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