Barone lament a few facts shy of reality
   Pro-Republican columnist Michael Barone's current item over at U.S. News & World Report is an unusual piece of work: a melancholy whitewash job.
   Barone concedes, barely, that Iraq isn't turning out to be exactly what our self-appointed architects of a prototypical democracy in the Middle East had in mind for right about now. He then notes that for weeks Sen. John Kerry and our weapons of mass destruction eradicator in chief have been virtually tied in the polls . . .
   Imagine that: Bush's re-election bid looking to a PR black eye for the United Nations, a decrepit shell left over from before the first Gulf War and the grisly murder of a civilian for a lift in the polls. If true, this pathetic bit of insight represents a new low in presidential politics.
   Let's also note, before moving on, that if Barone is really interested in "fair coverage," mention must be made that in April and May 2004 our troops were being killed at the rate of 100 a month, which is up sharply from the casualty rate of one year ago, when such losses were to be expected. In our estimation, that statistic, along with the 800-plus total of lives lost, represents more than a politically sanitized reference such as "impression of turmoil."
   Barone evidently forgets a peculiar dynamic of the Bush presidency. From the beginning and with great consistency, people have given him high poll numbers for likeability — while expressing disagreement and discomfort with one policy decision, legislative abomination and foreign policy blunder after another.
   The lack of enthusiasm, even among wealthy chief beneficiaries, for Bush's tax cuts was stunning. Tellingly, enthusiasm declined as Bush persisted in ramming through a second and third huge tax cut. On some level, it's sunk in that Bush bought his favored folks a bonanza while saddling the rest of us with a $4 trillion debt that we'll be two or more generations paying off.
   Bush's roll-your-own regulation policy for polluting industries and workplace safety, while not high on most Americans' priority list, made a bad impression. Ours is not a nation of policy wonks, but people do take note of foxes being put in charge of henhouses.
   The same can be said for most Americans' dismay about what Bush has done for the regard most other countries and their people hold America in. The U.S., they know, is not so big and powerful that it doesn't need a broad array of friends and allies.
   Senior citizens and many other Americans were not fooled by the $530 billion Medicare "reform" bill that provides little or no meaningful benefit for seniors buying prescriptions but does funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to drug makers, insurance companies and HMOs.
   People are impressed with the Department of Homeland Security's efforts, but in a largely negative way. News reports about missed weapons and unchecked baggage and parcels at airports, uninspected containers at seaports, and our ever porous borders have taken a toll. Likewise, people question the wisdom of spending millions to train airport screeners, only to downsize thousands of them out of their jobs in less than 18 months. Same goes for ending federal aid to communities to bolster their police departments during a time of heightened terrorist threats.
   If the media were really giving Bush all the bad press he's gone out of his way to earn, Barone wouldn't just be writing a melancholy discourse — a suicide note would be more fitting.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:04 PM

 
Bless all defenders of our freedom
   This post is dedicated to all those, past and present, who put their lives in jeopardy to protect America's freedoms, and to their families and friends.
   The precious liberty we Americans enjoy is not really a gift but a promise, one that can only be kept by preserving and passing it on, generation to generation. More than a million Americans have given their lives to keep that promise. Many more have sustained lifelong injury to body and/or mind toward that end, as well.
   We Americans fulfill our debt to them by holding in our hearts their memory and by passing to their heirs, uncompromised, what they purchased at incomparable cost.
   May God bless and forever keep them all.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:32 AM

 
`Central front' rhetoric at core of what's wrong
here it was again, in President Bush's May 24 speech at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., supposedly clarifying our misbegotten mission in Iraq: "central front."
   This was just the latest example of Bush and his people using the term "central front." As always, it was slipped in without supporting facts, evidence or even an attempt to explain, logically, how and why they believe Iraq is the central front.
   On May 5, in Philadelphia, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the masterminds behind the Iraq war, put it this way:
   Apparently, we're all supposed to take it on Wolfowitz's say so that killing off and rounding up as many as 1,000 "insurgents" and setting up some kind of democracy in Iraq, bestowing billions of our hard-earned dollars on Iraqi infrastructure and U.S. contractors along the way, will somehow be a "crucial setback" to the terrorists. He conspicuously spares us whatever leap of logic or flight of faith, fancy or whatever, led him to say that. No facts, no figures, no precedents — just rhetoric from a man whose rhetoric has served as political smokescreen and whose purported facts have proven repeatedly to have been wrong.
   Of course Wolfowitz fails to even try to explain how and why such a "terrible setback" as being routed in Iraq might manifest itself on the ground elsewhere in the world. Somehow, it's hard to imagine that extremist Muslim psychopathic killers on outlying islands of the Philippines, in the jungle outback of some Southeast Asian country, or even laying low in some European capital — or American city — are cowering and cringing over the elimination of a few of their kind. If they bother about that at all, it's easy to imagine they would see their fellow terrorists as simply having collected on the demented assurance of 170-some virgins and a place in their warped concept of heaven.
   Here is Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking at The Heritage Foundation last Oct. 10:
   How reminiscent of the glib, grinning, "So, I lied," prattle of Joe Isuzu, of the old ad campaign. This is like the seventh-grade classmate who, when asked point blank by the teacher where his homework was, proceeded to glibly answer several questions the teacher had not asked.
   Here is President Bush again, from way back on Sept. 7, 2003, making an "Address to the Nation" of from the Cabinet Room:
   Since that time and arguably emboldened to act because we're so distracted and tied down in Iraq, Muslim terrorists have pulled off attacks in Europe, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and are regrouping and regaining strength in Afghanistan.
   Just last week, Attorney General John Ashcroft warned, ominously, of the virtual certainty of one or more attacks by al Qaeda — something big — later this year here in the U.S.
   Common sense indicates the American public would be wise to consider U.S. territory the real central front in the war against terrorism, just as Europeans would be wise to consider their soil the central front, and so on.
   Common sense also indicates Americans would be wise to replace Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and the rest of the incompetent ideologues whose unsubstantiated sloganeering and other foolishness have cost 800 Americans in uniform their lives; have caused the country to waste $200 billion on an unnecessary war; and have undoubtedly helped to perversely strengthen and broaden al Qaeda, not only within Iraq but around the world, including here in the U.S.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:33 PM

 
Big-time spammer gets burned in court
   Computer users the world over got a drop in their justice bucket today, with the sentencing to seven years in prison of a spammer who has sent 850 million garbage e-mails their way.
   In Buffalo, N.Y., jurors stuck it to Howard Carmack, for forgery, identity theft and falsifying business records. He had opened numerous e-mail accounts using stolen identities (story).
   More good news concerning Carmack is that he previously lost a civil case, resulting in a $16.4 million judgment against him. Now for the bad news: He may actually end up serving only three and a half years.
   If Carmack's fate were left up to Oh!pinion, he'd have to spend 12 hours a day reading his 850 million spam e-mail messages aloud to a recorder, until he's read every one of them word for word. Oh, and the other 12 hours a day, every day, he'd have to listen to them. . .
   "Guaranteed, you will gain 3 inches!!!!" "Lose 12 pounds in two weeks without dieting!!!" "Meet the Love Of Your Life — Never Be Lonely Again" "Stop Hair Loss Immediately" "U-2 Can Be Rich" "Add 3 inches where it counts!!!"
   Our sentence is guaranteed to turn what passes for Carmack's brain into something resembling crankcase sludge in two or three increasingly painful, tedious and depressing months. Now, that would be justice done.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:14 PM

 
Bush war `leadership' revealed for what it is
   Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen looks at what's going down in Fallujah, with the Iraq debacle overall, and at President George W. Bush's acuity regarding all this, as revealed in the May 24 speech at the Army War College.
   Headlined "Consistently Disconnected," it rings tellingly true throughout. Here's Cohen's conclusion, which mirrors our own:

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:24 PM

 
Standards for Neapolitan pizza? Viva Italia!
   Italy's agriculture ministry is saying don't mess with pizza. The ministry has issued strict standards for what can be sold as genuine, traditional Neapolitan pizza (story).
   The standards cover size, thickness, ingredients, oven type and temperature, and everything else. They were implemented after a survey of Naples' pizza makers.
   No, the government isn't going to round up and jail nonconforming pizzerias. All those in compliance among Italy's 23,000 pizza-serving restaurants will get to display an official label, that's all.
   How quaint — and how very nice. The Italians aren't concerned about driving sales through the roof or the price through the floor, don't care the least about low cal, low carbs or high-tech production methods. They place no value on genetically engineering milk to make fluffier cheese or wheat to make some kind of super flour. They know a good thing when they've got it, so color, aroma, flavor and texture — all guaranteed excellent through tradtional ingredients and methods — are their paramount concerns.
   Bless the Italians. While innovation will always be with us and some folks will always opt for anything that's new and different, there's a place in this old world for recognizing and preserving valuable traditions.
   We've sampled nontraditional pizzas, including two or three Mexican-food variations and several Hawaiian concoctions. Catch us in the right mood and the Hawaiian variation is OK, but the Mexican types just don't please us. And, we passed on a barbecued chicken/pepper jack cheese pie thing altogether.
   La cucina d'Italia is one of life's greatest blessings, and really good pizza is one of Italian cuisine's finest achievements. Let's keep it that way.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:53 PM

 
Pragmatic Iraqis say keep Abu Ghraib
   During his Monday night same ol', same ol' presentation at the Army War College in Pennsylvania, President Bush did break some new ground by declaring his intention to have Abu Ghraib prison torn down.
   The idea is to remove a symbol of Saddam Hussein's sadistic excesses and, obviously, an embarrassing reminder of the abuse and humiliation Iraqi prisoners suffered at the hands of U.S. personnel, contract employees and guard dogs.
   We could well understand if Iraqis were to cheer the demolition. However, Iraqis quoted in this story say the idea is wasteful and unnecessary.
   Good for al-Yawer and al-Sumeidi. After 35 years of Saddam Hussein's wasteful, selfishness, economic sanctions, three wars and a violently contested occupation, their rundown Third-World country needs all the intact infrastructure it can get its hands on.
   We're impressed by these practical-minded Iraqis. We just hope Bush doesn't give them his "my way or the highway" treatment.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:25 PM

 
Gore triggers new heights in hypocrisy
   The radical right invaded and took over radio, and what did we get? We got the bitter bile and scornful, hypocritical blather of Rush Limbaugh.
   Thanks to Rupert Murdoch, the radical right got its own cable TV channel, and what did we get? We got the bitter bile and scornful blather of Bill Oreilly and a whole stable of equally unbalanced and unfair self-promoters.
   Not to be outdone in the blogosphere, we've got John Cole over at balloonjuice.com, who reacted to Rep. Nancy Pelosi's recent assessment of President Bush as an incompetent by calling her names, "jerk" being the mildest.
   Now, in the wake of Al Gore's latest spirited denunciation of Bush & Co., complete with an animated call for mass resignations, comes a response from jayreding.com.
   Under the post title "Someone Needs His Thorazine," reding weighs in with the following exercise in reasoned discourse (ahem):
   Reading this brought to mind certain phrases. "Look who's talking," "Takes one to know one" and "Monkey see, monkey do" led the list.
   OK, we know that all bloggers on the right are not sniping, name-calling hypocrites. Nearly every rule has its exceptions.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:02 PM

 
Veneman rescinds organics rule changes
   Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman reversed course today, saving rules governing what constitutes "organic" foods from effectively being gutted by "clarifications" arrived at, so typically, behind closed doors.
   A good San Francisco Chronicle story on this reports:
   The story goes on to say Veneman's turnaround announcement was met with expressions of surprise, relief and appreciation from many people and groups that had been sharply critical of the organics rules changes and how they were made.
   Oh!pinion joins in welcoming this course correction. Even if late in the game and only by trial and error, at least one Bush administration Cabinet secretary seems willing to admit to and learn from a mistake. Who knows, maybe Veneman will set some kind of example others in the Bush administration will follow — or get sacked for posing a risk of that happening.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:37 PM

 
Kerry wise to drop late-acceptance idea
   Sen. John Kerry has decided to accept his presidential nomination during the Democratic convention, thereby giving up a chance to spend without federal limits until Bush campaign spending is also limited
   The idea of late acceptance was floated a couple of weeks ago and quickly became the target of jokes and widespread criticism. In fact, we can't recall reading or hearing anyone comment favorably on the strategy.
   Kerry and his campaign people will be tested in having to come up with ways to offset five weeks of pounding by saturation airing of negative Bush commercials. They're probably buoyed somewhat by the fact that the last $70 million Bush barrage has not been able to overcome all the bad news generated by Bush's rendition of presidential leadership and his administration's bad policies.
   At basis, one of the best things about Kerry's decision is that it serves to further set him apart from the Bush/GOP anything-to-win approach to politics, which typically involves taking the low road, behaving ruthlessly and using millions of special-interest payback or pay-ahead dollars for fuel.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:10 PM

 
Report: Iraq war grew, spread al Qaeda
   Those who insist President George W. Bush's Iraq war is somehow dealing al Qaeda a terrible blow, thus helping win the war against terrorism, have something new to try to dismiss.
   A just-issued report from London's International Institute of Strategic Studies says 18,000 al Qaeda operatives are abroad in 60 countries and, thanks in large part to to the war in Iraq, their ranks are growing rapidly.
   In a news story on this, the Associated Press describes IISS as being "considered the most important security think tank outside the United States."
   AP's story on the IISS report includes this:
   The report sees al Qaeda as seeking mass-murder weapons and plotting big attacks later this year, according to the story. One al Qaeda leader is said to have set 4 million American deaths as a benchmark for victory.
   Oh!pinion's view: Polls indicate more and more Americans have caught on that "W" stands for "Wrong," giving hope we'll get the regime change necessary so this country can start getting things right again.
   We can't pull out of Iraq precipitously. However, we must get the millstone of Iraq from around our neck as quickly as possible. There's a war to be fought in many ways and places. Our forces will need their full strength and wide-ranging mobility, all under the direction of leadership with — for a change — sensible ideas about what to do and how to go about doing it.
   Fire Bush, hire Kerry and let's get on with it.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:24 AM

 
Rep. dealing with general dissatisfaction
   Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, former commander of the terrorist prison operation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and now in charge of prisoners in Iraq, didn't exactly make a hit with a powerful member of Congress when he testified before Congress recently.
   An MSNBC/Newsweek Web report says Rep. Jane Harman, ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, is on Miller's case. Harman has fired off a letter to Miller basically questioning how honest and complete his answers about prisoner interrogations were when he testified. From the story:
   The story also notes some MPs now facing charges over prisoner treatment at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq are claiming they were told to engage in "softening up" and psychological conditioning activities after Miller was at the prison last summer.
   These are the kinds of things known to end military careers on less than favorable terms.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:52 PM

 
Why did U.S. harbor and pay a convicted criminal?
   Ahmed Chalabi is the slippery character who's suddenly gone from being the lavishly paid darling of neoconservative armchair conquistadors in the Defense Department to persona non grata and espionage suspect.
   There's reason to believe bogus information from Chalabi played a significant role in egging the Bush administration on toward invading Iraq, although that inclination was extreme to begin with.
   Much is being asked, said and written about Chalabi now, understandably. But a remarkably basic question continues to go unasked, for no apparent good reason. It has to do with Chalabi's checkered past and our relationship with a longtime friend and ally in the Middle East.
   On May 23, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Cal., about Chalabi, and she hit on our unasked question:
   That's right; in the early 1980s, Chalabi was convicted of embezzlement (as we've heard it) in Jordan. That would be the same Jordan whose help and support the U.S. has repeatedly enlisted and often received over the years. The same Jordan run by a royal family that, by Middle East standards, is a model of progressive enlightenment. It's not a full-fledged democracy yet. But Jordan is just the kind of place that would be a far more realistic model for others in the neighborhood than President Bush's pie-in-the-sky vision of a born-again Iraq.
   So, our Chalabi question is this: What was the U.S. doing in the first place, harboring a fugitive, a convicted criminal, from Jordanian justice?
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:19 PM

 
Iraq: Expert lays out a better way ahead
   The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on May 19 held a second round of hearings titled, "Iraq Transition - The Way Ahead," to get input on the war on terrorism and in Iraq. Dr. Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies was among the panelists, and he had a lot of sensible input to share.
   Cordesman provided the committee a pdf document that is very broad in scope, much more extensive than his hearing testimony. Click here to read or download that document.
   We were particularly impressed with the following insight, sounding a theme Cordesman emphasized to the senators in live remarks:
   Cordesman advocates a military policy of not trying to eradicate all insurgent opposition or eliminate all pockets of resistance. Rather, he suggests containing those while advancing restoration and Iraqification efforts in non-hostile or less-hostile areas. Toward that, Cordesman believes U.S. forces should maximize use of dollars and minimize use of bullets, paying out to those who dig in and try to make real improvements, withholding from those who fail to. He also favors a relatively freewheeling application of aid dollars by troops on the ground, without being hidebound by formal contracting procedures.
   The preceding is only a small sample of a comprehensive, well-thought-out approach to improving the mess the Bush administration has created, and to avoiding such costly blunders in the future. We highly recommend reading all of what Cordesman has to say.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:00 PM

 
Bush & Co. serves up risky beef and iffy organics
   The U.S. Department of Agriculture is doing its part to make the Bush administration the worst at administering government in anything resembling the public interest in modern times.
   Saturday, we learned that in spite of a USDA ban, as many as 33 million pounds of processed Canadian beef have been imported and sold to U.S. consumers.
   We also learned that, thanks to the USDA, there's not much sense in seeking out and paying more for a range of products labeled "organic." That's because USDA, without anyone's by your leave, is "clarifying" rules in the special way of the Bush administration. That means the rules are being gutted.
   A story on the beef debacle reports:
   Veneman denies knowing anything about this exposure of U.S. consumers to the chance of suffering a fatal brain-destroying disease a few years from now. Supposedly, lower-level officials are responsible.
   The news story quotes Bill Bullard, CEO of the Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, as saying he can't see how she could not have known. Also from Bullard:
   An excellent, thorough San Francisco Chronicle story exposes what's going on with the organic products concept:
   The story says Consumers Union is part of a coalition of interested parties demanding that USDA rescind the changes.
   We wish them luck. When Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's department "updated" the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime pay rules last year, it did so in ways that virtually ensured as many as 8 million American workers would lose overtime pay. Congress intervened forcefully, twice, to end this mischief, only to have the Labor Department persist — something it may do yet again.
   The organics dustup story provides a good indicator of how Bush administration Cabinet-level agencies operate:
   You're right, Riddle. That's exactly what Bush and his pro-corporate hard liners are all about, at least when they can't do away with regulations altogether.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:30 PM

 
Pelosi calls Bush as she sees him: incompetent
   Our choice of political quote of the week is one from Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, who spoke with unusual bluntness about President George W. Bush's performance in office.
   During the same interview, Pelosi noted:
   Here's hoping Pelosi's prognostication is every bit as on-target as her assessment.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:28 PM

 
In unity there's Democratic strength
   In too many presidential election years Democrats have merrily engaged in activities that looked like a cross between square dancing and a demolition derby, ultimately weakening their nominee's chance of winning.
   George W. Bush's 2000 pledge to be a uniter and not a divider turned out to be one example among many of empty hype — except where Democrats are concerned. The desire to end the damage, destruction and expense of the worst president since Warren G. Harding has forged a bond of historical proportions.
   This week, USA Today columnist Walter Shapiro described a significant aspect of this unity, telling how an alliance of activists and groups in Washington. D.C., are meeting biweekly to harmonize efforts toward dislodging Bush from the White House.
   If you haven't read, "Liberals show they can work together," here's your chance.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:09 PM

 
Toilet tirades likely to be short lived
   News arrives periodically of some fresh outrage against peace, quiet and our autonomy as individual human beings that makes us consider anew the option of fleeing "civilization" in disgust. The idea of a hermit's existence in a rustic, no-tech cabin miles from the nearest road takes on fresh appeal.
   Here's the latest such outrage:
   Leaving aside the relative merits of sitting or standing, or of how people living together resolve such matters, we'll just say Benkhardt's gadget had better either be virtually indestructible and welded in place, or extremely cheap and guaranteed flushable. Otherwise, we suspect a whole lot of women in Britain, Europe and Canada are going to end up wishing they had saved their money.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:04 AM

 
Trickle-down 3.0 performs worse than 1.0 and 2.0
resident Bush is traveling the country, claiming his tax-cutting, borrow-and-spend excuse for an economic policy — really just Trickle-down 3.0 — is doing wonderful things for all Americans. Meanwhile, a new study provides the truth about what's going on (story).
   Unique is one way to put it. In our view, this is the first so-called recovery to occur in spite of the application of precisely the wrong policies for the economic realities existing when the policies were implemented. The fact is that when Bush talks about successes, he's talking in terms of his favored folks, the wealthy, politically and economically powerful few.
   Our charge that Bush administration and Republican congressional policy is to provide government by the corporations, of the corporations and for the corporations is borne out by this study. The news story continues:
   Despite the increasingly obvious — and increasingly damaging — reality, we continue to hear claims to the contrary. The latest example is from Rep. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who appeared on Lou Dobbs' show Wednesday, echoing the Bush and Republican Party line during a debate on the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement:
   Like Bush and most Republicans in Congress, DeMint either missed or chooses to ignore recent news stories detailing how the percentage of taxes paid by corporations has declined steadily over the past 40 years, to where it's now at the lowest level since World War II.
   We can only conclude that Bush and the Republican right won't be satisfied until the average working American is directly competitive with the billions of workers in China, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, etc. In other words, enduring hard core poverty at much less than $1 an hour.
   We're certainly moving in that direction. The news story also includes this:
   The only groups Bush can credibly brag up his horrible policies to are the ones already pumping big bucks into his campaign. If the overwhelming majority of Americans vote their pocketbook, if it's still the economy, Bush had better start packing the pickup. In Texas terms, trickle down just don't cut the mustard.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:25 AM

 
Trying for a little suspension of disbelief
   So, President Bush goes over to the Capitol for a pep rally with the Republican faithful, before they head off into the hinterland for the Memorial Day recess.
   This get together was Bush-style all the way, as the AP story details:
   Yep, it's my way or the highway, and I'll do the talkin'. No need for any pesky reporters or note taking. Y'all just listen up and I'll tell ya how it's gonna be.

   Interestingly, just about a month ago, our proconsul in Iraq, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, was being unusually emphatic about how unready the Iraqis are to see to their own security, logically a precondition for any semblance of autonomy. The following is from an April 18 Associated Press story:
   Does anyone in their right mind believe this alleged hand over of authority is anything more than a kind of political crepe-hanging exercise, attempting to cover up a horribly failed policy?
   The reality is that without our troops — which a large and growing majority of Iraqis want out of their country — any new officials the coalition appoints are likely to be dead meat in very short order. That being the case, does anyone, anywhere, actually believe the officials the coalition appoints will be anything but puppets who are dependent for their lives and any authority they have on constant, heavy U.S. military-provided security?
   Who's zooming who? What a farce.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:36 PM

 
The real skinny, now en español
   "The Naked News," whose anchors deliver the news much the way those of other TV outlets do, except that they are nude while doing it, is adding a Spanish language version.
   Produced in Canada, "The Naked News" debuted its Internet and cable TV feeds in 1999, according to an ABC story.
The new offerings are called "Noticias al Desnudo."
   Oh!pinion's view: With all the right-wing grousing about alleged liberal bias in the news media, despite the fact that the airwaves are overrun with right wingers grousing about liberal bias in the news media, maybe "The Naked News" approach should be tried by some innovative U.S. TV stations. The advantage being that they could claim, "No Hidden Agendas — Or Anything Else!"
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:16 AM

 
Item touches core of what's wrong in America
   A politically, socially and economically healthy America absolutely depends on maintaining good balance between the wealthy and powerful, and the rest of us. That means balance between management and labor, between businesses and workers/consumers, between recipients of government largesse and taxpayers.
   President Bush's administration caps a quarter century in which extremely powerful forces — social and economic — have worked steadily and with great success to destroy good balance. Indeed, Bush and his administration have done everything in their considerable power to accelerate and intensify tipping of the balance — to the complete disadvantage of the nonwealthy and nonpowerful.
   The Center for American Progress provides an excellent example, "The Timken Tall Tale," of this process in action. Reading it is almost like viewing an X-ray of TB at work damaging lungs. We urge you to click on the link and read the whole thing, but here's an excerpt of the essentials:
   Just one company, one board chairman and, in this case, one Bush campaign Ranger. Keep in mind that there are hundreds more stories very much like this one — a fact that has a lot to do with why the rich are getting richer and stronger while most of the rest of us struggle to hold on, even as our jobs are exported, our benefits disappear and our incomes diminish.

   P.S. Addition: Howard Fineman's take on Bush and Timken is that the planned plant shutdown in Ohio could cost Bush the election.  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:44 PM

 
High gas prices no problem for Bush, Abraham
   Sen. John Kerry slammed the Bush administration today for not taking action against high and rising gasoline prices. Kerry noted President Bush promised to talk tough to OPEC during the 2000 election, but has since done nothing.
   A news story includes White House spokesman Scott McClellan's response:
   Let's see if we've got this straight. McClellan says Bush & Co. will keep doing nothing that's the least bit likely to provide relief, which is what they've been doing. And, evidently, Bush doesn't perceive that producers have so far done anything "that would harm our economy or hurt consumers."
   With a net worth between $17 million and $19 million, and taxpayers buying his fill-ups, Bush probably doesn't perceive a problem.
   Meanwhile, the story says of pro-corporate, right-wing hard liner Spencer Abraham, our energy secretary, that he "accused those who called for the release of emergency government oil — most of them Democrats — of `playing games' with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which he said exists to protect against a severe disruption of supply."
   If Abraham knew his butt from his bunion, he'd realize that $2-a-gallon gasoline results in a severe disruption of supply for more than a few people who aren't making a five- or six-figure salary, as he is.
   November can't get here fast enough.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:43 PM

 
Times columnist Brooks flunks American history
   Remember those costume-drama historical movies Hollywood cranked out regularly from the 1930s to the mid-1950s? Many featured splendid acting, memorable scenes and settings, wondful costuming and unabashedly, emotionally patriotic scripts.
   "Gone With the Wind" was the grandest, but ones about Daniel Webster, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison and young Abe Lincoln belong to the category. Even when the action included bloodshed and death aplenty, even if the hero succumbed in the end, the story line was sure to be irrepressibly positive, or at least hopeful.
   The tone and spirit of those films is alive and well today, and can be experienced afresh in New York Times columnist David Brooks' latest, "In Iraq, America's Shakeout Moment."
   Brooks' thesis is that our grand-vision enterprise in Iraq, flawed though it is by a faulty understanding of the realities going in and the realities of staying the course in the face of cascading reverses, is very typically American. We reach for something a bit beyond our grasp, suffer setbacks, get real about it and keep trying. We may not achieve the original goal, but we make significant gains toward something better for having tried. Brooks cites historical precedents, as he sees things.
   Ah, the romance. Who could quibble with a few hundred American lives sacrificed? Who could stoop to questioning where $167 billion ($25 billion booster payment coming up), is all going?
   But then, shaking off the thin veneer of plausibility he's fashioned, Brooks tosses in this:
   We will shortly celebrate again the D-Day invasion of Normandy, certainly something important. It was a monumental project that dwarfed by several orders of magnitude any previous amphibious invasion. From its inception it was understood to be a venture that would cost lives, likely many lives. Those who planned it were military officers with firsthand knowledge of what it means to write next of kin about a life lost. It's a safe bet D-Day planning was begun in a very prudential frame of mind.
   A few months after D-Day in Europe, another important project came to fruition. American B-29s dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, effectively concluding our war with Japan without need of an invasion that would've been horrendously costly in American lives, albeit at a terrible cost in Japanese lives.
   Maybe Brooks thinks the iffy, expensive proposition of developing, testing and making the first A-bombs, then the fateful decision to actually demolish two cities and incinerate their large populations using them, came about in flights of fancy. We don't. We think a prudential frame of mind governed every step in the process.
   We can think of more glaring examples but the point is made. Brooks should try for a shakeout moment before committing nonsense to print.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:18 PM

 
Altria Corp. seeks FEC approval for ads
   Here comes fresh indication, as if any were needed, that President George W. Bush is the inside man for government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations. After all, they know a sugar daddy when they see one.
   Altria Group, a tobacco and foods conglomerate that used to be Philip Morris Cos., is seeking approval from the Federal Election Commission for a series of magazine ads about the policy differences between Bush and Sen. John Kerry. The FEC's blessing would get Altria around limits on corporate campaign contributions, apparently.
   Before jumping to any conclusion the ad series is sure to be a fair, balanced exercise in providing the public unbiased information, as Altria claims, be aware of the following, from an Associated Press story:
   So much for any semblance of neutrality. However, the story does say Altria promises to give both major campaigns a chance to respond to questions devised by BusinessWeek and won't edit their answers.
   We remain skeptical and hope the FEC says no. It's not as though Bush is hurting for funds, what with $200 million in his attack-ad piggy bank, much of it from his corporate fat-cat friends.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:57 AM

 
Would you believe, suddenly, evidence of WMD?
   An old 155mm shell that went off beside a road in Iraq Saturday is suspected to have been loaded with the components of sarin nerve gas (story).
   Today, on "Wolf Blitzer Reports," CNN correspondent David Ensor said this:
   My, what a small, small world this is. What an amazing coincidence that at a time when his Iraq war is going especially badly, the U.S. has been rocked by a prisoner abuse scandal and President Bush's poll numbers are in free fall, along comes what might be evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What better way to deflect public and media attention from matters unhelpful to Bush's standing with the public in this election year than a sudden, ominous discovery of evidence of WMD? What an opportunity to say something to effect, See, we told you!
   Oh!pinion would like to believe this is just an honest-to-goodness coincidence — and allows as how it might be. For one thing, we harbor an aversion to conspiracy theories. For another, we have a native tendency to want to believe the president — any president — and his people are dealing with us honestly.
   However, we're acutely mindful of the fact that Bush, his political field marshal, Karl Rove, and Republican/corporate backers are the Anything-To-Win Gang. They've earned that collective name with attitudes and actions.
   Former U.S. WMD inspection chief David Kay told the AP:
   We'll be watching, skeptically, to see what kind of a deal Bush and his surrogates make of it.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:27 PM

 
Do we now have two-standards forces?
   Columnist and CNN commentator Mark Shields asks a question that makes a thought-provoking point:
   Click the link for the rest of "Who represents America?" It's a quick read that's well worth your time.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:01 PM

 
Neuharth says bring the troops home
   USA Today founder Al Neuharth has seen enough of President George W. Bush's war in Iraq. The veteran editor and publisher didn't mince words in a recent Op-ed piece:
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:38 PM

 
McCain right to rebuff idea of being Kerry's V.P.
   Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., is promoting Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., as a running mate for Sen. John Kerry.
   Biden, one of our ablest senators and probably the Senate's foremost foreign policy expert, says he sees his suggestion as a way to mend the great partisan rift dividing the country. Biden talked his idea up during an appearance on MSNBC (story).
   McCain, who is a good friend of Kerry's, said he would answer any phone calls but is emphatic about not accepting any such offer.
   Oh!pinion's view: McCain's unwillingness makes sense and we hope he sticks to it. While McCain has many attributes of a good president, he's made it clear repeatedly that he considers himself a loyal part of a long family line of Republicans. That's important to him. He doesn't want to become a Democrat or be co-opted by Democrats.
   Fair enough.
   Suppose McCain, or any other Republican, were to become vice president in a Democratic administration. Were the president to die or become incapacitated, the vice president would be in an awkward position, to put it mildly.
   The presidency involves pursuing various goals and making all sorts of policy decisions. A suddenly ascendant Republican surrounded by Democratic aides and appointees, inheriting a Democratic legislative agenda and policies, would understandably be torn between his or her own preferences, Republican Party preferences, and loyalty to the ailing or deceased president. Beyond all that, there's the matter of having to try and carry forward what the electoral majority had opted for in the previous election.
   It's possible an outstandingly sensitive, perceptive and charismatic cross-party vice president could carry off becoming president to the satisfaction of most Americans, inside and outside of politics. It's possible but strikes us as unlikely.
   There are plenty of good Democrats who are just as smart, dedicated, experienced and capable as McCain. The name Dick Gephardt leaps to mind, although we'd welcome consideration of Sens. John Edwards, Byron Dorgan, Bob Graham and Mary Landrieu, as well.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:04 PM

 
`Marconi' and `Tiny' are really markers of decay
   Even knowing the vicious depravity of the homicidal Muslim psychopaths we're at war with, Americans were aghast at the beheading just over a week ago of civilian Nick Berg in Iraq. It's safe to say that pro-war and anti-war types — all decent people everywhere — are united in finding this murder unspeakably wrong.
   All that leaves out two Oregon radio personalities, who somehow found Berg's horrific execution a suitable topic for cracking wise and yukking it up (story):
   Let's go back to 1946 for a moment. Television was still a laboratory experiment, but radio was front and center in every living room. Families would gather around their big Philco or Zenith console to listen to "Fibber McGee & Molly," "The Jack Benny Show," and get news from the likes of Walter Winchell and Edward R. Murrow. It was a time when people would get chills down their spine listening to Kate Smith sing "God Bless America."
   Can you imagine anyone anywhere in America going on the air back then to poke fun at victims of the Nazi Holocaust or Bataan death march? Sure, there were lowlifes, village idiots and people who were both deranged and mean-spirited in the 1945 population. There have always been a few, as there always will be. But even those few knew and honored certain limits. It's also worth noting that in 1946 the people who hired talent for radio stations didn't bring lowlifes, village idiots and mean-spirited, deranged types on board.
   Somewhere along the line, we've lost something precious — in what passes for entertainment; in what people with a microphone think they can get away with; and in how people like "Marconi" and "Tiny" are brought up, long before they get near a microphone. We've lost it and we had better find some way to get it back.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:09 PM

 
Rumsfeld problems too big to spin aside
   Republicans have spent much of the week trying to defend Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld in the wake of prisoner abuse scandals and other bad news out of Iraq.
   President Bush made it a point to gush over Rumsfeld publicly and Vice President Dick Cheney told critics to get off the secretary's back. Other Bush administration defenders have expressed high indignation, attempting various forms of spin. Expression of disdain for what they deem lowdown partisan piling on was the most popular line of counterattack.
   Another key theme of Republican spin is that both Rumsfeld and Bush's war in Iraq are just going through a temporary bad patch, that the current situation is an anomaly. They would have us believe the worst of it is not the reality on the ground in Iraq, plus all the fallout in the Middle East and around the world, but rather just the orgy of bad PR being generated at home. Expect more along these lines on the Sunday talk shows.
   Democrats calling for Rumsfeld to resign or, like Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., working for his impeachment, will point to a much broader range of problems they have with Rumsfeld's leadership. The abuse of prisoners and our inability to achieve security and stability in Iraq, much less win the goodwill and cooperation of the Iraqis generally, are in their view only the latest manifestation of bad management that goes back to the origins of the Iraq fiasco.
   Seymour Hersh, writing in the New Yorker's May 17 edition, gives a good rundown of reasons why some want Rumsfeld's head on a platter:
   Continues . . .

   Oh!pinion's view: Allowing that there's plenty of reason to want to see Rumsfeld replaced, based on results, we believe the best time to see to it is in November. The best outcome would be a complete change of administration.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:42 PM

 
Dissident sentenced despite U.S. pleas
   Chinese dissident Yang Jianli, 40, has been sentenced to five years in prison on a charge of spying for Taiwan and entering China on a false passport. Jianli, who was tried in a closed proceeding last August in Beijing, denied the charges.
   A Washington Post story describes Jianli as a longtime resident of the U.S., who directed a Boston foundation that advocates democratization of China. The story noted:
   Oh!pinion's view: Our great free-trading partner, magnet for U.S.-based multinational corporations and supposed good friend, The People's Republic of China, strikes again. Far beyond the case of Yang Jianli, China has a horrible record where human rights are concerned. Saddam Hussein's transgressions against his own people in Iraq pale by comparison, when you consider size, scale and duration.
   Given all that, will our fearless leader liberator of oppressed peoples and crusading democratizer in chief, President George W. Bush, send in troops to end the evil of despotic communist rule?
    Not until Hewlett Packard, Intel, IBM, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, et al, tell him to.
   In other words, it ain't going to happen. In fact, Bush literally couldn't get more than the time of day from China's leaders when he politely asked them to quit pegging their currency to the dollar at an artificially high rate, to keep their exports to the U.S. unfairly cheap. They listened, then blew him off. The same thing happened when our secretaries of commerce and state made this request.
   We're told Bush is a strong, decisive and principled leader. We're not told about the double standard and glaring inconsistencies in his policies, especially where dealing with China is concerned. The liberal media must be slipping again.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:55 PM

 
Corporate welfare bill moves right along
   If you've been worried about some form of justice catching up with the multinational corporations that have spent the past decade and more selling out their country and fellow Americans, be assured these outfits are in no danger.
   In light of their very special contributions to idling millions of Americans and ruining tax bases of cities, counties and states all over America, the Republican-controlled Congress has seen fit to give these multinationals a reward. It's part of the corporate tax bill passed by the Senate 92-5 on Tuesday.
   Here's how a news story describes a key part of the bill:
   Be advised that, thanks to the power of overwhelming lobbying force and Republican ideology, "raising other taxes" means payroll and/or income taxes on individuals whose job(s) haven't yet been sent to other countries. The multinational corporations want Americans as customers for their products and services, and as people who pay the lion's share of taxes, not as, in their view, outrageously overpriced employees.
    Despite the "woe is us; how will we ever be able to compete?" stories they tell when doing so suits their purpose, corporate America has benefited from every imaginable break and advantage over the past two decades. Sky-high profits and productivity rates, and the fabulous fortunes and perks CEOs and executives routinely receive offer ample evidence of how swell things are for them. But all that's not nearly enough. A story in Britain's The Guardian on U.S. corporate taxation included these insights:
   Oh!pinion's view: Most private corporations exist not only to make profits but to maximize profits. Maximizing profits means, literally, making every extra cent they can make, by any and all means they can get away with.
   Selling out our country, our people, and manipulating every aspect of public policy making and enforcement that impinges on their profit-maximizing potential are all just standard operating procedure for them.
   The only way Americans can end this plague is to vote out the corporations' shills and agents within government. Then, it will be necessary to find ways to drastically restrict the corporations' ability to inundate government and politics with money and lobbying might.
   We need profitable, competitive corporations in America. We don't need and shouldn't tolerate corporations running America to suit themselves and their insufferable greed.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:16 PM

 
Iraq, ideology may cost Bush his job
   The realities of our situation aren't budging President Bush and his war-making band of neoconservative ideologues from their self-proclaimed mission of conquest in the name of democracy, but most Americans are making sense of things.
   Evidence of that can be seen in the latest CBS News poll, the analysis of which includes this:
   The difference between an ideologue and a pragmatist is that the ideologue is willing to substitute faith for judgment based on facts when plans fall through and things are going badly. The ideologue's faith in his ideology leads him to insist that because his goal is virtuous his policy to achieve the goal is imbued with goodness as well, so success will surely come in time. It's just a matter of persisting with the policy until success is achieved, he believes.
   With that mindset, people who oppose the policy and point out that it is failing because it is flawed are deemed quitters or worse, as subversives. (To see how that plays out, look back at the anti-Vietnam war tidal wave of sentiment in the late 1960s and 1970s, and President Richard Nixon's response, including his "enemies list.")
   Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University professor, noted economist and an adviser to leaders and governments of several nations around the world, was interviewed on National Public Radio yesterday. His take on the War in Iraq is that it was a hideous mistake from the beginning, one that ensured the entire Arab-Muslim world would turn against the U.S. with more anger than ever before. Sachs said the war has also detracted in every way — money and manpower especially — from the necessary and justifiable war against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
   Sachs pointed out that while the U.S. can impose its will in Iraq by exerting overwhelming military force, doing so would be so damaging and costly in lives that the ultimate cost, politically, diplomatically, and in every other way, would be prohibitive.
   Sachs is very clear about what he thinks the U.S. should do now, in light of what he depicts as a predictable failure to achieve stability and security in Iraq. He said we should get our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible. If we can get suitable international replacements, fine. If not, just leave anyway, because the conflict there is unwinnable. He gave six months as a reasonable time frame.
   The CBS poll and others indicate Americans generally are more inclined toward the pragmatic flexibility of Sachs than the ideological rigidity of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. The issue is big enough and costly enough in lives and money that it could lead to a permanent parting of the ways come November.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:57 AM

 
March trade deficit breaks record
   As the U.S. economy regains strength coming out of one of the most uneven and laggardly recoveries ever, celebrations are in order — in places like Beijing, Bangkok and Bahrain.
   The reason is spelled out in this news story, which reports: "Buoyed by the highest import prices for oil since February 1983 and stronger domestic demand for a wide array of goods and services, total imports jumped 4.6 percent in March to $140.7 billion, the biggest monthly rise in 11 years."
   That's right, we're going deeper into debt with more foreign nations at a faster rate than ever before. You can be sure employment will strengthen and government revenues will increase — first and foremost in those foreign countries.
   The story also reports U.S. exports rose smartly during March, but the gap between U.S. imports and exports remains huge — to this country's mounting disadvantage.
   But hey, not to fret. Here in America Joe Sixpack's living large because he can stretch his unemployment checks to previously undreamed of lengths. All he has to do is take advantage of Wal-Mart's "always low prices" on a world full of cheap imported goods.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:06 PM

 
No-show explanation not good enough
   In passing a measure loaded with tax giveaways for corporate interests Tuesday, Senate Republicans — reversing their policy of many months — allowed a vote on extending unemployment benefits.
   The measure to extend the benefit, which Democrats have been fighting valiantly for since last fall, failed by one vote. Sen. John Kerry did not cast a vote.
    Unlike many pro-Republican news media across the country, which told little if any more of the story than this, the New York Times prominently included Kerry's explanation.
   Basically, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee claimed some Republicans seeking an election-year edge voted for the measure knowing it wouldn't pass. That allows them to look good to parts of their constituency without actually having the bill succeed. Had he shown up to vote for it, Kerry says, those Republicans would've voted against the measure, ensuring its defeat. In short, his vote wouldn't have changed the outcome.
   That's a perfectly reasonable, understandable explanation — inside the Beltway, to Senate insiders and to politically savvy folks across the country. To most other Americans, it sounds like a hastily concocted, butt-covering excuse.
   Failure to vote not only set Kerry up to be made to look and sound bad in the media, it handed Republicans an opening. The Bush-Cheney campaign's Steve Schmidt wasted no time. He's quoted in the story as saying of Kerry, "Today he had the chance to actually vote on that question but was too busy playing politics when he would have made the difference in the Senate."
   Extension of unemployment benefits is not something either candidate or party should play politics with. It's a crucial matter for many people and communities across the country. The story also notes:
   Even though Bush's poll numbers are in a steep dive right now, Kerry and his people are going to have to do better than this if Kerry's to become our next president. He needs to win the support and votes of people who don't know and maybe don't want to know why he didn't show up to vote for extending jobless benefits, even after he's explained himself.
   The lasting impression for many will be that he could and should have shown up to give it a try, on the chance his vote might've made a difference, but did not. That's not the kind of impression a presidential candidate ever ought to make.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:43 PM

 
Inhofe can't see past `political agendas'
en. James Inhofe, R-Okla., really unloaded at today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing into the prisoner abuse in Iraq.
   Right, Inhofe. We're aware that Republicans inside the Beltway these days have three stock reactions to negative feedback: 1, blow it off and try to foreclose further discussion; 2, twist it into something like "class warfare" or "partisan bickering"; and/or 3, find some example of something roughly approximating whatever's being complained about that others have done in the past and make a big deal about it — even if you have to go back 30-plus years for it.
   So, we're supposed to believe those revelations about thousands of Iraqis being hauled off to prison for such grisly crimes as riding in a car whose driver failed to produce ownership papers at a checkpoint were all made up.
   You're saying everything's under control. So, hey, why don't we move on to really important matters, like finding more and better ways to channel taxpayers' money to big banks, oil and pharmaceuticals corporations?
   You got us there, big guy. A whole lot of Americans are taking a look at what the Bush administration has brought us and deciding it's no good: bad thinking that yields bad policies that bring horrible results. And when they speak up, when they unload, well, that's just "political agendas."

   In fact, Inhofe, we don't suppose President Bush or Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld chatted up the worker bees at Abu Ghraib prison and told them to humiliate the prisoners, sic guard dogs on them, maybe kill a few of them. We do suspect that bad planning, lack of planning, bad management, lack of management — trying to do a huge, dangerous, difficult job on the cheap, like sending too few troops, led to the abuse and many other problems and bad results.
   In fact, Inhofe, we like to think of American military people as knowing right from wrong and acting accordingly — officers, enlisted, all of them. We like to think we're better than Saddam and his fiends. We were conned going into this war and everything since the invasion has been a big, ongoing, deadly, costly mess. The prison abuse is the capper. So, we're dealing with some big disappointment and disgust here, for the whole rotten enchilada.
   In fact, Inhofe, we realize that what your colleague, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., is a lot closer to the truth than your were with your little diatribe. Here's what he had to say:
   Well said, Sen. Levin. Hang in there and get to the truth, and don't be put off by those who are having trouble handling the truth.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:42 PM

 
Potentially deadly airport security lapses persist
   More and more Americans are returning to air travel, overtaxing often understaffed and overworked security screeners. Today's news includes stories of serious security problems at major airports on both coasts.
   At Newark airport, from which one of the airliners that was turned into a deadly missile on Sept. 11, 2001, took off, we learn that screeners are not meeting and have not met bag-screening requirements. The Newark Star Ledger's lengthy, excellent story on this includes this chilling revelation:
   On the West Coast, at Seattle's busy Sea-Tac Airport, four top security officials are being replaced immediately, for so far undisclosed reasons.
   The Associated Press story on this indicates one or more whistleblowers:
   The story points out that a Seattle Times investigation in 2003 uncovered problems directly related to understaffing.
   Oh!pinion's view: Two and a half years after thousands lost their lives because terrorists were easily able to board and take over airliners out of U.S. airports, there is no excuse for large numbers of bags going on planes barely glanced at or worse, completely uninspected.
   There is no excuse for screeners having to do their repetitive, tedious work in a hectic environment for hours on end without being able to switch tasks or be spelled because of understaffing.
   What's more, there is no excuse for a situation where would-be terrorists can pick up a U.S. newspaper and read stories such as the ones cited here — virtually inviting the terrorists to have at it again, because the odds are still quite good they will be able to kill large numbers of people.
    If more screeners are needed, hire them, train them, employ them and supervise them. This, too, is part of the war on terrorism — another part the self-congratulating Bush administration is mismanaging and shortchanging.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:35 PM

 
Is the anything-to-win philosophy pervasive?
   Oh!pinion has referred more than once to President Bush and his people as the "anything-to-win gang," always in reference to domestic politics. In reading a worthwhile Op-ed piece by former New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis, it becomes increasingly clear this is standard operating procedure for Bush & Co., whatever the endeavor.
   This way of doing things reveals an attitude: We are the best leadership for the country; we only do what's best for the country; and the ends justify the means. With that attitude in force, such ethical niceties as fair play and even the rule of law become nuisances, impediments to winning. Since only the best things will result if we win, nothing must be allowed to stand in our way.
   Here is Lewis on one example of this Bush administration attitude as it has been put into practice:
   Another extreme manifestation of this attitude arose during the 2000 primaries, when Bush was competing with Sen. John McCain of Arizona for the Republican presidential nomination. In South Carolina, reportedly, thousands received push-poll phone calls that included "questions" such as: "Would you support Sen. McCain if you were to learn he has a mixed-race child?" and "Would you support McCain if you were to learn he is mentally unstable?"
   We must consider now whether leadership based on this anything-to-win/ ends-justify-the-means attitude echoes down the chain of command. Does it set a tone, set up a way of doing things to be mimicked by, say, intelligence operatives, military and private, who hold absolute power over Iraqi prisoners?
   In considering this, during this election year, let your thoughts be haunted by this:
   "Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:52 AM

 
Another welcome setback for pay rule changes
   All but lost in the week's sound and fury over abuse of prisoners in Iraq was news of a significant, if not final, blow against the Bush administration's overtime pay rules changes.
   The Senate on Tuesday voted 52 to 47 for an amendment to keep those currently receiving overtime pay from being denied under the rule change. Five Republicans crossed over to support the amendment put forth by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.
   Last year, both houses of Congress torpedoed the overtime rules changes. Undeterred, the administration has pushed on with them, although modifications have been made to protect police and fire officers, and some nurses. There is no assurance lockstep-marching Republican soldiers in the House won't keep this Freddie Krueger fiasco from coming back again and again.
   While there is a case to be made for updating provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, first passed in 1938, Oh!pinion feels zero enthusiasm for tackling the job with George W. Bush in the White House and Elaine Chao serving as secretary of labor. It's just too much like, say, putting Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers in charge of corporate ethics and standards for the whole country.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:28 PM

 
Sasser worm case suspect apprehended
   An 18-year-old suspect has been arrested in Germany for creating the Sasser worm that has wreaked havoc on computers all over the world. A CNN story reports:
   Meanwhile, CNET's news.com reports that the suspect was turned in by a group of less than five informants, who had inquired on Wednesday about a reward at a Microsoft office in Germany. The story says Microsoft agreed to provide $250,000.
   If the case against this suspect ends up being proven in court, Oh!pinion hopes he will get the maximum penalty. Whether the perpetrator was motivated by spite, fancied himself some kind of self-appointed prover of widespread vulnerabilities, or just considers it fun to cause large numbers of strangers grief, he's asked to be made an example of. By all means, let him have it.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:35 PM

 
For now, let's hold with what we've got
   Several good people, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., among them, are out front in calling for Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld to resign. While we fully understand the good reasons for their dissatisfaction, we're not about to join their chorus.
   During an impromptu press conference following today's Senate hearings, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, spoke for us on this. Levin offered two excellent reasons why hustling Rumsfeld off to retirement would almost certainly be a bad move.
   Levin first pointed out how unlikely it is that a Rumsfeld departure would result in much change in policy. He then raised the question of who might replace Rumsfeld -- a prospect that ought to give anyone who's not a card-carrying neoconservative hawk the chills.
   That's because the list of likely suspects for the post is topped by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - the man we would least like to see in charge at the Defense Department.
   The real answer, we hope, will come in November. Then, if people will get out and vote sensibly, vote their interests, we can arrange for the total leadership makeover that will provide genuine, long-lasting relief.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:36 PM

 
Private contract workers out of place
   Allowing that investigation of wrongdoing at the infamous prison in Iraq are not complete, it still seems reasonable to focus quickly on one aspect of the situation: use of private contract employees.
   It's coming to light that these civilian employees of private firms are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice that applies to our people in uniform. And since there is no legitimate native criminal justice system in Iraq, it may be that these civilian workers are operating in a twilight zone where no legal authority can reach them.
   We can't imagine a more perfect or inviting setup for horrible abuse. Here we have people essentially beyond the law holding total, life-and-death control over other human beings who are utterly defenseless. All of this behind high walls and locked doors, out of sight and hearing of outsiders nearly all the time.
   Indeed, were it not for the conscience and courage of one or more soldiers on the inside at Abu Gharieb prison, who spoke up, abuses that occurred there months ago would undoubtedly still be going on.
   During Senate hearings today on the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, a question was asked about the use of private contract personnel. The officer who responded mentioned in passing they're used, especially for interrogation and as interpreters, when the military is short of uniformed personnel who can do those jobs.
   It bears mentioning that as long as the Defense Department offers lucrative contracts to private firms to provide interrogators and interpreters, there will be severe shortages of these specialists within the military services. That's because civilian firms can and will cherry-pick people out of the military that U.S. taxpayers have paid to train as military personnel.
   In that dubious bargain, taxpayers get to also pay the overhead of the private firm, plus, we expect, increased pay, benefits and other inducements the private firms offer to attract people out of their military careers.
   Bad though it is in so many ways, this practice fits the ideological preferences of President Bush, who would probably like to privatize Arlington National Cemetery if he thought he could get away with doing so. It also fits the preferences of Republicans in Congress such as Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who reacted coolly to even polite questioning of the practice during hearings Thursday. The same devotion to privatizing is almost certainly shared by all the neoconservative hawks now controlling U.S. military and foreign policy.

   Oh!pinion believes a thorough examination should be conducted of the use of private contract employees of all kinds in war zones. Special attention should be paid to their use as prison interrogators, as jailers or interpreters.
   This is true if for no other reason than the fact that civilian employees, whose bottom-line allegiance is to themselves and their next paycheck, can decide to walk out at any time — possibly undermining the military mission and even costing American service members their lives.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:44 PM

 
Belated and quirky but it is an apology
   More than a little bit late and in an oddly oblique way, President Bush apologized to the obscenely ill-treated prisoners in Iraq and their families.
   With this president, we must be grateful for each slight, incremental movement toward what's obviously, sometimes desperately, called for.
   At a Thursday Rose Garden press conference following a meeting with Jordan's impressive monarch, King Abdullah II, Bush said, "I told him (Abdullah) I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families."
   Bush made that statement with what sounded to us like equal parts heartfelt conviction and annoyed frustration, perhaps stemming from a feeling that everyone everywhere should just know that he's sorry and that 99-point-something percent of Americans are as well.
   This much we can readily understand. Maybe some gifted psychologist will come along to help us fathom the 45-degree angle at which Bush approached the business of finally issuing a public apology.
   The cameras were on him, the U.S. and world were watching and waiting. All he had to do was look straight into the lens and say:
   I want to take this opportunity, speaking for myself and in behalf of all decent Americans, to tell the people of Iraq, especially the mistreated prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison and their families, how sincerely sorry we are for the wrongdoing of a small number of our people. We understand that you feel outrage and humiliation. Please accept my assurance that we feel embarrassed and humiliated that our efforts involving so many good people, working to help you achieve a better future, have been marred in such an ugly, hurtful way.
   Our system seeks justice by relying on the rule of law. As you will see, law is being applied and consequences the law provides will soon be forthcoming for those responsible. We cannot undo the harm that's been done. We can own up and offer our apologies, as I am doing now.
   Nothing oblique about that. There's no repeating or capsulizing what was said to an uninvolved third party during a private meeting, either.
   This business of uninvolved third parties seems to be a pattern with Bush and his people. It's not unlike Bush's insistence on taking out Saddam Hussein following the 9-11 attack, even though Iraq had nothing to do with that event, with the Taliban, and almost nothing to do with al Qaeda. Here's hoping some bright psychologist will come up with an explanation.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:51 AM

 
Report depicts Powell as unhappy camper
   What's this? Secretary of State Colin Powell is "fed up" and has had it with the flock of neoconservative hawks we call the Bush administration?
That's how this story in Britain's Guardian portrays Powell.
   We find it especially interesting and understandable that Powell is still smarting from the loss of credibility caused by his no-holds-barred speech to the United Nations, saying how sure a thing Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were.
   Powell's situation is not all that unusual, unfortunately: a good guy who's fallen in with a bad crowd.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:06 PM

 
Charge absurd but Libya to execute medics
   Just on the face of things, how likely is it that five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor — or for that matter, such medical professionals of any nationality — would deliberately infect 400 children with AIDS?
   OK, forget about medical professionals and nationalities. How likely is it that any six human beings would deliberately infect 400 children with a deadly disease?
   Never mind about likelihood, a Libyan court has sentenced the hapless medics to death by firing squad for just that alleged crime.
   A news story includes this insight:
   We'll be watching to see what kind of groundswell reaction those charges of brutal mistreatment and sexual violation will trigger throughout the Arab Muslim world.
   The story also explains:
   European Union and Bulgarian officials have expressed shock and outrage at the whole affair, especially the sentence. They have urged Gaddafi to reverse the sentence.
   Good luck. While anything is possible, we'd hate to have our life in the bloodstained hands of America's erstwhile convert to the path of peace and cooperation in the Middle East.
   It will be interesting to see if President Bush, whose home state of Texas counts executions among its growth industries, will join the EU in urging Gaddafi to throw this ludicrous conviction out.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:13 PM

 
Time to throw $25 billion after $87 billion
We were just thinking that, short of some new, massive loss of life there, the monumental mess we know as President Bush's war in Iraq couldn't get much worse. Now there's this:
   Remember when the administration said that whopping $87 billion it got for Iraq last fall would do it for a year? Well, tuck that one away with the ones about how Iraqis would greet our troops with roses and Iraq's oil would pay to rebuild the country. Oh, and don't forget the ones about all those weapons of mass destruction we were surely going to find and how all those naysayer countries would eagerly join in after we got the invasion successfully behind us.
   Want to bet that Bush & Co. won't be back seeking more money for the Iraq mess before November?
   No, we really didn't think you would.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:50 PM

 
Web ad scam: Clicking for rupees
   Online advertisers are soon to learn, if they haven't already, that there are clicks and there are clicks.
   When Joe or Judy Consumer clicks on a Web page ad, at least looking at an advertiser's site briefly, an online ad has earned its keep. But that doesn't hold true when the click comes from someone being paid to click on Web page ads, one after another, by the hour, with no interest in what's being advertised.
   What you have in that case is numbers being artificially bumped up to help the host site rake in more pay-per-click money or to justify charging more for ad space on its pages. Purely and simply, it's a scam, not unlike Enron's, although on a much smaller scale.
   But where could you get people to spend hours on end clicking on Web ads as a part-time job? The answer is India, as this story in the Times of India explains.
   Online advertisers shouldn't feel alone in being ripped off. Ratings numbers for broadcast and cable TV networks became almost meaningless more than a decade ago. Credit for that goes to the developers of channel zappers that make relief just a matter of clicking away from commercials or muting the sound with the press of a thumb.

   Oh!pinion's view: We're torn between our native intolerance of scams and a certain desire to see the ever-expanding proliferation of advertising into, onto and all over every aspect of our existence get beaten back at some point.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:47 PM

 
Slightly better than so-so progress
   Bear with us while we try to parse some of the latest employment numbers from our voodoo-economics rendition of a recovery.
   Layoffs this April were about half what they were in April 2003. That's the good news. However, layoffs in April were 6.1 percent higher than during March, rising to 72,184. These stats are from Challenger Gray & Christmas, via the Associated Press.
   Elsewhere in the economy, the Commerce Department announced Tuesday that factory orders were up 4.3 percent in March, which is certainly good news.
   Finally, the Federal Reserve has passed up the chance to torpedo this leaky tiki we call a recovery and send it to the bottom by jacking up interest rates. We recognize a strong likelihood this decision was probably only made possible by Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan somehow overcoming twitching urges in every fiber of his being to strike a deterrent blow against the possibility of inflation reasserting itself at some point in this lifetime.
   We also recognize that Greenspan and fellow Fed decision makers were probably motivated to some extent, by a realization on some level, that this is, after all, an election year. It's not likely they want to lose the best friend hard-core economic Darwinists have had in the White House since Herbert Hoover.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:01 AM

 
It's past time for apology, so where is Bush?
   A revealing scenario played out today during a press conference with Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
   Following a lot of predictable questions and answers about the horrible humiliation and abuse of prisoners in Iraq by U.S. military personnel, a reporter asked Rumsfeld, point blank, where is the apology? We're hearing a lot about this, but no one has apologized, the reporter said.
   Rumsfeld paused, looking uncomfortable, then uttered a torrent of words that amounted to pure dissembling. He did not apologize to anyone for anything, didn't even come close.
   Actually, Rumsfeld couldn't. If it were possible for a secretary of defense to do such a thing and if Rumsfeld were determined to be forthcoming, here's what he would've said: "Any apology for this regrettable situation will have to come from the president or from the secretary of state, at the president's direction."
   Over the past two days we've seen President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell being asked about what was done to prisoners in Iraq. Both expressed surprise, disapproval, intentions of getting the full story, of dealing appropriately with those responsible, of preventing any more such abuse. Both averred we must not lose sight of how this is the wrongdoing of a few, not of the great majority of our military people who are doing a fair and decent job.
   But like the reporter said, there was no apology.
   Given the effect this revealed ugliness is sure to have, not just in Iraq but throughout the Arab world and the greater Muslim world, Oh!pinion thinks Bush ought to take time out from his campaign bus tour to go on TV and apologize to the people of Iraq.
   In fact, it might not be too much for Bush and Powell to get on Air Force 1, fly to Iraq, meet with responsible Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders, and make an apology to them in person, and to all Iraqis through TV and radio broadcasts.
   Such a gesture wouldn't undo all the damage. It wouldn't turn around those who hated us before news of the abuse came to light. It would demonstrate to the world that most Americans find the abuse shocking and completely unacceptable. It would demonstrate a willingness not only to acknowledge and punish wrongdoing, but to reach out to make amends.
   If Bush were our kind of president, he would do this not just because it's the diplomatically enlightened thing to do, but because it's the decent, American and Christian thing to do.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:23 PM

 
From 53 diplomats, a rebuke for Bush
   The most succinct assessment of President Bush's aptitude and accomplishments in the field of international relations came from Rep. Dick Gephardt during his effort to win the Democratic nomination last fall.
   Gephardt then said of Bush, "He doesn't play well with others."
   Professionals in the field of diplomacy, 53 strong, have just weighed in with their assessment, provoked by Bush's sudden embrace of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's abortive Gaza Strip withdrawal plan.
   Britain's The Guardian newspaper has a good story on the former diplomats' protest, including this:
   The protesting diplomats' letter spells out the ramifications of Bush's action:
   These protesting former diplomats aren't a bunch of bureaucrat nobodies. They include former ambassadors to India, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt. The protest letter was the idea of Andrew Killgore a former ambassador to Qatar.
   Oh!pinion's view: Everywhere you look, here and around the world, there's more evidence that Bush's bad thinking leads to bad decisions and policy, yielding bad results.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:40 PM

 
Enough meddling; Leave Cuba alone
   President Bush is contemplating the report of a commission he empanelled last October to find additional ways to stick it to Cuba.
   An unnamed source in the news story on this says the report "urges increased support for Cuban dissidents and families of political prisoners and also calls for measures to encourage foreign governments to distance themselves from the Cuban regime."
   Given that Cuba is ruled by a somewhat benevolent despot, but a despot with a horrible human rights record, nonetheless, those measures sound modest and reasonable. Other measures concern ways to further limit the amount of U.S. money flowing into Cuba, which seems petty and as likely to hurt Cuban citizens of modest means as to hurt Fidel Castro's government.
   But there's more: "Until now, the administration's policy has been to hasten a democratic transition in Cuba. The commission report goes a step further in recommending what amounts to regime change." Indeed, one of the five chapters in the report from Bush's Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba is devoted to regime change.

   Oh!pinion's view: Bush and the neoconservative ideologues he's relying on for policy have done quite enough already to redefine the U.S. to the rest of the world. Thanks to their efforts, people all over the world see this country as an overreaching busybody with a bad habit of using its wealth and might to meddle in the internal affairs of smaller, poorer countries.
   And along with that, Bush & Co. have demonstrated that the U.S. is not only a meddler but a bungler. Just look at the mess in Iraq.
   What's really going on here, aside from half-baked delusions about another glorious liberation, is an obvious bid to curry political favor with Cuban Americans in politically important Florida. It's probably also the dangling of a carrot in front of corporate interests that have been extremely anxious for years to get into Cuba.
   Leave Cuba alone. Castro won't live forever. Whoever follows him likely won't be our idea of a good time, either. Never mind that. Cubans are basically good people and in time will demand something better for themselves than despotism.
   But keep in mind that Cubans are a proud people. They don't want a leader or form of government selected for or imposed on them by the U.S. It has to be something they choose, in their way, in their time. When they finally undertake that project, should they call on us to help, then — and only then — we can provide some assistance. In the meantime, this country should mind its own business.
   After all, Cuba is the Cubans' country. Curiously, that's a concept Bush and his far-right, Barney Fife-like zealots apparently find hard to comprehend, and even harder to respect. That is, unless the country targeted for meddling were to be the U.S. itself or an economic and military powerhouse like China. When you're talking might makes right, they get it.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:17 PM

 
Fallujah epitomizes what's so wrong
   The mess in Fallujah is the whole Iraq mess in microcosm: failure to adequately understand Iraqis, especially the potential for disaffected Iraqis to become the enemy; hideously flawed analysis of strategic realities and political possibilities on the ground; precipitous action leading to more loss of life; and our troops come to be stalled, with predictable bad consequences ahead, whether they back off or charge ahead.
   Apparently, now, some Iraqi general or other is supposed to go into Fallujah shortly, leading an Iraqi force of questionable background, unknown size, composition and ultimate motives. This magical mystery force, if what our Gen. Richard Myers calls bad reporting is at all accurate, will be tasked with rounding up and bringing in the bad-guys militia of the contrary Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr.
   Or, who knows, maybe our magical mystery force will de-materialize when the fighting gets rough. Maybe its members will decide they can relate better to al-Sadr and his motley crew than to infidel outsiders, so that coalition forces will end up having to deal with a combined opposition force eventually. Or, maybe Gen. X will round up the bad guys, then demand tribute — money, power, etc. — before he will turn the bad guys over to us.
   That is, unless coalition forces or the Marines have already arranged to subcontract the Fallujah job out, with payment to be made out of some slush fund extracted from the $1 billion-plus-per-week river of money we're pouring into Iraq.
   All of this reflects badly on our forces, but shouldn't. When you're flying blind, with lousy intelligence, little or no cooperation from the locals, don't speak the language or savvy the culture, and operating in a political vacuum, the possibilities for screwing things up are many and chances of getting things right are precious few.

   Blame for this latest mess within a quagmire rests with the same bad-thinking bigshots who ramrodded the U.S. into Iraq, half-cocked, in the first place.
   Blame for this mess rests with the same "visionary" neoconservative hawks who wanted to invade and liberate on the cheap. "Cheap" would be without providing enough troops to secure Iraq's borders well enough that our people wouldn't be beset with a steady influx of Ahmed-come-latelys intent on killing and maiming their way to paradise.
   Blame for this mess rests with a president who proudly declares he doesn't read newspapers. It rests with a defense secretary whose pet project is downsizing the military, the better to have more money to spend on more stuff from big corporations. It rests with a deputy defense secretary who knows a lot, but not how many of our troops have been killed in this war he pushed so hard to get our troops into.
   Read all about it here. Read and remember it well. Your chance to do something about this mess is coming up, in November. Register and vote these makers of messes with deadly consequences so far out of office they'll be a generation or more getting back in.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:54 PM

 
Kerry winning solid funding support
   Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign has reached its goal of raising $80 million, and it's done so three months ahead of schedule, the campaign announced this week.
   From a campaign news release: "Coming off a record-setting March and first quarter, Kerry shattered records with a one-night record of $6.5 million raised in New York City. Earlier this month in his hometown, Kerry set a Boston record of $4.6 million in one night. Kerry even raised $1.2 million in Bush's backyard of Houston this month."
   That last bit of news helps restore our faith that there must be more than a scant handful of Texans who aren't stuck politically in the era of Cro-Magnon man.
   The release also notes: "In the 2004 first quarter FEC reports, the Kerry Campaign reported collecting $54.8 million in the first quarter of 2004, beating both President George Bush's totals for the quarter and the previous quarterly fundraising record for a presidential candidate - incumbent and non-incumbent — by more than $2 million. Kerry also broke the record for fundraising in one month, gathering $42.8 million in March 2004."
   Sensibly, the Kerry campaign is intent on not resting on its laurels. Just as this generosity indicates there are plenty of Americans who've had a belly full of Bush's so-called leadership, Bush's huge war chest reveals how determined big-money interests — pharmaceuticals and other corporations, financial concerns, Big Oil and other energy outfits, etc., — are to keep him in power. Thus, the campaign has set a target of raising a total of $100 million by the time the Democratic National Convention gets under way.
   Kerry's Web site, johnKerry.com has raised over $34 million this year, $7 million just in April, much of that from small-scale donors.

   Oh!pinion's view: Considering what Bush and his people have done to the nonwealthy, not-powerful or especially well-connected middle class and working people of this country, to dependent young and old people, to the environment, to the basic concept of federal government being decent and fair, people who never give to presidential campaigns should give to Kerry's this time.
   And, people who never give to help elect a senator or member of the U.S. House of Representatives had better make an exception and break loose with a few bucks this time, so Kerry won't be faced with an impossible situation in Congress when he is elected.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:12 PM

 
Leno's humor falls flat in the stretch
   Although he got off some good ones, Comedian Jay Leno's performance at tonight's 90th annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner in Washington was remarkably uneven.
   Two of the Leno's sight gags had us laughing out loud. The first showed news footage of first lady Laura Bush having her hand kissed by French President Jacques Chirac. Then, in a mockup close-up, an actress dressed the same is shown wiping her hand, then sanitizing it with spray, acid and a brush.
   The other one that got us going was almost too true to be funny, but what the heck. It was done in the style of a Bush-Cheney campaign ad, complete with the stock lead-in line by Bush saying he had approved of the ad. Then we see a tall, dark-haired man robbing a convenience store and are told that some years back John Kerry had been busted for the crime.
   Leno's appearance got off to a strong enough start, eliciting good audience reaction and, most of the time, laughter from Bush. However, a bit more than halfway through, Leno's shots started going astray, with a couple of them falling completely flat. Leno appeared surprised at the first one to bomb and more than a little put off after the second one.
   Prior to Leno's appearance, Bush indulged in a little humor but gave a mostly serious talk in which he saluted our troops and correspondents who've risked life and limb doing their jobs. For the Associated Press story on this event, click here.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:09 PM