Abortion foes resort to lies, distortions
n the course of doing what they're sworn in, trained and equipped to do — defend the United States — our military people sometimes must kill other human beings.
   How would it strike you if someone were to characterize our soldiers, sailors and airmen as people possessed by a lust for murder who've gotten themselves a license to kill?
   Does that seem twisted and disgusting? Probably so, if you appreciate the fact that 99 percent-plus of our military people are thoroughly decent human beings who cherish peace and work hard to present a credible deterrent so war will be prevented.
   How, then, does the following headline strike you?
   "John Edwards Would Partner With John Kerry to Advocate Abortion."
   Stunning in its outrageousness, isn't it?
   That headline appears at LifeNews.com over a July 28 story by Steven Ertelt. Here's some of what Ertelt has to say:
   Unfortunately, Ertelt and people of like mind recognize only two possibilities. One either advocates abortion — as in condoning, endorsing and promoting abortion — or one is unalterably opposed to anyone ever having an abortion for any reason.
   Because Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards oppose legal prohibition of abortions, intending that such a decision be left to women and their health care providers, Ertelt dishonestly labels Kerry and Edwards "advocates" of women having abortions. He then tries to link their principled position on abortion with human cloning, which neither advocates and no one is trying to legalize, and with embryonic stem cell research, which Kerry does advocate — with ethical safeguards.

   America's soldiers aren't advocates of killing; Kerry and Edwards aren't advocates of abortion. To the contrary, Kerry, who is Catholic, has said he believes life begins at conception and that he does not favor women having abortions.
   What Kerry and Edwards both advocate is leaving the final decision to women. That squares with our Constitution, which guarantees that we are to be secure in our persons, papers and effects. It also squares with many centuries' worth of human experience showing that abortion prohibitions do not prevent abortions.
   People of faith and conscience can agree that abortions of convenience are morally and ethically wrong, and that women who have an abortion for shallow, selfish reasons will have to answer to God for what they've done.
   People of faith and conscience can appeal to the conscience of women considering abortion and help provide alternatives.
   However, people who oppose abortion, whatever their reasons, cannot make the government do what the government is incapable of doing. What's more, abortion opponents only destroy their own credibility by employing dishonesty and demagoguery in their attacks against people in public office who uphold the Constitution and recognize the real limits of legal prohibition.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:56 PM

 
It's all over but our critiquing
   Herewith, some observations on the Democratic convention, media coverage and related matters.

   ABC, CBS and NBC — what a waste: Never has prime-time network TV been less imaginative, less entertaining, less informative, less worth anyone's time. Adding insult to injury, they opted for bare-minimum coverage of the Democratic convention. They preferred for people to watch more dumb reality, crime, comedy and game shows. That made a statement: We're in this for the money and American democracy doesn't fatten our bottom line. It would serve the broadcast networks right if the FCC were to make its own statement to ABC, CBS and NBC: Your selfish, cavalier attitude doesn't square with operating in the public interest, so we're going to pull your tickets. Of course, with neoconservative Republican Michael Powell, a devout believer in pro-corporate laissez-faire, in charge at the FCC, that will never happen.

   How 'bout that Obama?: The roster of speakers included an interesting cross section of oration by African Americans. There was the irrepressible Rev. Al Sharpton, making salient points in his canny, streetwise, rough-edged and bellicose way . Then there was the smoother, richer voice of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, whose speech was surprisingly tepid, rushed and almost perfunctory in delivery. Maybe he was having an off night. Last but certainly not least, there was Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama, who's running for the U.S. Senate. His powerful, smoothly executed speech was what we refer to as "Wow!"

   Give CNN a Bad-Form Award: Why bother with carrying Rep. Dennis Kucinich's speech? So what if he was the only real-deal liberal in the primaries? So what if he was the little engine that could keep carrying, for months, on a shoestring budget, a message miles closer to the druthers of most convetiongoers than John Kerry's? CNN was sure we'd rather see Anderson Cooper doing a supposedly cutesy segment on people mugging for the camera behind talking heads. Similarly, CNN thought we'd much rather see Jeff Greenfield, Wolf Blitzer et al saying not especially noteworthy things they've said before instead of catching Rep. Nancy Pelosi's speech. After all, who is she? House Minority leader? Ah, so what? Maybe we should call it Chit-chat Nonsense Network.

   Give MSNBC a Not Even Nice Try Award: Having evidently given Keith Olbermann, host of TV's only infotainment show worth watching, the excellent "Countdown," the week off, MSNBC for some reason thought we'd like to watch a thrown-together mish-mash called "After Hours" from Boston's Fanuiel Hall. Co-host Ron Reagan was usually OK, when he could get a word in edgewise. But joined at the microphone with the overbearing Joe Scarborough, that wasn't often enough. Also, hollering back and forth with street people does not qualify as info or tainment.

   There goes the neighborhood: Evidently, Republicans were so unnerved by the prospect of a major political function going on that they couldn't buy, drown out or control, they felt it necessary to deploy a "Rapid Response Team" to a Boston building near the Fleetcenter where Democrats gathered. This GOP bunker was manned by the likes of big-time lobbyist (Enron was a top client) and Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani and Bush-Cheney campaign chief Marc Racicot. And of course, so these rabid responders could claim plenty of air time on ever-accommodating CNN, they shuttled in and out of the Fleetcenter. There was even a Rat In The Woodpile Room set up for them in the big hall. OK, OK, we made that last part up.

   Technology taken one step too far: Apparently, the cable networks are using super-efficient noise canceling microphones. They were so good they completely blotted out background noise from the huge, noisy hall. That was good when it came to one-on-one interviews. But it was bad when it came to speeches. Watching at home, we'd see a speaker pause but not hear the applause/cheering that caused the pause. The poor person at the podium just looked like they'd maybe lost their place or something. That's misleading and a disservice. C-SPAN and PBS included crowd response during speeches, providing a more authentic and enjoyable viewing experience. Good for them.

   CNN, give Mo the heave-ho: We'll call the inevitable Mo Rocca an on-air presence for lack of a more fitting term. We won't call him a humorist, despite his frequent lame attempts at humor. We won't call him an authority on anything, although he seems to specialize in interjecting trivia answers whether or not appropriate to anything going on or being said. We will call him a presence because someone at CNN, probably a relative, keeps including him in programs. While this no doubt puts money in Rocca's pocket and keeps him off the streets, we wish CNN would ship him off to E! A network that would build a show around Anna Nicole Smith would surely be delighted to add Rocca to its, uh, . . . stable.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:51 PM

 
Senator's record subject to demagoguery
edia types covering the Democratic convention that ended last night in Boston complained about scripting and a dearth of real news. Sure enough, since the primaries decide who the candidate will be, the candidate picks his running mate beforehand and the candidate's thinking trumps any platform document, these gatherings have become pageants.
   So, TV's talking heads were challenged to come up with things beyond the obvious to discuss. Not surprisingly, banality and nonsense crept into their chatter.
   One example heard last night on PBS, CNN and MSNBC, probably originating from the Republicans' Rabid Response Team in Boston, is that John Kerry all but left his 20-year Senate career out of what was presented about his life and public service. Curiously, those raising the question made no effort to answer it.

   Let's do what the talking heads didn't and briefly consider why Kerry might not go heavily into his Senate service.
   Presidential politics hasn't been a welcoming and fruitful endeavor for senators and representatives, for understandable reasons. In recent decades, John F. Kennedy made it from the Senate to the White House directly, while Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson first served as vice president. Howard Taft, George McGovern, Walter Mondale and John McCain are among senators who tried and failed.
   Governors tend to have an easier time becoming president, as did Franklin Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. As governors, they generally had the spotlight to themselves, wrote budgets, launched initiatives and cast vetoes, and so got credit for being proactive.
   Legislators are obliged to work cooperatively on team efforts. Along the way, things shift around and they must often compromise. Individual glory-grabbing generates ill will and tends to discourage colleagues from cooperating with an offender in the future, so few indulge. Stars sometimes emerge for various reasons, but that status can't very well be engineered or even predicted.
   Honestly assessing a legislator's record is tedious and requires making lots of judgment calls in Monday-morning-quarterback mode. That's because the legislator made his decisions in a context that can be difficult to reconstruct and impossible to fully appreciate later on. Deal-making, paybacks, leadership pressure, the effect of amendments and concern about setting precedent are among factors that can figure into a legislator's decision on a particular bill. It sounds complicated because it is.

   Consider the flip-flopper charge against Kerry. Sometimes a vote against a measure isn't what it seems if part of the story is left out. Maybe a senator wants to make a principled stand on something by voting against a piece of legislation or an amendment. He or she may know it's only going to be pro forma, for show, because the specific measure is not going to pass no matter how he or she votes. The same knowledge that something's not going to pass, or will pass, whether a particular legislator shows up to vote or not, can also affect a decision about whether or not to show up for a vote.
   However, someone with partisan motives and not above some free-form demagoguery can without too much trouble turn almost any legislator's principled stand into a flip-flop — and whole record into an ugly can of worms.
   What's more, in trying to defend and explain his or her record, a legislator inevitably lapses into the legislator's lingo — something that sounds ponderous and alien to outsiders. That's why advisors and at least one fellow senator have told Kerry to steer clear.
   We think Kerry's record as a senator is a good one, taking as obvious evidence the fact that Massachusetts voters have seen fit to re-elect him three times. At the same time, for reasons stated, we can appreciate why he's not putting it front and center in his drive to become president.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:18 PM

 
Kerry clears high bar spectacularly
   John Kerry had a big job to do tonight — and he did it splendidly.
   Amidst the backdrop of a convention remarkable for how scripted it's been and how surprisingly well the script has been followed by usually rambunctious Democrats, on comes Kerry with a stridently ambitious, yet strikingly sincere statement of who he is and what his intentions are.
   The stakes were about as high as they could get for a presidential candidate. Pundits have spent the past three weeks emphasizing endlessly how make-or-break Kerry's acceptance speech would be. The pressure he felt going in had to be daunting.
   Take it as a measure of the guy's grit that he met all that head on. He reached down inside himself and came up with impressive quality of thought, a sense of who we Americans are, where we need to go, offering goals worthy of this great nation and projecting assurance that he — and we — have what it takes to achieve those worthy goals.
   And through it all, explicitly here, implicitly there, without ever being maudlin, he skillfully wove the core article of Democratic faith: We're all in this together.
   Inevitably, Republicans will have plenty to say about Kerry's plans and policy preferences, none of it agreeable. That's to be expected, fair enough. What they should not do is try to characterize Kerry's speech as just so much hollow rhetoric from someone who'll say anything to get himself elected.
   Kerry wrote that speech himself, from the heart, pouring all of who he is and what he's got going for him into it. It wasn't his stump speech gussied up a little for the big night. He could've called on the best wordsmiths in the country to compose something fresh and showy. But he didn't. Make or break, he resolved it would be his thoughts, his words and whatever chemistry or karma he could muster. That smacks of intellectual integrity and political honesty.
   The resulting rings-true quality of Kerry's speech is something even people who aren't especially political or Democratic in their politics can sense at gut level and appreciate.
   Well said, Sen. Kerry. Well said indeed.

   The real deal: For the full transcript, click.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:50 PM

 
Historical precedent favors Kerry
Here's an encouraging insight from an unexpected source. Businessweek Online spotlights an item that tags Sen. John Kerry as the likely, if not sure, winner in November.
   Citing the contests between President Gerald Ford and Gov. Jimmy Carter in 1976, and President Carter and Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1980, it says:
Oh!pinion's view: Sounds good, but let's remember absolutely nothing should be taken for granted. It's a long way from over.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:38 PM

 
Taxpayers are being Halliburtoned again
   Hold on to your wallet, Texas-based Halliburton Co.'s KBR unit has won another big, fat government contract.
   This one, for construction and related services to the U.S. Navy and other defense agencies, weighs in at $500 million of our hard-earned money. (News story)
   Halliburton, you may recall, has distinguished itself by allegedly bilking taxpayers to the tune of tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions or more, already in Iraq, where it's the biggest contractor working for Uncle Sam. Here's an example from a Seattle Times story that ran this spring:
   Got a good, tight grip on your billfold? Good, because the above is only part of the story. It's one of things where the more you look, the more you find. From the same story, here's how one dissatisfied customer in Congress puts it:
   Kind of takes your breath away, doesn't it? Well, brace yourself for more.
   The story goes on to tell about another $10 million in "unjustified" troop-feeding expenses, representing 36 percent more meals charged for than served. Then there's the abandonment of $85,000 trucks because they had a flat tire, there was the putting Halliburton executives up in Kuwait's most expensive hotels at taxpayers' expense and there was sending trucks on zig-zag routes, running up fuel costs. And guess who's got the fuel concession, at what have been discovered to be outrageous, price-gouging rates?
   The story closes with this tidbit, which may provide some insight into why the U.S. went into Iraq in the first place, since cleaning out weapons of mass destruction hasn't taken much time or effort. We do have to keep our big, fat corporations busy and profitable, don't we?

   Oh!pinion's view: Most Americans prefer to do business with companies that have done good work and treated them honestly in the past. Under the Bush administration, what seems to matter most is that a company is huge, well connected and funneling money from all over into Texas pockets and bank accounts.
   We wouldn't be surprised, if the money funneling were to be pursued in enough depth and detail, to learn quite a bit of it is flowing from Texas pockets and bank accounts into Bush-Cheney and other Republican campaign coffers.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:41 PM

 
Reagan speaks up for stem cell research
   Of all the many people in America who can speak with heartfelt conviction and first-person understanding of the need to go forward with embryonic stem cell research, Ron Reagan shares a unique position in the public eye with his mother Nancy.
   They watched a beloved father and husband, former President Ronald Reagan, suffer the decadelong deterioration from Alzheimer's disease that cost him his memory, his mind and finally, his life.
   Ron Reagan spoke to the Democratic convention last night, telling voters the upcoming election will be their chance to choose between "the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology." (News story)
   Reagan was referring to the choice between President George W. Bush, who has effectively blocked full, meaningful research in this country, and Sen. John Kerry, who supports stem cell research with ethical safeguards.
   The technology offers hope of effective treatments, even cures, for a range of diseases including diabetes and Parkinson's. It also offers hope of restoring the ability of spinal cord injury cripples like Christopher Reeve to use their limbs.
   As Reagan pointed out, embryonic stem cell research doesn't involve killing a fetus. The embryo is an earlier postconception stage of development. He didn't mention it, but it's true that it's not at all uncommon for pregnant women to experience what doctors call a spontaneous abortion, or one that occurs naturally, almost always because the zygote or embryo was grossly defective.
   It's also true that Bush's de facto ban isn't stopping stem cell research. As a recent TV news report showed, top U.S. scientists are moving to Britain and other countries to continue their work. This running off of scientific talent has several consequences. Among them is that funding, benefits and plaudits will go to other countries as breakthroughs are achieved and treatments become available.
   Also, U.S. researchers point out that work is being done in many countries around the world, including some where there's much less concern about ethical safeguards than in the U.S. In the view of these scientists, Bush's religion-based ban, perversely, is likely to result in more and worse breaches of ethics than would ever occur if U.S. research was leading the way.
   Scientists, doctors, patients and others have questioned whether the president's personal religious views ought to dictate policy for everyone.
   Reagan offered an answer to that last night, saying, "It does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:15 PM

 
Kennedy's still a one-man powerhouse
"The goals of the American people are every bit as high as they were more than 200 years ago. If America is failing to reach them today, it's not because our ideals need replacing, it's because our president needs replacing."

   Sen. Ted Kennedy is more than a supremely experienced and accomplished senator, more than the surviving member of a charismatic political dynasty; he's a one-man political institution in his own right.
   Speaking to a wildly enthusiastic crowd at the Democratic convention this evening, Kennedy joked that he plans to keep being a senator "until I get the hang of it." Four decades of top-quality, sometimes brilliant, service to his state and the nation, with gravitas few can match, Kennedy needn't worry. In Massachusetts, if Kennedy runs, Kennedy wins.
   Not as smooth as Bill Clinton, Kennedy is still every bit as skilled and talented an orator. He conveyed the richness of history, the wisdom of his years, the slap-on-the-back high spirits of a Boston-Irish political pro, the go-get-'em encouragement of a football coach and the incisive charges of a skilled prosecutor. All that in a barn-burner of a speech delivered with verve and energy few senators half his age could match.
   It remains a shame Kennedy has not been and cannot be president — not for his sake, but the country's.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:10 PM

 
Convention opener right on target
Democrats got their Boston convention off to a rousing, successful start Monday, with everyone saying and doing the things necessary for winning back the White House.
   Long gone are the days when a Democratic convention served as a magnet for all sorts of protesters, alternative-lifestyle types and itinerant hell raisers spoiling for a melee. This crowd is predominantly middle class, working class, small business, retired — decent, responsible people who in aggregate look a lot like the America most of us know.
   Al Gore's speech was deftly damning of the current administration, like a well-coordinated artillery barrage. Republicans are probably chagrined less by his salvos of telling points than by how he delivered them. Gore spoke with a measured forcefulness that was free of the angry, slam-bang condemnation of some of his recent speeches. While his unbridled anger was justified, it played into the hands of those who sought to invalidate his thoughts by parodying his delivery.
   President Jimmy Carter similarly delivered one telling point and comparison after another. President Bush and his administration weren't bashed, but they got plenty of the battering their faulty thinking, bad attitude, lopsided priorities and miserable results have rightly earned for them.
   The Rev. David Alston, a former crew member of young Lt. John Kerry's in Vietnam, gave a heartfelt endorsement of the skipper he knew and the man he wants to become the next president.
   Sen. Hillary Clinton sparkled. She looked like a million and her speech was very good, although we regret the brassiness of her speaking voice before large crowds. She'd do better to hold a sensitive microphone close and speak in a softer, more-conversational style.

   President Bill Clinton, in case anyone had doubts, hasn't lost his ability to talk a crowd of any size right into the palm of his hand. He was thoroughly and happily in his element, and did he ever deliver. Oh, of course, a whole lot of the goods he brought forth were about him and what he'd done — pure selflessness isn't the most prominent of his virtues — but he did not neglect a hearty, helpful shove forward for the Kerry Edwards ticket, and for Democrats trying to become senators and representatives.
   Other elements of the program were tasteful, patriotic and extremely well done. All in all, an excellent start for an extremely important event.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:46 PM

 
Democrats' convention a GOP talkfest?
   Maybe we're delusional, but wouldn't it be fitting for most of the talking heads doing guest shots on news and talk shows this week to be Democrats, whether liberal or moderate? Likewise, it would be proper, of course, for most of them to be Republicans/conservatives during the upcoming GOP convention.
   We haven't formally kept score and have been too busy with other things to stay in front a TV all day and evening. But starting last weekend, the viewing we have done has been chock-full of conservative Republicans. CNN seems to have a rule that it will have at least one on per hour.
   Weirdly, the Democratic convention strikes network news decision makers as the perfect time to host a Brent Bozell here, a Marc Racicot there, a GOP pollster here, a Republican strategist there. We sometimes wonder if Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs and Chris Matthews don't see more of Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., than Dreier's own family. CNN devotes a considerable portion of each morning's air time to a Republican speaking event, mostly with a live feed. Sens. Kerry and Edwards are lucky to get more than an eight-second sound bite.

   It would be different if these Republican commenters were good for anything besides the inevitable Bush-Cheney campaign talking points and the predictable slash-and-bash attacks on Kerry and Edwards. Alas, out of this sizable army of squawking heads, exactly three ever seem to do any more or any better.
   Newsweek's David Gergen distinguishes himself by being able to step out of the pure-partisan role and give reasoned, remarkably balanced assessments of people of all political types and persuasions. More than anyone of his party and political persuasion, Gergen can see Democrats and liberals not just as black sheep in a monochrome world. His vision actually includes shades of gray. Somewhat surprisingly, Bill Kristol at times exhibits some ability to perceive and even acknowledge worthwhile ideas and actions, and capable people, on the opposing side. The New York Times' David Brooks on rare occasion can be prodded into doing those things. That happened last night on PBS, with Jim Lehrer gently eliciting a few sheepishly voiced, not-so-discouraging words about Democrats.
   However, so much of the "commentary" from the right is all negative, all critical, all demeaning and all dismissive, all the time. And in an election year, you get the standard talking points and bashing, as mentioned. These things are all you'll hear from CNN's Bob Novak and Kate O'Beirne, from Fox's Sean Hannity, Cal Thomas and Bill OReilly, and from a small army of fairly regular guests drawn from the religious right, right-wing talk radio, the right-wing press, right-wing think tanks, right-wing business organizations, etc.
   What really makes this situation galling is to hear these people bloviate about the ongoing outrages of liberal bias in the media.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:42 PM

 
Secrurity officer from hell beats bystander
magine the impression, if you were to read in the paper that a completely innocent woman visiting the People's Republic of China had been beaten to a pulp by a Chinese state security officer.
   Now, do a 180 on that, with a U.S. Homeland Security inspector pepper spraying, then brutally assaulting a Chinese citizen, all because he'd been told by another officer to detain three women thought to be accompanying a man nabbed for marijuana possession.
   This is what happened last Wednesday, at the Rainbow Bridge that links the U.S. and Canada in Niagara Falls, N.Y.
   From the news story:
   OK, let's suppose the woman, who is lucky to be alive, was as guilty as homemade sin. Let's say she was not only with Mr. Potschlepper but that she herself had a pocketful of the forbidden weed. Let's make it worse. Let's say she pushed Officer Rhodes away and tried to run from the place, tossing her contraband off the bridge as she went.
   Would all that justify throwing an unarmed woman against a wall, kneeing her in the head and banging her head on the ground?
   No, not in any civilized country in the world.
   What we have here is a case of false arrest and felonious assault by a raging incompetent. Think cross between Inspector Clousseau and Hannibal Lecter. He ought to be looking at the strong possibility of 12 to 20 years of hard time.
   So what's in store for Rhodes? According to the story, he's being charged with violating the woman's civil rights and could get 10 years. That's incredible!

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:24 PM

 
Newsman bugs wrong candidate's wife
   So, Teresa Heinz Kerry told a newsman, "Shove it." Big deal.
   According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's story, Heinz Kerry uttered the words "creeping unPennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits" she sees getting into American politics. This occurred Sunday, when Heinz Kerry was speaking briefly and informally to the Pennsylvania delegation.
   On her way out, the editorial page editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Colin McNickle, followed Heinz Kerry, repeatedly asking her to explain what she meant by the quoted remark. In his report of the incident, McNickle claims Heinz Kerry denied having said any such thing. In the Post-Gazette story, Heinz Kerry is said to told McNickle he was mischaracterizing what she had said.
   In both stories, shortly after getting free of McNickle, Heinz Kerry came back and said: "You're from the Tribune-Review — understandable. You said something I didn't say. Now shove it."
   Heinz Kerry's annoyance becomes understandable when we learn that the Tribune-Review publisher is Richard Mellon Scaife, a right-wing zealot known for being an architect, financial backer and prime mover in the nine-year effort to destroy President Bill Clinton and cut short his presidency. Scaife also distinguished himself by blasting a female reporter with the Columbia Journalism Review with obscenities when she asked him a question in public. We also learn that the Tribune-Review has gone out of its way t be critical of the Heinz family charitable organization.
   Heinz Kerry's Sunday put-down was promptly endorsed by Sen. Hilary Clinton and by her husband, Sen. John Kerry.

   Oh!pinion's view: Good for Teresa Heinz Kerry. Good for Hillary Clinton. Good for John Kerry, too. He should give the lady a hug and get on with running for president.
   Stop and think. Heinz Kerry has had her life turned upside down for many months by her husband's quest for the presidency. She has stood by him, traveled all over the place and campaigned like a trouper. All this from a woman who could be home, living a life of ease and comfort. All this from a woman who readily says politics isn't her thing.
   Along the way, you can be sure, she's come up against the occasional heckler and taken questions from people who use the opportunity to ask one to instead make a contrary statement. Maybe McNickle represented one more annoyance than she was ready to put up with without venting a little. Big deal.
   Helping a husband run for president doesn't mean a wife's got to become a passive, grinning doormat. A little show of annoyance now and then is within bounds.
   All things considered, McNickle got off light just being told, "shove it." And, in the spirit of bipartisanship, if someone from a strident, Bush-hating publication gets in her face, Laura Bush deserves equal put-down time, with a pass for telling the person to shove it.

   Postscript: Just now, CNN's Anderson Cooper is actually interviewing McNickle about this trifle. And following that, checking in with that bottomless barrel of stale right-wing bile, Bob Novak, about it. Millions of dollars worth of electronic gear and a team of supposedly top-line news professionals deployed at a political party's national convention, and this is the best CNN can do? How utterly pathetic.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:55 PM

 
Congress-focused national event needed
   On the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Boston, which will be all about "introducing" Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards, and getting them elected, it's clear that goal is vital but not enough.
   There's no discounting how essential for this country's progress and well-being it is to sweep from office the most all-around ill-equipped and, performance-wise, thoroughly unacceptable president to serve in our lifetime. The same goes for President George W. Bush's entire administration.
   Even so, if Kerry is to have a realistic chance to really turn things around, domestically and in foreign affairs, he's going to need solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. But even if Kerry can score the solid victory we're hoping for in November, the prospects for regaining control of both houses aren't good.
   Polls show most Americans disdain Congress as an institution, yet tend to see their own senators and representative as better than the rest. That, along with the closeness of the presidential race seemingly precluding a strong coattails effect, plus all the practical advantages incumbents can employ in an election, go together to make retaking Congress a long shot.

   We suggest Democrats create a convention-like national event designed to tell voters all across the country what Republican control of Congress really means, what it results in and how and why change to Democratic control will make things better.
   Elections tend to be about individual personalities, about one image vs. another image. That may not be the best way -- it's been noted Abraham Lincoln wouldn't have stood a chance in the television age -- but it's inevitable. So inevitably, such a national event will include showcasing many candidates and shining a spotlight, at least briefly, on them all.
   But whereas their district and state campaigns are all about them as individuals, the national promotional event we have in mind would reverse the priority. Individuals would be strictly secondary in importance. Job 1 would be impressing voters nationwide about the need for an overall change, about the advantages to be gained from making that change. That priority would carry through in all speeches and events.
   There would be plenty said about dirty tricks and how they would be ended. About snooping in the opposition's computer system. About dumping huge, complex legislation on the opposition at the latest possible time before a vote is scheduled, so there's no time to study it and offer amendments. About writing legislation behind closed doors, accepting lobbyists' input while freezing out the opposition, then presenting one fait-accompli measure after another. About holding votes open for hours and hours of arm-twisting, attempted bribery and extortion. And on and on.
   We don't recommend necessarily presenting a laundry list of legislation, per se, copying the fantastical "Contract With America" the GOP never got around to really even trying to implement. But Democrats would have to sit down beforehand and work out coherent, coordinated themes that would become apparent in their speeches and other presentations. Doing that could help build teamwork among those who get elected.
   We'd also like to see this event buttressed with appearances by some wise old heads from past congresses. The prospects include John Anderson, Max Cleland, Tom Foley, Gary Hart, George McGovern, Sam Nunn and Pat Schroeder.
   It's probably too late to put together such an event this year, unfortunately. But it's not too soon to start considering and discussing the idea for 2006.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:38 PM

 
Urban League learns NAACP got off light
   If there's one area besides being wrong where President George W. Bush excels, it's glib hypocrisy. His Friday pitch to the Urban League's national gathering is a splendid example.
   A news story quotes Bush speaking to the largely African-American group, referring to Democrats: "I know plenty of politicians assume they have your vote. But do they earn it and do they deserve it?"
   The truth is that Bush, his administration and his loyal troops in Congress, especially the House, have spent the last four years weakening, dismantling, defunding and voting down one policy, program and Democratic legislative effort after another helpful to blacks, to working people, to the poor, the disadvantaged, to inner-city dwellers generally.
   Bush's blather was perfectly in line with Republicans' pre-emptive noise about class warfare. That is being waged with a vengeance, all right — by Bush and the Republicans who control the government, in favor of their wealthy, favored few, against the rest of us. It's especially being waged against working-class and very poor racial minorities.

   Site to see: This photo at RadioTiki.com is billed as "The Funniest Sign in Hawaii." Don't know about that, but it's definitely funny. Take a look.

   Election-delay nonsense: There's been some talk about postponing the upcoming presidential election if a terrorist attack were to occur in the weeks or months preceding Nov. 2. Nothing doing, unless the candidates for either party or both parties were to be killed in the attack, which is highly unlikely.
   It's impossible to predict how such an occurrence would affect the election outcome. But allowing terrorists to alter in any way a presidential election would serve only to weaken some Americans' confidence in our system while confirming the darkest notions of those who are already cynical. A delay would also encourage the terrorists to do more and worse.
   If our troops can go to work every day in the shooting gallery of Iraq and in Afghanistan, which is almost as dangerous, we here at home can get our butts out to the polls on election day, attack or no attack. And we should.

   Checkered Past Dept., Bush Military Service Section: Lo and behold, just in time for the Democratic convention, yet another surprise. The Defense Department, proclaiming an "inadvertent oversight," has found George W. Bush's pay records from his magical-mystery interlude in 1972, when he bopped over to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of a family friend.
   According to this story, however:
   The White House insists Bush's honorable discharge is proof-positive he fulfilled his obligation.
   Oh!pinion insists that the grandson of a powerful senator and son of a wealthy, well-connected member of Congress could easily get an honorable discharge. He could do it the same way he could get into a highly coveted fighter-pilot training program in the Texas Air National Guard, one that was definitely not headed for Vietnam, ahead of 500-some not-so-prominent others on the waiting list — with a phone call or two from daddy.
   No, we can't prove that's how it happened. So far, Bush can produce no proof that he wasn't the beneficiary of string pulling. But it sure looks that way.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:16 PM

 
Like many, Huffington misses key dynamic
   Once an enthusiastic Republican and outspoken advocate for much of the neoconservative agenda, Arianna Huffington has undergone a change of mind, heart and political identification.
   The columnist and author — she has a new book out — was interviewed recently by Sarah Blustain for The American Prospect Online.
   Blustain asked Huffington what would be required for Americans to support "a platform that would reverse Bush's domestic policies" and for them to be willing to pay more in taxes in return for a more-equitable distribution of wealth. Here's what Huffington had to say:
   We'd like to agree with Huffington's idealistic view of Americans' devotion to fairness. Prior to about 25 years ago, we wouldn't have had a problem with it. Nowadays, the game has changed considerably.
   The incessantly proclaimed neoconservative ideals of independence, initiative and industriousness provide cover for actions and policies that are typically heavily involved in greed, selfishness and ruthlessness. Middle-aged white men are the chief proponents. Ironically, many working-class white men fall in line behind them. Both contingents tend to be proactive with their voices, votes and money.
   Unfortunately for Democrats and progressives, the neoconservatives' positions and candidacies tend to be strengthened by a sizable number of independents who don't like politics or trust politicians. They may not fully agree with many parts of the neocons' narrow ideology, but they're highly receptive to siren songs about too-big, too-bad, too-costly government.
   This de facto alliance of those who propound callousness as a personal strength and selfishness as a civic virtue with those disdainful of government and politicians is steadily eroding notions of what is fair and degrading things have been relatively fair. Just look at what's happened in post-Reagan America to the ideal of progressive taxation.
   Given that doctrinaire neocons are basically beyond redemption, a meaningful, durable shift in the political firmament toward more and better fairness can only come about if lots of negative-minded independents can be convinced what the neocons are doing is bad for everyone, government-phobic independents included.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:18 PM

 
Bait on the trail, switch at the office
resident George W. Bush visited Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Tuesday for what the White House billed an "ask the president" campaign event (transcript). During this outing, Bush engaged in a dialogue with Dawn Cayton, a working wife and mother.
   Cayton told how she had realized one day she'd better find a way to make more money because her oldest daughter was starting eighth grade, only five years from entering college. A year later, Cayton went back to school, apparently community college, to retrain for a health care job. She succeeded and is now a registered respiratory therapist, presumably earning more money.
   In helping tell this tale of family values, gumption and achievement, Bush said:
   Sounds positive and encouraging, doesn't it? However, based on Bush's record, others hoping to retrain into health care, along with community colleges trying to help them, have reason to shake in their boots. A Bush visit and hearty endorsement, with cameras rolling, can be followed by a big funding cut for the very same programs when no one's looking.
   That's exactly what happened to the Youth Opportunity Center in Portland, Ore., which Bush visited in January, 2002. In "Bushwhacked; Life in George Bush's America," (Random House, 2003) Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose recount that particular bait-and-switch job:
   Oh!pinion's view: Marketed as a straight shooter, Bush's record repeatedly reveals him to be anything but. Go by what he and his spokesmen say, you'll get suckered, short-sheeted and screwed over time after time. You have to watch closely, over time and with a critical eye to gain any appreciation of what he's really doing to you and to our country.
   Today, chillingly, Bush said he wants to be "the peace president." God help us all.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:22 PM

 
Bush record at 900 dead, billions blown
   The total of American soldiers sacrificed in President George W. Bush's pre-emptive war mistake now stands at 900.
   The Associated Press reports 47 have died since the handover of authority to an interim Iraqi government at the end of June. That's two lives lost per day, on average.
   The number of injured is 6,000. In addition, one soldier is listed as missing and two Defense Department civilians have been killed.
   Although Bush administration officials are loath to acknowledge it, the grim statistics may have a lot to do with the Army National Guard's recruiting problem, reported Tuesday by USA Today:
   The Army Guard is reportedly 6,000 below its authorized strength of 350,000 heading to the September end of the fiscal year.
   Along with the steady losses and manpower problems comes news of bad budgetary planning. This story says the General Accounting Office finds the Bush administration underestimated the cost of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq by $12.3 billion. The story explains:
Congress approved $87 billion for the war last November and followed that up with a $25 billion supplemental appropriation this year. The administration is expected to come back for another $50 billion after the election.

   Oh!pinion's view: Bush and the swivel-chair commandos who advise him and make policy for his administration like to talk about accountability and consequences, all the while making terrible, costly mistakes they will not admit to. Nor, of course, will they alter course. They would like people to believe they are being steadfast. The truth is that they are unwilling to acknowledge they've made a mess of one thing after another, especially with the election coming up.
   Americans are dying in Iraq, two a day on average. Many more are being injured, some for life. American taxpayers are running up a staggering deficit just from Bush's too-big, too-numerous tax cuts, with an incredible towering war debt being layered on top of that.
   How many more Americans will be killed or injured, how many more hundreds of billions of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars will be squandered on military misadventures and Enron-grade money handling before voters impose accountability on Bush and his Republican cheerleaders in Congress?
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:49 PM

 
Republicans exploit a good man's mistake
   Honest, decent people mess up; that's a fact of life.
   Right now, just before the 9-11 Commission releases its report and the Democratic Party holds its national convention, a good, honest, decent national security adviser to President Bill Clinton and informal adviser to Sen. John Kerry is being publicly savaged for having mishandled some classified documents — last fall.
   Samuel "Sandy" Berger is the subject of a Justice Department criminal investigation and a broad, coordinated publicity offensive by Republicans.
   Most notable among Republicans crowing loudly and pointing fingers is House Speaker Dennis Hastert, whose own honesty and integrity are more than a little suspect following what transpired on the House floor during the long, devious overnight journey to passage of the infamous Medicare "reform" bill last fall. And right behind him, Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose nefarious activities in Texas are under investigation.
   Preparing to testify before the 9-11 Commission, Berger examined some document copies in a safe room at the National Archives last October. He took notes and left with his notes and some of the copies. That was wrong, as he admitted when called on it later on.
   In fact, Berger immediately realized he'd done the wrong thing, had gotten "sloppy," said so, apologized and returned all the mishandled materials he could find at home. A couple are missing and he believes he must have discarded them. He made no attempt to duck, dodge, deny or shift blame. He owned up and did what he could to make things right. That's all a decent, honest person can do.
   Berger has also resigned as a Kerry adviser.
   The commission reportedly claims the missing documents had no impact on its work or findings.

   Berger has been defended publicly by Clinton and, notably, by a conservative-leaning moderate Republican Washington commentator and longtime insider, David Gergen, who among people of his party enjoys an unparalleled reputation for honesty, integrity and balance. The cited news story quotes Gergen:
   "Suspicious" is putting it politely. This is a transparent attempt to deflect public attention from President Bush's disappointing poll numbers; from Americans' growing realization that Bush's Iraq war is a mistake; from the anemic results of an economic "policy" that's done little good for and much harm to most Americans; from likely unhelpful things the commission report may reveal about Bush management prior to the 9-11 attack; and from the Democratic candidates and their convention. Bush & Co. and the Republican noise machine also hope to throw Democrats off balance, no doubt.
   Kerry, Sen. John Edwards and all other Democrats ought to respond to questions about the Berger matter expressing three things in very few words, then refuse all further discussion:
   1 — Berger is an honorable man who has served this country well at the highest level for years. He erred, admitted to erring and apologized.
   2 — Republicans are obviously trying to turn a good man's misstep into an ugly election-year scandal for political gain — something people shouldn't buy into, because doing so will only encourage Republicans to do more and worse of that kind of thing.
   3 — The Justice Department has had many months to investigate a simple incident. If it has sufficient evidence and intends to charge Berger, it should do so, or else drop the matter.
   Republicans eager to milk Berger's mistake for all it's worth should pause to recall President Eisenhower being caught in a lie of global consequences in the U-2/Francis Gary Powers debacle. They should also consider the illegal warmaking, illegal arms sales and backing of death-squad regimes during the Reagan years. Beside those, Berger's error looks puny, and it is.
   One final thought: If there's such a thing as political justice in our nation's capital, Karl Rove, Tom DeLay and a few others of their kind will at some point learn, in the form of a painful, indelible lesson, that what goes around really does come around.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:06 PM

 
Oliphant on Kerry a good read
   We're about to hear a lot concerning definition of Sen. John Kerry — others' and his own. We'll be surprised if any in the "others'" category end up being much more insightful and interesting than Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant's.
   Here's a sample we found particularly interesting:
   You can read all of "The easy stereotypes don't fit John Kerry" here. And you should.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:44 PM

 
Conventions cost more and mean less
   Once upon a time the major parties' political conventions were held to conduct the real business of selecting a presidential candidate and his running mate. The platform developed at these gatherings was sometimes meaningful as well.
   That was then, this is now, when conventions amount to a whole lot of high-cost hoopla to validate decisions already made and draw public attention to candidates and positions on issues. That's all on the convention floor. Behind the scenes there are lots of receptions for schmoozing and lobbying.
   A well-done USA Today story says the Democrats' four-day Boston bash has a $64 million budget, $40 million of that coming from corporate interests. Together, we learn, the two parties' conventions will cost some $170 million.
   Ironically, as conventions have evolved into largely for-show extravaganzas, TV coverage of them has declined. It appears the major networks will devote only about an hour an evening this year and not necessarily each evening. That's a disservice but no surprise. In effectively dropping its emphasis on broadcasters' operating in the public interest back in the '80s, the FCC opened the way for civic service to succumb to private greed. And succumb it obviously has.
   We'll be watching to see how well cable news operations take up the slack. Given the time and attention they've lavished on every minute aspect of such Earth-shaking stories as Michael Jackson's latest child abuse scandal, Janet Jackson's "costume failure" and the ongoing Martha Stewart soap opera, we'll see what value they attribute to picking the next leader of the world's surviving superpower.
   We'll also be interested, despite big misgivings and plenty of skepticism, to see just what $170 million buys. Here's hoping it's more about drinks, bread and circuses than about buying votes and support from the politicians and others attending.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:23 PM

 
An oops you can hear all the way to Nov. 2
   It's taken some time to sink in, but more and more Americans are coming to the conclusion President George W. Bush's magnificent adventure in Iraq was a hideous mistake. The latest Time-CBS poll finds that for the first time a majority, 51 percent, of those polled said the U.S. should not have gone into Iraq. The percentage of those endorsing the war slipped to only 45 percent.
   What makes this emerging concensus all the more remarkable is that it has grown despite months of pro-Bush, pro-war speeches and spin by Bush, administration officials and Republicans in Congress; tens of millions of dollars' worth of flag-waving campaign ads; and all the collateral support the squawking heads of talk radio and TV, plus the rest of the right-wing propaganda machinery, can generate.
   Americans seem poised to tell Bush and his swivel-chair commandos that while they're usually not that interested in world affairs, loss of their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, friends, etc., plus $200 billion, in a fiasco triggered by misinformation, bungling and/or dishonesty gets their attention, big time. And now, focused, what they see is completely unsatisfactory.

   All ahead full, skipper: The same poll shows Sen. John Kerry getting a bump up, 49 percent to 45 percent, over Bush following Kerry's naming of Sen. John Edwards as his running mate. The poll also showed Kerry's favorable rating at 36 percent, up from 29 percent in June's survey.

   She's been cheated, been mistreated: That's a paraphrase from one of Linda Ronstadt's greatest hits, "When Will I Be Loved?" It kind of describes what happened to the singer following a brouhaha she sparked Saturday night at the Aladdin Casino's performing arts theater in Las Vegas.
   Late in her show, which did not concentrate on her biggest hits, as had been promoted, Ronstadt reportedly dedicated her next song, "Desperado," to Michael Moore and his movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11." She said the producer "is someone who cares about this country deeply and is trying to help."
   At that, all hell broke loose. Reports vary, but evidently between a quarter and nearly half of the more than 4,000 audience members began booing, hollering insults and leaving, some defacing Ronstadt posters on their way out. There was a scene at the box office, with people demanding refunds. Aladdin President Bill Timmins had Ronstadt escorted to her tour bus, refusing to even let her go to her hotel room. He made it clear she won't be asked back.
   Timmins is quoted in the Las Vegas Sun: "Whether you are politically on the left or on the right is not the point. She went up in front of the stage and just let it out. This was not the correct forum for that."
   Alas, Timmins is right. While we sympathize with Ronstadt's sentiments, we can't condone what she did. She was hired to entertain people of all political persuasions and the apolitical alike. They bought tickets, hired baby sitters, got dressed up and traveled to the Aladdin to hear her sing, not get an update on her politics. Ronstadt also let the Aladdin down.
   That said, we have to wonder if those irate showgoers didn't overreact in a juvenile way. While inappropriate, Ronstadt's words weren't that strident and she didn't go on and on, just dedicated a song and made a brief comment. To quote our Republican friends following George W. Bush's election victory in the Supreme Court, "Get over it."

   The few, the proud, the politically correct?: Marine Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun, now back at Quantico, Va., made a brief public statement of his innocence today, denying he had deserted for 19 days. Hassoun said he had been captured by anti-coalition forces. He did not answer any questions.
   A Marine officer gingerly explained Hassoun's status as that of a repatriated ex-captive who's being helped to get his life back to normal. The officer did say no determination has been made and investigation of the translator's mysterious disappearance and surrender continues. Somehow, Hassoun dissapeared from Fallujah, Iraq, having taken his belongings with him, on June 20. A week later, he appeared in a video as a captive of terrorists, then turned up in Beirut, Lebanon, where he hooked up with U.S. embassy personnel July 8.
   Without rushing to judgment, we're marveling at the kid-gloves treatment the Marine Corps is affording Hassoun. We've had occasion to know and deal with Marines. We know they tend to have zero tolerance for self-authorized time off and no patience at all with song-and-dance routines in response to straight questions.
   This whole Hassoun thing has us wondering, if this guy was named Murphy or Smith, wouldn't he be eyebrows-deep in hot water and sinking fast right about now?
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:20 PM

 
Rich sees in 'Anchorman' TV news reality
f you've ever watched TV news with a critical eye and scorned it for serving up too much banal pap, you'll want to read Frank Rich's excellent commentary in the New York Times, "Happy Talk News Covers a War." (Signup required.)
   If you've never cast a critical eye on TV news and come away feeling too many who produce and present it must take you for a dimwit, then you really ought to read Rich's piece.
   Rich does a good job not only of describing how, but why, TV news has largely become what is parodied in the new film, "Anchorman."
   The following excerpt gives an example of how, paradoxically, an entertainment program that parodies actual news programs picked up a ball dropped by what's supposed to be an actual news program.
   One quibble: Why would an actual news organization, in this case NBC News, not pursue either an incredibly convenient memory lapse or a bald-faced election-year lie by the vice president? Rich posits a desire to not displease viewers by embarrassing a popular political figure. (Well, popular with hardcore neoconservatives, anyway). A more likely motive is preserving the access to officials of NBC's White House and Washington, D.C., correspondents.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:41 PM

 
Homeland security assurances ring hollow
   Bush-Cheney campaign ads and speeches portray leadership that's tough and on top of protecting Americans from terrorist attacks.
   The reality of Bush-Cheney leadership in this area is one of inadequate planning, haphazard management and underachievement, with results that range from uneven to unacceptable.
   The Sept. 11, 2001, attack involved airliner hijackings. A new agency, the Transportation Security Administration, has since been created to meet this threat. Huge sums have been spent and millions of travelers have been inconvenienced. Yet, incidents and tests continue to indicate we're nowhere near achieving a consistently high level of safety.
   Among the latest bad reports is this recent Seattle Times story, "Airport-security system in U.S. riddled with failures":
   Just this week TSA announced the CAPPS II intensive passenger screening system it spent many millions developing isn't ready for prime time and will be on hold until after the November election.
   Things are no better at the Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security President Bush didn't want — before he did want it. Here's the opener of a gcm.com story about a report on DHS' progress undertaken at the request of a member of Congress:
   Nearly every weekday, CNN's Lou Dobbs reports on inadequacies in every aspect of border security. Essentially, despite big outlays and added manpower, the better-patrolled U.S. southern border is a sieve through which thousands of illegals pass each month. The northern border is relatively lightly patrolled and considered highly porous.
   DHS continues to issue periodic warnings of a likely attack sometime this year. These warnings are all devoid of details that might help people protect themselves. The effect is to heighten anxiety in some people while causing others to basically write off future DHS pronouncements as worthless. The color-coded threat level system is being scrapped after having become something of a joke.

   Bush administration defenders regularly point out that there hasn't been an attack on U.S. soil since 9-11. That's true, but without knowing whether a serious attempt has been made, how can we credit current security measures? Al Qaeda is known for letting years pass while it prepares a major attack, so we may just be in a lull.
   Maybe the biggest contradiction to Bush-Cheney campaign rhetoric about homeland security comes from continuing revelations of lapses in known problem areas, some of which were supposed to have been fixed long ago.
   Clearly, the president and vice president's campaign talk about homeland security qualifies as just that — and nothing more.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:04 PM

 
Dummies' curse dooms Egypt aid reform
   The U.S. has been giving Egypt about $1.8 billion annually in recent years, more than 75 percent of it as military aid. Over the last two decades the U.S. has given Egypt some $30 billion.
   The largest Arab nation, Egypt is far from being the most affluent. Fortunately, the country is at peace with its neighbors, even pursuing a policy of detente with Israel since 1979.
   It occurred to Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., that it would make more sense to put most U.S. aid into education and economic development, where Egypt's needs are greatest. Sharply reducing aid for Egypt's military also makes sense, both as to need and in light of Egypt's lack of support for U.S. military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
   But when Lantos tried to tack his common-sense proposal onto a $19 billion foreign aid package, the Bush administration lobbied against the change and the Republican-controlled House obediently voted it down, 287 to 131.
   A news story on this quotes Lantos: "The biggest threat to Egyptian stability is its bloated military budget, which undermines economic and political development and democratization.''

   Oh!pinion's view: The United States' expensive and misdirected aid formula for Egypt was in place long before the current administration. Still, the Bush administration had a chance to opt for a more appropriate and useful alternative. That the administration chose to deep-six the move is perfectly in keeping its facts-be-damned approach to foreign policy.
   This is especially foolish because Egyptians benefiting from improved educational and economic opportunities, enjoying a rising standard of living, would probably be more resistant to Islamic extremists. Reducing the likelihood of Egypt spawning terrorists should be a top priority.
   As things stand, billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars are being wasted over a long period, yielding less security in the long run for Egyptians and Americans alike.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:15 AM

 
Reckless rule change for truckers killed
   The U.S. Department of Transportation thinks it's all right for drivers of huge 16-wheeler semi-trailer trucks to put in 11-hour days on the road. So, the department changed its rules last December, upping the limit from 10 hours to allow longer driving work days for drivers.
   Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia came to a different conclusion, throwing out USDOT's rule change. (Story.)
   The court found USDOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration had failed utterly to consider driver's health, as required by law.
   The public interest group Public Citizen had filed a lawsuit seeking to undo the rule change. Naturally, trucking industry interests and Bush administration officials fought to defend the rule allowing for the longer work days.
   The change allowed one additional driving hour and required two additional off hours between drives. However, opponents of the rule change, including the Teamsters, cited studies indicating sharply increased accident risks after 10 and 11 hours of driving.

   Oh!pinion's view: This is just one more in a steady stream of Bush administration policy moves intended to benefit business interests at the expense of everyone else.
   Recall how Bush's plan to have polluting industries set and enforce their own anti-pollution rules was called the Clear Skies Initiative. Recall how people out of work for extended periods during our long job-loss so-called recovery have been denied extension of benefits from a nonbudget fund they had paid into when employed, the better to drive down wages and the need for employers to provide benefits. Recall how Bush's Labor Department is fighting to do millions out of overtime pay.
   President George W. Bush's America is one in which if you are a businessperson, the bigger the business the better; if you're an entrepreneur or investor, also the bigger the better; and a contributor to Republicans, you count. Otherwise, you don't count. Thus, your health, safety, workplace rules and conditions, job security, financial security, time for your family and yourself are all fair game for being degraded by any interests that do count.

   How bad an idea that trucking rules change was requires no specialized knowledge. The potential of a big semi rolling at 60, 70 or 80 m.p.h. to wreak death and destruction is obvious and hard to overstate. The average American's experience with growing weary driving extended hours on long trips and common sense make abundantly clear what reckless disregard for everyone's safety lay behind the USDOT's decision.
   No doubt the Bush administration would counter that it was watching out for small-business owner-operators who carry much of the nation's freight. That would be a lame argument, considering that increasing the chances of involving those owner-operators in fatal accidents is not much of a favor.
   Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook points out that nearly 800 truck drivers already die in crashes every year.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:34 PM

 
Is Bush lying or just wrong again?
   The following quote of Sen. John Kerry's words is from a July 10 Washington Post story:

   "The value of truth is one of the most central values in America, and this administration has violated it."

   The following is from a CNN segment showing President George W. Bush campaigning in the upper Midwest on Wednesday, July 14:

   "We stand for institutions like marriage and family. And yet, on these positions so many Americans share, my opponent is on the other side."

   The following is from the above-cited Washington Post story:

   "Let's be very firm about it. Both John (Edwards) and I believe firmly and absolutely that marriage is between a man and a woman."

   Is Bush deliberately lying? Or, as is so often the case, is he
poorly informed? Or, is this yet another instance of Bush being wrong?
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:43 PM

 
Tour de farce deserves no encore
t's all over but the demagoguery and mudslinging.
   The Cotton Mather wing of Senate Republicans saw any chance for their bid to put forth an anti-same-sex marriage amendment to the Constitution dissolve Wednesday. It went down in a procedural vote, mustering support from only 48 senators in a chamber Republicans control.
   Due to an unusual outbreak of divisiveness among Senate Republicans, the amendment itself never got an up or down vote.
   CNN congressional correspondent Ed Henry offered the following observation shortly before senators voted:
   Indeed, Republicans desperately want — and need — the kind of cheap-shot takedown they scored against Mike Dukakis by demagoging the Willie Horton affair in 1988, and more recently in costing Max Cleland of Georgia his Senate seat by outrageously characterizing him as soft on terrorism and less than patriotic.
   Amendment supporters vowed they will bring it back, saying they had made a principled stand. That served to highlight how very elastic conservative Republicans' principles are. For decades, they regularly championed states' rights and railed against imposing more federal laws and regulations on families and individuals.
   These arguments were especially prominent during the long civil rights struggle, often accompanied by conservative Republicans' outrage at what they disdainfully called "social engineering."
   The amendment to block same-sex marriage, however, would've intruded federal law into marital and family law, which have been the province of the states since 1776. And where the rest of the Constitution is concerned with declaring, affirming and safeguarding the rights of individual citizens, the amendment would've specifically denied individuals a right.

   This interesting metamorphosis in conservative Republican principles was cast in stark relief in an exchange between CNN's Lou Dobbs and amendment co-sponsor Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., on Dobbs' program Wednesday:
   Emphasis in the preceding paragraph is ours, put there to highlight what can only be called social engineering.
   While it's true, going by percentages, that the traditional family as depicted in the 1950s TV series "Father Knows Best" results in more well-raised, well-adjusted and well-educated young adults who are better equipped to raise children of their own than alternatives do, this is not a matter of choosing a quality control model for a widget factory.
   When we're considering imposing the full weight of federal law on individual human beings, we have to keep in mind they stand as equals before the law. What that means is, a gay or lesbian who wants to get married to someone they love stands equal to heterosexual man or woman with the same desire. The same goes for raising children.
   The law, as a matter of equity, of justice, can't presuppose that, because of percentages, any particular person who doesn't fit the majority mold will be an unfit parent, simply by virtue of their status as a gay or lesbian. Were it otherwise, the federal government might well find justification for fiendishly forcing sterilization on people of racial minorities and people who are poor, based on the percentages of people from those backgrounds who wind up being imprisoned for felonies.

   Instead of trying to use this as a wedge issue in the election, Brownback, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and others pushing the anti-same-sex marriage amendment ought to sit down with the Constitution. They should try hard to better comprehend the parts affirming that "all men are created equal" and are endowed by their creator with a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:58 PM

 
Federal sites link to Kerry-bashing rant
   Go to the Web sites of the departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services, enter "Kerry" as a search term, and what would you expect to find?
   It probably wouldn't be the Kerry-bashing diatribe of a Republican member of Congress, but earlier today, that's what you would've found, according to an Associated Press story.
   Of course, agency officials are quick to blame a computer glitch. We seem to recall that's what they said a few months ago, when the IRS site had some kind of Anti-Democrat material posted. All pure coincidence, for sure.
   Oh!pinion's view: Yeah, right. Here's hoping the AP will be as enterprising about checking out polling places on Nov. 2, especially ones with electronic voting machines — most especially, ones located in Florida, Missouri and Ohio.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:20 PM

 
Coming soon: Windows Xcessive Promotion
   The Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 update, due out next month, will come with a catch. No, not just the usual gaping-hole security lapses, presumably, but something called Windows Marketplace.
   A PC World story describes this catch as "a new shopping Web site for software, hardware, and peripherals that it plans to advertise in the Windows XP Start Menu and the Internet Explorer Web browser." Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Circuit City Stores, Buy.com, and Best Buy are said to be on board among participating "Microsoft partners."
   Users won't order anything from Windows Marketplace itself, but will link to vendors. That is, once the service is fully implemented, supposedly by year's end. C|net is heavily involved.

   Gee, imagine your next car sporting TV-like flat panel displays on the trunk lid and driver-side door, each showing commercials of the carmaker and its marketing partners, nonstop when the car is in use and for 10 minutes when it's turned off. This, in return for a 5 percent discount on the car.
   Imagine your next refrigerator coming with a similar display on the door. Triggered by a motion sensor, it would not only display recipes, diet and food-safety information but commercials for supermarket chains and all sorts of food and kitchen items, all with sound on demand. Wouldn't that be swell?
   Why stop there? How about your next toilet having a scrolling display of news, sports scores, etc., interspersed with commercials? Need a new garage door? Get one for half price, with a mini version of those digital color displays that light up Times Square. The catch is that your home will be used to display a steady stream of billboard images touting everything from Advil to Zip disks.
   Ah, the possibilities are endless. And among those, we wouldn't be surprised if Windows Marketplace were to be designed for a two-way flow of information, reporting back to Redmond what's already loaded on and connected to your PC and full details of new purchases.

   Memo to Bill Gates: Nothing doing. We're living a life too degraded by commercial intrusions, gonzo marketing tactics and snooping attempts already. We're still seething over the hours required to remove all the unwanted adware, trialware and demoware crap that infested a Compaq PC we bought this spring.
   We're sure others feel the same way and that by the time XP Service Pack 2 with Windows Marketplace has been out but a few days, some smart programmer will issue a free utility for disabling or, better, completely removing it.
   If you and your marketing partners want to sell more stuff, try coming up with some new programs. Strive to make all your products more useful, more intuitive, more stable and secure, then send those of us who sign up CDs describing what you've got. Include some money-saving discounts and combo offers — enticements that will probably end up costing you less than the millions you're blowing on Windows Marketplace.
   Do this and we're sure you'll not only bring in more billions in profits, but also greatly reduce the goodwill deficit your company has built up over the years.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:53 PM

 
May trade deficit at $46 billion
   Here's a bit of news that's easily passed by, underplayed, overlooked. But is it ever significant in both the short and long term.
   It was reported on "Lou Dobbs Tonight," on CNN by correspondent Christine Romans:
   What this means, of course, is more jobs, income and government revenues for many other countries — and fewer jobs, less income and government revenues here in the U.S. It means more and more wealth concentrated in the hands of a relative few, while the gap between their incomes and the incomes of the rest widens. In addition, it means Americans are more indebted to foreign governments and interests. There are also national security implications.
   We've said it before, but it bears repeating: We can't keep on this way indefinitely and get away with it.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 10:55 PM

 
Righteous path could lead Bush to exit
   Mercy, brothers and sisters, what's this country coming to?
   Here we have born-again brother George W. Bush in the White House, keeping Third-World women safe from the scourge of family planning and HIV-vulnerable people worldwide safe from the temptations readily available condoms ensure. We have brothers Rick Santorum, John Cornyn and enough fellow-Republican senators to hold Wednesday-night Bible classes all week long, all of them thumping for an amendment to ban same-sex marriages from the land.
   Nevertheless, there's dissension in the Christian conservative ranks. It seems these folks feel they're being given short shrift in arrangements for the Aug. 28-Sept. 2 GOP national convention. (Story.)
   Somehow, the glory of the spotlight is being bestowed on California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, ex-New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani and Sen. John McCain of Arizona. None of them are known to be New Age kooks or practicing heathens, exactly. But they apparently fail to meet evangelicals' expectations, where imposing the evangelicals' notions about Christian righteousness on everyone else is concerned.
   The cited Times story describes this swerve to the secular center for four days as window dressing for the benefit of not-born-again, nonconservative masses watching on TV. Failure to take this precaution is given as a reason Bush's father lost in 1992. But wait — the story also poses Christian right dissatisfaction as a big potential liability in 2004. If these people stay home on Nov. 2, Bush's re-election prospects lose altitude in a hurry.

   Bush & Co. have plenty besides the Christian right and nonconservative convention viewers to worry about. There are the polls they allegedly pay no attention to showing Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards slightly ahead of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. More ominously, it appears a clear majority of Americans no longer buy Bush's various justifications for his ugly mess of a pre-emptive war; a majority don't feel especially safer from threats of terrorist attack; and millions of nonwealthy Americans aren't experiencing an improved personal or family economy.
   Truly, these are times that try right-wing men's souls.
   Based on past performance, Oh!pinion expects various commandments will be cast aside if they sense imminent defeat. Don't be surprised, if they think they can get away with it, if their plight becomes the impetus for another war somewhere. Or, maybe they'll be able to spring a major-terrorist capture at a critical moment.
   Whatever else happens, there are two things Bush & Co. seem unlikely to do. One is just run an honest, straightforward campaign on their record and the issues, letting the vote come out as it may. That's neither Bush's way nor the way of his political oberfeldmarshal, Karl Rove. The other unlikely tack is to pray for political salvation and leave the outcome to divine providence. Hey, faith is one thing, but politics and winning are a whole 'nother thing.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:43 PM

 
NAACP folks lack what Bush require$
   You'd expect a president seeking re-election, especially in a tight race, to jump at the chance to address the national convention of an organization with a half million members.
   President George W. Bush passed up that chance, blowing off the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's annual gathering. A news story explains:
   This isn't a new wrinkle for Bush. He spoke at the NAACP 2000 convention but has declined to every year since.
   No surprise, then, that the organization has been hard at work on voter drives in 11 states, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee and New Mexico among them. This story quotes Bond as saying they've signed up 100,000 in black communities so far. If voting trends follow those of recent years, Democrats will receive more than 90 percent of African-Americans' votes.
   Sen. John Kerry's not taking people of color or their major organization for granted. He's scheduled to speak Thursday.

   Oh!pinion's view: Despite Bond's keynote address statement about Republicans, "They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division," we doubt Bush's unwillingness to appear is really a matter of overt racial prejudice.
   It seems more likely that Bush sees the NAACP as composed of too many inner-city people and too few with a six- or seven-figure income. Bush-type people tend to live in upscale suburbs, gated communities, toney townhouses and penthouses like the one Kenneth "Kenny Boy" Lay calls home. They're folks who can be counted on to attend his $25,000-a-plate fund-raising dinners and harvest big donations from their affluent friends and associates.
   The fact that Bush has a "nonexistent" relationship with black leaders might have something to do with his not inviting them to the White House or down to the ranch in Crawford to discuss mutual concerns and goals.
   We suspect the reason he hasn't reached out to these leaders is because he's unwilling to offer them anything and doesn't want to be in the position of having to say no, face to face, to their suggestions about how he might be of help.
   This, of course, is in stark contrast to Bush's relationship with leaders from corporate America, especially those involved in the pharmaceutical, energy and financial industries — people for whom he just can't seem to do enough.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 1:42 PM

 
Will the real 'C' team please stand up?
he Senate Select Intelligence Committee on Friday released its half-a-job report on how this country went to war in Iraq by mistake.
   To no one's surprise, the U.S. intelligence infrastructure suffered the full weight of blame, for insufficient gathering, faulty analysis, lack of coordination — and on and on.
   It was half a report for a craven political reason: Republicans control the Senate and the committee that wrote the report. No way, in this election year, will those Republicans pursue the truth about the words, actions, attitudes and working environment created by the Pentagon and White House policy makers receiving what the intelligence professionals produced. All of those are Republicans, after all.
   Campaigning in Pennsylvania Friday, President Bush said it was a "useful report" about where the intelligence community "went short." (Story) Bush disingenuously added: "We need to know. I want to know. I want to know how to make the agencies better."
   Realistically, based on his performance to date, we take that to mean "better" in the sense of being more readily compliant in delivering desired and expected justifications for what Bush and his coven of swivel-chair crusaders have decided to do.
   Being realistic brings us to the assessment of the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D.-W.Va.:

   Question: Does anyone really believe the people currently in control of the federal government — specifically, Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his lieutenant, Paul Wolfowitz, all of them responsible for planning and decisions that range from highly questionable to horribly wrong — have the savvy to fix what's wrong with U.S. intelligence?

   This brings us to the next logical consideration: Should these people rush to name a new CIA director, now that George Tenet has gone on to other things?
   As this story points out, both Rockefeller and the committee chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., think a new director should be appointed as soon as possible. They make the sensible case that this is an especially dangerous time.
   Oh!pinion agrees this is a dangerous time, but we think it would be best to let the next president name the new director. We take that position in expectation that John Kerry will be the next president, because we're confident he will do a better job of picking a new CIA director — along with everything else.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:55 PM

 
Republicans hope to exploit nonstarter
   When President Bush started beating the drums for war with Iraq back in the spring of election year 2002, two questions kept coming to mind: Why this? and Why now?
   Now, in the fourth year of Bush's tenure, another election year, there's a move afoot in the Senate to push through an amendment to the Constitution to protect the institution of marriage. The presumed threat is the damage that supposedly will result from having a very small percentage of the population enter into same-gender marriages. Not that anyone has made very clear just what that damage would actually be.
   So, the two questions are back and the answer is probably the same one that applies to the 2002 Iraq nonsense. This is nothing but a political ploy. This time, it's intended to energize Bush and the Republicans' base of religious-right contributors and voters. And distract from the many elements of Bush's record that are not helpful to getting re-elected.
   We'll see how gullible the Bush-base folks are, because Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards, and most other Democrats are not pushing for a redefinition of marriage. That kind of makes them aggravatingly hard to hold up as imminent threats to the social fabric, but we expect the forces of darkness to try.
   As if all this isn't ridiculous enough, there's the general consensus, even conceded by some amendment backers, that the votes just aren't there to get it passed. What a farce.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:55 PM

 
Post-handover Iraq just as costly, deadly
t's been a hot weekend in Iraq, with seven more added to the death toll of our soldiers there as of early Sunday, pushing the total to 875 (Story). Ambushes, bombings, hostage-taking — same ol', same ol'.
   Meanwhile, the fate of a poor Filipino captive of the insurgent beasts remains unknown after apparently erroneous reports he'd been released. The government of the Philippines is refusing to remove its personnel before the end of August, in defiance of the hostage takers' demands.
   So, exactly what difference is the much-heralded June 30 handover making?

   A fine-looking bunch: The Kerry and Edwards families look like, sound like and act like thoroughly good people. Not just as pols, as officials, as lawyers and their clans, but as people. Nice, decent, for-real people.
   They come across as intelligent, articulate, energetic. Are they sometimes little corny in their animated togetherness? Maybe. Are they ambitious? You bet, but there's nothing wrong with that.
   One thing's for sure: Family values are as alive and well among Democrats as Republicans.

   Yeas, nays and no shows: This is a follow up to our Thursday post, "House on a roll trampling citizen rights." You can see how your member of Congress voted, or didn't, Thursday on an amendment to keep the government's nose out of your choice of reading material. Unfortunately, thanks to party-line voting by the Republican majority, the amendment failed. Click here.

   The Beltloose Boys: That's what we call the unremittingly dull duo of Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes, who appear every weekend on Fox News' "The Beltway Boys." This has to be the lamest cable network political talk show going, which is saying something.
   The program consists of two colorless, witless and almost humorless middle-aged white guys, both conservatives, both Washington insiders, both writers, spouting Republican talking points, agreeing about right-wing verities and, not infrequently, disparaging Washington insiders for being Washington insiders.
   Barnes founded and is executive editor of The Weekly Standard, a far-right must-read for hardcore right wingers. Kondracke is executive editor and columnist for Roll Call. Both have been employed by The New Republic.
   Fair and balanced? Every bit as much as the rest of Fox's operation.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:49 PM

 
Class warfare: Buffett knows the score
   Warren Buffett, sometimes called "the oracle of Omaha," is one of the world's most successful businessmen. His primary business is the Berkshire Hathaway mutual fund, which is a legend in its own time for consistently delivering excellent returns, even in off years and down markets.
   A supporter of and adviser to Sen. John Kerry, Buffett has from time to time expressed views sharply different from those of most U.S. CEOs, corporate and financial industry executives. Here's a sterling example:
   "Tax breaks for corporations [and their investors] were a major part of the administration's 2002 and 2003 initiatives. If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning." (Source: Guardian news story, April 7, 2004).  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:51 PM

 
Reasons to fire Bush itemized well
   Jack K., over at Ruminate This, has put together an excellent rundown of solid reasons why President George W. Bush deserves early retirement by U.S. voters.
   Here's a sample:
   There's plenty more, all of it a good read. (Be warned, though, that Ruminate This can be a slow page load if you're using dialup.) Just click for the rest of "Out of Touch with the Mainstream?"
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:43 PM

 
McDonald's invites wee-hours trouble
   Here's a flash of corporate brilliance: Mcdonald's wants to bring in the folks clubs and bars sweep out the door at closing time. The following is from an ABC News story:
   Hold on, because it gets more bizarre. Joe Mastrocovi of Moderne Promotions is quoted:
   Ask any cop what bar-closing time tends to mean, especially on weekend nights. They'll tell you "excitement of the night" too often is a sloppy drunk leaning out of a car, puking; it's rowdiness, fights, street crime, DWIs — trouble, in other words. Even normally docile, well-behaved individuals can turn ugly in the wee hours. Maybe they had a long, aggravating day at work, ate little or nothing before an evening out during which they failed to get traction with the opposite sex and had a few too many drinks.
   McDonald's employees tend to be quite young or quite elderly, in our experience. It will be interesting to see if Ms. Sweet Little Sixteen or Granny Cratchet will be up for working until 3 or 4 a.m., probably for little more than minimum wage, no tips. If they are, we can imagine how delighted they'll be, dealing with inebriated club and bar closers. . .
   "Can I help you, sir?" asks Ms. Sixteen.
   "Oh, say baybee, you're hot!" says Cujo the village oaf, leaning over the counter, leering. "Hey, didn't I buy a lap dance offa you at the club last weekend?"
   "No, I've never . . . I'm sorry, but you'll either have to order something or . . ."
   "Aw c'mon, baybee, don't gimme that. Tell you what, gimme a happy meal and afterward come out to my van. We'll split a Coors and I'll serve you a really Big Mac, hahahaha!"
   Ah, the excitement of the night.

   McDonald's would be well advised to replace Ronald with a team of pro wrestler types, to serve as bouncers. Better yet, the corporation would be well advised to forget this lame-brain idea.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:15 PM

 
Giant lottery prizes unnecessary, wasteful
middle-aged janitorial worker in Massachusetts is the winner of the second-biggest single-winner lottery prize, $294 million.
   Geraldine Williams appeared in a TV news conference this morning, speaking matter-of-factly, sometimes with delightfully dry humor, about discovering her good fortune and telling her husband. Her story and answers to questions revealed that she's happy, overwhelmed and trying to get her mind around what her big win really means.
   Williams said she plans to share with her family and with charities she's interested in. She also indicated she'll be glad when all the publicity and fuss are over with.
   Oh!pinion wishes Williams and her family all the best with this fortune. She appears to be as nice and regular a person as one could hope to meet. We suspect she'll handle her winnings well.

   Without taking away from those good wishes, we wonder if prizes this large are really worthwhile. Even after taxes, Williams and her husband will have a massive fortune, one that if invested with any skill will provide them an affluent lifestyle for the rest of their lives, then for their children's lives and beyond. We doubt that the Williamses would experience any real difference in how they will live and not that much difference in what they could pass on to heirs, had their prize been, say, $75 million.
   There are people in need all over this country. There are people in America suffering poverty in thousands of ways, people who become disabled or diseased, who even die, because they can't make ends meet.
   We're not concerned here with people who can work and earn but for various reasons don't. Likewise, we're not talking about people who make good money and squander it or persist in making other bad choices that leave them in a bad way. Rather, we're concerned about people trying their best but seemingly stuck, especially the dependent young and old. We're talking about people who've worked hard for years and made good money, only to be dealt luck as bad as Williams' luck was good. People about to retire who lost all their retirement savings thanks to the greedy SOB's at Enron are one good example.
   Wouldn't it be more worthwhile if that lottery had been set up so that the winner would've received $75 million, with $219 million going to a wide range of people-helping organizations across the country? Would fewer lottery players have bought tickets because $75 million is too skimpy a prize? That seems doubtful. Would Williams have been any less surprised and happy? That seems doubtful, too.The only difference that seems likely to us is that many, many people in serious need might've gotten a break.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:07 PM

 
House on a roll trampling citizen rights
   Continuing the Patriot Act's abridgement of the constitutional guarantee that citizens shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and personal effects, the U.S. House of Representatives caved today to President Bush's veto threat .
   As if that wasn't enough for one week's dirty work, the House yesterday killed a measure that would've allowed states to make their own policy on medical marijuana use.
   Today's action means federal investigators will continue to be able to check up on your choice of reading materials at the town library, corner newsstand, Barnes & Noble at the mall, or wherever, after a judge approves their snooping.
   Conservative Republicans, liberal Democrats and Independent Rep. Bernie Sanders had joined forces supporting a Patriot Act amendment to curb the act's provisions for snooping into people's reading habits.
   The House Republican leadership resorted again to a rule-bending practice in defending the provision, as this news story explains:
   A growing body of patient testimony and clinical experience indicate marijuana is very helpful in lessening the nausea and loss of appetite many patients experience during chemotherapy. It has also been helpful in reducing pain and enhancing rest. Nonetheless, the Bush administration, which has fought tooth and nail against any weakening of marijuana prohibition, was at it again Wednesday. (Story.)
   Interestingly, here too, Democrats and a strongly conservative Republican spoke in favor of the measure:
   Score two more wins for President George W. Bush, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and their right-wing drones in the House. Two more victories for the forces of darkness, backwardness and government interference into what should be private areas of citizens' lives.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:14 PM

 
Cuffed `Kenny Boy' perp-walks, pleas
   At long, long last, Kenneth "Kenny Boy" Lay, ex-CEO of the corporate crime organization Enron, has been led away in handcuffs, if only briefly.
   More than three years after Enron's collapse, Lay pleaded innocent to an 11-count indictment in federal court in Houston today. His court appearance followed his surrender to the FBI, which applied the handcuffs.
   An Associated Press story describes the charges:
   The energy firm Lay had headed had been one of the nation's biggest corporations. Massive numbers of investors were hurt financially, some suffering catastrophic losses, because they had accepted Lay's assurances that the business was sound, while at the same time, Lay was selling off huge personal stock holdings in Enron.
   Calling Lay a flight risk, federal prosecutors asked U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Milloy for a $6 million bond, but she opted for $500,000. The story also notes Lay was allowed to keep his passport. After his hour in court, Lay appeared at a press conference at a downtown Houston Hotel. He insisted underlings were responsible for all the deliberate wrongdoing at Enron.
   Also today, at the White House, the president's press secretary blew off questions about President George W. Bush's longstanding relationship with Lay. Another AP story gives details of just how generously connected Lay has been to Bush:
   If convicted, Lay could spend the rest of his life behind bars, which we suspect would be getting off light compared to the penalty at least several hundred-thousand of his alleged victims would undoubtedly prefer.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 4:02 PM

 
Whole lot of wagging the dog going on
   Gee, Sen. John Kerry no sooner announces his choice of Sen. John Edwards as his running mate, a major poll shows him getting a nice upward bounce — and President Bush's number taking a dive — and here comes another really serious terrorist attack warning.
   Make that a "large-scale" terrorist attack warning.
   Out pops Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge before TV cameras, warning of "very credible" information, about which he gives no specifics, of a looming attack on the U.S. sometime during this election year, perhaps to somehow affect the election. Is the color alert warning level being raised? Uh, no.
   Now, we tend to be highly skeptical of conspiracy theorists and don't want to risk being taken for one of them. But our SkeptOMeter™ is at nine on a scale of 10 here at Oh!pinion headquarters, where the terrorism war and Bush & Co., plus the whole GOP/Bush re-election industry are concerned.
   Behind our suspicions:
   1 — We recall that Bush got highly proactive about Saddam Hussein and the need for regime change in Iraq back in the fall of 2002. He made that one of his two top priorities. The other one was going all over the country raising funds for and campaigning for Republicans running for Congress. Some have already uttered dark rumblings about a wag-the-dog strategy for that fall's congressional election, which turned out to be a sweep for the GOP. Purely a coincidence? Well . . . ?
   2 — We seem to recall earlier this year, after Kerry had done so well in Iowa and New Hampshire, and appeared to be on a roll to the nomination, with nonpolitical people beginning to pay attention to him and his poll numbers trending up, that we had this big, really serious terrorism warning.
   3 — Correct us if we're wrong, but this spring, after Kerry did effectively win nomination, again with poll numbers doing well and with people beginning to take a harder, more-critical look at the carnage in Iraq, with ugly news about prisoner abuse emerging, didn't we get a really serious terrorist warning? And along with that, wasn't there a lot of buzz about getting really close to nabbing some major-major terrorist in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions?
   4 —Just now, CNN's Judy Woodruff has as a guest John Judis of The New Republic. He's telling about a story that says the Bush administration has put inordinate pressure on the Pakistanis - a shakedown, in fact - to go into the country's ungoverned border territories after unnamed "high value" terrorists before the November elections. Judis is saying the administration is threatening the Pakistanis with cuts in support, refusal to sell them new fighter aircraft, etc., if they fail.

   Last but not least, there's the overall matter of credibility. From how Bush got to the White House, to how he sent this country to war in Iraq — and 840-plus of our troops to their death — we've learned this president's rendition of honesty includes withholding, shading, bending, twisting and torturing facts until what we're told becomes indistinguishable from what he wanted the facts to be in the first place. Think about that.
   If he weren't good for $17 million, give or take, after November Bush could certainly do well for himself in the used-car business. In the meantime, we'll remain highly skeptical of what he and officials of his administration have to say, about terrorism and everything else.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:07 PM

 
U.N. plans early end of spamming — really
   In a news item that reads like something out of "Ripley's Believe it or Not," the United Nations has set its sights on eliminating spam by 2007.
   OK, stop rolling on the floor, laughing, and listen up. These people are serious. The story includes this:
   They intend to target porn spam, first and foremost, and bring the whole scourge under control by having uniform laws around the world. The story also notes that 85 percent of e-mail is spam, up from 35 percent a year ago.

   Oh!pinion's view: We admire what these people are trying to do, but suspect they are, to put it mildly, underestimating the challenge they're taking on. Mankind hasn't been able to rid itself of cockroaches, mosquitoes or venereal diseases. We suspect that the international war on terrorism will be a brief mention in history textbooks before spam is really eradicated.
   However, in the U.N.'s spirit of hopeful determination, we'll offer a few suggestions to help the cause:
   1, Give disgruntled former spammer employees big rewards for ratting on their ex-bosses.
   2, Start the penalties for minor offenders with horsewhipping sessions in a public square, ratcheting up to 20 years of rock-breaking prison labor for repeaters.
   3, For spam kingpins, start with 30-year sentences, with enhancement to public hanging, depending on the volume and persistence of the offenders' offenses.
   4, In all cases, confiscate every cent, every belonging, every bit of property the offender has.
   Yes, we know; this is all pretty mild comeuppance for these vermin. But civilized people can only go so far in seeking to deter crime and secure justice.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:18 PM

 
Better to be big about Mexico's pettiness
   On Sunday, in Mexico, the funeral of a Mexican native and U.S. Marine was delayed by Mexican soldiers, who objected to Marines carrying inoperative ceremonial rifles. Mexican law prohibits foreign soldiers being armed.
   The funeral was for Lance Cpl. Juan Lopez Rangel, who was killed June 21 in an ambush in Iraq. It was held in San Luis de Paz, Rangel's hometown. An honor guard of Marines, and other Marines who had served with Rangel, attended.
   U.S. officials protesting the Mexican soldiers' interference (story) noted that arrangements had been made for the Marines' participation and that they had followed the instructions of Mexican authorities. The Marines had wanted to bring M-16s for a 21-gun salute, but brought nonworking ceremonial rifles instead.
   The Mexican Foreign Ministry said later that it regretted the incident but insisted the Mexican soldiers had just been doing their duty.

   Oh!pinion's view: The Mexicans' behavior was sheer petty nonsense, with a bit of spite thrown in. It was a perfect example of how people in a smaller, poorer, weaker country feel toward their big, rich, powerful and sometimes overbearing neighbor, the United States.
   What the Mexican soldiers' actions really said to their U.S. counterparts was: You people like to act as though the world is your playpen and you can go anywhere and do whatever you want. Well, you're in Mexico, where we have our own laws — laws even you must obey.
   Thus, it's not surprising that the U.S. embassy in Mexico City's request for an explanation resulted in a lame, unsatisfying reply. No way does the Mexican government want to be seen as being apologetic after having been called on the carpet for bad behavior. That would, in the Mexicans' eyes, amount to loss of face.
   So, the Mexicans' behavior was both understandable and wrong. The best response would've been for the U.S. ambassador to point out publicly, to the Mexican media, that the U.S. understands Mexicans' autonomy and their desire to assert their laws and national integrity in such matters, so the U.S. seeks no formal explanation or apology.
   However, the ambassador should've said, official words of regret might be appreciated by the grieving family members and friends of Lance Cpl. Rangel, for it was they who were discomfited by this poorly timed and seemingly mistaken exercise of authority.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:33 PM

 
Kerry-Edwards our ticket to better future
   Sen. John Kerry's selection of Sen. John Edwards as his running mate is a good one; a Kerry-Edwards administration will serve this country well, if voters give them the chance.
   Once Kerry became the presumptive nominee, the North Carolina senator moved to close ranks and give his full support without skipping a beat. He has since campaigned actively and well for Kerry.
   Edwards' lively and engaging stump speaking, the openness and good grace he exhibited during the primaries, and his considerable debating skills make him a formidable addition to the Democratic ticket. His youth and vitality, not to mention his populist appeal, will shine especially bright when seen side by side with the flat, dry, board chairman's drone of Vice President Dick Cheney.
   Edwards is the product of a so-called red state, the South, a small town and a working-class background. He's a Christian, a devoted husband and father.
   Edwards is also a successful trial attorney with a record of seeking compensation for families and children harmed by businesses. Some will refuse to accept that career choice as anything but a scourge. We suspect people who feel that way are those who've never suffered serious harm because of something a business improperly did or wrongly failed to do. Or, maybe they're connected with a business that has at some point been obliged to make whole someone the business has harmed.
   As a first-term senator, Edwards has acquitted himself well. Were something to happen to Kerry, he can be counted on to do a good job as president. Edwards is unquestionably better-educated, more savvy and possesses far better leadership instincts than the current occupant of the White House, who was the least qualified and prepared person to become president in our lifetime.
   America can easily do better for leadership than settle for more of what George W. Bush, Cheney and their administration have delivered. With Kerry and Edwards, the country can easily do much, much better.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 6:04 PM

 
Fox News move over, CNN's on the job
   No sooner had Sen. John Kerry announced Sen. John Edwards would be his running mate than the Republican noise machine began cranking out everything its slime-job specialists could think of to drive up both Democrats' negatives.
   As an added fillip, the Bush-Cheney campaign released a video showing Sen. John McCain, whom, regrettably, Kerry at one point tried to woo into running with him, gushing over President Bush and joining in a bear hug with Bush.
   All that is to be expected from the anything-to-win gang, of course. Harder to appreciate was CNN's all-day cavalcade of Republicans, each giving his or her personal take on how utterly inadequate, knavish, inexperienced, "out of the mainstream," terrible, miserable, awful, icky, foolish, no good and all-around bad Edwards is.
   For example, someone at CNN thought it important to note that Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, after at first making a gentlemanly statement about the Edwards choice, came back later with a more negative statement. Of course, Frist was shown making the more-negative statement. Were we shown Minority Leader Tom Daschle's reaction? How about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's reaction? Well, no and no.
   And, whenever there was a lull in the all-day din of official Republican negative reactions, CNN trotted out good old Bill Schneider, Bob Novak, Tucker Carlson, Carlos Watson, Victoria Clarke (a former member of the Bush administration) or some other member of its stable of mostly Republican-friendly pundits to point out every perceived weakness, flaw, failing or potential drawback they could think of concerning Edwards as a candidate or vice president.
   While it's true that Paul Begala and a couple of other Democrats were brought on to talk up Edwards and the choice of him as Kerry's No. 2., and Time's Joe Klein seemed favorably disposed, it was obvious that on both an elapsed-air-time basis and number of con vs. pro talking heads basis, CNN spent the day doing a number on Edwards, and on Kerry's choice of him.

Was this glaring imbalance deliberate because of the network's increasingly apparent pro-Republican leanings? Was it a bid to win over Fox News fans? Or did it come about simply because no one at CNN bothered to be careful about balance?

We don't know exactly what's going on. But whatever's behind the day's tilted coverage, CNN should realize some of us notice it and find it both unprofessional and unacceptable.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 5:41 PM

 
GOP does oversight with a jaundiced eye
   Oversight is one of Congress' chief responsibilities. It's all about looking into what individual officials, agencies and branches of government are doing and how they're doing it.
   Congressional oversight is essential to identifying and dealing with problems; sometimes, for preventing problems; and often for zeroing in on things overlooked or neglected. Well handled, oversight can result in new legislation or refinement of existing legislation. It can improve efficiency and minimize waste.
   Rep. Henry Waxman of California is the ranking Democrat on the House committee dealing with oversight and an expert about it. He has just written a scathing criticism of how Congress' oversight function has degenerated into just one more partisan weapon in the Republicans' arsenal:
"Free Pass From Congress."
   Waxman's dissatisfaction isn't just minority-party grumbling. He lays out facts that speak for themselves. Here's just one example:
   Waxman's bottom line is short, to the point and utterly damning:
   Waxman's op-ed should be required reading for anyone who's going to vote for a U.S. representative and/or senator in November.
   You're invited to learn more about how Congress works under total Republican control from our March 1 post, "`Nightline' zeroes in on Medicare bill scandal."

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 2:30 PM

 
Blanks, smoke and mirrors for July 4 crowd
   The president who won't acknowledge it, for obvious political reasons, spent part of the July 4th holiday wowing crowds of West Virginians who don't get it.
   From an Associated Press story:
   The "it" Bush won't acknowledge is that Saddam Hussein, a few contacts with terrorists and payments to families of suicide bombers notwithstanding, was not in league with al Qaeda, the Taliban or Osama bin Laden. Neither Saddam nor any other Iraqis had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attack.
   Bush's statement that invading Iraq and bringing down Saddam's regime has spared Americans from terrorist attacks in the U.S. is as solidly grounded in fact or even sound reasoning as all those statements he and others in his administration made about weapons of mass destruction.
   As for those cheering West Virginians, none are so blind, as they say.
   One detail Bush did not mention in his July 4th speech is the cost of his regime-change adventure to American soldiers: 940 lives lost in combat, 5,457 wounded in combat and more than 11,000 injured or ill who didn't get that way in combat per se.
   Credit for that last number goes to PBS' "NOW," which detailed the high noncombat cost our people are paying in Iraq in an excellent report from June 18 that we just spotted thanks to Buzzflash.
   Here's a sample:
   "Not showing up in these numbers." Why would that be? Well, that's what really puts the George W. Bush stamp on this.
   Not surprisingly, even fittingly, the AP story mentioned two people in the West Virginia turnout for Bush's visit were taken out in restraints by police. The two said they were told this happened because they were "wearing shirts that said they opposed the president."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 7:17 PM

 
Trade deficit danger — another warning
he U.S. budget deficit looks like small change beside its staggering trade deficit that's been growing at record annual levels for more than two decades.
   That we Americans keep buying so much more from foreign sources than we sell abroad, year after year, represents an act of defying economic gravity. In doing this, we're actually borrowing. Foreign governments, banks and corporations hold all this huge and mounting debt.
   Like Wylie Coyote out over the edge of a sheer cliff, at some point our spinning legs will no longer keep us aloft; we'll look down and then . . . oooooooooh nooooooooo, bam! That will be the time when foreign sources no longer extend us credit and begin demanding payment, in large chunks, of debts we've already racked up.
   We've detailed this imminent danger before, sometimes feeling like a voice in the wilderness. Collateral support always being welcome, we were relieved to read the good sense John Cassidy makes of things in an interesting commentary about Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan at the New Yorker site:
   Especially in an election year, this should be front and center as part of the national political debate. People ought to be up in arms. Politicians ought to be coming up with plans to apply the brakes, stop, then reverse course.
   Why isn't this happening? Oh, ignorance of economics, hubris, the fact that too many wealthy and powerful interests perceive the status quo as their endless up escalator to more wealth and power. (We're talking about the same escalator that got so much heavy use in the late 1920s.)
   But we suspect that most of all this great and imminent economic danger goes largely ignored because both the consequences of acting and of failing to act are so painful and difficult that they're unthinkable. Kind of like nuclear annihilation or collision of Earth with a big asteroid.
   Even so, if you're writing your U.S. representative or senator, or get the chance to ask a question at a political rally, you might raise this matter of our untenable trade deficit situation. You're more likely to get singing and tap dancing than a serious, sensible response. But at least you will have made the person aware we're not all willing to go over the cliff without a murmur.

  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:33 AM

 
Congress should back up e-mail privacy
   E-mail has become an essential form of communication for millions of Americans in a time of intensifying communication needs and responsibilities. So, when a federal appeals court makes a ruling that breathtakingly undermines e-mail as a medium for exchanging information with even a modest expectation of privacy, corrective legislation is called for.
   This ruling by the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Massachusetts ironically came during the past week, just in time for the annual celebration of America's freedom and independence. In question was the legality of a principal of an Internet service provider copying and reading e-mails stored on the ISP's computers, in transit to and from subscribers. Apparently, this person, who was subsequently indicted for violating the federal Wiretap Act, was seeking a business advantage by accessing information in some of the e-mails.
   An excellent eWeek story describes the court's thinking:
   A New York Times editorial includes the very different thinking of one First Circuit judge:
   That is a clear and compelling point, one that makes the reasoning of the court's other two judges seem strained if not tortured.

   Unencrypted e-mail is not and has never been very secure. Those with the knowhow and the means have been able to intercept and read e-mails all along. The Wiretap Act protects citizens' e-mails from government snooping — a protection not affected by the court's ruling. Under the law, law enforcement or other government people must provide a judge with a compelling reason to access people's e-mail and get permission before proceeding.
   The likely result of the First Circuit ruling will be that those with something to hide will be sure to start encrypting their e-mails right away, along with some especially cautious ordinary people. In time, software vendors and e-mail services will probably make encryption a standard, easy-to-use feature.
   Privacy interest groups are already calling for Congress to change the Wiretap Act so that private e-mails will be protected from snooping the way phone calls and regular mail are now. The Times editorial anticipates those pleas will fall on deaf ears because of concerns about terrorism.
   That would be a lame excuse. As stated, those with something to hide, which certainly includes would-be terrorists, will employ highly effective, easily available encryption. Failure of Congress to act promptly and intelligently on this matter won't bolster the war on terrorism one bit. All such a lapse will really do is ensure that individuals and businesses will be all the more vulnerable to embarrassment, legal mischief, blackmail, workplace privacy intrusions and corporate espionage.
   That's not good enough; Congress should get cracking.

   For more: the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 3:14 PM

 
A prayer for the future of mankind
   "To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
   "We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings, those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibility; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others, will learn charity, and that the sources — scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth; and that in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love."


  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 11:32 AM

 
Young voters poll is bad news for Bush
   A Newsweek GENext Poll finds under-30 Americans decisively reject President George W. Bush's leadership in foreign and domestic policy, and the war on terror.
   What's more, the poll finds three-fourths of those surveyed are following the election closely, with four in five saying who wins "matters a lot."
   If these young Americans are good about registering and voting, and especially if they get their friends to participate, Bush & Co. had better start updating their resumés and filling out change-of-address cards.
   The poll's result provided more reassuring news than just that young people have tuned in and gotten Bush's number. There is a decidedly positive pro-Kerry movement afoot among the young.
   Ralph "I Resent Being Called a Spoiler" Nader, who late in the week struck out at getting on the ballot in Arizona, did not fare well in the GENext Poll, either.
   What do you want to bet Fox News will not be able to find time to discuss this particular poll?
   For the record, the poll was conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs and has a margin of error of 5.1 percentage points. Ipsos interviewed 365 registered voters 18 to 29 years old between June 1 and June 15. Some questions were asked of 351 voters from April 5 to 18.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:10 PM

 
It ain't easy being Bushwhacked
   "We're witnessing steady growth, steady growth. We don't need boom-or-bust type growth. We want just steady, consistent growth so our fellow citizens will be able to find a job." — President George W. Bush, speaking to a group of small-business owners at the White House today.
   Here's how a Reuters story described the latest employment statistics:
   Funny, but when the pace of hirings was increasing, Bush & Co. insisted we look at the trend, specifically focusing on the short term. Now, we're supposed to step back and look past what on a graph would appear to be a tumble down a steep hill, basically ignoring a big downtick, to see "steady growth."
   Since Bush was waxing satisfied with steady progress to small-business people, we found the following item especially timely.
   Payroll service company SurePayroll released its Small Business Scorecard today, under a headline, "Small Biz Hiring Up, Salaries Down." The Scorecard notes a 2.6 percent gain in small-business over the first quarter of 2004.
   The report also finds the use of "independent contractors" is up notably. That's significant from a job-quality standpoint because, typically, independent contractors work for straight pay on an as-needed basis. They have none of the rights or benefits of regular employees. In a downturn, they needn't be laid off; they're just not called on to work. When that happens, they may not even be counted as unemployed.
   If it strikes you that all the advantage accrues to small-business employers, you get a gold star by your name for today.
   As surely as he wants to get re-elected, Bush won't get into inconvenient details of what most of the jobs being created on his watch are like. Hey, a job's a job, right?
   Most of today's jobholders and independent contractors are expected not only to do more with less, but in a shorter work week — for which, of course, they will receive a smaller paycheck. The Reuters story included this eye opener:
   And those Republicans who did so much talking-up of a seeming return of manufacturing jobs may have to sit down and shut up because of this, from the same story:
   All of this will help Bush retain his dubious distinction of being the only president since Herbert Hoover to rack up a net job loss in a four-year term. His one-bad-idea economic policy, which he insisted on repeating three times, was a bad deal for America's working people and out-of-work people, as unfolding economic performance data keep showing.
   You might think Bush would be looking about for something to do that might work better, but no. He's actually calling for making his screwup trifecta permanent, by making his tax cuts permanent.
He's not just wrong, he's incorrigible.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 12:02 AM

 
Tour de farce deserves no encore
t's all over but the demagoguery and mudslinging.
   The Cotton Mather wing of Senate Republicans saw any chance for their bid to put forth an anti-same-sex marriage amendment to the Constitution dissolve Wednesday. It went down in a procedural vote, mustering support from only 48 senators in a chamber Republicans control.
   Due to an unusual outbreak of divisiveness among Senate Republicans, the amendment itself never got an up or down vote.
   CNN congressional correspondent Ed Henry offered the following observation shortly before senators voted:
   Indeed, Republicans desperately want — and need — the kind of cheap-shot takedown they scored against Mike Dukakis by demagoging the Willie Horton affair in 1988, and more recently in costing Max Cleland of Georgia his Senate seat by outrageously characterizing him as soft on terrorism and less than patriotic.
   Amendment supporters vowed they will bring it back, saying they had made a principled stand. That served to highlight how very elastic conservative Republicans' principles are. For decades, they regularly championed states' rights and railed against imposing more federal laws and regulations on families and individuals.
   These arguments were especially prominent during the long civil rights struggle, often accompanied by conservative Republicans' outrage at what they disdainfully called "social engineering."
   The amendment to block same-sex marriage, however, would've intruded federal law into marital and family law, which have been the province of the states since 1776. And where the rest of the Constitution is concerned with declaring, affirming and safeguarding the rights of individual citizens, the amendment would've specifically denied individuals a right.

   This interesting metamorphosis in conservative Republican principles was cast in stark relief in an exchange between CNN's Lou Dobbs and amendment co-sponsor Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., on Dobbs' program Wednesday:
   Emphasis in the preceding paragraph is ours, put there to highlight what can only be called social engineering.
   While it's true, going by percentages, that the traditional family as depicted in the 1950s TV series "Father Knows Best" results in more well-raised, well-adjusted and well-educated young adults who are better equipped to raise children of their own than alternatives do, this is not a matter of choosing a quality control model for a widget factory.
   When we're considering imposing the full weight of federal law on individual human beings, we have to keep in mind they stand as equals before the law. What that means is, a gay or lesbian who wants to get married to someone they love stands equal to heterosexual man or woman with the same desire. The same goes for raising children.
   The law, as a matter of equity, of justice, can't presuppose that, because of percentages, any particular person who doesn't fit the majority mold will be an unfit parent, simply by virtue of their status as a gay or lesbian. Were it otherwise, the federal government might well find justification for fiendishly forcing sterilization on people of racial minorities and people who are poor, based on the percentages of people from those backgrounds who wind up being imprisoned for felonies.

   Instead of trying to use this as a wedge issue in the election, Brownback, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and others pushing the anti-same-sex marriage amendment ought to sit down with the Constitution. They should try hard to better comprehend the parts affirming that "all men are created equal" and are endowed by their creator with a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 9:48 PM

 
Saddam goes to court; CNN goes ape
   Looking as though he'd aged 20 years in the last two, Saddam Hussein sat before a judge of the Iraqi interim government today for a preliminary proceeding. Saddam used the occasion to ask questions, utter insults and otherwise spar with the judge, who was unerringly polite, patient and firm.
   That, in one paragraph, is the gist of the news out of Baghdad today. It certainly is significant. It, and how the Iraqi public viewed and felt about seeing their former tormentor beginning to face justice deserved coverage.
   But anyone watching the cable news channels today, especially CNN, might easily have gotten the impression it was the biggest news since VJ Day, or at least Sept. 11, 2001. Hour after hour, in segment after segment of discussion and speculation, every detail, every angle was hashed and rehashed, chewed on, warmed over and served again as leftovers. The obvious was overstated and then repeated. Between retellings, the story was hyped to death.
   You'd think what took place was a legal big deal. The reality is that this was the justice system equivalent of a baby step. And the aged thug before the judge behaved as you'd expect.
   To watch this orgy of overdoing it, you'd think Saddam Hussein was a bigger fish of an evil dictator than Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Josef Stalin put together. And that's the problem: ridiculous overcoverage and related overhyping of the coverage distorting the news itself.
   The 24-7 cable news operations are well out of their infancy. It's past time for them to start exhibiting some mature news judgment.
  — By S.W. Anderson
¶ 8:14 PM