So the Sandy Berger story is all over the news -- even though it supposedly happened a year ago. Some unnamed archives staffer supposedly saw Berger stuffing documents in his socks, for crying out loud -- if anyone actually saw this, why didn't they stop him? So maybe this is the crime of the century ( but it seems odd that the FBI has never actually interviewed Berger even though they have been "investigating" this security breach for a year) but it reminds me of another "troopergate" -type of story, where some underling supposedly witnessed a high profile Democrat doing something illegal. His lawyer told CNN that Berger inadvertantly shuffled memos into his portfolio last July when he was reviewing documents for possibe release to the 911 commission (apparently, returned after he was told last October to look for them), and that he also knowingly jotted down some notes and took these with him for his 911 commission testimony. Walking out with the documents was illegal, though leaving with the notes was not.
There have been a lot of questions raised about why this story is everywhere all of a sudden.
One of the items likely coming in the 911 commission report on Thursday will be some sharp criticism of the Bush White House for withholding several thousands of documents from the commission until pushed to release them. Now the White House can imply that Berger stole documents showing he and Clinton were to blame for 911.
UPDATE -- And let's not forget that the Plame inditments may be coming down soon. With Bergen now also under investigation by a grand jury, the "moral equivalence" argument can be made, so that the Plame leaker becomes somehow equivalent to Bergen.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
I vote for Malathion over Deet
CBC News: Winnipeg resumes fogging after clash with protesters Now, I haven't researched all the pros and cons of malathion, because I don't want to ruin my amateur standing, but I generally tend to go along with Health Canada recommendations because they are using my tax dollars to investigate these kinds of things.
Its too bad that the media quote the most rabid and therefore least credible members of the environmental movement. This story quoted a protester as saying that malathion is ". . killing everyone in Winnipeg". Please, stop with the hyperbole!
Yes, Malathion is a pesticide, and a powerful one, but cities have to evaluate this kind of trade-off all the time. Malathion isn't benign, but its impact on societal health is certainly less than the impact of mosquito-borne diseases, like West Nile and encephalitis (which Winnipeg also has every summer), and its individual impact is substantially less than having to spray every square inch of your skin several times a day with Deet, particularly for young children and for people like city workers, police and the like who must work outside in the summer. Its not pleasant either way, but there it is.
Its too bad that the media quote the most rabid and therefore least credible members of the environmental movement. This story quoted a protester as saying that malathion is ". . killing everyone in Winnipeg". Please, stop with the hyperbole!
Yes, Malathion is a pesticide, and a powerful one, but cities have to evaluate this kind of trade-off all the time. Malathion isn't benign, but its impact on societal health is certainly less than the impact of mosquito-borne diseases, like West Nile and encephalitis (which Winnipeg also has every summer), and its individual impact is substantially less than having to spray every square inch of your skin several times a day with Deet, particularly for young children and for people like city workers, police and the like who must work outside in the summer. Its not pleasant either way, but there it is.
Poor Ontario, it's just not fair!
John Ibbitson's column on the cabinet Winners: The West, and the PM's pals illustrates why the west is alienated from the east. The most important thing about the cabinet, according to Ibbitson, is that there are not as many MPs from Ontario in it as he thinks there should be. He writes "As rumours hardened into likelihood last night, and likelihood into fact, it became clear that Paul Martin has decided two things: He will stick with those he trusts, and Ontario can be taken for granted. The second Martin ministry contains a disproportionate emphasis on western MPs."
Could it be possible that, because Martin made a particular effort before the election to recruit electable high profile candidates in the west, that the western liberals elected were a particularly competent bunch?
Could it be that too many of the Ontario MPs have been tainted with all of the Chretien scandals and problems of the past decade?
Naah, of course not.
Its just a mean Martin plot to insult Ontario. Now, I haven't searched the whole list but it appears to me like Ontario still has 15 of the 38 cabinet members listed in the Globe. So only having a little less than half of the cabinet isn't enough? Oh, piffle!
UPDATE: So according to the Globe today my figure of 15 was correct - exactly one (1) less Ontario minister than in the pre-election Cabinet.
Could it be possible that, because Martin made a particular effort before the election to recruit electable high profile candidates in the west, that the western liberals elected were a particularly competent bunch?
Could it be that too many of the Ontario MPs have been tainted with all of the Chretien scandals and problems of the past decade?
Naah, of course not.
Its just a mean Martin plot to insult Ontario. Now, I haven't searched the whole list but it appears to me like Ontario still has 15 of the 38 cabinet members listed in the Globe. So only having a little less than half of the cabinet isn't enough? Oh, piffle!
UPDATE: So according to the Globe today my figure of 15 was correct - exactly one (1) less Ontario minister than in the pre-election Cabinet.
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Class war
Bill Moyers recent speech This is the Fight of Our Lives sums it all up.
There's no question about it: The corporate conservatives and their allies in the political and religious right are achieving a vast transformation of American life that only they understand because they are its advocates, its architects, and its beneficiaries. In creating the greatest economic inequality in the advanced world, they have saddled our nation, our states, and our cities and counties with structural deficits that will last until our children's children are ready for retirement, and they are systematically stripping government of all its functions except rewarding the rich and waging war. And they are proud of what they have done to our economy and our society.
Haven't these people read any history? Don't they know that empires fall as well as rise? And the falls are always caused by greed combined with moral rot.
In little ole Canada, we have over the last decade moved beyond the rich-poor rhetoric, I think -- the last election showed that the Canadian people, basically, were more concerned about Conservative divisiveness than about Liberal scandals. It will be, I think, the last time that the Conservatives and NDP, in English Canada at least, will try to run just on a "throw the bastards out" platform -- Canadians do "demand better" than rhetoric. I think this demonstrates a certain level of political maturity. And our media, in spite of a few gonzo exceptions, responded to this and focused much of their coverage on actual issues rather than on hairstyles and mannerisms.
I am saddened that this level of maturity doesn't seem to exist in American politics. For all the talk about how America has such a great democracy, it seems to be so easy to hijack it, to get American media to parrot the RNC talking points -- reference the recent Daily Show take on how RNC talking points shape media language and coverage.
Are Michael Moore and Jon Stewart and Bill Moyers the only popular journalists who can see what is happening here? Well, at least Lou Dobbs is actually covering the job outsouring issue in a sustained way, but I haven't seen any other coverage like this.
There's no question about it: The corporate conservatives and their allies in the political and religious right are achieving a vast transformation of American life that only they understand because they are its advocates, its architects, and its beneficiaries. In creating the greatest economic inequality in the advanced world, they have saddled our nation, our states, and our cities and counties with structural deficits that will last until our children's children are ready for retirement, and they are systematically stripping government of all its functions except rewarding the rich and waging war. And they are proud of what they have done to our economy and our society.
Haven't these people read any history? Don't they know that empires fall as well as rise? And the falls are always caused by greed combined with moral rot.
In little ole Canada, we have over the last decade moved beyond the rich-poor rhetoric, I think -- the last election showed that the Canadian people, basically, were more concerned about Conservative divisiveness than about Liberal scandals. It will be, I think, the last time that the Conservatives and NDP, in English Canada at least, will try to run just on a "throw the bastards out" platform -- Canadians do "demand better" than rhetoric. I think this demonstrates a certain level of political maturity. And our media, in spite of a few gonzo exceptions, responded to this and focused much of their coverage on actual issues rather than on hairstyles and mannerisms.
I am saddened that this level of maturity doesn't seem to exist in American politics. For all the talk about how America has such a great democracy, it seems to be so easy to hijack it, to get American media to parrot the RNC talking points -- reference the recent Daily Show take on how RNC talking points shape media language and coverage.
Are Michael Moore and Jon Stewart and Bill Moyers the only popular journalists who can see what is happening here? Well, at least Lou Dobbs is actually covering the job outsouring issue in a sustained way, but I haven't seen any other coverage like this.
Saturday, July 17, 2004
Have I missed something?
Yahoo! News - Bush Extends Debate on Values to Children
The "values" debate? WHAT "values" debate? When did this start? I guess I missed it -- is this related to gay marriage or what? And is Yost's implication that republicans have values while democrats do not?
I always thought it was the other way around, actually.
The "values" debate? WHAT "values" debate? When did this start? I guess I missed it -- is this related to gay marriage or what? And is Yost's implication that republicans have values while democrats do not?
I always thought it was the other way around, actually.
We're back
Hi, everyone - we had a great holiday -- took the Prairie Grand Circle route (Saskatoon to Edmonton to Jasper to Banff to Calgary and home again) and saw some mountains and some prairie and some chipmunks and some squirrels and some mountain sheep and some elk and some moose and some deer -- but no bears!
And we went to F911 - what a movie. I could understand why some people are cheering it and others are upset.
The key point I took away from it reminded me of something WallyCoxLives said once in a comment -- Moore's most important assertion was that most of the boys and girls in the American armed forces are lower-class or lower-middle-class people, whose job options are few. So, as Moore says, these kids are doing America's fighting so that "we don't have to" (note how he doesn't duck the issue that he himself, as well as congress people, are in the wealthier classes who have options other than joining the services). Moore continues -- if we are going to ask these soldiers to fight and die for America, it have to make sure that the war it sends them to is a just war, a necessary war to protect America. And the Iraq war was NOT necessary. It echoed Wally's point, which was a response to a post I made about the draft -- Wally said he would tolerate a draft for his children as long as Kerry was in the White House, because he was confident that Kerry would not involve the US in an unnecessary war -- and the same assurance cannot be given about Bush or the Republicans.
And we went to F911 - what a movie. I could understand why some people are cheering it and others are upset.
The key point I took away from it reminded me of something WallyCoxLives said once in a comment -- Moore's most important assertion was that most of the boys and girls in the American armed forces are lower-class or lower-middle-class people, whose job options are few. So, as Moore says, these kids are doing America's fighting so that "we don't have to" (note how he doesn't duck the issue that he himself, as well as congress people, are in the wealthier classes who have options other than joining the services). Moore continues -- if we are going to ask these soldiers to fight and die for America, it have to make sure that the war it sends them to is a just war, a necessary war to protect America. And the Iraq war was NOT necessary. It echoed Wally's point, which was a response to a post I made about the draft -- Wally said he would tolerate a draft for his children as long as Kerry was in the White House, because he was confident that Kerry would not involve the US in an unnecessary war -- and the same assurance cannot be given about Bush or the Republicans.
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Well, I'm off . . .
. . . for a week's holiday. See you next Sunday. In the meantime, here's a great cartoon: the Sunday, July 11 Doonesbury - Doonesbury@Slate - Daily Dose
Saturday, July 10, 2004
What, $15 million isn't enough for you?
Lotto winner says jilted lover didn't sign wedding deal Ah, it is to laugh -- why do people DO this to each other and to themselves? Why do people get so greedy? The simple truth is that he was married when he won the $30 million. Therefore his wife is legally entitled to a share of it, regardless of how they were getting along or who lied to who or whatever. Just accept it, fella, and move on.
The real issue
Bush Presses Case Against Gay Marriage This AP story shows that Americans, even Democrats, just don't get it.
Yost writes "The vote puts some Democrats and Republicans in a difficult position. One senator acknowledged the political risk in trying to walk a line supporting both traditional marriage and gay rights."
But this isn't the issue at all.
During the Canadian election campaign, Martin clearly laid out the real issue -- it is not whether someone does or doesn't support gay marriage, but whether people do or do not support the duty of the provincial and federal Supreme Courts to interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was charter challenges which led to the legalization of gay marriage in BC, Ontario and Quebec -- the courts said that, under the charter, all people had the right to marry. Period.
Now, in the US, courts are dealing with the same issue, and, not surprisingly, they're concluding the same thing -- that their state and federal Bills of Rights say all citizens are to be treated equally under the law. Therefore no right given to one person can be denied another person.
And THAT'S the issue, folks.
So the question really is, does the US Congress support the Bill of Rights, or not?
Yost writes "The vote puts some Democrats and Republicans in a difficult position. One senator acknowledged the political risk in trying to walk a line supporting both traditional marriage and gay rights."
But this isn't the issue at all.
During the Canadian election campaign, Martin clearly laid out the real issue -- it is not whether someone does or doesn't support gay marriage, but whether people do or do not support the duty of the provincial and federal Supreme Courts to interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was charter challenges which led to the legalization of gay marriage in BC, Ontario and Quebec -- the courts said that, under the charter, all people had the right to marry. Period.
Now, in the US, courts are dealing with the same issue, and, not surprisingly, they're concluding the same thing -- that their state and federal Bills of Rights say all citizens are to be treated equally under the law. Therefore no right given to one person can be denied another person.
And THAT'S the issue, folks.
So the question really is, does the US Congress support the Bill of Rights, or not?
No nuance, no detail - just cut to the chase
Billmon is back with a lengthy and complicated piece on the Enron scandal Play It As It Lays
One problem with this story is the complexity of the narrative -- people prefer simpler tales of good and evil. Just look at Billmon's last sentence: "Right now [the Republicans are] desperately trying to sell the proposition that because Kenny Boy ate dinner at Teresa Heinz Kerry's house two years ago (along with the other members of the board of the Heinz Center for Science, Economy and the Environment) the Democrats are just as tainted by the Enron embrace as the [Republican] party, and the [Bush] family, that accepted millions of dollars in soft and hard dollar contributions from Enron insiders, that placed Enron-recommended appointees in critical state and federal jobs, that pushed through legislative and regulatory changes worth billions to Enron, and that dutifully adopted the policies that allowed Lay and his crew to amass huge personal fortunes while systematically robbing Enron's customers, shareholders and employees."
How unlikely it is that most journalists will understand this complexity and be able to construct this into a narrative which can be covered on the evening news.
Its one of the biggest problems that the left-wing and the democrats have to deal with -- the complexity of the problems are hard to explain in a few words. But it is important that Kerry try to construct narratives about the Republican record and his own vision that are easier for the public to grasp.
My advice - discard nuance, reject detail, just cut to the chase. Let the RNC be on the defensive for a change. So what if they attack these constructions as simplistic, which they may be, as long as there is truth at their core?
Lay cheated the American public, and his Republican friends helped him do it.
Bush and Cheney used false evidence to start a war that killed a thousand Americans.
Republican tax cuts for the rich, if maintained, will mortgage America's future.
When faced with recession and job losses, the Republicans did nothing.
And Kerry has to develop a simple narrative for his own policies:
America must throw off the shackles of dependence on middle-east oil.
The American people deserve decent health care.
Terrorism must be fought strategically and decisively.
10 million new jobs for Americans.
You get the idea.
One problem with this story is the complexity of the narrative -- people prefer simpler tales of good and evil. Just look at Billmon's last sentence: "Right now [the Republicans are] desperately trying to sell the proposition that because Kenny Boy ate dinner at Teresa Heinz Kerry's house two years ago (along with the other members of the board of the Heinz Center for Science, Economy and the Environment) the Democrats are just as tainted by the Enron embrace as the [Republican] party, and the [Bush] family, that accepted millions of dollars in soft and hard dollar contributions from Enron insiders, that placed Enron-recommended appointees in critical state and federal jobs, that pushed through legislative and regulatory changes worth billions to Enron, and that dutifully adopted the policies that allowed Lay and his crew to amass huge personal fortunes while systematically robbing Enron's customers, shareholders and employees."
How unlikely it is that most journalists will understand this complexity and be able to construct this into a narrative which can be covered on the evening news.
Its one of the biggest problems that the left-wing and the democrats have to deal with -- the complexity of the problems are hard to explain in a few words. But it is important that Kerry try to construct narratives about the Republican record and his own vision that are easier for the public to grasp.
My advice - discard nuance, reject detail, just cut to the chase. Let the RNC be on the defensive for a change. So what if they attack these constructions as simplistic, which they may be, as long as there is truth at their core?
Lay cheated the American public, and his Republican friends helped him do it.
Bush and Cheney used false evidence to start a war that killed a thousand Americans.
Republican tax cuts for the rich, if maintained, will mortgage America's future.
When faced with recession and job losses, the Republicans did nothing.
And Kerry has to develop a simple narrative for his own policies:
America must throw off the shackles of dependence on middle-east oil.
The American people deserve decent health care.
Terrorism must be fought strategically and decisively.
10 million new jobs for Americans.
You get the idea.
We have to save our phoney-baloney jobs, gentlemen*
United Press International: Senate: Iraq intelligence was faulty
Now questions are being asked about why Senate democrats were so eager to endorse the intelligence report when it did not deal with the pressure issue from the White House.
I think I know why.
Here's the key quote -- "'We in Congress would not have authorized that war ... if we knew what we know now,' said Sen. John Rockefeller, democrat, to the news conference.
Basically, the Senate democrats could hardly wait to endorse a report which took them off the hook for their pro-war votes. In the end, it did not matter to Congress whether the Bush administration pressured the CIA to inflate intelligence; this is an issue which would only affect whether voters support Bush or not in November. No, what mattered to the Senate democrats was finding their own political cover for their own reelection campaigns.
*one of my favourite lines from Blazing Saddles
Now questions are being asked about why Senate democrats were so eager to endorse the intelligence report when it did not deal with the pressure issue from the White House.
I think I know why.
Here's the key quote -- "'We in Congress would not have authorized that war ... if we knew what we know now,' said Sen. John Rockefeller, democrat, to the news conference.
Basically, the Senate democrats could hardly wait to endorse a report which took them off the hook for their pro-war votes. In the end, it did not matter to Congress whether the Bush administration pressured the CIA to inflate intelligence; this is an issue which would only affect whether voters support Bush or not in November. No, what mattered to the Senate democrats was finding their own political cover for their own reelection campaigns.
*one of my favourite lines from Blazing Saddles
Nice reach, George
Bush skips NAACP meet due to hostile comments So Bush wants to "reach out" to African-Americans -- but won't speak at their convention because they have said mean things about him.
Another president, you know, might actually respect an organization like the NAACP, and might decide to explain his point of view and maybe win them over. But not Good Ole Gutless George -- reading My Pet Goat to grade schoolers is about as hostile an audience as he ever wants to deal with.
Another president, you know, might actually respect an organization like the NAACP, and might decide to explain his point of view and maybe win them over. But not Good Ole Gutless George -- reading My Pet Goat to grade schoolers is about as hostile an audience as he ever wants to deal with.
Friday, July 09, 2004
A "reality show" I like
Now, we almost never watch all of the reality shows on TV these days -- which relegates us to reruns of CSI and Law & Order this summer. But here is a reality show I could like.
The best ball player in the world today
is Derek Jeter.
He's what my daughter's softball coach described as an "impact" player -- someone who, when the chips are down, can be counted on to come through. He doesn't always hit or field perfectly, of course, but when his team needs him he creates the opportunity for the team to win. Derek Jeter's top 10 clutch moments Its a joy to read, just to relive all those great baseball moments.
He's what my daughter's softball coach described as an "impact" player -- someone who, when the chips are down, can be counted on to come through. He doesn't always hit or field perfectly, of course, but when his team needs him he creates the opportunity for the team to win. Derek Jeter's top 10 clutch moments Its a joy to read, just to relive all those great baseball moments.
It's ALWAYS the staff's fault
Report: CIA Gave False Info on Iraq
Poor Bush and poor Cheney, just a couple of good ole boys, poor country bumpkins really, so badly misled by their staff. Why, don't you remember all those speeches from Tenent and his analysts promoting the war? All that terrible pressure they were bringing onto Bush and Cheney and Rice in 2002 and 2003 to be more agressive against Iraq, saying all the time that containment wouldn't work, that war was the only answer? Don 't you remember all that?
One thing that staff in a government bureaucracy must remember at all times -- whenever anything goes wrong, its ALWAYS the staff's fault in the end. And when it goes spectacularly wrong, as it has in Iraq, then the blame is spectacular, too.
Politicians almost always try to save themselves by blaming their staff. No matter that Cheney and Gingrich made innumerable trips to Langley to yell at the analysts who didn't evaluate intelligence to their liking -- no matter that Rumsfeld set up his own baby CIA "Office of Special Plans" to stovepipe defector stories directly to the President, no matter that the CIA and State analysts said over and over and over that Iraq could be handled by containment, that the tubes were for industry, that there was no evidence that Iraq was trying to import yellowcake. Nope, before the war, the analysts were all wet.
So, to save their miserable jobs, the analysts finally caved -- well OK, maybe you're right, I guess maybe the intelligence could be interpreted that way. . . -- and now, kaboom, the whole war is their fault, and their careers are over anyway.
Well, those who live by the sword die by the sword.
There will be a lot of lessons learned from the Iraq war, many unintentional.
And not the least will be, by bureaucrats, that they MUST NOT give in to political pressure to distort their results. If they lose their backbone, as the CIA analysts did, then they have failed the public which pays their salaries. Politicians come and go, but the staff stays. They work for the pubic, not for the politicians, so their public trust is to maintain the standards of their profession. So, in that sense at least, they actually were to blame.
Poor Bush and poor Cheney, just a couple of good ole boys, poor country bumpkins really, so badly misled by their staff. Why, don't you remember all those speeches from Tenent and his analysts promoting the war? All that terrible pressure they were bringing onto Bush and Cheney and Rice in 2002 and 2003 to be more agressive against Iraq, saying all the time that containment wouldn't work, that war was the only answer? Don 't you remember all that?
One thing that staff in a government bureaucracy must remember at all times -- whenever anything goes wrong, its ALWAYS the staff's fault in the end. And when it goes spectacularly wrong, as it has in Iraq, then the blame is spectacular, too.
Politicians almost always try to save themselves by blaming their staff. No matter that Cheney and Gingrich made innumerable trips to Langley to yell at the analysts who didn't evaluate intelligence to their liking -- no matter that Rumsfeld set up his own baby CIA "Office of Special Plans" to stovepipe defector stories directly to the President, no matter that the CIA and State analysts said over and over and over that Iraq could be handled by containment, that the tubes were for industry, that there was no evidence that Iraq was trying to import yellowcake. Nope, before the war, the analysts were all wet.
So, to save their miserable jobs, the analysts finally caved -- well OK, maybe you're right, I guess maybe the intelligence could be interpreted that way. . . -- and now, kaboom, the whole war is their fault, and their careers are over anyway.
Well, those who live by the sword die by the sword.
There will be a lot of lessons learned from the Iraq war, many unintentional.
And not the least will be, by bureaucrats, that they MUST NOT give in to political pressure to distort their results. If they lose their backbone, as the CIA analysts did, then they have failed the public which pays their salaries. Politicians come and go, but the staff stays. They work for the pubic, not for the politicians, so their public trust is to maintain the standards of their profession. So, in that sense at least, they actually were to blame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)