Arianna to BoWoo: U R the Dumb Blonde of Journalism

Arianna and many others at the HuffingtonPost.com (including writer/director/producer Nora Ephron -- also ex-wife of Carl Bernstein) keep the pressure on yet another disgraceful former journalist, Bob Woodward, in the most recent HuffPo blog posts. I particularly appreciated Arianna digging out this gem of a Joan Didion quote:

In her scathing 1996 essay in the New York Review of Books, Joan Didion criticized Woodward's reporting as marked by "a scrupulous passivity, an agreement to cover the story not as it is occurring but as it is presented, which is to say as it is manufactured."

That last concept obviously brings to mind (Herman &) Chomsky's seminal work Manufacturing Consent, both book and documentary.

I believe that far-too-frequent form of complicity, dissembling and lack of critical engagement is a major reason the public has understandably lost confidence in the Fourth Estate (see my previous posts about journalism, and here's a cogent example from TruthDig about what's happening at the LA Times (and other major newspapers across the nation) -- I'd much prefer it happen to Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, etc but print media is taking the biggest hit right now and will continue to be diminished as it exists in its classic form.

Read Arianna's blog here and Ephron's here.

Law & Order SVU: wow!

Talk about the good ole days of investigative journalism, journalists with authentic principles and all those (fairy?) tales from long ago -- tonight's L&O SVU took some major unexpected twisty turns from what appears to be standard child abduction fare into Patriot-Act land, anthrax and bioweapons, with allusions to Halliburton and the sociopathic, greedy, ruthless military industrial complex, sending chills up my spine big-time. Who couldn't help relenting and finally swooning over the handsome, jerky-but-ultimately-courageous, truly principled journalist right along with beautiful, strong truth-loving Olivia?

If only certain aspects of real life could be more like great fiction (like real journalists in case you haven't been following a theme here). If you missed it, keep an eye out for the rerun of the episode entitled "Storm" -- USA network will air it on Sunday, 12/11 at 11PM.

The Myth of Bush as a "Leader"

Couldn't move on without saying a big 'HURRAH' about this insightful post by Kathleen Reardon, a Phi Beta Kappa professor of management and organization at the University of Southern California. She shines a concise light on the oxymoronic 'detached' leadership style in evidence at the White House the past five years.

The "leader" who doesn't listen is the leader who doesn't learn. This is a frightening being convinced of its own flawlessness, intolerant and disdainful of disagreement. People like this are chosen for leadership when we fall for the bravado -- the conviction charade -- the walk, the talk, the condescension and indifference.

... We now have in the highest office in the land a man who is a walking antithesis to the demands of the time. He doesn't communicate. Delegate and disappear is his leadership style. We wait for him to snap out of it, to explain the war or the plan, but he can't stop sneering, patronizing, demeaning, or taking delight in the mere completion of a speech. He loves the trappings of power, the multiple flags, and the nodding uniformed legions standing expressionless at his back. It's a stage set...

....But before we blame all the detachment on George, or mistakenly consider him the cause, we need to see how insidious the spread of this illness in the name of leadership has become in our culture.

Way to go, prof.

Dan Froomkin's blog covers related topics:

What does it say about the president of the United States that he won't go anywhere near ordinary citizens any more? And that he'll only speak to captive audiences?

President Bush's safety zone these days doesn't appear to extend very far beyond military bases, other federal installations and Republican fundraisers.

No doubt the catalyst to all this discussion (about 6 years too late, I might add) started with the recent comments by "he's-on-a-roll, let's-keep-him-talking" former chief of staff to Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson. He is quoted by Associated Press reporter Anne Gearan as saying this about Bush:

[He] was "too aloof, too distant from the details" of post-war planning, allowing underlings to exploit Bush's detachment and make bad decisions.

Now he tells us!

In Salon.com > Jews and the Christian right: Is the honeymoon over?

Excerpts from a riveting, must-read piece by Michelle Goldberg at Salon.com:

On Nov. 3, Abraham Foxman gave a speech to an ADL meeting, calling attacks on church-state separation the "key domestic challenge to the American Jewish community and to our democratic values." "[T]oday we face a better financed, more sophisticated, coordinated, unified, energized, and organized coalition of groups in opposition to our policy positions on church-state separation than ever before," he said. "Their goal is to implement their Christian worldview. To Christianize America. To save us!" Among the major players in this campaign, Foxman listed Focus on the Family, the Alliance Defense Fund, the American Family Association and the Family Research Council.

...Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism...approaches the issue from a religious rather than a political perspective.

"We are particularly offended by the suggestion that the opposite of the religious right is the voice of atheism," he told his audience. "We are appalled when 'people of faith' is used in such a way that it excludes us, as well as most Jews, Catholics and Muslims. What could be more bigoted than to claim that you have a monopoly on God and that anyone who disagrees with you is not a person of faith?"

Much of Yoffie's sermon argued that for many Jews, liberalism is the result of religious values, not their antithesis. Being a liberal believer, he said, "means believing that religion involves concern for the poor and the needy, and giving a fair shake to all. When people talk about God and yet ignore justice, it just feels downright wrong to us. When they cloak themselves in religion and forget mercy, it strikes us as blasphemy. "

And then he launched into the most controversial part of his sermon -- an impassioned denunciation of right-wing homophobia that invoked the historical parallel of Nazism. "We understand those who believe that the Bible opposes gay marriage, even though we read that text in a very different way," he said. "But we cannot understand why any two people who make a lifelong commitment to each other should be denied legal guarantees that protect them and their children and benefit the broader society. We cannot forget that when Hitler came to power in 1933, one of the first things that he did was ban gay organizations. And today, we cannot feel anything but rage when we hear about gay men and women, some on the front lines, being hounded out of our armed services. Yes, we can disagree about gay marriage. But there is no excuse for hateful rhetoric that fuels the hellfires of anti-gay bigotry." (my emphases)













....Throughout the last decade, the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups had reached a kind of accommodation with the religious right that was based in part on Christian leaders toning down their more theocratic rhetoric. In 1995, Ralph Reed, then the executive director of the Christian Coalition, addressed the ADL and apologetically acknowledged that much of his movement's language alarmed Jews. "This is true not only of the blatant wrongs of a few -- those who claimed that 'God does not hear the prayers of Jews,' those who said that this is a 'Christian nation,' suggesting that others may not be welcome, and those who say that the only prayers uttered in public school should be Christian prayers. It is also true because of the thoughtless lapses of many -- the use of religious-military metaphors, a false and patronizing philo-Semitism, and the belief that being pro-Israel somehow answers for all other insensitivity to Jewish concerns."

Such sensitivity has virtually vanished from today's religious right, replaced with a triumphalist religious nationalism. Foxman was especially alarmed by the situation at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., where, according to numerous reports, a climate of outright religious bigotry prevailed. Some faculty members introduced themselves to their classes as born-again Christians and encouraged their charges to convert. Upperclassmen exerted similar pressure on undergraduates; one Jewish cadet was slurred as a Christ killer. Several cadets have filed a lawsuit.

Even more disturbing to Foxman than the abuses themselves was the religious right's response when they came to light. Few were apologetic -- instead, they declared themselves the victims. When Democratic Rep. David Obey offered an amendment to a defense appropriations bill calling for an investigation into the situation at the academy, Republican John Hostettler stood up and said, "The long war on Christianity in America continues today on the floor of the House of Representatives."

...Foxman said in his speech, "Make no mistake: We are facing an emerging Christian right leadership that intends to 'Christianize' all aspects of American life, from the halls of government to the libraries, to the movies, to recording studios, to the playing fields and local rooms of professional collegiate and amateur sport, from the military to SpongeBob SquarePants."

Given this onslaught, Jews can't simply cede their place in America in exchange for support for Israel. Speaking of those who caution him not to disturb the Jewish-evangelical alliance, Foxman says, "If we cannot disagree, what kind of a friendship is it?"

A sub-heading asks: Will Jews speaking out lead to an anti-Semitic backlash?

Satisfying, solid food for thought and encouraging as an opportunity for renewing a vigorous, necessary dialogue, (although I'm sure Dr. Laura and Dennis Praeger are among those who will continue their unquestioning alliance to the radical, intolerant, bigoted right). Thanks Salon.com and writer Michelle Goldberg. Complete article here.

Madame President? Review of two new Hillary & Condi books

Journalist, author and professor Steve Roberts (husband of Cokie) reviews Susan (bleh) Estrich's book, The Case for Hillary and Dick (double, no triple yuk) Morris' book CONDI VS. HILLARY: The Next Great Presidential Race in the 11/27/05 issue of Book World.

Estrich also stated her case (unconvincingly) online in the WaPo Book World Live discussion today. Most of the posters / questioners showed far more pragmatism than Estrich (hey I mostly like HRC, but no way in hell she does anything but unite the vitriol of the right-wing red-staters to get another RepugnaCon elected prez in 08!). Meanwhile, Roberts gets this exactly right about both Estrich and Morris:

Estrich and Morris are both former Democratic strategists who appear regularly on Fox News, and at times they indulge in the cartoonish blather that replaces serious conversation on many cable outlets. ...

These authors share another trait common to cable commentators: relentless self-promotion.

The review is mostly on track (great virtues of idealism, little reality of it happening with either Hillary or Condi), but while he acknowledges the still-present reality of sexism (without actually mentioning the word), he never grapples with the deeply embedded and also present racism which is still very much a defining part of our culture.

And although Roberts concludes that "the odds strongly favor a candidate other than Clinton or Rice. And that's too bad. Liberia just elected a woman president, for goodness sake, and it's long past time for the United States to do the same," he doesn't acknowledge that most likely the only way (IMHO) for Hillary to win in 2008 would be if Condi (or another person of color, particularly of African descent) heads the Republican ticket. That's because (while unspoken, it doesn't even take the awful, recent memories of hurricane Katrina -- just honesty -- to know that for the most part) racism still trumps sexism in the good ole US of A, especially for something as emotional as presidential elections.

Military historian calls for Bush impeachment

Came across this in the UK Guardian--Iraq invasion "described as the most foolish war in over 2,000 years" ....

Professor van Creveld has previously drawn parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, and pointed out that almost all countries that have tried to fight similar wars during the last 60 years or so have ended up losing. Why President Bush "nevertheless decided to go to war escapes me and will no doubt preoccupy historians to come," he told one interviewer.

...The inescapable fact is that the processes Mr Bush unleashed on March 20 2003 (and imagined he had ended with his "mission accomplished" speech six weeks later) will take a decade or more to run their course and there is little that anyone, even the US, can do now to halt them.

In his eagerness for regime change in Iraq, Mr Bush blundered into a trap from which in the short term there is no way out: the Americans will be damned if they stay and damned if they leave.

Martin van Creveld is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers. Conclusion from the professor's Forward article entitled Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War:

For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins.

Who Would Jesus Torture? Abandonment of the Golden Rule by BushCo & the Fundies

How convenient that the foundational Jesus-mandated 'Golden Rule' is out of the picture in this 'faith-based, bible-is-inerrant' admin when it comes to torture.

No hint of shame or irony whatsoever while Bush was chastising the Chinese about their lack of religious freedom while the other president and his cronies are the pro-torture party lobbying hard.

Others have dissected it better than I ever could here, here, here and here.

Ends justify the means anyone?

What the military values most (hint: it ain't people)

Rumsfield and those guys really know how to take care of their wounded, don't they?

Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jamie Dana was critically injured -- bleeding internally, her lungs collapsed, her spine fractured, her pelvis broken. In her last moment of consciousness, she asked in desperation about her comrade. "Where's Rex?" she pleaded. When no one answered, she grabbed a medic's arm. "Where's my dog? Is he dead?"

The medic told her that he was. "I felt like my heart broke," she recalled. "It's the last thing I remember."

Weeks passed before Dana would understand that the medic was mistaken and that Rex was alive. The German shepherd was burned slightly on his nose while Dana teetered at life's edge, doctors unable to assure her family that she would survive.













...Dana asked Air Force leaders if she could adopt Rex. The answer was no; it was against the rules, and Rex was still valuable to the military.

...the Air Force had turned her down twice. Adopting Rex, officials said in an Oct. 21 letter to Peterson, would not be "a legal or advisable use of Air Force assets, in spite of the sentimental value and potential healing effects it might produce."

Rex was a MWD -- military working dog -- the letter said, with "5 to 9 years of good use" left. It noted: "MWDs are worth about $18K out of training. Consequently, Rex is very valuable to both the unit and the Air Force."

Rex is, but Dana's not apparently.

In Congress, several lawmakers have taken up her cause, including Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), who is working to attach to a Defense appropriations bill a provision that would allow Rex's adoption. The measure is expected to emerge from a conference committee by the middle of next month and must face votes in both houses.

What the military values most (hint: it ain't people)



So how about writing your Senators and congressional reps to weigh in on this issue on behalf of Dana and Rex?


WaPo Link

Lady Dedlock comes to DVD

Bright news for other Gillian Anderson fans:

Bleak House - Gillian (X-Files) Anderson's New Show Planned For Feb 2006 DVD Release

by David Lambert
11/16/2005

Gillian Anderson will forever be remembered as "Agent Dana Scully" in 1993's long-running series The X-Files, but these days she stars in a very different type of series. She's been living in the U.K. since 2002 (she also spent about nine years of her childhood there, starting at age 2), and so it's no surprise that her current show airs on BBC-1. She plays "Lady Honoria Dedlock" in the new program Bleak House, based on the classic Charles Dickens novel of the same name. Other stars include Denis Lawson ("Wedge Antilles" of Star Wars fame), Anna Maxwell Martin, Patrick Kennedy, Carey Mulligan, Charles Dance and Inspector Lynley Mysteries star Nathaniel Parker.

So far, six episodes of the new Bleak House have aired on BBC-1, out of a planned 15-part adaption of Dickens' story about injustice in the British legal system. That may sound a bit like a downer, but there is a lot to this story and it will certainly draw you in. Many people (critics, viewers) are calling this adaption "magnificent" and other superlatives; at this point the series is clearly a winner and well worth a look. Because of that, BBC Video in North America plans to bring this to DVD quickly: they are scheduling a 3-DVD set ($39.98 SRP) for release on February 28th. That date is timed to coincide with the end of a 6-week run of the show as broadcast on PBS affiliate WGBH. Here is how BBC and distributor Warner Home Video describe this:

? BBC reinvigorates the costume drama in this new production of one of Dickens' greatest masterpieces. Starring Gillian Anderson ("The X-Files") and re-imagined by Andrew Davies (Pride & Prejudice), it is sure to become an instant classic.

? An all-star cast comes together to bring to life some of Dickens' most famous creations. There is the icily beautiful Lady Dedlock (Gillian Anderson), who faces the revelation of her dark past once Mr. Tulkinghorn (Charles Dance), her husband's sinister lawyer, catches wind of it. Then there's Esther, whose own background, shrouded in mystery, begins to come to light after the murder of a strange man. Adopted by the kindly John Jarndyce, Esther acts as chaperone to wards Ada and Richard. But will the passionate young love of Ada and Richard survive Richard's obsession with Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, a legal case which seems to have no resolution in sight and threatens to destroy all who become entangled in it?

From:
http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=4512

I wonder when it will show up on PBS and Masterpiece Theatre?

One strange note, much as I love the girl (woman), how weird is it that she now speaks with a British accent? Maybe it's the 'actors as chameleons' phenomenon, but I do find it more than slightly strange, notwithstanding the fact that she lived there until she was a young lass of nine years (see the Richard & Judy show interview clip). Does that mean when she was in the states she was faking her 'North American' accent? Like I said, it was just somewhat bizarre seeing/hearing her speak like a Brit with a bit o' the cockney if I heard correctly. You can download a couple of her new Brit accent clips here.

Animal Cruelty is Universal, Humans are Disgusting

Bird knocks over dominoes, meets tragic end for gaffe
Associated Press
LA Daily News

A sparrow knocked over 23,000 dominoes in the Netherlands, nearly ruining a world record attempt before it was shot to death Monday, the state news agency reported.

The unfortunate bird flew through an open window at an exposition center in the northern city of Leeuwarden where employees of television company Endemol NV have worked for weeks setting up more than 4 million dominoes in an attempt to break the official Guinness World Record for falling dominoes on Friday night.

Only a system of 750 built-in gaps in the chain prevented the bird from knocking most or all of the dominoes over ahead of schedule, "Domino Day" organizers were quoted as saying by the NOS news agency.

The bird was shot by an exterminator with an air rifle while cowering in a corner.

The organizers are out to break their own record of 3,992,397 dominoes set last year with a new record of 4,321,000.

Fucking assholes. I hope they fail. Why can't Pat Robertson do something useful for a change and sic God on these vermin?

More double standards & moves toward theocracy at FDA

Probe Finds FDA Deviated in Morning-After Pill Decision
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
Times Staff Writer

2:04 PM PST, November 14, 2005

WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration deviated from its normal scientific and regulatory procedures when it withheld approving the morning-after birth control pill for use without a prescription, congressional investigators said today.

The conclusion by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office bolstered charges by critics that the agency had yielded to pressure from social conservatives, who fear that easier access to the drug will encourage promiscuity.

The contraceptive, marketed as Plan B, is now available only by prescription, and a decision on whether it can be sold over-the-counter is in regulatory limbo.

In an examination of a 2004 FDA ruling that kept Plan B available only by prescription, the GAO found that "four aspects of [the] review process were unusual," and that the entire decision was "not typical," compared to how other drugs were handled.

This year, another round of delays by the agency added to the controversy.

"GAO's final report describes an appalling level of manipulation and suppression of the science," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), who requested the inquiry.

Based on scientific reviews, three separate FDA offices and two panels of outside advisers had recommended that Plan B be approved for sale without a prescription. But the GAO found that the agency's top management blocked the decision from going forward.

In a written response to congressional investigators, the FDA defended its decision, saying there was nothing unusual about the involvement of top officials in high-profile decisions.

"GAO finds what parents would want: that the FDA handled a controversial drug with great caution," said Wendy Wright, policy director for Concerned Women for America, a conservative group that opposes making Plan B available without a prescription.

Susan F. Wood, who once headed the women's health office at the FDA, said the GAO report showed that the agency has lost its independence.

"The decision was contrary to the evidence and contrary to the consensus that had been reached by all the review levels below," said Wood, who resigned this summer in protest over the FDA's delays on Plan B.

Time to get a clue America! Who do you want making your medical decisions: you and your doctor or the Feds, the preachers, the busybodies?

No More American Leaders (certainly not in national politics)

As I've written before (somewhere if not here), the next election cycles are Dems to lose and they seem intent on doing just that! Ron Brownstein of the LATimes (and now married to former CNN producer Eileen McMenamin, Arizona Senator John McCain's communications director) writes in his current column entitled "Spoils Go to Party Most Apt to Adapt":

....Democrats have focused more on blocking Republican initiatives than defining their own.

Through the last year, Democrats have proved surprisingly disciplined at resisting many of Bush's plans. What they haven't done is coalesce behind comprehensive solutions to the problems most concerning the country ....

Raising questions about Bush's priorities has worked well for Democrats in 2005. But if Democrats don't adapt to offer more answers about their own priorities, 2006 may not prove as rewarding as they expect.

The real issues are much deeper than the still-superficial focus on winning and losing that Brownstein writes about.

Richard Rodriguez (of whom I'm not a big fan, but can appreciate aspects of his literary talents, though am usually annoyed by his naive, mostly nonpolitical analysis), actually had a more politically sophisticated essay on tonight's PBS News Hour. He took to task the corrupt power holders (including the churches) who no longer have any concept of authentic leadership (service, facilitation, building up, not tearing down others), only of power, greed, self-aggrandizement and the quest for more, more, more -- all at the expense of citizens (followers, believers, etc) who seem more passive than ever if not enthralled and captured by the spectacle of our own debasement by these corrupt powermongers.

Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter's thoughtful essay "This isn't the real America" echoes Rodriguez' themes with some hard, cold facts:

Our government has abandoned fiscal responsibility by unprecedented favors to the rich, while neglecting America's working families. Members of Congress have increased their own pay by $30,000 per year since freezing the minimum wage at $5.15 per hour (the lowest among industrialized nations).

And when he writes 'government', that means the democrats as well as republicans -- there's enough lack of accountability or conscience to spread around. But finally, we're the ones who put them there, so we voters (and nonvoters) must also be held accountable. And as I've previously opined here on these pages: We get the government we deserve.

Administration Re-writing/re-directing History ... again.

Even speaks-from-both-sides-of-his-mouth Senator John McCain believes dissent and criticism is acceptable, unlike this administration. This morning National Security Council Advisor Stephen Hadley, on CNN with Wolfie, repeatedly hit on the Republican talking point that it was 'unfair' (boo hoo) to question whether the Prez (both of them) lied the American people, and troops, into war. Here's the WaPo coverage of his appearance.

If they had nothing to worry about, if they were confident this never happened, they should be happy the press, dems and critics are off chasing ghosts, if indeed these criticisms amount to nothing. If they have nothing to fear, they should welcome the inquiries. They should throw open the files, the (non-classified & declassified) materials and BEG for transparency in order to get this behind them.

But transparency, much less honesty, has never been a strength of this administration. In fact, quite the opposite as most of the other half of America is finally starting to realize. This White House is truly emblematic of 'stinkin-thinkin' to use the 12-step vernacular. They are far more concerned about appearances and maintaining control, instead of honesty and authenticity. Truly the hallmarks of an alcoholic/addict mindset and modus operandi.

Shrub is most likely surrounded by (nonrecovering) addicts of one form or another, or 'children of addicts' who are also afflicted with this approach to life -- therefore a groupthink mentality (see the works of Irving Janus) combined with obedience to authority (Stanley Milgram & Lawrence Kohlberg & Philip Zimbardo) is the norm to them because they are so steeped in the distorted mindset of alcoholic/addictive thinking (combined with the fervor of the true fanatics of fundamentalist beliefs, which are actually more alike than different when you start reading the literature and research).

And, I think it is completely feasible that shrub never SAW the so-called 'war' memo* (remember he only reads comics & sports), it is HIGHLY LIKELY he received the gist of the information verbally from staff who did read it. He's the imperial ADHD prez, I doubt he has the patience, much less intellectual capacity to comprehend anything he does read that's not about baseball.

OR he communicated something equally as plausible: "Don't tell me what I don't want to hear, tell me what supports going to war."

-------------
David Corn also weighs in on the administration's tactics, distortions and lies. The brilliant and talented Froomkin at WaPo writes about shrub's and the RNC's desperate rhetorical attacks recently launched at those who dare criticize or question the admin's misuse and massaging of intel to mislead this nation into the Iraq debacle:

Bush's argument is deeply flawed. Far from being baseless, the charge that he intentionally misled the public in the run-up to war is built on a growing amount of evidence. And the longer Bush goes without refuting that evidence in detail, the more persuasive it becomes.

And his most prized talking point -- that many Democrats agreed with him at the time -- is problematic. Many of those Democrats did so because they believed the information the president gave them. Now they are coming to the conclusion that they shouldn't have.

Like other Bush campaigns, this one will inevitably feature the ceaseless repetition of key sound bytes -- the hope being that they will be carried, largely unchallenged, by the media -- and virulent attacks by the White House on those who dare to disagree, even going so far as to question their patriotism.

Finally, John Edwards takes a courageous solo step:

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.

Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.

Sure, it's calculated (and maybe even cynical to some degree), but it puts him further ahead in my book than any of the the dems now in national office.

*National Security Memo (first reported in USA Today in 2003) outlining the number of troops necessary to fight a war in Iraq.

Frist & Repugs concerned about leak, not secret prisons

USA Today:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he is more concerned about the leak of information regarding secret CIA detention centers than activity in the prisons themselves.

Meanwhile they continue to insist the leak of Valerie Plame's identity by Rove, Libby, Cheney, Novak, et al is no big deal, no crime, just a piffle. And fuhgeddabout the lies, exaggerations and manipulations to orchestrate invading a sovereign nation (whose bloody dictator we supported, armed and propped up for so long...). Gee, I'm just so shocked at such hypocrisy and double standards.

Incontrovertible PROOF that we are in fact descended from monkeys.

Vote by Kansas School Board Favors Evolution's Doubters

The divided panel urges that 'controversy' over the theory be taught. Science groups call it a bid to inject religion in the classroom.

By Nicholas Riccardi, LA Times Staff Writer

November 9, 2005

TOPEKA, Kan. -- The state Board of Education approved curriculum standards Tuesday that question evolution and redefine science to include concepts other than natural explanations.

The board, in a 6-4 vote, recommended that schools teach the "considerable scientific and public controversy" surrounding the origin of life — a dispute most scientists contend exists only among creationists.

National science groups opposed the measure, and critics contended it was an effort to inject religion into the classroom.

But its advocates said they were interested only in improving science.

"This is a great day for Kansas," board President Steve E. Abrams said. "This absolutely raises science standards."

The dissenters noted that some board members who backed the standards have been outspoken about their faith and have criticized evolution for being offensive to Christianity.

"I'm certainly not here to change anyone's faith, but I wish you were not changing science to fit your faith," board member Carol Rupe said to Abrams.

Added member Janet Waugh: "We're becoming a laughing-stock, not only of the nation but of the world."

Tuesday's vote makes Kansas the fifth state to adopt standards that cast doubt on evolution.

A trial is underway in Pennsylvania over whether teaching intelligent design — a concept that holds life is too complex to have evolved naturally — violates the U.S. Constitution's ban on state promotion of religion.

The National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Assn. — two groups whose material comprises the backbone of Kansas' science standards — told the state in advance that they would revoke copyright privileges if the new standards were approved; the board said that its lawyers would rewrite the document to avoid any violation of the law.

The standards approved Tuesday are not binding on local school districts, and few have said they planned to revise their lesson plans. But educators said there would be pressure to teach intelligent design and creationism because the standards were the basis for statewide testing.

National science groups feared the vote would open the door to anti-evolution movements elsewhere.

"Intelligent design supporters and creationists will hold this up as a standard — go forth and do likewise," said Eugenie C. Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, a group that describes itself as a nonprofit "providing information and resources for schools, parents and concerned citizens working to keep evolution in public school science education."

Intelligent design advocates were ebullient Tuesday. "It's very significant for the students of Kansas," said Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank devoted to intelligent design. "Instead of just the evidence that supports evolution, they're going to see all sides."

Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico and Pennsylvania have adopted standards that encourage questioning of evolution by local school districts.

Kansas' standards present the most explicit challenge to evolution.

Ohio has gone further than the other states by developing a lesson that teachers can use in the classroom.

This is not the first time Kansas has altered its standards to move away from teaching evolution. In 1999, the state approved standards that eliminated all references to evolution. Kansas became the butt of jokes on late-night television, the conservative majority on the board was swept out of office in the 2000 elections, and the anti-evolution standards were repealed.

Religious conservatives recaptured control of the Board of Education last fall amid a statewide campaign against same-sex marriage, and went to work on the new science standards.

This time, the standards make a nod to evolution. But they contend that several aspects of evolution that most scientists believe are settled fact, such as the concept that all living things are biologically related, have been "challenged." They also redefine science to allow for other explanations of events.

The board majority said that "supernatural" explanations would not be discussed in the classroom. "We're talking about the introduction of peer-reviewed science … not creationism," board member Ken Willard said.

Critics said Tuesday that the science the board was citing was an excuse to introduce religion into the classroom.

"This agenda is to have science taught as one particular segment of the Christian faith wants it to be," Missy Taylor, a deacon at her church in a Kansas City suburb, told the board. "As a Christian, I can say it's one particular segment, not mine and not that of thousands of Kansans."

Added Waugh: "Why not be honest and say it is a faith issue? … I personally believe in the biblical version of creationism, but I don't believe that my beliefs should be taught in a science class."

Luskin, however, said that criticism of evolution was good science and the fact that some conservative religious groups backed it was irrelevant. "Once you look at the data," he said, "you see the emperor has no clothes."

The board's action cited popular support in opinion polls as one reason it was changing the science standards to be critical of evolution. That drew approval from at least one constituent who watched the deliberation, Lee Hildebrencht of Manhattan, Kan.

"It's a step in the right direction," the 69-year-old retired postal worker said, adding that he believed in the biblical version of creation. "How is it possible we're descended from apes?"

LATimes.com story. Here's a link to the NYTimes story on the topic.

However, some very good news in Pennsylvania as voters oust school board members who backed intelligent design!

Family guy cartoon explanation can be found here. The other images are self-explanatory.

Congressional (& Judicial) Malpractice

I've been following this story about the horrible, shameful, WRONGFUL death (by neglect and cruelty) of Jonathan Magbie, a 27-year-old quadriplegic who was sentenced to 10-days in jail for marijuana possession, mainly through the columns of Colbert I. King at the Washington Post. I get distraught, angry and heartbroken all over again when I read this Alternet update by Ryan Grim.

[Superior Court Judge Judith] Retchin, an investigation has since determined, had not told the jail that Magbie was a quadriplegic or that he needed a respirator to assist his breathing. Nevertheless, Retchin has not been sanctioned in any way. In fact, she was recently reappointed to the criminal docket. So far, no wrists have been slapped at the jail or at Greater Southeast Community Hospital, either, though all three parties have been thoroughly dragged across the media's coals, mostly by Washington Post op-ed columnist Colbert King.

The story carries this subtitle: The judge who sentenced Jonathan Magbie to jail isn't the only party complicit in his death: the U.S. Congress also played a part in this tragedy.

This Scooter (not Libby) Never Lies & Never Outs CIA Agents who are spouses of political targets

Scooter the charming cat.
A bit of pre-Friday cat blogging.

Malevolent Design Theory

Strong essay in The Revealer today. J. M. Tyree writes: “Why not put forward a raft of other contenders — Kali, Allah, Krishna, Jah, The Force, Cthulhu (image) — for the starring role of Intelligent Designer? Intelligent Design isn't just bad science, it's bad religion.”

Excerpt:

“Despite the new cloaking device of pseudoscientific language, ID is actually a recent mutation of one of the oldest, most persistent, and most tempting of religious ideas, the so-called ... 'argument from design.' It is so ancient, in fact, that one of its earliest proponents was not even Christian. ...

...“Self-defeating and incoherent, Intelligent Design is worse than useless, not only as science but also, one imagines, for religious folks who might be attempting to understand God by working backwards from the world as their body of evidence. Inevitably, one begins to wonder more about cluster munitions than bombardier beetles, and the old problem of evil slips in. If He exists, why does God allow evil? Even if you can explain why God designed cancer and HIV, which is no easy task, you are still left with His role in world events from Darfur to Baghdad and New Orleans. Far from being examples of Intelligent Design that reinforce the Christian message, aren't these kinds of meditations precisely the reasons that many people lose their faith?”

Read the entire post here.

The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect

Roy Peter Clark, Senior Scholar, Poynter Institute called this book Journalism From the Bone and ?the most important book on the relationship of journalism and democracy published in the last 50 years.

Seems most of the current members of the media (mainstream especially -- Bob Woodward, Judy Miller, Robert Novak anyone?) desperately need a refresher course. More importantly, US citizens need the complete overview.

If you just want to skim, at least read the nine enduring principles put forth by the authors down below.

The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect

by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel

Introduction

As anthropologists began comparing notes on the world's few remaining primitive cultures, they discovered something unexpected. From the most isolated tribal societies in Africa to the most distant islands in the Pacific, people shared essentially the same definition of what is news. They shared the same kind of gossip. They even looked for the same qualities in the messengers they picked to gather and deliver their news. They wanted people who could run swiftly over the next hill, accurately gather information, and engagingly retell it. Historians have pieced together that the same basic news values have held constant through time. "Humans have exchanged a similar mix of news . . . throughout history and across cultures," historian Mitchell Stephens has written.

How do we explain the mystery of this consistency? The answer, historians and sociologists have concluded, is that news satisfies a basic human impulse. People have an intrinsic need -- an instinct -- to know what is occurring beyond their direct experience.2 Being aware of events we cannot see for ourselves engenders a sense of security, control, and confidence. One writer has called it "a hunger for human awareness."

One of the first things people do when meeting a friend or acquaintance is share information. "Have you heard about . . . ?" We want to know if they've heard what we have, and if they heard it the same way. There is a thrill in a shared sense of discovery. We form relationships, choose friends, make character judgments, based partly on whether someone reacts to information the same way we do.

When the flow of news is obstructed, "a darkness falls," and anxiety grows. The world, in effect, becomes too quiet. We feel alone. John McCain, the U.S. senator from Arizona, writes that in his five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi, what he missed most was not comfort, food, freedom, or even his family and friends. "The thing I missed most was information -- free uncensored, undistorted, abundant information."

Call it the Awareness Instinct.

We need news to live our lives, to protect ourselves, bond with each other, identify friends and enemies. Journalism is simply the system societies generate to supply this news. That is why we care about the character of news and journalism we get: they influence the quality of our lives, our thoughts, and our culture. Writer Thomas Cahill, the author of several popular books on the history of religion, has put it this way: you can tell "the worldview of a people . . . the invisible fears and desires . . . in a culture's stories."

At a moment of revolution in communications, what do the stories we tell say about our worldview, our fears, desires, and values?

This book began on a rainy Saturday in June 1997, when twenty-five journalists gathered at the Harvard Faculty Club. Around the long table sat editors of several of the nation's top newspapers, as well as some of the most influential names in television and radio, several of the top journalism educators, and some of the country's most prominent authors. They were there because they thought something was seriously wrong with their profession. They barely recognized what they considered journalism in much of the work of their colleagues. Instead of serving a larger public interest, they feared, their profession was damaging it.

The public, in turn, increasingly distrusted journalists, even hated them. And it would only get worse. By 1999, just 21% of Americans would think the press cared about people, down from 41% in 1985. Only 58% would respect the press's watchdog role, a drop from 67% in 1985. Less than half, just 45%, would think the press protected democracy. That percentage had been nearly ten points higher in 1985.

What was different that day in Cambridge was that many of the journalists in the room -- and around the country -- were beginning to agree with the public. "In the newsroom we no longer talk about journalism," said Max King, then editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer. "We are consumed with business pressure and the bottom line," agreed another editor. News was becoming entertainment and entertainment news. Journalists' bonuses were increasingly tied to the company's profit margins, not the quality of their work. Finally, Columbia University professor James Carey offered what many recalled as a summation: "The problem is that you see journalism disappearing inside the larger world of communications. What you yearn to do is recover journalism from that larger world."

Implied in that was something more important. If journalism -- the system by which we get our news -- was being subsumed, what would replace it? Advertising? Entertainment? E-commerce? Propaganda? Some new hybrid of all these? And what would the consequence be?

The answers matter, the group thought, to the public and news-people both. Journalism provides something unique to a culture -- independent, reliable, accurate, and comprehensive information that citizens require to be free. A journalism that is asked to provide something other than that subverts democratic culture. This is what happens when governments control the news, as in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. We're seeing it again in places like Singapore, where news is controlled to encourage capitalism but discourage participation in public life. Something akin to this may be taking root in the United States in a more purely commercial form, as when news outlets owned by larger corporations are used to promote their conglomerate parent's products, to engage in subtle lobbying or corporate rivalry, or are intermingled with advertising to boost profits. The issue isn't just the loss of journalism. At stake is whether, as citizens, we have access to independent information that makes it possible for us to take part in governing ourselves.

...
We learned, among other things, that society expects journalists to apply this theory, and citizens to understand it, though it is seldom studied or clearly articulated. This lack of clarity, for both citizens and newspeople, has weakened journalism and is now weakening democratic society. Unless we can grasp and reclaim the theory of a free press, journalists risk allowing their profession to disappear. In that sense, the crisis of our culture, and our journalism, is a crisis of conviction.

There are, we have distilled from our search, some clear principles that journalists agree on -- and that citizens have a right to expect. They are principles that have ebbed and flowed over time, but they have always in some manner been evident. They are the elements of journalism.

The first among them is that the purpose of journalism is to provide people with the information they need to be free and self-governing.

To fulfill this task:

1. Its first loyalty is to citizens.


2. Its essence is a discipline of verification.


3. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.


4. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.


5. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.


6. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.


7. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.


8. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
   
   

Why these nine? Some readers will think items are missing here. Where is fairness? Where is balance? After synthesizing what we learned, it became clear that a number of familiar and even useful ideas -- including fairness and balance -- are too vague to rise to the level of essential elements of the profession. Others may say this list is nothing new. To the contrary, we discovered that many ideas about the elements of journalism are wrapped in myth and misconception. The notion that journalists should be protected by a wall between business and news is one myth. That independence requires journalists be neutral is another. The concept of objectivity has been so mangled it now is usually used to describe the very problem it was conceived to correct.

Nor is this the first moment that the way we get news has gone through momentous transition. It has happened each time there is a period of significant, social, economic, and technological change. It occurred in the 1830s and 1840s with the arrival of the telegraph, in the 1880s with the drop in prices of paper and the influx of immigrants. It occurred again in the 1920s with the invention of radio and the rise of the tabloids and the culture of gossip and celebrity. And it occurred with the invention of television and the arrival of the Cold War.

It is occurring now with the advent of cable followed by the Internet. The collision this time may be more dramatic. For the first time in our history, the news increasingly is produced by companies outside journalism, and this new economic organization is important. We are facing the possibility that independent news will be replaced by self- interested commercialism posing as news. If that occurs, we will lose the press as an independent institution, free to monitor the other powerful forces and institutions in society.

In the new century, one of the most profound questions for democratic society is whether an independent press survives. The answer will depend on whether journalists have the clarity and conviction to articulate what an independent press means, and whether, as citizens, the rest of us care.

This book is intended as a first step in helping journalists articulate those values and helping citizens create a demand for a journalism connected to the principles that spawned the free press in the first place.

Book available at/excerpted from: Journalism.org

Shameful Treatment of Prisoners by So-called 'Civilized' World SuperPower

Today's blistering editorial in the Washington Post:

"...the CIA maintains its own network of secret prisons, into which 100 or more terrorist suspects have "disappeared" as if they were victims of a Third World dictatorship. Some of the 30 most important prisoners are being held in secret facilities in Eastern European countries -- which should shame democratic governments that only recently dismantled Soviet-era secret police apparatuses. Held in dark underground cells, the prisoners have no legal rights, no visitors from outside the CIA and no checks on their treatment, even by the International Red Cross. President Bush has authorized interrogators to subject these men to "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment that is illegal in the United States and that is banned by a treaty ratified by the Senate. The governments that allow the CIA prisons on their territory violate this international law, if not their own laws.

This shameful situation is the direct result of Mr. Bush's decision in February 2002 to set aside the Geneva Conventions as well as standing U.S. regulations for the handling of detainees. Under the Geneva Conventions, al Qaeda militants could have been denied prisoner-of-war status and held indefinitely; they could have been interrogated and tried, either in U.S. courts or under the military system of justice. At the same time they would have been protected by Geneva from torture and other cruel treatment.

...not a single al Qaeda leader has been prosecuted in the past four years. The Pentagon's system of hearings on the status of Guantanamo detainees, introduced only after a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court, has no way of resolving the long-term status of most detainees. The CIA has no long-term plan for its secret prisoners, whom one agency official described as "a horrible burden." ...

There is no more important issue before the country or Congress. Yet the advocates of decency and common sense seem to have meager support from the Democratic Party. Senate Democrats staged a legislative stunt on Tuesday intended to reopen -- once again -- the debate on prewar intelligence about Iraq. They have taken no such dramatic stand against the CIA's abuses of foreign prisoners; on a conference committee considering Mr. McCain's amendment, Democratic support has been faltering. While Democrats grandstand about a war debate that took place three years ago, the Bush administration's champions of torture are quietly working to preserve policies whose reversal ought to be an urgent priority."

In all fairness, the Dems deserve a smidgen of credit for finally finding a backbone; however they certainly ought to be called to task for coming so damn late to the party — gutless wonders. Will it take them three more years to publicly call for the administration to be held accountable for prisoner abuse and mistreatment?

But then again, who will hold the Dems accountable? It's past time for major systemic change. What's that old saying: We get the government we deserve?

Schanberg's Press Clips column: The press gets a second chance on the CIA leak case

Sure do wish the press would get over its back-slapping, cowardistic, narcissistic, stenographic self and take heed of Sydney H. Schanberg's Press Clips column in this week's Village Voice online: "Patching Things Up: The press gets a second chance on the CIA leak case"

"The core of the CIA leak case is the Iraq war. As the press goes about unraveling it, none of us should lose sight of whence it sprung. The war is why the case is important.

The special prosecutor must proceed, appropriately, to deal with the crimes he has cited so far in the case—perjury, obstruction, false witness. But the press has a different job ahead: to probe deeper into and explain how these charged felonies were the direct offspring of the Bush administration's attempt to cover up falsehoods and distortions it told the American public and Congress to scare them into supporting the war. The press's obligation to the public now is to aggressively revisit and brush the cobwebs from those lies, while people are paying better attention than they did during President Bush's selling of the war.

Some in the press didn't confront the lies the first time around. Some were—let's be honest—afraid to take on the White House, unwilling to assume the adversary position. But others did their jobs. When one goes back for a dig into the original coverage, yes, there are too many weed fields of reportorial stenography, but there are also strong examples of solid journalism bearing ample, detailed evidence that the White House was hoodwinking the public.
...
And as for those reporters back in 2003 who took stenography from the storytellers and failed to examine the contrary evidence that was on the record, they too betrayed the public trust." [my emphasis in bold]

He doesn't really give any examples of solid journalism at the time (of course I know there were in progressive publications), I just can't think of any offhand in MSM, least of all which appeared on broadcast journalism (and I use that term very very lightly) ... but it's a column worth reading and passing on to every journalist, newspaper, broadcast newsroom you know or can think of. Where's good ole obnoxious Sam Donaldson when you really need him?