Good for `Nightline;' Fie on Sinclair Broadcast Group
   Tonight, ABC's "Nightline" will consist of Ted Koppel reading the names of more than 500 U.S. military members killed in action in Iraq. According to Koppel, who was interviewed on CNN this evening, the program was conceived simply as a tribute to those who've made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.
   The powers that be at Sinclair Broadcasting Group don't accept that explanation. In their view the program is a sneaky effort to turn public sentiment against the war in Iraq. Thus, Baltimore-based Sinclair will not carry "Nightline" tonight on the eight ABC affiliates among its 62 stations across the country.
   Reportedly, many conservative talk radio commentators are echoing Sinclair's charge and panning ABC, "Nightline" and Koppel. Among the charges: that somehow the reading of 700-plus names is intended to boost ratings at the beginning of the so-called May sweeps, when ratings are considered especially important.
   Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a former POW who fully supports the war in Iraq, went out of his way to publicly disagree with Sinclair Broadcasting and others who are criticizing "Nightline." A news story quotes a letter McCain sent Sinclair CEO David smith:
Oh!pinion's view: McCain couldn't be more right. Sinclair Broadcasting and the squawking heads of right-wing radio couldn't be more wrong. If public support for the Iraq war, or any war, rests on no more or better foundation than that most Americans must go about their business blissfully unaware, or uncaring, of the loss of lives involved, that war effort is doomed — and probably should be.
   War isn't just about guts and glory, valor and victory. Mud, blood, broken bones, lost limbs, bruised souls and shattered minds figure prominently. So do lost lives. After all, the essence of war is to go forth and kill or be killed.
   Another aspect of Sinclair's being wrong has to do with censorship. Thanks to Sinclair's arbitrary decision, most people in St. Louis; Columbus, Ohio; Winston-Salem, N.C.; Pensacola, Fla.; Springfield, Mass.; Tallahassee, Fla.; Charleston, W. Va.; and Asheville, N.C., will have no choice of their own about the merits of viewing tonight's "Nightline." A broadcasting conglomerate has made that decision for them — further reason such corporations should be severely restricted in the number of media outlets they can own and rigorously regulated.
   Finally, Sinclair Broadcasting's own motivation is highly suspect on political grounds. Going by the reported record of campaign contributions by company officials, Sinclair qualifies as an operating extension of the Bush-Cheney campaign, the Republican National Committee or both.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:26 PM

 
May MCI, H-P commercials set new standard
   Just when we were convinced TV commercials were an unremitting blight on modern life, along come two that are so exceptionally good they stopped us in our tracks.
   Let's hear it for MCI and Hewlett-Packard, for bringing together wonderful music, engaging images and intelligent messages. Someone at both of these corporations has taste and standards, and realizes quality is always in style.
   MCI's standout gives us Tony Bennett and (we think) Julie London singing "What a Wonderful World." The accompanying images show us how MCI's service can bring people together. H-P's charmer gives us the old standard, "Blue Skies," sung beautifully by a woman whose name we regret we don't know (if anyone does know, please leave a comment). Fine imagery shows how H-P products can help people achieve their dreams.
   How wonderfully free these ads are of the jarring, inelegant, all-rhythm, no-melody, noise suitable only for a workout room that have accompanied so many commercials in recent years. How wonderfully free, also, of the herky-jerky camera work made popular by MTV for those among us with minimal powers of concentration and comprehension.
   Maybe the people responsible for such saturation-level atrocities as the commercials for Oxyclean, Mor Furniture and DiTech.com will get a clue, although we're not holding our breath.
   Maybe, too, we're at long last going to be free of the barrages of audiovisual garbage embraced by so many advertisers not because they were ever any good, but because they were perceived as trendy. Here's hoping, anyway.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:33 PM

 
Portent in Pennsylvania primary results?
   Veteran Sen. Arlen Specter's slim win in Tuesday's Republican primary in Pennsylvania my bode ill for President Bush come November.
   An interesting article in The Hill points out key ramifications of relatively moderate Specter's heated contest with a far-right, three-term congressman, Pat Toomey.
   First, it appears Pennsylvania Republicans are sliding toward the conservative extremism of the state's junior senator, Rick Santorum — as fine an example of 18th-century petty noblemen as exists in Congress today.
   Secondly, Specter's 17,000-vote margin, with only about a third of the state's 3.2 million registered Republicans bothering to vote Tuesday, indicates a certain lack of enthusiasm and draw. That's somewhat surprising, given that Bush went to the Keystone state to stump for Specter and given that Specter spent more than $7 million on his campaign.
   The prospects going forward are enough to give Bush & Co. pause, especially since Bush lost Pennsylvania to Al Gore in 2000.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:52 PM

 
Federal Web site runs Bush campaign blurb
   Federal agencies are supposed to be services funded by all the people, operating for the benefit and best interests of all the people. As such, they're not supposed to be mouthpieces, billboards or promotional vehicles for political campaigns.
   This makes sense for many practical reasons and certainly for the sake of fairness. Unfortunately, the Anything-To-Win Gang surrounding our court-appointed president don't get it or don't care.
   Click here and go to the bottom of this Treasury Department news release.
   Here's what you'll see: "America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation."
   Next, click here to go to GOP.com, scroll down to the next-to-last paragraph and you'll see the same message.
   If you're not a Republican or Bush fan and are wise to the fact that his one-bad-idea economic policy is an unmitigated disaster, you'll no doubt join us in being especially outraged about how our tax dollars are being misappropriated to help Bush get reelected — one of the worst things that could happen to this country.
   And to think, these are the people who had regular eruptions of indignation because Bill Clinton let a few campaign contributors spend a night in the Lincoln bedroom!
   A salute to Democratic Underground and to Boingboing.net for bringing this outrage to light. Both sites should be among your bookmarks or favorites.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:57 PM

 
Bush between trade rock and political hard place
ome free-trade chickens are coming home to roost — at the White House, in Texas and across farm belt states.
   The World Trade Organization has made a preliminary ruling that generous U.S. government subsidies paid to cotton farmers violate international trade rules. The WTO acted on a case brought by Brazil and supported by Argentina, Australia, Benin, Canada, Chad, China, the European Community, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay, Taiwan and Venezuela.
   The complaint is that U.S. subsidies to cotton farmers cause overproduction, which drives down cotton prices worldwide and plows under smaller Third-World producers.
   A New York Times story on this says: "Without the subsidies, Brazil estimated that United States cotton production would have fallen 29 percent and that American cotton exports would have dropped 41 percent. That would have led to a rise in international cotton prices of 12.6 percent, which would have helped Brazil's cotton farmers." The stakes are obviously huge.
   The U.S. claims its subsidies don't violate trade rules or harm foreign producers. The U.S. will appeal the decision, the story says, working to delay a final ruling until after the election. It's also expected the U.S. will try to work a deal this summer to skirt the ruling and avoid externally forced changes.
   In essence, what the WTO's finding says is that U.S. farm policy violates free-trade principles and practices, and must be changed. Presumably, changes would affect virtually all agricultural subsidies to U.S. producers.

   Oh!pinion finds this all especially interesting because President George W. Bush and the overwhelming majority of his pro-corporate Republican backers in Congress are hard-core free traders. That description also fits the many fat-cat cronies Bush has appointed to high federal positions, along with the deep-pockets cronies who lavishly fund his every campaign.
   It gets even more interesting when you consider that Bush's beloved Texas is a major cotton-producing state. So are most of the Deep-South states and several of the farm belt states that are the backbone of Bush's political base. Ironically, many Bush backers in those states are also true believers in the free trade faith.
   Even so, if Bush adheres to his free trade ideology, drastically cutting agricultural subsidies, he's sure to anger a whole lot of people who stand to lose financially as a result. Those are people whose money Bush wants now and whose votes he'll need in November. What's more, he's likely to put a screeching halt to the most expensive, lopsided and laggardly economic recovery (if you can call it that) in U.S. history.
   The obvious course for Bush is to back and fill, playing for time until after the election. Even if he can do that and win reelection, Bush still must deal with those homecoming chickens at some point.

   There's political and poetic justice in this situation. We can hardly wait to see which will win out: Bush's slavish devotion to free trade and subservience to the WTO, or allegiance to his political base.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:58 PM

 
Iraqis' hearts and minds not ours to win
   It comes as little surprise that an attempted cease-fire in Fallujah is virtually indistinguishable from the deadly urban warfare that preceded it. As one CNN correspondent put it Tuesday, the reality is 10 percent cease and 90 percent fire.
   The hate-driven, homicidal Muslim crazies who've banded together there are not the least bit interested in ending the violence. Danger to innocent fellow Iraqis, Arabs, Muslims, even small children and the old, is a valued advantage in their evil minds.
   What the insurgent psychopaths do want is to trigger a massive, deadly, widely destructive reaction from coalition forces. It would no doubt suit these people fine if the U.S. were to send B-52s over, bombing the whole city to a field of smoldering rubble. If an especially sacred mosque is destroyed, all the better.
   The reason is simple. The insurgents know they will never raise a conventional-force army to beat us frontally. But through endless skirmishing, sneak attacks, suicide bombings, etc., they hope to demoralize our forces and support at home. And, if they can so agitate our forces as to trigger a massive, deadly attack, producing heavy collateral damage and severe loss of life among noncombatants, they will generate more financial support and new recruits from all over the Arab Muslim world.
   In short, they're trying to turn the coalition's chief strength into a fatal weakness.
   Coalition commanders have intelligently avoided giving insurgents the desired reaction so far. So-called surgical strikes, such as the use of C-130 gunships yesterday to blow away a couple of the insurgents' rats' nests, is a measured, sensible approach and likely can achieve some level of suppression. Victory is another matter.

   What's required to "win" in Iraq is to gain the allegiance and confidence of an overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population for what we're doing. We need the Iraqis' active and passive help. Active, in informing on the insurgents; in discouraging people they know from joining the insurgents or behaving like them; in instead joining and supporting security forces. Passive help comes in denying all aid, comfort or even lip-service support to the insurgents.
   The unfortunate reality is that we're no more likely to achieve what's required to win in Iraq against the insurgents than they are to win a frontal war against our forces. The reason is simple: Never mind that we ousted Saddam and are pouring billions into rebuilding their country. The bottom line for most Iraqis is that they have in their midst uninvited Westerners, non-Muslims who are joined at the hip with Israelis whom they hate with intense, abiding passion. That being the case, their murderous, evil fellow-Muslim terrorist crazies will always have first dibs on their support and cooperation.
   You say that doesn't make sense? Agreed, it does not. But that's the way it is. And because that's the way it is, a reasonable level of terrorist suppression and overall stabilization of the country is probably the best our forces will ever be able to do. We pray they''ll be able to do it soon and then promptly be withdrawn.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:33 AM

 
Jury soaks public for cops' misdeeds
   A California man has been awarded $4.5 million because of malicious harassment by California Highway Patrol officers.
   According to this news story, Steve Grassilli of Ramona proved in court that he had been stopped and cited 13 times in five years for relatively minor infractions, and that there was a deliberate, coordinated effort by some CHP officers to target him.
   Grassilli was targeted because he had filed a complaint against one of the officers involved, for allegedly removing the catalytic converter from a vehicle the officer owned.
   Grassilli's case was bolstered by testimony from CHP officers who refused to lie in court about the harassment. The story says some officers were told to lie in court.
   The jury awarded Grassilli $510,000 in compensatory damages. Additionally, judgments for punitive damages were made against the instigating officer, for $3 million, and against that officer's supervisor, for $1 million. The story reports that although CHP was not sued, the agency usually pays when its officers are sued successfully.

   Oh!pinion's view: Grassilli certainly deserves $510,000 in compensatory damages. The officers who conspired against him clearly deserve to have to pay damages sufficient to inflict financial pain. The abuse of authority they practiced is bad enough that they should be fired.
   However, the $4 million and $1 million awards strike us as highly questionable. First, it's doubtful either officer can possibly pay such a penalty. Secondly, given CHP's policy of paying judgments against its officers, California taxpayers are the people who will really be penalized — people who neither sanctioned nor knowingly allowed the officers' wrongdoing. Justice-wise, something's seriously wrong with this picture.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:04 PM

 
Kerry should quit playing GOP's game
   So, Vice President Dick Cheney, who very purposely did not serve in the military during the Vietnam War — or at any other time — is bashing Sen. John Kerry, who did serve — with exceptional bravery and devotion to duty.
   This demonstrates in spades how ingrained a characteristic hypocrisy is among top-level Republicans. They have no compunction about expressing it in obvious and outrageous ways. Evidently, they believe the public is dense enough and the media are compliant enough to just accept this trait of theirs.
   This latest hypocrisy eruption is just part of a larger strategy. The White House, Bush-Cheney campaign and Republican National Committee all want the focus to be on Kerry all the time. That is, all negative about Kerry all the time — lies and distortions included. And Cheney's most recent litany of supposed Kerry sins, voting against various items in support of our troops in the Middle East, is nothing but a pack of lies and distortions. Kerry had sound reasons for voting against certain legislation, even though it contained things for the troops. Good for him. If Bush & Co. were to try to slip a federal mandate for a 48-hour work week into a bill larded with munitions orders for the troops, Kerry would be right to vote against that, too.
   The Republicans' game is clear and simple. Unfortunately, the senator appears to be letting himself get sucked in.
   When TV talking heads bring up the business about throwing medals, ribbons, whatever, over the White House fence more than 30 years ago, Kerry should say: Sorry, but that's old news and I've said all I have to say about it.
   Now, Mr. Newsperson, why don't you earn your high salary by asking me why 47 million Americans have no health care; why we've got about 300,000 people exhausting their unemployment benefits each month, yet Republicans won't hear of extending benefits sitting in a $17 billion account those workers paid into? If you want to ask about actions and war, why don't you ask President Bush why we're sacrificing the lives of so many valiant young Americans with so little help from other countries, in a war that never had to be fought in the first place?
   This is the kind of thing Kerry said three months ago that he intended to do. He has pointed out numerous times since how Republicans don't want the focus on Bush and don't want to talk about the Bush-Cheney record because it's a record to run from, not on.
   Part of the problem is a doofus factor plus laziness on the part of media "personalities." Complex issues challenge them to bone up ahead of time, so they know what they're asking about. It's much easier to go with the day's buzz, which much of the time consists of talking points or the content of the latest attack ads from the Bush-Cheney camp.
   Kerry undoubtedly knows all this, yet he keeps going along. Maybe what it's going to take is for Kerry to start being blunt and emphatic, right at the start of interviews. Then he should stick to his guns. If a no-nonsense retort doesn't do it, maybe Kerry's going to have to get up and walk out a time or two, denouncing the talking head and his/her lame and irrelevant line of questioning on the way out.
   In other words, Kerry should present a good offense, making a scene, if necessary, fighting back hard, fast and consistently. He should make clear that the talking heads are not going to get anywhere by persisting with GOP-induced questions or by lamely following the pack.
   Americans like gutsiness. Kerry needs to show some now, before Republicans have spent any more months sliming and defining him in their own special way, with considerable help from the media.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:33 PM

 
Bush's first instincts serve him and us badly
   First instinct — what a someone says or does first when something comes up — can be very revealing. Basic values, philosophy, habits and attitude typically come to the fore in the immediate short run.
   In the realm of government and politics, first instinct is particularly important because those at the top are so prepped, their words and moves so planned and processed, so much of the time.
   President George W. Bush's first instincts are well known now and particularly revealing.
   Following the 9-11 attack, we're learning, one of his first instincts was to find a link between the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and Iraq. He was so intent on doing this that his insistence about finding a link became tantamount to insistence on making one, if necessary, to at least one key underling, Richard Clark.
   Also in the wake of 9-11, families and friends of the victims, like virtually all media commentators and a sizeable majority of Americans, wanted a thorough investigation by an independent, bipartisan body. Bush said nothing doing and stonewalled the matter for many months.
   Only when the breadth and intensity of public opinion contrary to his decision became an obvious political liability did Bush relent. After all, he had planned, in the fall of 2002, to go across the country campaigning for Republicans running for Congress. No sense rubbing people the wrong way then.
   Then, when the 9-11 Commission wanted White House documents, when it wanted national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify in public, when it wanted Bush himself to testify, Bush's first instinct was to refuse, refuse, refuse. That is, until the full weight of public opinion collided head on with his decisions.
   A similar pattern unfolded with respect to creating a Department of Homeland Security. Bush's first instinct: nothing doing, no way. But it subsequently became clear most Americans, most members of Congress and most media talking heads and Op-ed types favored the move. Next thing you know, Bush not only agreed to form the new Cabinet-level department but was beating up on Senate Democrats for not moving quickly enough to pass the necessary legislation.
   A similar, drag-Bush-along, kicking and screaming, scenario played out over extending unemployment benefits for millions who were marginalized and hurting in his job-loss "recovery." (He has since stuck to his refusal to further extend benefits.)
   Most recently, Bush's first instinct was to fully support Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's rules change that would've jeopardized overtime pay for several million lower-paid white-collar workers. Those set up to be ripped off included tens of thousands of police and other first responders across the country who are not union members.
   Reaction has been widespread and angry, from labor unions to millions of potentially affected workers, to virtually all Democrats in Congress and even a few congressional Republicans. A few days ago, Chao announced significant changes to the rules change proposal, lessening the scope of losses to a relative few thousands. It's a safe bet this turnabout, this belated seeing of the light, came at the behest of Bush's White House, probably from Bush himself. After all, this is an election year.

   Beyond citing the obvious hypocrisy in Bush campaign ads slamming Sen. John Kerry for alleged flip-flops (mostly employing distortions of fact) and the plainly apparent hole in Bush's steady-hand-on-the-tiller "story," we come to two basic questions:
   First, who's leading whom? Second, what do so many broadly unacceptable first instincts say about Bush's performance as a leader of the world's foremost democracy and surviving nuclear superpower?
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:48 PM

 
Rules keep capitalism alive and well
   Free-market capitalism is a good thing, but not an unlimited good thing. Those who insist otherwise exhibit ignorance of lessons their grandparents and great-grandparents learned the hard way.
   Syndicated columnist, author and all-around hoot Molly Ivins covers this essential wisdom beautifully in "Bushwhacked; Life in George W. Bush's America," the 2002 book she co-authored with Lou Dubose:
   It's gratifying to read something we believe so ardently put so well. "Bushwhacked" should be required reading for everyone who plans to vote in November — especially for those inclined toward voting for Bush and his Republican enablers in Congress.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:16 PM

 
Where are responsible, courageous Iraqis?
   Multiple car-bomb suicide attacks in Basra that injured some 200 people and killed numerous children helped boost the death toll in this deadliest month since the Iraq invasion.
   The Associated Press estimates that just this month 1,100 Iraqis and 100 coalition military personnel have been killed, with many more injured. The following is from a story about today's attacks.
   Amidst all this killing and chaos, we're told, most Iraqis are glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein's oppression, but angry and resentful about having our occupying army in their country.

   Maybe it's time to consider four questions.
   First, where are the decent, law-abiding Iraqis, women and older people, especially, who could and should speak up or act to prevent these terrorist attacks?
   It's hard to imagine that al Qaeda murderers who have infiltrated from other countries aren't recognized as outsiders who are up to no good by at least some Iraqis. It's hard to believe that Iraqi parents, wives, other family members, friends and neighbors are completely unaware that someone they're close to is about to go out and take part in attacks, maybe even stage a suicide attack.
   So, where are the decent Iraqis who could speak up, either to would-be "insurgents" themselves or to coalition authorities who could intervene and maybe save some lives - maybe save the lives of innocent children being driven to school?
   Second, what about Iraq's angry young men? They are understandably angry about all the killing and foreign soldiers in their midst, about unemployment and their uncertain future. Still, why aren't they mad as hell at the radical Muslim crazies killing innocent women and children, maybe killing the young Iraqis' own family members?
   So, why aren't all these young, angry Iraqi men forming anti-terrorist militias of their own and fighting back against the homicidal maniacs and "dead enders" who are their real enemies - and, ironically, enemies standing in the way of an early departure of coalition forces?
   Third, where are the Iraqis savvy enough to realize they've almost got it made? Sure, their country is in a mess now. But they are out from under Saddam's fiendish rule. They've got one of the world's richest nation's pouring billions of aid dollars into every aspect of their shattered country, rebuilding and improving infrastructure, adding to their economy and well-being, trying hard to come up with a decent government and system of laws, and asking almost nothing in return — just some cooperation. Where are the Iraqis swift enough to appreciate and speak out about this incredibly huge windfall?
   Fourth and finally, a question President George W. Bush and his band of neoconservative hawks ought to answer: What if there simply are no such decent, law-abiding, sensible Iraqis willing to help secure their own peace, safety and better future? What then?
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:31 PM

 
Bush slime squad seeks repeat of an easy coup
   Back in 1988, Republicans hit campaign pay dirt when Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis climbed aboard an Army tank and let himself be videotaped bouncing up and down in the turret, looking out of place and a little silly.
   The former Massachusetts governor was a bright, thoroughly decent public servant with a good record, but not a macho military type. His ill-advised tank ride should've been been a one- or two-day story, a stub of the candidate's toe along the campaign trail. It probably would've been, except George H.W. Bush's campaign used the image in ways calculated to endlessly belittle and ridicule Dukakis. The supposedly liberal media gleefully piled on, making things exponentially worse for Dukakis.
   This low-road tactic worked splendidly for Bush. Dukakis' campaign never quite recovered. Republicans, evidently, have never gotten over their cheap-shot success, either, because they keep trying to duplicate it.
    The latest evidence of that can be seen in the current cheap-shot, trumped-up "controversy" about Sen. John Kerry's military records and Purple Heart medals, won in combat in Vietnam more than three decades ago.
   This nonsense began on "Meet the Press" last Sunday, when Tim Russert asked Kerry if he'd release his military records. Kerry said he would and he has, on his Web site. The military records question apparently caused a former commander of Kerry's from more than 30 years ago to come forward saying he hadn't been sure, all those years ago, if Kerry's first Purple Heart was deserved. Yesterday and today, surrogates for President George W. Bush's campaign have been in front of cameras, raising questions, supposedly, and desperately grasping for some kind of gotcha.

   This is all so Karl Rove, so "old habits die hard," so anything to win.
   In fact, Purple Hearts are awarded on the basis of well-established rules. A military member does or doesn't qualify, period. One of the rules is that a qualifying injury must be documented by a treating physician.
   Unless Bush's sliming specialists can provide proof-positive that Kerry wasn't wounded, or that a treating physician lied about Kerry's wounds, they should all shut up and crawl back under their favorite rocks. For their part, the news media, no matter how hard up for a story, should try hard not to step in this "business."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:08 PM

 
Prince, pols and what you don't want to step in
   How very special: Saudi Prince Bandar promises his longtime pal, President George W. Bush, that Bandar's oil-rich kingdom will step up production in late summer and fall — in time for the presidential election.
   Such a move presumably benefits Bush's reelection efforts, since voter-consumers who see gas prices going down are likely to be in a better frame of mind to hold with what they've got. For this to work, of course, another assumption comes into play: The suckers will forget all about those preceding months of jacked-up prices.
   We suspect there are so many plots, subplots and counterplots, so much organized and free-lance screwing-over going on here, it almost defies tracking when you know who many of the players are.
   Stick with us and shortly we'll simplify the whole mess to what we call the Five B's.

   All of us who aren't in Bush's favored tax brackets are painfully aware that the oil industry decided a few weeks ago to gouge the suckers in time for the spring and summer travel season, again. Most think this is just simple, short-term greed — getting all they can, every chance they get. We're sure more is going on.
   Specifically, we see pressure being applied to push the energy bill Bush and the corporate errand boys and girls we call Republican representatives and senators failed to get passed last fall. It was jam-packed with whatever industry people said they wanted. It was so jam packed, in fact, that even some Republicans forgot themselves and choked up at the prospect of actually passing it.
   The magnitude of this cornucopia of goodies for the oil and gas industries, and others, is mind boggling. But we can boil it down to a main theme: ripping off taxpayers to pay energy industry go getters to build their companies, do their jobs, go get more and become ever richer. It's what we call corporate welfare.
   (Wouldn't it be nice if Uncle Sam could be bluffed, bullied, bribed and blustered into paying you to do your job or build up your business?)
   Yet another B-word is involved here: "blackmail." Bandar got right to it on CNN Monday, while protesting there's nothing political in his promise to Bush. The prince insisted plenty of crude oil is being pumped, so that the recent OPEC cutbacks have nothing to do with U.S. gasoline prices. Oh no, those high prices are all due to the fact that the U.S. hasn't built a new refinery in 20 years. (Actually, we understand a new one is being completed in California and others have been so expanded and upgraded that new ones haven't been all that badly needed. Correct us on this if you have solid information indicating we're wrong.)
   So the implication is, pass the energy bill or there won't be enough refining capacity, meaning higher and higher gas prices will be in our future forever more, with only our stingy, shortsighted selves to thank for them.
   Another blackmail element: Republicans' periodic dark mutterings about another huge blackout, maybe a whole summer of huge blackouts, if the corporations don't get their welfare.
   What all this adds up to can be described with a sixth B-word. It's a crude reference to the excretory byproduct of certain large barnyard animals.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:25 PM

 
Behold the changes Bush hath wrought
   "I fully understand the consequences of what we're doing. We're changing the world!" — President George W. Bush, press conference, April 13, 2004.

   By that now-famous statement, Bush meant liberating Iraq and transforming it into a democracy, setting the stage for democracy to spread throughout the Middle East. Whether such change will ever come to pass remains to be seen.
   However, plenty of evidence indicates Bush's pre-emptive war policy and Iraq invasion have already brought about changes in the world of a very different kind.
   One big change is seen in the results of polls conducted by Harris Interactive during March. Europeans and Canadians still generally like Americans, but their opinion of our president, government and foreign policy are overwhelmingly negative.
   From the Harris poll: "Substantial majorities of Canadians hold negative views of President Bush (by 67% to 17%), of U.S. policy in Iraq (by 65% to 21%), and of American foreign policy since 2000 (by 60% to 15%)."
   Throughout the 20th century, except during the Vietnam War, Canada proved itself a loyal, actively supportive friend in peace and war. The U.S. and Canada have long taken pride in sharing the longest undefended international border in the world.
   Since Bush became president, change has certainly come to this relationship. Bush and his Canadian counterpart have traded barbs, then supposedly smoothed things over, but seem to be barely on speaking terms. Recent polling makes clear how average Canadians feel.
   Today's news includes this story about Spain withdrawing its troops from Iraq as soon as possible. The story tells how Spain's people feel about Bush's war: "The latest polls show 72 percent of Spaniards want the troops withdrawn."
   The relationship with Spain may be further damaged because of a phone conversation CNN reported Bush had with Spain's new prime minister, Jose Maria Zapatero, this morning. Bush was said to have been especially blunt in expressing his displeasure with the withdrawal decision.

   Once upon a time not long ago, most noncommunist foreign leaders coveted an in-person meeting with the president of the United States as a stature-building coup, a good career move. Bush has worked a big change in that, too. For example, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, an enthusaistic partner in Bush's pre-emptive war policy from the beginning, met with Bush at the White House last week. In a report on their talks, CNN reported that every time Blair comes to Washington to meet with Bush, Blair's poll results take a big hit at home.
   Poland has been among the most generous active participants in the Iraq war, sending in more soldiers than Spain. Last Friday, PBS' "News Hour" included a segment in which Bartiosz Weglarcyzk, U.S. bureau chief of Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland's largest newspaper, was one of three European journalists interviewed. Ray Suarez asked the questions.
   The Poles' opinions are in line with much of the rest of Europe. The Harris poll found that those surveyed in five European countries view America's policy in Iraq negatively, 69 percent, to only 13 percent with a positive view. Canadians polled 65 percent negative to 21 percent positive.
   Asked about Bush's foreign policy since 2000, generally, 62 percent of Europeans expressed a negative view, while 13 percent had a positive view. The Canadian results: 60 percent negative, 15 percent positive.

   Bush and his right-wing loyalists like to put down those who oppose his policies as being unpatriotic "elites" who would have the U.S. get a permission slip from the U.N. or foreigners anytime the U.S. tries to do something.
   That hostile, dismissive attitude belies political realities today's world holds for the world's democracies. Do Americans really want to do all the containment, all the fighting, bear all the costs, for protecting our freedoms and those of other countries that have traditionally been our friends and allies?
   This is a vitally important question because such negative attitudes about U.S. leadership and policy in other countries heralds widespread skepticism, lack of assistance and withholding of cooperation from those countries in meeting real and dangerous future common threats.
   Yes, Bush is changing the world. U.S. voters had better take care in this election year about deciding whether the changes he's generating are in their long-term best interest.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:23 PM

 
Safer raps `pride in the ignorance'
   Speaking at the National Writers' Workshop in Hartford, Conn., this weekend, veteran TV newsman Morley Safer came down hard on what he termed the ignorance behind both the Vietnam War, which he covered in the 1960s, and the current war in Iraq.
   The "60 Minutes" correspondent cited Vietnam-era Defense Secretary Robert MacNamara's statement that he prosecuted the war having no idea the Vietnamese had longed for self-determination, and had long resisted foreign domination, as needless stupidity.
   A good Hartford Courant story (signup required) on Safer's talk then reports his take on the Bush administration's Iraq war:
   "Safer sees a similar problem with the Bush administration, noting the criticism Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld received last year when he referred disparagingly to France and Germany as `old Europe.' In the Bush administration, Safer said, `there is a kind of pride in the ignorance.'"
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:48 AM

 
June 30 deadline? Let's not play make believe
   Violent chaos in Iraq continues, with rapidly rising body counts — U.S. military losses are up around 700 now — the main highway to Baghdad closed, a troublemaking cleric, radical Shia Muqtada al-Sadr, still evading arrest, and coalition forces stalled from dealing fully with the enemy in Najaf and Fallujah by another cleric's warnings.
   President George W. Bush insists power will be handed over in Iraq on June 30. Any realistic analysis of what that means quickly arrives at one reality: Without the full support and close protection of U.S. forces, no one the U.S. wants in "power" in Iraq is likely to live out a first week in office. Since nothing about that reality is likely to change on June 30 or any time soon thereafter, "power" in the civilian, political sense becomes an empty term.
   June 30 thus seems an arbitrary and politically convenient date for Bush, more than a realistic or workable time to confer a questionable mantle of authority on some as-yet-undesignated Iraqi leader.
   However, since Bush insists on June 30, the leader selection better be made soon. The designee will need to be outfitted with body armor and installed in a sufficiently well-guarded, preferably undisclosed, location.
   The question then becomes, will very many in Iraq or elsewhere in the world accept a bunker-bound Iraqi with a target on his back and U.S. soldiers clustered closely about him at all times as really being in power?
   The evolving situation is absurdly far from what Bush and his neoconservative-hawk appointees and advisers predicted. The reality in Iraq is lightyears removed from the relative peace and stability required for establishment of the "freedom and democracy" Bush likes to talk about.
   And, as is being demonstrated daily, those throwing themselves in the way aren't just a relative few native "dead enders" joined by a few radical Muslim terrorists who've slipped into the country. Resistance is widespread and appears to be spreading rapidly.
   Sen. Ted Kennedy, R-Mass., was right. Iraq is a quagmire. Iraq is Bush's Vietnam. Americans would be wise to make clear in November that they will not accept Iraq as their quagmire, their Vietnam.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:34 PM

 
Kucinich: Party should return to its roots
   Rep. Dennis Kucinich, bless him, continues to travel the country, carrying his message of common sense, hope, decency and fairplay as better bases for public policy.
   Recently, while in western North Carolina, he was interviewed on a range of subjects. Here are a couple of highlights from what he had to say — examples of why we like him a lot, even if he's not going to win the Democratic nomination.

   Question: The Democratic Party seems to have abandoned its core constituency. What has happened?
   Kucinich: That's probably the most fundamental flaw in the two-party system today and that is that there isn't enough of a two-party system. It's more of a one-party system with two branches of a corporate party. When the Democratic Party started to take a lot of money from corporate interests, it began to change the whole meaning of the party. So it started with this reliance on a donor base that may not have a lot in common with the natural base of the party, the natural base being workers, advocates for social justice, for jobs, for healthcare, for education, for the environment. Those concerns are not considered. . .
   So we have a problem where the party at the top stands for one thing and the party in the foothills stands for something else. So my candidacy is aimed at reminding the Democratic Party of the need to connect with people's practical aspirations for jobs, for education, for healthcare, for a clean environment, for peace. So that's what I'm out there doing.

   Question: How do we break the cycle? I can look back and we created Saddam Hussein to oppose the Iranians whose government we had overthrown. We go back and back. How do we break the cycle? How do we relate to the world in a more constructive way?
   Kucinich: Put away the ambitions for empire. Move to a sustainable energy policy. Stop trying to covet our neighbor's goods. We have to look at our purpose as a nation. You know, we're not supposed to be the policemen of the world. Who died and left us the policemen of the world? We're not supposed to be the king of the world. We got rid of kings when we established this country. So what are we doing? I mean, somebody has to stop and say, "What are we doing? What is this about? Why are we doing this?"
   We need to work with the world community. We can't go it alone. There's no nation that's a threat to us. We're a threat to ourselves here. Spending all this money on a war and we can't even feed our people or provide decent housing or keep our kids in school, create jobs, take care of our veterans.

   You can read the rest at Kucinich's Web site.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:26 PM

 
Britons find racy labels a bit of all right
   If you should come across an old cookie tin from the British company Huntley & Palmers, look closely at the label; it might be a racy eyeful and a collector's item.
   According to a Reuters story, a disgruntled artist who was being let go completed his final job for the cookie maker by copying an old-time, "genteel" picnic illustration, which he modified to include some sexually explicit imagery.
   The story notes: "He included a small picture of two dogs having sex and another of a pair of naked lovers. An obscene label written on a jam jar suggests it contains something other than jam."
   A grocer happened to notice the unknown artist's prank back in 1980. Word got around and the tins have been very popular and collectors' items ever since.
   There's something delightfully mischievous about this story. Someone plays a raunchy prank and Britons have a good laugh, and treasure his handiwork. It's the kind of thing that gives truth to the line, "there will always be a Britain."
   In the U.S., we fear, the more likely outcome would be expressions of pious outrage from the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk, followed by a Justice Department investigation to see if someone couldn't be charged with something — kids get into cookie containers, after all. TV's chattering class would show close-ups of the lascivious labels, with the racy parts pixilated out, of course, then go on at punishing length about what our society is coming to. Corporations, at the insistence of their lawyers, would probably make their dismissal protocols even colder and more Gestapo-esque than many of them are now. How sad.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:11 PM

 
MONEY/ICR poll more bad news for Bush
   President Bush and his people assure us regularly that they don't pay attention to polls. That's probably just as well.
   During a week in which Bush's Iraq War was a source of political grief at home and abroad, his press conference performance was received only slightly better than his preceding "Meet The Press" and State of the Union appearances, Bush probably would find the latest MONEY Magazine/International Communications Research poll findings especially unwelcome.
   You, however, might find them worthwhile, so here they are:

Seventy-six percent opt for jobs over 2003 tax cuts
   NEW YORK, April 15 /PRNewswire/ - The April MONEY/International Communications Research Poll found that three-quarters of Americans say that if they had had a choice between enacting the 2003 tax cuts or spending additional money to create new jobs, they would have picked job creation.
   The national poll, fielded last week, also found that half of all Americans would also have preferred cutting the deficit over last year's tax cuts. And a majority - 60 percent - said they didn't benefit personally from the tax cuts of 2003.
   The poll also found that about half of Americans say their federal tax burden is too high. Four in 10 - 41 percent - say their taxes are about right.

Jobs creation and deficit control over tax cuts
   Overall, 76 percent of Americans said they would have preferred the government devote resources to job programs instead of tax cuts in 2003.
   Women (81 percent) were only slightly more likely to choose creating new jobs than men (70 percent).
   Preference for jobs creation over tax cuts was especially keen among Democrats (89 percent) and Independents (83 percent), but more than half of all Republicans (54 percent) also picked jobs. Only 9 percent of Democrats preferred tax cuts over job creation.
   If they had been given the choice, more Americans say they would also have chosen reducing the federal deficit (49 percent) over tax cuts (42 percent) last year.

   A majority of Republicans (56 percent) said they would have chosen the 2003 tax cuts over deficit reduction. Conversely, more Independents said they would have picked deficit reduction over the tax cuts (49 percent vs. 40 percent) and Democrats picked deficit reduction over tax cuts by a 2-to-1 margin (63 percent vs. 30 percent).

Republicans say tax cuts a success; Democrats disagree
   Overall, Americans are evenly divided (48 percent vs. 45 percent) on the question of whether the 2003 tax cuts were successful at stimulating the growth of the U.S. economy. However, while 23 percent of Republicans said that the tax cuts were very successful at stimulating the economy, no Democrats said they were very successful.
   Fully 79 percent of Republicans said the tax cuts were somewhat or very successful in sparking economic growth while 65 percent of Democrats said they were not too successful or not at all successful. Independents were more divided, with 43 percent saying the cuts were very or somewhat successful and 52 percent saying they were not too successful or not successful at all.

Kerry, Bush in dead heat; Americans not feeling betting off
   On the question of who would do a better job managing the economy over the next four years, Americans who are registered to vote were split in a statistical dead heat between Bush (41 percent) and Kerry (38 percent)
   Despite various reports indicating improvement in the economy, almost three-fourths of Americans (72 percent) said that their personal financial situation is either the same (51 percent) or worse (21 percent) than at this time last year.
   Less than one-third (27 percent) report they are better off.
   Women (78 percent) were more likely to feel their situation as the same or worse than men (66 percent).
   Eighty-five percent of Democrats, 75 percent of Independents and 50 percent of Republicans reported that their economic situation is the same or worse than last year.

   About the poll: The Money/ICR poll was conducted with a nationwide sample of 1,007 adults between April 6 and 10. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
   The poll was fielded by ICR using its EXCEL telephone omnibus survey of adults. More information on this methodology is available here.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:42 PM

 
Surprise: Racicot doesn't like Kerry approach
   There's just no pleasing some people. We distinctly remember, going back to about mid-February, hearing Republicans complain disdainfully about Sen. John Kerry criticizing Iraq war policy, according to them without offering an alternative.
   Prominent among those disdainful Republicans was President Bush's campaign honcho, Marc Racicot. If you'll recall, he and Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie spent the early weeks of this year periodically blanketing the cable talk shows with disdainful and dismissive scoffing about Democrats in general, Kerry in particular, with emphasis on an allegedly appalling lack of alternatives for what to do in Iraq.
   Fast forward to this week, when Kerry gave voice to sensible criticisms and an alternative approach for conducting the Iraq War. And, most importantly, Kerry offered a sensible rationale for getting our troops the hell out of there as soon as we responsibly can.
   The short version is that Kerry would bring in other countries as full contributing partners who would actually share in the policy-making, reducing Americans' presence and responsibilities along the way. This is an important distinction. It's also a choke point for Bush thought processes. Bush will only let other kids play in his yard if they play what he wants to play and let him set all the rules.
   Kerry also said that while we hope to edge the Iraqis toward democracy, the crucial determinant of when our people can exit should be stabilization. That acknowledges the discomfiting but real possibility that Iraqis may not be ready for democracy for several lifetimes.
   So, Kerry comes forth with a sensible way to reduce the burden on our overstretched military and overburdened taxpayers, and what do you suppose the Republican reaction is? For that, we turn to the Washington Post and Dan Balz's Thursday story:
   "As Kerry stepped up his public criticism of Bush on Iraq, the president's reelection campaign struck back hard. Former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, the Bush campaign chairman, accused Kerry of a `cynical and defeatist' approach and of `very, very seriously undermining' the U.S. effort in Iraq and U.S. forces fighting there."
   Balz also quotes Kerry: "`American soldiers are bearing the huge majority, the lion's share, of the risk in Iraq,' he said. `It doesn't have to be that way; it never had to be that way.'" That doesn't sound defeatist or subversive; it's just the uncomfortable truth.

   Somehow, we suspect that Racicot and others in the Bush reelection/salvage effort would have similarly damning things to say about any alternatives Kerry might offer — or for remaining silent, if Kerry were to do that. Like we said, there's just no pleasing some people.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:32 AM

 
Pro-Bush weblog ripe for some `flogging' itself
   Over at blogsforbush.com, they're touting a new "service" called a "flog." It's apparently a Web site dedicated to "flogging," or exposing and correcting misstatements by Democratic presumptive candidate Sen. John Kerry and others.
   As an example, blogsforbush scribe Matt Margolis' post today attributes the following as a direct quote of Kerry's words: "I believe that as long as you have what is almost solely an American occupation, 135,000 American troops, and no other country there with the exception of Great Britain exceeds a thousand, I believe. Somewhere in that vicinity. Many of them are under 500 many of them and many of them are not in combat."
   The writer then goes on to shame the Kerry campaign for not checking facts and raps Kerry for being misleading. However, we noticed there is no link provided to a source of that statement attributed to Kerry. No reference is provided to where and when Kerry said that, so that it could be verified.
   Curious, we went to Google News and spent several minutes searching on that direct quote and parts thereof. We couldn't find any reference to Kerry having said those exact words, at least not one reported and carried on the vast number of newspapers and online sites Google News taps into.
   This leaves us wondering if the people at blogsforbush.com are so hard up they have to make up words to put in Kerry's mouth or if they're just so sloppy and clueless that they can't or won't back up their posts with links or references verifying what they post.
   When we tried to leave a comment pointing this out, we were blocked from doing so. This was apparently because our software is set to block third-party cookies. Interestingly, the cookie being blocked at blogsforbush.com was ID'd as some kind of PayPal link. That leaves us wondering if what they're running is really a Bush-supporting weblog staffed by enthusiastic volunteer backers or is really a campaign operation with a paid staff.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:49 PM

 
IMF: Bush deficits bad for U.S., world economies
   President Bush's economic policy consists of one bad idea repeated three times. That is, one huge, unaffordable tax cut after another, after another.
   We've pointed this out repeatedly ever since Oh!pinion went online. So have many others in this country. Bush and his defenders say these criticisms are just so much political bashing.
   In a story that will probably be buried in back-of-newspaper business pages and go largely overlooked by broadcast media, the International Monetary Fund is panning Bush's voodoo economics in no uncertain terms. Here's the core of what the IMF has to say:
   Two things about this development are especially notable. First, the IMF has no stake in internal U.S. politics, so its analysis should be above rejection on that basis.
   Secondly, there is the irony that Bush's rationale for his irresponsibly large tax cuts was that they would make huge amounts of capital available to businesses and thus stimulate growth — in irrational contradiction of the fact that capital has been relatively cheap and plentiful for the past decade.
    What Bush's bad policy has actually done is put more money in the bank accounts of the wealthy, including his own (story). It has stimulated certain sectors of the economy — large, multinational corporations and wealthy investors mostly — while saddling working, out-of-work and retired Americans with an ever-greater share of the tax burden. It has also signed us, our children and grandchildren up to repay the biggest deficits in U.S. history.

   What about jobs? Well, Bush's one-bad-idea policy has created lots of jobs — outside U.S. borders, in places where people make 30 cents an hour or less; where children are worked like prison labor; where governments crush even talk about unionizing; where damage to the environment is not allowed to be an issue.
   Meanwhile, in this country, Bush has fixed it so that things that need doing are not getting done. Homeland security is grossly underfunded. The military, we're learning, is undersized for another mess Bush has gotten us into. Social Security needs fixing. Nearly 50 million Americans need some kind of help so they can afford basic medical care. Our infrastructure needs a lot of work.
   These are things your member of Congress and senators should be told about before they vote to make Bush's tax cuts permanent. Clearly, Bush's one bad idea has done enough damage already.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:55 AM

 
Telling it like he thinks it ought to be, or something
   The good folks who populate President George W. Bush's political base, inhabitants of the so-called red states of political polling maps, treasure their guy's image as a straight shooter.
   That means, presumably, they see Bush as a leader who meets a tough question head on, giving a direct, meaningful, honest answer. That seeming to be the case, we welcome their explanation of the following question and answer from Tuesday's presidential press conference.
   Question: "Mr. President, why are you and the Vice President insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 Commission? And, Mr. President, who will you be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?"
   Bush: "We will find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing; he's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over. And, secondly, because the 9-11 Commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And, I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions."
   Question: "I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request."
   Bush: "Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 Commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them."

   Our follow-up question of choice: "And who will be sitting on who's lap?"
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:50 PM

 
Bush fails to justify his deadly, costly mistake
The war in Iraq is truly President George W. Bush's war. He pushed for it, insisted on it, demanded it and, in the end, defied our traditional NATO allies and the United Nations to undertake it.
   At his press conference this evening, the key question called on Bush, in light of all we've learned since the invasion slightly more than a year ago, to justify his war.
    Here is a transcript of the question and Bush's response.
   Oh!pinion's view: Facts available before the invasion, amplified and verified since the invasion, simply do not support the contention that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent or gathering threat to the U.S. Evidence suggests Saddam had complied to a remarkable extent with U.N. disarmament requirements.
   Saddam's military was, as we learned during the invasion, badly organized, trained and led. Although some elements fought tenaciously, most of Iraq's forces collapsed or dispersed when confronted by an invading army. Not only did Iraq not pose a significant threat to its neighbors, it evidently lacked any semblance of a coherent plan for dealing with being invaded.
   Bush again cites weapons of mass destruction, but without offering a shred of evidence. He talks about a missile threat. That apparently concerns a very few medium-range, not very accurate missiles Saddam had that allegedly had been modified so their range exceeded U.N.-imposed limitations by a modest distance.
"He also confirmed that Saddam had an ability to produce biological and chemical weapons," Bush insists, adding, "In other words, he (Saddam) was a danger."
   If being on the U.S.'s bad side and having the potential to make chemical and biological weapons is all it takes to ensure a U.S. invasion, America's young men and women, and its taxpaying public, are in for never-ending war and ruinous expense.
   Clearly, Bush sees - or believes he must sell - the Iraq war as integral to the war on international terrorism. But his response to Moran's question relies on spin and bluster to make that connection. It just won't wash.
   Finally, Moran asked about pre-invasion claims Iraqi oil would pay for most of the reconstruction cost. Bush's answer was vague, misleading and patently insulting to U.S. taxpayers, given the staggering $167 billion Bush has insisted they will spend on Iraq - until after the election, when, it's predicted, he will appropriate another $50 billion for Iraq.
   Bush gave Moran's key question his best shot. It was nowhere near being good enough to justify all the lives lost, all the money spent, all the risk incurred, all the damage done to U.S. credibility and our relations with other countries. Bush's war was and is a horrible mistake.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:33 PM

 
Rare press conference ought to mean business
   What we'll get from a well-prepped President Bush tonight is a press conference that will begin with him spinning his stay-the-course-in-Iraq message, along with his things-are-improving-there message.
   We'll be surprised if White House press corps members suddenly begin tossing hardballs Bush's way. Our impression of their efforts so far during this presidency is that they're mostly going along in order to get along.
   Of course, the reporters may be a little out of practice. The number of this Bush's press conferences is barely past single digits, whereas at this time in their presidencies George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had held 72.
   What we'd really prefer would be a one-on-one interview with Philadelphia Inquirer editorial writer Trudy Rubin asking Bush a few pointed questions. We base this preference on a current column of Rubin's carried by Knight Ridder, "Warnings on postwar chaos were ignored."
   This sample will give you an idea why we think such an interview would prove more informative and all-around worthwhile than what we're likely to get this evening.
   There's more and all of it is equally well informed and right on target — making a perfect basis for questions Americans most need to hear Bush answer. Making as well, we're sure, for questions Bush least wants to be confronted with.

   To a greater extent than any presidential candidate we can recall, Bush got kid-gloves treatment from the media in 2000. To a greater extent than any president since Ronald Reagan, he's been handled with a light, polite touch since the Supreme Court elevated him to the White House.
   Based on what Bush has done and the results he's brought us, it's way past time for the kid gloves to come off. We'll be watching and listening, but we won't hold our breath.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:50 PM

 
Deep in the heart of . . . corruption
   Back during a 2000 campaign debate, then-Gov. George W. Bush menacingly warned Vice President Al Gore, "Don't mess with Texas." He well could've added, "We'll take care of that."
   "We" referring, of course, to what well may be the most pernicious and corrupt state-level subsidiary of a thoroughly sold-out political party. That would be the same state-level party that has given our nation the uniformly regrettable political accomplishments of ex-Sen. Phil Gramm, ex-Rep. Dick Armey, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and now-President George W. Bush.
   Not content with merely winning all the statewide elective offices and controlling the Texas Legislature, the state's Republicans have set their sights on grabbing it all — all the seats in both houses plus the whole congressional delegation. Toward that end they've reportedly pulled every dirty trick in the book and some new ones they've developed.
   Proud Texan and superb columnist Molly Ivins recently revealed a lot about how Texas Republicans operate, and how they may have finally gone too far. It's a tale of big-money corporations, political action committees, good ol' boys merrily ignoring laws that get in their way and a prosecutor and grand jury at work on the case.
   The column begins: "You may be wondering why House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is raising money for a legal defense fund and telling his fellow Republicans in Washington to be prepared to name his replacement, in the event he is indicted. DeLay and Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick may have achieved the near-impossible by breaking Texas campaign finance laws."
   Click to read the rest of "The death of democracy; Cash and carry government achieves all-time seedy lows in Texas legislature, courtesy of Tom DeLay and TRMPAC." You'll gain better insight into where Bush and his political consigliore, Karl Rove, are coming from — literally.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:19 AM

 
Scalia does an unreassuring about face
   U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is reversing his policy against print reporters recording his remarks at speaking engagements. He also has sent written apologies to reporters in Mississippi whose recordings were destroyed last week and to a reporters' group. (See earlier post on this, below)
   A New York Times story on Scalia's about face indicates he will continue to discourage broadcast media from using electronic gear to record or broadcast what he has to say.
   Scalia denies having directed a deputy U.S. marshal to confiscate or erase recordings in last week's incident. He also maintains that he lacks the power to direct federal or private security personnel to not take such action.

   Oh!pinion's view: In the wake of a lot of supremely bad publicity, Scalia sees the light — albeit dimly and unevenly. He says OK to print reporters recording, the better to get his words correctly, but not to broadcast media.
   The concept of doing the best possible job of informing the greatest possible number of the people who pay Scalia's considerable salary and benefits seems to somehow be beyond his intellectual grasp. Could the core of his difficulty be a mistaken notion that it's all about him?

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:01 PM

 
FCC's Powell another reason for regime change
   As the Bush administration pursues its quixotic and likely ill-fated goal of installing freedom and democracy in Iraq, hoping to start a trend across the Middle East, we're undergoing regression here at home.
   First, the Federal Communications Commission rattles its sabers and growls about Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction." Next, the agency lowers the boom on Clear Channel Communications for shock jock Howard Stern's sleazy patter, to the tune of a half-million dollars in fines.
   In the resulting atmosphere, CBS has announced the upcoming Victoria's Secret show won't go on.
   We're not going to bat for Stern, who has parlayed a towering ego and an unerring appreciation for how low the lowest common denominator in society wants to go into a perpetual money-making machine. Rather than whine and moan about the injustice of it all, Stern ought to withdraw the $500,000 from his petty cash stash, telling Clear Channel, "Sorry, my bad."
   The Victoria's Secret show is another matter. Promos and a few minutes of a previous show we've seen registered barely above 50 on our titillation scale of 0-100. Beautiful, extremely well paid and, going by appearances, career-satisfied young women dressed in imaginative, scanty costumes and decorations is all we saw. Nudity? Not a bit. Lewd or outrageously suggestive behavior? None during our brief time watching. In fact, we've seen more-extensive anatomical exposure and more-provocative goings on at public beaches and pools.
   Apparently, CBS, which carried the Super Bowl halftime show featuring Jackson's problematic performance, is taking no chances. "CBS" should henceforth be short for Cowardly Broadcasting System.
   CBS' decision is what we call induced self-censorship. How ironic it is, with Bush & Co. in power, that this is all happening because of the kind of nanny-government meddling neoconservatives supposedly despise. As for the FCC, the more we hear from it under Chairman Michael Powell, the more reason we see for arranging a U.S. regime change in November. The freedoms we'll save might be our own.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:42 PM

 
Memo damning indictment of Bush approach
resident George W. Bush has assured us in recent days that: 1, had he known terrorists were planning an attack against the U.S., he would've done anything in his power to keep that from happening; and 2, the now-partially released Aug. 6, 2001, Daily Brief did not provide any specifics about when, where and how an attack was planned — nothing he could act on.
   Even though we find Bush to have proven himself thoroughly unsatisfactory to lead this country, based on his knowledge, approach, policy making and overall horrible results, we don't for a moment think he would knowingly allow an attack to take place against our people or country.
   Regarding that daily briefing memo, however, he's offering up a lame excuse. While it lacked the specifics to prompt Bush to send troops out to stand guard at all major-city airports, it was still loaded with enough loud alarm bells that he should've been moved to take certain actions.
   The first of those would've been telling his staff to set up a meeting with his anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, along with his aide, Condoleezza Rice, and key anti-terrorism people from the CIA and FBI, to see if he could get a better idea of the immediacy of the threat.
   That done, he might well have been moved to meet with CIA Director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, the head of the FBI and others to impress on them the need to seek out more-specific information, and to coordinate their efforts, so that a clearer picture might emerge. So that more and better preventative measures might be taken. Word might then have gone out that would've heightened airport security, triggered more and better feedback about Mideast types taking pilot training, etc.
   Bush's leadership style, that of a corporate CEO, is to hang back and wait for trusted aides to develop whatever can develop, then digest a boiled-down-to-the-essentials report before undertaking any greater personal involvement.
   This brings to mind the contrasting approach of some previous presidents. John F. Kennedy was known for getting on the phone with people in the federal agencies who never imagined they'd be talking one-on-one with the president of the United States. Kennedy valued the fact that people below the top-brass level often have keener perceptions and better insight into what's going on than the political appointees and senior-most careerists above them.
   Lyndon Johnson regularly worked 14- and 15-hour days, calling all sorts of people at all hours of the day and night when he wanted personal input. And he had a voracious appetite for personal imput. Some he called on were civilians or people who'd been out of government for years, but Johnson appreciated the magic in being told the president was on the line. He called, they answered, he learned, things got done.
   Is the August 2001 memo clear proof Bush could've prevented the attack that took place a few weeks later? No, probably not. But it's a clear indication he failed to adequately heed dire warnings and to become more actively and personally involved in efforts to prevent such an attack.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:49 AM

 
Right wingers seize on an anemic gotcha
   Radical-right types of the sort that hang on Rush Limbaugh's every word, exhibit telltale dried foam residue on their chins and live for the day when they can finally "get" Clinton have found a new hate interest.
   On April 1, various senators heaped kudos on Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., on the occasion of his 17,000th vote. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said something awkwardly questionable, giving desperately vengeful right wingers an opening for some mean-spirited payback.
   Sen. Trent Lott lost his powerful post as majority leader a couple of years ago for some careless rhetoric in praise of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond. Lott's statement smacked of abiding resentment about 30 years of civil rights progress.
   Byrd is a courtly, old-school veteran of more decades in the Senate than most of his colleagues have served terms. He's renowned for old-fashioned oratory, his devotion to classical literature and the Bible, and for being kind. Byrd's pro-active devotion to the history and traditions of the Senate have earned him the unofficial title, "Conscience of the Senate." Senators on both sides of the aisle afford him respect and deference, many with some genuine affection thrown in.
   Dodd, also a Senate veteran, a liberal and an extremely able legislator, has long supported civil rights and affirmative action. Unlike the situation of Thurmond and Lott, there's simply no basis for suggesting Dodd is or ever has been a racist.
   Byrd, it must be said, has a less-than-admirable past on that score. He came up poor in a border state, in a very different era. Before coming to Congress in the 1950s, he had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. In 1964, as a senator, he filibustered to block the landmark Civil Rights Act of that year.
   A Washington Times story quotes Dodd as having said Byrd "would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation," and that Byrd's service in the Senate "would have been right at anytime."

   Indeed, it was awkward. It was subject to making something out of, for anyone hard up enough. That description, unfortunately, fits Limbaugh and many others who've managed to make lucrative careers out being blowhards with an attitude. They have lots of hours of radio and TV airtime to fill with something, after all.
   Dittoheads will eat it up, expand on it and regurgitate it. Look for weekend Fox News talking heads to chew on it, too. Right-wing blogs are already ragging on it. Soon, we expect, this din will attract the attention of mainstream media. Like comic actor Bill Bendix ("The Life of Riley") used to say, "What a revoltin' development this is!"
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:15 AM

 
Justice, marshal unfit for positions they hold
   Federal marshals and Supreme Court justices may be widely separated in position, pay grade and prestige, but both have one thing in common. They are expected to know and abide by the law, especially regarding constitutional protection from unlawful search and seizure.
   Justice Antonin Scalia and at least one deputy U.S. marshal apparently believe they're somehow exempt from all that.
   Scalia spoke Wednesday at Presbyterian Christian High School in Hattiesburg, Miss. As he was telling students about the Constitution, Deputy U.S. Marshal Melanie Rube reportedly confiscated a cassette on which one reporter was recording Scalia's speech and erased the digital recording another reporter made.
   A Boston Globe story notes, "Alone among the justices, Scalia bars television cameras when he speaks in public, and he usually tries to clear the room of reporters. He insists, usually in advance, that his words not be recorded."
   The story also includes this important insight:
   Scalia, who has earned his reputation as an outspoken conservative and strict constructionist, has no excuse for what can only be termed an outrageous violation of the law of the land. Neither does Rube.
   One thing every U.S. military recruit learns early on in basic training is that they are not obliged to carry out an unlawful order, regardless of the rank of the person giving the order. What that means is, a private is standing guard at a gate or doorway must turn away even a four-star general who seeks entry without the required ID or clearance. If the general tries to pull rank and intimidate, he could end up being taken away by military police — an embarrassment that could wind up being a career-ender.
   The very same protocol ought to apply to law enforcement officers of the Justice Department. In the Hattiesburg case, that would've meant that if Scalia told Rube to confiscate reporter's notes or recordings, Rube would have politely refused. And, her refusal would've been backed up all the way to the attorney general and White House, if necessary.

   It's clear that neither Scalia nor Rube gets it. Neither is fit for the position of high responsibility they hold. Both should lose their job as a result.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:49 AM

 
Rice testimony not entirely square with facts
   The good news is that, after all else failed, President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, has testified in open session and under oath before the 9-11 Commission.
   The bad news is that there are glaring problems in Dr. Rice's testimony.
   Appearing prepped and pumped Thursday, Rice was feisty about expanding on her answers, which conflicted with the time-limit concerns of the panel members. Her statements provided little in the way of surprise.
   But the Center For American Progress details several Rice responses that don't square well with known facts. Here's an example:
   For more examples, see "Rice Testimony Before 9/11 Commission" at CAP's fine site.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:49 AM

 
Kerry must not be specific about war plans
   Sen. John Kerry is back to campaigning this week, laying into President George W. Bush and his administration with hard questions and harsh criticisms.
   A Wednesday AP story quoted Kerry: "`Where are the people with the flowers, throwing them in the streets, welcoming the American liberators the way Dick Cheney said they would be?' Kerry said in an interview with American Urban Radio Networks. `Since I fought in Vietnam, I have not seen an arrogance in our foreign policy like this.'"
   Today, in another story, Kerry is quoted: "'Why is the United States of America almost alone in carrying this burden and the risks which the world has a stake in?'"
   While in Wisconsin, Kerry was reportedly told by the daughter of 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern that people in her state want to hear him speak forcefully about Bush's record on the environment and foreign policy.
   Kerry obliged: "You tell me if this is strong enough. George Bush and the Republicans in Washington today have run the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of this country."

   Oh!pinion's view: It is both proper and inevitable for Kerry to level criticism at the Bush administration about the Iraq War, the war on terrorism and foreign policy in general. Election campaigns are supposed to provide voters the opposing views of those running for office. Candidates are supposed to probe and question and critique the record, policies and ideas of opponents.
   The problem for Kerry is that his criticisms of our involvement in Iraq provoke questions from the media and Republicans about what, specifically, he would do. It's a fair question, but one Kerry should not answer, not with detailed specifics.
   Why? Because to do so would be to tip his hand and possibly limit his options should he win the White House. What's more, depending on what specifics he might offer, he could open himself to charges that he's pandering to foreign interests or inviting our enemies to undertake actions intended to skew the election one way or another.
   This is a pitfall of democracy in time of war, especially a war such as the one we're mired in in Iraq. Just when people most need solid information concerning a matter of life and death on which to base their choice, the candidate must be less than completely forthcoming. Well, nobody said democracy is perfect.
   This wartime election-year dynamic, however, is one voters should keep in mind when Republicans try to bully and bait Kerry on this issue, as they're clearly doing. Don't downgrade Kerry for responding with generalities and repeating his familiar call for greater participation by other nations and the U.N.
   Under the circumstances, answers like those are the best he can — and should — do for now.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:30 PM

 
Why you're either rich or in jeopardy