any potential journalistic lapses that caused Newsweek to make this retraction...

Too Little, Too Late

When will the media learn?

Newsweek apologized yesterday for an inaccurate report on the treatment of detainees that triggered several days of rioting in Afghanistan and other countries in which at least 15 people died.

Editor Mark Whitaker expressed regret over the item in the magazine's "Periscope" section, saying it was based on a confidential source -- a "senior U.S. government official" -- who now says he is not sure whether the story is true.

BTW-It looks like ship has already sailed...

Newsweek magazine may have apologized, but to many in the Muslim world, it's too late and much too little.

Muslims brushed off an apology to readers that appeared in this week's edition of the newsweekly that acknowledged errors in a story alleging U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran, Islam's holy book.

Interestingly enough, Newsweek has an Arabic issue but there was no mention of the apology in this week's issue. Critics called it a strategic move in the face of the overwhelming and violent reaction.

I thought the press had the privilege of revealing their sources if the source proved to be untrustworthy. If the source told you something untrue, there is no reason for that person to remain anonymous. I am not sure why they have not, but it is interesting that they have not.

Why the press continues to use anonymous sources as the rule as opposed to the exception is beyond me? This Administration has successfully taken down the credibility CBS (Non-Denial of the National Guard story), the NYT (Miller WMD reporting), attempted The Washington Post (Mike Allen on the Schiavo Memo), and now Newsweek (w/WaPo due to their ownership) via this story with another non-denial that the Newsweek relied upon and threw back in their face 11 days later. They sit there in gaggle briefings with the Press Secretary literally laughing in their face and not giving them a straight answer for days on end, and then they report him telling them they need to get their facts straight. And they take it over and over again...There are a few metaphors I could use hear, but this is a family site.

There is a reason journalist's first job is to be skeptical. The lack of skepticism is now becoming the MSM's achilles heel. The MSM continues to chase their tails while Rupert Murdoch laughs all the way to the bank.

I have no sympathy for Michael Issikoff or Newsweek. I still have not seen any evidence that the story was untrue. But tell me again, why is the editor checking on sources after the story was published instead of before? It is like the Mike Allen Schiavo memo story. They retract a bit and then unretract a bit, but the damage is already done. They have only made the situation that much worse.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, they report that the story is absolutely true next week, would anyone believe them? That is the problem here. The same way the President has been using up his political capital, the MSM has just about used up there capitial and they don't get any new capital every 4 years.

You can forget about any adversarial stories from Newsweek for the next two or three years. There are not many investigative journalists out there and Newsweek just blew it. Perception is reality here, no matter how loud Juan Cole protests (and I happen to agree with the majority of his assessment)

As everyone who frequents this site should know by now, I am no tinfoiler, but let's take a look at the current state of affairs for the Neo-Conservative power structure.

Executive Branch...check

Legislative Branch...check

Judicial Branch...taking care of that this week

World Bank....check

Military...check

Delegitimize the UN and International Law...check with Bolton cleaning up loose ends

Delegitimize major non-conservative media outlets...check

As an Independent, this scares me just as much as a Democratic checklist of the same type would. I sincerely believe absolute power corrupts absolutely and absolute power is suddenly within reach.

Stranger than fiction?

The third installment has somehow set off another debate on the world view of the current Administration

But there were also murmurs at the parallels being drawn between Bush's administration and the birth of the space opera's evil Empire.

Baddies' dialogue about bloodshed and despicable acts being needed to bring "peace and stability" to the movie's universe, mainly through a fabricated war, set the scene.

And then came the zinger, with the protagonist, Anakin Skywalker, saying just before becoming Darth Vader: "You are either with me — or you are my enemy."

I have heard and read that many are suggesting a correlation between The Empire and the Bush Administration. Without getting into the particulars of whether this is true or not, I would like to ask supporters of the Administration a simple, but yet what I believe is a poignant and important question.

Why is it that so many recent movies "appear" to be jabs at the current Administration via the antagonist? Once again, I have not seen the movie, but movies from "The Manchurian Candidate" to "Minority Report" to this one definitely have a point of view.

But take the current Administration out of the equation...Are the points being made by "The Good Guys" valid? Are they too Utopian?

If not, why are we at the point where the first interpretation of all of these movies is that our current Administration takes the view of "The Bad Guys"? What would be the storyline of the movie that fits the world view of the current administration? Maybe the "24" storyline, although I have never seen that show.

I am not asking this rhetorically. It seems to me that there is a difference between right and wrong. However, these movies appear to be making the distinction more clear, but in reality they are becoming more and more blurred. Should we be moving toward more clarity or less at this point in history? Is reality simply less clear than we would like to believe?

I do not know when the dialouge for this movie was written. However, Lucas says the story was written more based on his experience with the Vietnam War than any recent events according to the linked storty. But I still believe that it is very telling that 30 years later we have reached a point were a "viable" interpretation of this movie could be that the US is closer to the role of the Empire that the "Good Guys"?

I am trying to organize my thoughts around this, but I would love to hear your opinion. I would like to here the counter argument from a supporter of the Administration on this subject. Why is the interpretation not viable, even if you believe it does not represent the full reality of the situation. I certainly would like to think that this is a ridiculous interpretation of the movie, but unfortunately, recent events make this interpretation much closer to reality than it should be, even if it is only 5% (an arbitrary number).

Join in a discussion here in the comments section.

Never Again???

Many people love to use those two words when they think about atrocities committed by governments over the years. Unfortunately, there are many times that these are no more than words.

The 21st Century Tuskegee Experiment

Government tested AIDS drugs on foster kids
Children not provided with basic legal protection, review finds

...The research funded by the National Institutes of Health spanned the country. It was most widespread in the 1990s as foster care agencies sought treatments for their HIV-infected children that weren't yet available in the marketplace.

The practice ensured that foster children, mostly poor or minority, received care from world-class researchers at government expense, slowing their rate of death and extending their lives. But it also exposed a vulnerable population to the risks of medical research and drugs that were known to have serious side effects in adults and for which the safety for children was unknown.

...In one study, researchers reported a "disturbing" higher death rate among children who took higher doses of a drug. That study was unable to determine a safe and effective dosage.

...However, researchers and foster agencies told AP that foster children in AIDS drug trials often weren’t given such advocates even though research institutions many times promised to do so to gain access to the children.

Illinois officials believe none of their nearly 200 foster children in AIDS studies got independent monitors even though researchers signed a document guaranteeing “the appointment of an advocate for each individual ward participating in the respective medical research.”


Please click on the link and read the entire article. The article states lives were extended in some cases, but then states a disturbingly high death rate occured in others. Does the ends justify the means?

Let me be clear. I have no problem with experimental medical care for those who are willing and able to accept the risks. I also think it is important to attempt to provide the best treatment available to all of those in need, including the most needy among us.

However, it is simply unacceptable in my view to experiment on children without oversight and then attempt to hide it from authorities. If this was on the up and up, why were advocates not assigned to these children who could take care of their best interests. We have seen this story before in Tuskegee. Rules were set up to ensure the same thing did not happen again. These rules were systematically subverted in this case. These are not mice. These are human beings who were guinea pigs for experimental treatments and may not have been aware of the consequences.

I simply ask you these two questions.

Have you heard about this? Why not?

I tend to believe this is at least worthy of a national discussion. Some people may believe doctors should experiment on kids if they think the treatments can help. I just happen to believe history has shown that someone independent should be involved in thes decisions, because of the potential conflicts of interest for the researchers.

The media of this country would prefer to talk about a bride who got cold feet than talk about experimentation on the most vulnerable among us. Have they no shame? By the way, the BBC reported this back in November, but the US media didn't find it important enough to discuss.

Remaining silent on this is simply not an option in my opinion. I implore you to email this story to anyone you believe would be interested.

Write your congressman or congresswoman and ask why they allowed this to happen and what they are going to do to never let it happen again. They can pass laws in one day to attempt to save the life of one person in Florida, but yet children are being experimented on like animals and nothing is done.

Write a letter to your editor or other local media asking why this is not more important than Michael Jackson and runaway brides.

Here are tips for writing letters to the media.

The madness must stop. Your silence is deadly. Literally.

----------------------------------------------------------------

And in case you didn't know, another African genocide is underway, but those lives do not seem to be important either. Thousands die each day and the world remains silent. What does "culture of life" really mean, and whose lives does it refer to? Silence is indeed deadly.

When a correction isn't a correction

I almost ruined my shirt this morning because I laughed so hard when I read this in Howard Kurtz's column this morning.

Barnes says he was "wrong about its origin" but that if a similar strategy memo from a Democratic aide had leaked, "it wouldn't have been paid any attention to by the media."

Go read the article. Instead of correcting the first time he placed unsubstantiated innuendo and unchecked nonsense in his Monday-Front of the Style Page-column, he uses the column to basically provide the Blog of the Year and Barnes to make more ridiculous claims.

For those keeping score at home, I seem to remember a few memos from Democrats the were all over the news the last few years.

Miguel Estrada Memo

Senate Inquisition
The real scandal is what's in the Democratic memos on judges, not who leaked them.

Hmmm..that is interesting....here's another gem...


Rockefeller Intelligence Committee memo

"Republican senators responded angrily to a memo about the plan leaked Wednesday, suggesting that it may violate Senate rules. Even one Democrat called for the firing of anyone involved with the memo's creation."

..."Additionally, I call on Senator Rockefeller and Senate Democratic leaders to immediately disassociate themselves from this partisan attack plan," Kyl continued. "A failure to denounce this memo publicly would clearly seem to be an acknowledgement of its authenticity."

These guys seem to have no shame. Again, read the article. If you missed the first line of the third paragraph, you might think that the memo was still a point of controversy. He didn't even give Mike Allen, his own colleague, a chance to rebutt the nonsense that he allowed the blog of the year and the beltway boy to once again discuss in his "Weekly" column.

If this is not, unadulterated bias, even it is subconscious, I don't know what is.

Let me be the voice

Eminem has never veered away from controversy. I suspect one of his latest songs, "Mosh", which can be heard here, will strike a nerve with some people.

So be it....

I recently heard the first single he released, "Just Lose It", and I found it very disappointing. It came across as a thinly-veiled attempt to please his record company with a radio friendly single. I absolutely forgive him for this watered down song now that I hear what else was going on his mind. I have not heard his new album "Encore", but if Marshall Mathers has moved from some of his more chauvinistic and misogynistic lyrics of his earlier albums in favor of songs with meaning like "Mosh", he deserves a great deal of respect. I am under no false impression. I am sure he will still be outrageous at moments, but it seems as if he is moving in the right direction.

Here are the lyrics to the song. Pay particular attention to the third verse.

' [Intro]

[I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
And to the Republic for which it stands
One nation under God
Indivisible・
people…this is it…It feels so good to be back..]

[Verse1]

Scrutinize every word, memorize every line
I spit it once, refuel, reenergize, and rewind
I give sight to the blind, mind sight through the mind
I ostracize my right to express when I feel it's time
It's just all in your mind, what you interpret it as
I say to fight you take it as I’m gonna whip someone's ass
If you don't understand don't even bother to ask
A father who has grown up with a fatherless past
Who has blown up now to rap phenomenon that has
Or at least shows no difficulty multi task
And juggling both, perhaps mastered his craft slash
Entrepreneur who has held long too few more rap acts
Who has had a few obstacles thrown his way through the last half
Of his career typical manure moving past that
Mister kiss his ass crack, he's a class act
Rubber band man, yea he just snaps back

[Chorus]

Come along, follow me as I lead through the darkness
As I provide just enough spark, that we need to proceed
Carry on, give me hope, give me strength,
Come with me, and I won't steer you wrong
Put your faith and your trust as I guide us through the fog
Till the light, at the end, of the tunnel, we gonna fight,
We gonna charge, we gonna stomp, we gonna march through the swamp
We gonna mosh through the marsh, take us right through the doors..come
on.

[Verse2]

To the people up top, on the side and the middle,
Come together, let's all bomb and swamp just a little
Just let it gradually build, from the front to the back
All you can see is a sea of people, some white and some black
Don't matter what color, all that matters is we gathered together
To celebrate for the same cause, no matter the weather
If it rains let it rain, yea the wetter the better
They ain't gonna stop us, they can't, we're stronger now more then ever,
They tell us no we say yea, they tell us stop we say go,
Rebel with a rebel yell, raise hell we gonna let em know
Stomp, push up, mush, f*** Bush, until they bring our troops home come
on just . . .

[Chorus]

Come along, follow me as I lead through the darkness
As I provide just enough spark, that we need to proceed
Carry on, give me hope, give me strength,
Come with me, and I won't steer you wrong
Put your faith and your trust as I guide us through the fog
Till the light, at the end, of the tunnel, we gonna fight,
We gonna charge, we gonna stomp, we gonna march through the swamp
We gonna mosh through the marsh, take us right through the doors, come
on

[Verse3]

Imagine it pouring, it's raining down on us,
Mosh pits outside the oval office
Someone's trying to tell us something, maybe this is God just saying
we're responsible for this monster, this coward, that we have empowered
This is Bin Laden, look at his head nodding,
How could we allow something like this, Without pumping our fist
Now this is our, final hour
Let me be the voice, and your strength, and your choice
Let me simplify the rhyme, just to amplify the noise
Try to amplify the times it, and multiply it by six
Teen million people are equal of this high pitch
Maybe we can reach Al Qaida through my speech
Let the President answer on high anarchy
Strap him with AK-47, let him go
Fight his own war, let him impress daddy that way
No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our soil
No more psychological warfare to trick us to think that we ain't loyal
If we don't serve our own country we're patronizing a hero
Look in his eyes, it's all lies, the stars and stripes
They've been swiped, washed out and wiped,
And Replaced with his own face, mosh now or die
If I get sniped tonight you'll know why, because I told you to fight

[Chorus]

So come along, follow me as I lead through the darkness
As I provide just enough spark, that we need to proceed
Carry on, give me hope, give me strength,
Come with me, and I won't steer you wrong
Put your faith and your trust as I guide us through the fog
Till the light, at the end, of the tunnel, we gonna fight,
We gonna charge, we gonna stomp, we gonna march through the swamp
We gonna mosh through the marsh, take us right through the doors

[Outro]

[Eminem speaking angrily]
And as we proceed, to mosh through this desert storm, in these closing statements, if they should argue, let us beg to differ, as we set aside our differences, and assemble our own army, to disarm this weapon of mass destruction that we call our president, for the present, and mosh for the future of our next generation, to speak and be heard, Mr. President, Mr. Senator

[End] '

The question is will Eminem's fan base relate to this message. We now have P. Diddy saying "Vote or Die", in a not so subtle endorsement of John Kerry, even though he won't come out and say it. Eminem one ups him by out and out saying kick the President out of office. Eminem speaks to young rural, suburban, and urban youth, but will his message resonate? This song sounds like it is from the heart and there could be consequences from a public relations standpoint. You have to believe large portions of this group are strong supporters of the President, especially in middle America. Will this straight-forward and direct message alienate them, or peel them away from Bush/Cheney 04, if they vote? Will those that are alienated fnas not buy the new album? The fact that he is willing to put the song out at this heated moment says more about the man, Marshall Mathers, than it does about the artist Eminem. Slim Shady has earned the respect of the rap community for his lyrical dexterity, freestyling ability, and powerful storytelling skills with "Stan", "Lose Yourself", and "Cleaning Out My Closet" being some of the more prominent examples. Will this song and related interviews, such as this one in Rolling Stone, earn him more or less respect outside of the hip-hop community?

"He's been painted to be this hero and he's got our troops over there dying for no reason," Eminem said in the interview. "He's in a tailspin, running around like a dog chasing his tail. And we got young people over there dyin', kids in their teens, early '20s that should have futures ahead of them. And for what? It seems like Vietnam 2."

A Michigan resident, the rapper said he worries his 18-year old brother could be drafted if Bush remains president. Bush has said flatly he would not reinstitute the draft if re-elected.

"People think their votes don't count, but people need to get out and vote," Eminem said.

Will the song be played on local radio and MTV, or will stations play it safe and stick with the single "Just Lose It"? I get the feeling that this will be a bigger story than one would initially believe. There are a variety of factors that add up to this becoming the story for the hip-hop generation over the next week. Eminem will be the feature interview in the upcoming issue of Rolling Stone as noted above, his new Sirius Satellite Radio station, Shade 45, will begin broadcasting this week, and you have to believe the MTV and BET appearances are right around the corner. Add to that the release of a highly anticipated album and you have the foundation for an album release media blitz that will have an intended or unintended political ramifications like none before. This also opens the opportunity for Slim Shady to say something that has causes a news cycle or two to divert from the Kerry Campaign's message, which may be positive or negative depending on the timing.

Juan Cole, a professor at the University of Michigan, has a good wrap-up of the potential impact of this story here.

Will Eminem be the voice of America's youth for 7 days prior to November 2?

Its Ok If You Are A Republican

After hearing the Bush/Cheney campaign attempt to brush off the Vice President's blatant distortions last night, I thought it would be a good idea to revisit some of their statements during the 2000 campaign.

I originally posted the following quotes as comments in the link I provided, but I thought it was a good idea to aggregate them after I realized how many examples of blatant hypocrisy were out there.

Let's go to the video tape...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AL GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: First, I want to compliment the governor on his response to those fires and floods in Texas. I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Well, Al Gore did not actually visit Texas on this occasion with James Lee Witt, the FEMA director at the time. He visited with his subordinates. However, he did visit approximately 18 other disaster areas with Lee Witt at other times. A small discrepancy right...

Well, not if you were part of the Bush/Cheney 2000 team. Here is what they said.

Let's start with...

MARY MATALIN: He did not accompany James Lee Witt in '96 or '98. He never toured any of the fire zones. He did get a briefing in the pilots lounge at the airport when he went down to campaign for Governor Bush's opponent.

...Have we seen -- have we not seen this kind of compulsive behavior in the leader of the free world, and don't we understand the dangerous ramifications of somebody who just can't help themselves from making up stories?

I wonder if she is thinking the same thing about her boss?

and continue with

HALEY BARBOUR, BUSH ADVISER: Well, you know, it's a thing -- it's a thing where in a debate, if you can make up these fairy tales to carry your story, that's the thing --that these are like fables.

The problem is it was told to the American people as if it was the truth, and it wasn't the truth. You know, I've met James Lee Witt, I've been to Texas. And if I went out and said, James Lee and I went down to Texas, and we really worked on these fires, it would be totally made up though the two parts of it are true.

But these are fables that are designed to give him an advantage in the debates.

Here's the President at the time...

CROWLEY: The Gore camp says the vice president frequently travels with Witt to disaster sites and suggests that Gore's statement was a trivial honest mistake. George Bush says this is not about details, but about the larger picture.

BUSH: If there's pattern of just exaggeration and stretches to try to win votes, it says something about leadership as far as I'm concerned, because once you're the president, you can't stretch.

And the President again...

Bush also criticized Gore for saying, during Tuesday night's debate, that he visited disaster sites in Texas with federal emergency management chief James Lee Witt.

"It's a pattern of just saying whatever it takes to win," Bush said. Asked whether the discrepancy was a big deal, he said "There's a pattern of exaggerations and stretches to try to win votes, and it says something about leadership."

and the coup de grace...

Bush's running mate, former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, said he was "puzzled and saddened to learn" that Gore had misrepresented his actions during the 1998 wildfires in Texas.

"Al Gore has described these presidential debates as a job interview with the American people," Cheney said. "I've learned over the years that when somebody embellishes their resume in a job interview, you don't hire them."

I actually don't think the Vice President's distortions related to meeting Senator John Edwards should be that big of a deal. I am much more concerned about his distortions related to the war that our brave troops are still fighting. However, the same people seemed to believe recalling personal interactions was a big deal in 2000. I am just wondering if they feel the same way today.

I guess the old saying is true...

It ain't no fun when the rabbit's got the gun

Fairness Doctrine

The "liberal" media is at it again....

It looks like the White House pulled a fast one on the 24-hour news channels this morning as President Bush grabbed 50 minutes of free, uninterrupted TV airtime one month before Election Day.

...The question is, why did all three news channels cover the attack speech for nearly an hour?

I am sure John Kerry will get 50 minutes of free airtime over the next few days...

I am not holding my breath..

The Week the Wheels Came Off

Salon has the scoop...

"Last week's presidential debate might very well turn out to be the pivotal moment in the 2004 election, with an unfiltered Bush finally revealing his full limitations before 66 million Americans. But it is this week that will go down in history as the point when the wheels began to come off the Bush-Cheney juggernaut. "

But can they get the Bush/Cheney campaign get things back on track.