GOP Offensive

The title pun is very much intended. This TNR blog post by Michael Crowley recounts Republican behavior that is deeply offensive to me:

Soon after Hagel spoke, the acting state Republican chair--an African-American man in a white cowboy hat named Leon Mosley--urged his delegates, "Let's remember what's paramount in our life: God ... This is the GOP: God's Official Party." At that, the room burst into sustained applause. Behold, the Republican base.

Emphasis mine. Offensiveness theirs. And never forget that Bush considers the war on terror a "crusade," that he said (to an Amish group, if I recall correctly) that he trusts God speaks through him, and that he began his response to a woman's remark that "God is in the White House" with the words, "Thank you."

I have said many times, in many conversations in many circumstances, that I do not care where people get their call to right action, good works, etc., as long as they get it from somewhere. For many people, the source of that call is their religion, in the most general sense of the term. I have stood in demonstrations, walked blocks, distributed leaflets, worked food pantries, tabled for environmental organizations, etc. with people who are (in alphabetical order, no preference implied) atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Unitarian Universalists and Wiccans... that I know of; there are probably people of many more faiths (or lack thereof) whose affiliation I did not know... and I have always been grateful for every companion in those efforts.

For some people, their faith informs their politics. For me, something deep inside me leads me to choose a religion and a political philosophy, and that something (which I will not attempt to name) was a part of me before I had either a religious or a political affiliation. Like Sen. Kerry, I see my religion as largely a private matter, and my politics as very public. They're not equivalent, the connection is entirely internal to me, and the one does not drive the other.

But the notion that God has an Official Party is so deeply antithetical to everything I believe, in either the political or the religious sphere, that I cannot help experiencing anger at the pronouncement. I hope every American, of whatever religious or political stripe, contemplates just what such a declaration means.

I have run across (and neglected to bookmark) many fine sites devoted to the promotion of progressive or liberal religious thought. Some of these sites assert that Democrats and other political liberals must "take back" the language of religion in the public arena. That is OK with me, for one reason only: for many liberals, as surely as for conservatives, the language of their religion or other spiritual pursuit is a natural expression of their calling, their motivation to good works; deprived of that language, they are largely deprived of their legitimate sociopolitical voice. I would never say that people of any political persuasion should not speak in the language that best expresses their political views.

But that is not what is going on at the GOP convention, and this one quotation of Mr. Mosley crystallizes for me the manner in which many Republicans differ from me: They believe God is, quite literally, on their side in politics. I believe virtuous sociopolitical action transcends religious affiliation.

There was a time when I believed that virtuous action transcended political affiliation as well. People like Mr. Mosley make it difficult for me to sustain that belief. To Republicans, I say this: If you want my positive attention in the political arena, if you want me to work with you rather than against you after the election, if you want an American future not riven by religious division in the houses of government as surely as the houses of worship... then stop claiming to own God.

Besides, I spoke to God this morning, and Her/His Transgendered Rainbow of Universal Lightness is gonna be really pissed off at you if you don't knock off this nonsense,,,

(TNR post Found on so many blogs I can't list them all here.)

Steve
   PermaLink     

Barnes and Ignobles

It's looking more and more as if the videotape of former Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes at a Kerry rally, apologizing for pushing Bush and other highly-placed kids of wealthy people past a hundred thousand applicants and into the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam, is legitimate. Knight-Ridder puts it as follows:

AUSTIN, Texas - (KRT) - On a videotape posted on a pro-Kerry Web site, former Texas Lt. Gov. and House Speaker Ben Barnes for the first time publicly took credit and apologized for helping President Bush secure a Vietnam-era slot in the Texas Air National Guard.

"I got a young man named George W. Bush into the National Guard ... and I'm not necessarily proud of that," Barnes, an Austin lobbyist and John Kerry supporter with a lucrative Washington practice, said on the tape. "It was the worst thing I did, was help a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance get into the National Guard. And I'm very sorry of that and I'm very ashamed, and I apologize to you as the voters of Texas."

     ...

Josh Marshall provides a link to the video (it is in .mov format, which at the moment I have no means of viewing; besides, I don't like linking to IP addresses rather than domain names) and offers a transcript (presumably Marshall's own) of what Barnes allegedly said:

Let’s talk a minute about John Kerry and George Bush and I know them both. And I’m not name dropping to say I know ‘em both. I got a young man named George W. Bush in the National Guard when I was Lt. Gov. of Texas and I’m not necessarily proud of that. But I did it. And I got a lot of other people into the National Guard because I thought that was what people should do, when you're in office you helped a lot of rich people. And I walked through the Vietnam Memorial the other day and I looked at the names of the people that died in Vietnam and I became more ashamed of myself than I have ever been because it was the worst thing that I did was that I helped a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance get into the National Guard and I’m very sorry about that and I’m very ashamed and I apologize to you as voters of Texas.

This has not been confirmed, but if it is true, it is no surprise; indeed, everyone here has pretty much assumed it, and Barnes has alluded to it before (see Marshall) without being so explicit. Marshall also quotes Jim Moore, of Bush's Brain fame, about Moore's questioning of Bush in 1994 in the only debate between Texas Gov. Ann Richards and Bush the younger:

     ...

"Mr. Bush," I [i.e., Moore] said. "How did you get into the Guard so easily? One hundred thousand guys our age were on the waiting list, and you say you walked in and signed up to become a pilot. Did your congressman father exercise any influence on your behalf?"

"Not that I know of, Jim," the future president told me. "I certainly didn't ask for any. And I'm sure my father didn't either. They just had an opening for a pilot and I was there at the right time."

     ...

Somebody is lying here, and I think I know who it is. I'd be willing to stop talking about this and let bygones be bygones, except for the slander that the same someone is disingenuously allowing to be perpetrated against John Kerry. Until that someone disavows those slanders, and the ads themselves vanish from the airwaves (yes, I believe that someone has the power to have them stopped), well, I'll follow this wherever it leads. I won't make stuff up... that's my opponents' approach... but I won't mince words, either.

(Many thanks to Josh Marshall for pursuing this issue through several posts.)

Steve
   PermaLink     

Tribunal Incident

There was some excitement at the Guantánamo tribunal of Ali Hamza al Bahlul (his name is longer, but that's the reduction the news services seem to be using, i.e., the name that works best in Google). Apparently, al Bahlul, a Yemeni, is accused of being a propagandist for Osama bin Laden. But I'll get to that in a minute. There is something absolutely critical that the ACLU's Anthony D. Romero has remarked on, but the mainstream press articles I have found have simply bypassed: the courtroom translation is problematical at best. Here is Romero's latest example:

In response to questions about whether he could represent himself, one translation of Mr. al Bahlul’s statement was “I have some idea of practicing law in Yemen.” And when Cmdr. Sundel questioned the accuracy of that translation, Mr. Al Bahlul said, “Don’t interrupt me.” When he repeated his statement, the translation came back, “I have some people who practice law in Yemen.”

This is not an isolated incident. Read Romero's whole series (links available through the one given above), and you'll find a couple of references to the U.S. government translator's work. The next incident Romero recounts is the most spectacular:

Mr. al Bahlul then began the now-famous line that sounded like the beginning of a confession. But the translation was so poor that all of the English speakers in the room were thrown into chaos. I think the official court translator said, “I testify that the American government is under no pressure. I am al Qaeda and the relationship between me and Sept. 11... .” Al Jazeera reported that Mr. al Bahlul’s statement was something to the effect that “the U.S. government has not pressured me. I am a member of al Qaeda and in relation to 9/11... .” The fact that Al Jazeera could get Mr. al Bahlul’s statements right, and the government could not, is incredible. After the court translator gave the flawed translation of Mr. al Bahlul’s statement, Col. Brownback interrupted him and said to his fellow members of the commission that they must not take into account the statements of Mr. al Bahlul. The prosecution quickly jumped up and took exception with Mr. Brownback.

It felt like chaos was breaking loose. Brownback at some point even held his face in his hands and they took a recess.

In law, language is everything. It follows that when one of the parties does not speak the language in which the hearing is held, translation is everything. Many years ago, I briefly dated a courtroom translator; she was one of the most overstressed people I've ever met, because she knew what was riding on her translations. No one denies it is difficult work. But if the U.S. government wants anyone to take its Guantánamo show trials even halfway seriously, it's going to have to do better than this. It appears al Bahlul was about to issue a defiant confession, but it's a little hard to tell given the uncertainty of the translation.

Now to an example from the mainstream press: in this otherwise not unreasonable Knight-Ridder article, headlined "Yemeni disrupts tribunal," there is no mention of the translation problem. None.

After deploring the translation problem, Romero goes on to address the manifest uncertainty about the rules under which these hearings are being held, uncertainty even among the participants:

Secondly, today’s hearing raised basic questions about the commission’s rules as we’ve been saying all along. Mr. al Bahlul’s inability to review even a summary of the evidence against him, his inability to hire a Yemeni lawyer as he requested (given his profound distrust of American lawyers), as well as the way that the presiding officer handled his request to represent himself show that these rules are not working. It appears that the presiding officer was reluctant to even apply one of the few rules that is clear in this process, i.e. the requirement that Mr. al Bahlul be represented at all times by detailed defense counsel. And, the fact that Mr. al Bahlul’s implicating statements came out in front of all the members of the commission who were then asked to disregard his possibly incriminating statements shows the pitfalls when you confuse the roles of judge and jury. In a civilian court or even in a military court-martial, the defense between the trier of facts and the trier of law is clear. But here, it is confused and commingled. No one, including the presiding officer, seems very comfortable in this made up and ad hoc system of justice. And, what about Mr. al Bahlul’s rights against self-incrimination? Do they or don’t they exist? Where do we go from here?

Where, indeed. I don't know the topography of Guantánamo, but I know there's at least one slippery slope there.

A bit of additional info: here's the press release by Human Rights First, formerly Lawyers Committee For Human Rights. This page has the best compact summary I've found on the detainees whose hearings by the military commission are to be witnessed by representatives of NGO's.

Steve
   PermaLink     

ACLU, AI, HRW In Gitmo

Please forgive the acronym soup. That's the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. All three organizations (and, as I now understand, two more, Human Rights First and the American Bar Association) have representatives observing the proceedings as the military commission begins reviewing "enemy combatant" status of the detainees in Guantánamo. While the NGO's are restricted in some ways more than the media covering the proceedings, ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero has been allowed to witness at least one of the hearings, and he is not optimistic that anything remotely resembling the usual standards of military justice are being observed. He does, however, believe that the military defense attorneys... the few that are allotted to the defense of the detainees... are giving it everything they've got, in the face of exceptionally restrictive rules and lack of access to their clients and to evidence; that is perhaps the only good news in the whole sorry business. Romero is posting a daily diary on the ACLU site; it began on Monday, and you may follow links there to more recent posts. Here's a sample from Romero on Monday:

     ...

We also learned a great deal more about the Combatant Status Review tribunals. Thirty-one tribunals have been completed thus far. Nineteen of the accused have decided to participate, whereas 12 refused to participate. Twenty-three determinations have been sent to Washington, D.C. for review, of which 14 have been validated as “enemy combatants.” Of the 14, only one witness has appeared in these tribunals and none of the 14 have yet been informed of the validation of their designation as enemy combatants.

For the accused who do participate, the proceeding normally takes under two hours: one hour for the unclassified portion and one hour for the classified portion. For those who do not choose to participate, the entire Combatant Status Review takes approximately one hour. There are 585 men held here in Guantanamo and there are 177 open Combatant Status Review tribunals.

Two themes have come out of this first day of briefings. One is the ambivalence that the military has toward NGO participants and even the broader media. They want to give us access, but not too much access. They want to be transparent, but the transparency can’t go too far. For instance, tomorrow, members of the media will travel to Camp Delta, but unfortunately the NGO participants were told that we cannot attend that tour, even though we have been given full security clearance to sit in the commission room on Tuesday.

The second theme is that there is a great desire to show how the commissions and the tribunals are fair and just, and how they mirror the American system of justice. But yet, when you compare the rules for both the commissions and the tribunals, you find serious departures from either military justice proceedings or regular criminal proceedings. For instance, under the Combatant Status Review tribunals, which are “administrative” we were told, each detainee is assigned a personal representative who is not a legal representative and whose conversations with the detainee are not confidential in any way. In fact, this personal representative is able to provide both exculpatory and inculpatory evidence that he gleans in his “personal representation” of the detainee.

     ...

Romero's daily posts, though anecdotal and personal, are the best on-the-ground account I've found on the web. The situation of the NGO representatives, who have been treated shabbily at Gitmo compared to the mainstream media, is also described in this Washington Post article. HRW has not yet posted its observations, as far as I can tell, but here is its initial article of Aug. 20, Military Commissions Lack Fair Trial Protections, describing their perceptions of the problems with the military commission. Similarly, here is the Amnesty International press release, Amnesty International delegate to observe first military commission hearings, of Aug. 19. I presume more substantive information will be made available by these two organizations as the tribunals proceed. As far as I can tell, the ABA news page does not contain any recent material on the subject; I do not know if their representative (if any) is posting from Guantánamo.

One of the things of which America can be proud is the framing of its system of justice... not necessarily its implementation, but the framework in which it theoretically operates, and the standard to which, in principle, it is held. There are myriad problems in the system... goodness knows, you've read about a number of them on this site... but the underlying rules, at least, express the intent of providing a fair trial to everyone.

Bush and company are abandoning these rules in Guantánamo. That is simply un-American, and I'm not using the phrase casually.

To the few of you who say that these prisoners, who are not U.S. citizens, do not deserve our usual protections of due process, I urge you to reread your Bill of Rights: it's full of the words "people," "person," "persons" and "the accused," but nowhere does it speak of "citizens." I am aware there is case law over the centuries that modifies the particulars of what courts may and may not do, but the underpinnings of due process... the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment... make it clear that the concept of rights, and of due process, are to be broadly applied... to everyone.

The construction of a third set of judicial rules, apart from those well-established in civilian and military court systems, is well past deeply troubling: it is the act of a group of people bent on displaying the form of justice while gutting its substance. Show trial, Star Chamber proceeding, drumhead trial, kangaroo court... there have been many names for it over the centuries. Whatever it is called, it is always ugly, and its perpetrators never have benevolent motives.

An aside: I've been a member of the ACLU for over 30 years. Our membership has increased dramatically during Bush's term, not for political reasons... I heard the head of the Texas ACLU speak recently, and he really doesn't care about partisan politics, nor would he remotely consider aligning the organization with a party... but because the Bush administration has done more in four years to undermine fundamental civil liberties than any administration in the history of our nation, and people are starting to notice. You might consider joining: the dues are relatively cheap, and you can be sure they will not sell or give away any information about you!

Steve
   PermaLink     

Homegrown

I had planned to write a great deal more about Garrison Keillor, his book, his philosophy etc. today, but time got away from me, and the evening is already dedicated to a musical event in which a friend is playing. So I'll simply recommend that you read David Talbot's interview (either a Salon subscription or patience with the day-pass ad is required) and then go order Keillor's recent book, Homegrown Democrat, preferably through BuzzFlash. Here are a few Keillor quotes I enjoyed:

• I've always been a Democrat. Never tried to hide it, never thought I had to.
• I don't know any common people personally, though I do know people living on a narrow financial ledge who work terrifically hard to keep from falling off.
• What some people call elitism is simply a belief that God grants gifts to people regardless of social standing, and a Democrat wants the bus driver's kids who have a God-given ability to be recognized and uplifted.
• ... compared to Mr. Bush, the Speaker of Very Short Sentences, Mr. Kerry is positively Churchillian.
• Republicans used to contribute a lot, back before they let the fanatics and teeth grinders take over and turn their party into the Leave Me Alone party, intent on proving that government is inherently inept, and they've done such damage to America in the past decade that will take a century of saints to fix.
• Political skill in the absence of statesmanship is the first act of a tragedy.
• (Responding to a question about Nader) The thrill of Naderism is in telling your Democratic pals that you're thinking about ralphing and seeing them get all flushed and earnest and wring their hands and roll their eyes and moan. Actually going into the voting booth and ralphing is no great pleasure, compared to the remorse you'll feel if Mr. Bush is elected and fresh horrors begin to unfold ...

Well, that's all I have time for right now. The interview is well worth reading, and I anticipate enjoying the book a lot as well.

Steve
   PermaLink     

New Vets In Town

Orcinus, basing his story on (ahem) a letter shoved under his newsroom door, tells us all about AWOL Guardsmen for the Truth:

Inspired by the nationally publicized exploits of another group of veterans, another secret, shadowy group is now poised to make its mark on the American election scene. Or so some people say.

Calling themselves "AWOL Guardsmen for the Truth," they are constituted of former National Guardsmen who were punished by the military for being absent without leave from their National Guard units during the early 1970s. And they're speaking out because they wonder why President George W. Bush -- who, they say, was guilty of similar or worse infractions than their own -- didn't receive the same treatment.

     ...

It gets funnier. The statements taken from the "Guardsmen" are hilarious. Go read it.

Steve
   PermaLink     

OK, OK, I Give Up

Josh Marshall, along with the rest of the left blogosphere, perceives that Bush did not give an inch regarding the Swift Vote Brats and Kerry's war record. Who am I to contradict them.

Let the battle resume, and may the devil take the liars...

Steve
   PermaLink     

Who, Me? -- Bush

I have always appreciated the quote from Gandhi: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

I am not certain... it may be Rovean spin or some sort of strategery [sic]... but I think maybe... on some level, to some degree, as Bush pretends once again that it never happened, he never attacked Kerry, etc. ... we just won the battle against the Swift Vote Brats:

Bush Denounces Ads by Outside Groups
     ...

"That ad and every other ad" run by such groups have no place in the campaign, Bush said when asked about the commercial sponsored by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth that has roiled the race for the White House.

Asked directly whether his Democratic rival for the presidency had lied, Bush said, "I think Senator Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record."

     ...

Of course, it's possible that Bush's remarks really were about 527's (yeah, right). It's also possible the Bushies have merely decided that the Swift Vote Brats have served their destructive purpose, and can be flushed like the used toilet tissue they are. Or... and I think this is most likely... it's possible that, as one after another of Kerry's crewmates, commanding officers, etc. comes forward in support of the documented reality that Kerry did what he said he did, Bush is running for cover, so to speak. If that is the case, it is good news indeed: a blatant attempt by Bush supporters to smear yet another veteran (think: McCain, Cleland) has been forced back, at least to the point at which Bush himself is forced to disavow the smear. After over two weeks without a statement from Bush on the substance of the matter or the manner of its pursuit, it is in my opinion no small matter that he has finally been compelled to make one.

Is this the end of the matter? I doubt it. BushCo™ doesn't care if the allegations are true or not, only if they continue to be floated. "Where there's smoke, there's fire," some people seem to assume. But in this case, "where there's smoke, there's mirrors." And Rove is very good at smoke and mirrors. To employ the military metaphors we seem all driven to use these days, we've won the battle, not the war. Still, every battle helps. And Kerry has now established himself as no pushover. That, more than answering any particulars of the Brats' charge, may be the most important message Kerry has conveyed this week.

One final thought, about someone from whom I expected better:

SHAME ON YOU, BOB DOLE! SHAME!

Now... can we get please back to talking about jobs, oil prices, healthcare, forest rules, mercury pollution, clearcutting, blatant civil liberties violations, social justice, torture, absent WMD's, illegal preemptive war, etc. etc.?

UPDATE: Josh Marshall has quite a different take on the matter, and doesn't think Bush's statement is significant:

There was a brief over the web earlier this afternoon when it seemed that President Bush had denounced the Swift Boat ads. Needless to say, of course, he had done no such thing. He simply repeated the line Scott McClellan has been peddling for days -- that he denounces all independent expenditure ads.

For one rare time, I disagree. Of course Bush said the absolute minimum he could say and still quiet the furor over the ads. But for over two weeks, he didn't say even that much. Bush said enough to give the Kerry campaign an opportunity to spin what he said as an inadequate concession (read the AP article linked at the top), and they did exactly that. This is not about Swift Vote Brats. This is about Kerry's regaining momentum... turning his boat to face the attack, so to speak. I am still convinced that Bush blinked.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Very Model - Of What? -- DOGGEREL!

What this is: It is my third presidential election special edition parody of Gilbert and Sullivan's "I am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General." Readers who are already G&S enthusiasts will understand exactly why I do this every four years. Others may find it amusing anyway, especially if they read the original lyrics (and don't omit the editor's footnotes; some are hilarious, and all are informative).

The book and the score: The pair, poet William Gilbert and composer (later Sir) Arthur Sullivan, had encountered each other before, but were brought together in London in the late 19th century by a promoter (Richard D'Oyly Carte), for the purpose of making money by writing and presenting light operas at D'Oyly Carte's theater, the Savoy. G&S worked splendidly well together artistically, but reportedly did not get along very well personally, and disagreed on all kinds of details of their productions, especially casting, in which, unsurprisingly, Gilbert wanted better actors and Sullivan better singers. But their 11 successes (there were reportedly three failures as well, but I don't know them) have come down to us today as the signature works of English operetta of their time. Feel free to draw an analogy with today's Broadway musicals; you wouldn't be far wrong.

The song: Among Savoyards (i.e., performers of G&S's works), this kind of song is called a patter song. Patter songs are fast, relentlessly metrical and vehicles more for clever lyrics and tricky rhymes than for deep expression. (Does that describe the work of someone you know?) Singing patter songs requires a special skill. Not everyone can, or wants to, sing them. I imagine the kind of concentration required must be similar to that needed for some kinds of hip-hop.

Why the modern Major General: Major-General Stanley, the character in the operetta Pirates of Penzance who sings this song, is Gilbert's pathological stereotype of the kind of gentleman officer, all too frequently appointed in 19th-century England, who knew about everything except what he really needed to know. If George W. Bush had lived in those days, he would have been the perfect Major-General Stanley: born into a wealthy upper-crust family, arrogantly and baselessly self-confident, and absolutely certain there was nothing more anyone could teach him, or any reason he should listen to anyone who tried. The primary difference is that Dubya lacks utterly the intellectual background Stanley sings about.

The challenge: Living up to W. S. Gilbert's standards in satirical lyrics is impossible, and frankly, I don't even try. But the real challenge is George W. Bush: his lies, incompetency, ideological and religious obsessions, arrogance, oppressive acts and horrors wrought on our great nation and the whole world are quite beyond being condensed into three verses of patter. Writing more hardly seems fair: I cannot recite even one verse of any patter song without stumbling and/or gasping for breath. So, inevitably, many of Bush's worst misdeeds didn't make it into the song. I have chosen to emphasize his flaws as an imperialist, a would-be dictator, a violator of civil liberties and a military wanna-be. Other things that happened to fit the rhyme or meter were also included. But I am not an historian, and with luck, those misdeeds will, after next January, be history. Of course, if Bush would like to acknowledge the disgrace he has brought on his nation, his party and his family, he is welcome to step down earlier.

(Here is a MIDI piano arrangement. I don't know the source; it's a bit heavy handed, but if you don't know the tune, it will give you the idea.)

I am the Very Model

Steve Bates

(A brief reminder: lyrics Copyright© 2004 Stephen S. Bates. By all means, link to it, but please do not reproduce it on your own web site. Thanks. - SB)

Steve
   PermaLink     

Opinions You Should Love

Leave it to Tom Burka at Opinions You Should Have to capture the downright absurdity of the Swift Vote Brats Uncouth:

Thurlow Denies Vietnam War Ever Took Place
Also Claims Swift Boats Actually Quite Slow

     ...

"It never happened," said Thurlow. "The so-called 'war' was nothing more than an immense government con game."

     ...

Thanks, Tom; I needed that! Everyone please read the rest, right now.

I'm almost done with my quadrennial bit of G&S (no, that's not anything like S&M). Look for it sometime this weekend, or Monday at the latest.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Oh No, I Forgot!

Yesterday was my saint's day. No, not St. Stephen, I mean St. Ogden, patron saint of doggerelists. Yesterday was Ogden Nash's birthday. How could I have forgotten! Will the late great doggerelist of an earlier generation ever forgive me!

Maybe I'll be forgiven if I post this obsequious-unto-kiss-ass rhyming tribute I wrote to Nash on his birthday in 1996... The Feast of St. Ogden ... on my Classics page.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Kennedy Is A WHAT?

Via Matt Lavine's Basket Full of Puppies (a blog well worth your attention), we learn that Sen. Ted Kennedy is a terrorist... well, maybe not a terrorist, but he's been stopped twice at the airport, once as he attempted to fly from DC to Boston, and again when he came back:

     ...

Kennedy says he had to enlist the help of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to get his name stricken from the list. The process took several weeks, in all.

And Kennedy asks what about the little guy?

The Department of Homeland Security tried to explain the incidents. A DHS spokesman said that on one flight Kennedy was misidentified as someone who needed extra screening when going through security, because he was mistakenly identified as someone on a watch list.

Another time, the spokesman says, Kennedy was tagged for extra screening under a security system that watches for such factors as a person buying a one-way ticket or paying with cash.

He says Kennedy was never on a "no-fly" list, which automatically keeps a person off a plane.

     ...

<purple_profanity_alert>
Oh, fucking goddam come off it!
</purple_profanity_alert>

You know that some low-ranking, low-life, Bush-appointed DHS agent placed Kennedy's name on the list out of pure spite! How could it be otherwise?

This has gone too far. When the single most recognized member of the U.S. Senate, who just happens to be a Democrat and a liberal and a staunch opponent of everything Bush stands for, is diverted from his travels by the no-fly list, you know it's political.

I've said from the beginning that civil liberties would be violated, not for security reasons, but for political payback. Ted Kennedy is now the poster boy for that phenomenon.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Sex And Drugs

Now that I've got your attention, take a look at this article about a survey purporting to show a close connection in teens between sexual activity and substance abuse:

WASHINGTON -- It's not just a cliche: Sex and drugs often do go together, says a survey of U.S. teenagers.

Teens who say at least half their friends are having sex are more likely to report having tried marijuana, alcohol and cigarettes.

The annual survey, released today, asked teens aged 12-17 about their use of illegal substances. Researchers then looked for other activities of daily life that were associated with such use.

"This year's survey reveals a tight connection between teen sexual behavior and substance abuse," said Joseph A. Califano Jr., president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.

     ...

Unlike other surveys, the one by the Columbia group did not ask teens about their own sexual activity, but asked them to estimate how many of their friends were sexually active. It was conducted this way because the ethical review board that oversees the center would not approve a direct question, said spokeswoman Lauren Duran.

Researchers compared teens who reported at least half their friends are sexually active with those who said none of their friends are. About one in four teens reported at least half their friends are sexually active; about four in ten said none are.

     ...

I'm going to try to be nice about the methodology, but I'm finding it difficult. While I agree with the ERB that the direct questions should not be asked to people below the age of consent (for sex or for giving out private information), I see the substitute experiment, i.e., asking about friends' behavior instead of the interviewees' own behavior, as neither much of an improvement from an ethical standpoint nor acceptable from a standpoint of drawing meaningful conclusions.

If I were the researchers, I'd consider another possibility: that teens willing to talk to complete strangers about their friends' sexual activities just might also be more inclined to talk to complete strangers about their friends' or their own drug use as well. So the participants who reported lots of sex and drugs... the informants, so to speak... are a self-selected subpopulation. That's really not good for the number-crunching. And there's yet another possibility: some of the kids are making shit up. I can't say I blame them if that is the case. At that age, who wants to be known as running with the goody-two-shoes crowd?

The whole thing makes me think that I led a deprived youth, or was simply born in the wrong era. Neither sex nor drugs were a part of my high school days. Don't think me a total loss, though: I did listen to some rock 'n' roll.

(I did some minor editing for clarity, minutes after the original post. - SB)

Steve
   PermaLink     

Only In New York

Via Mad Kane's excellent Daily News Haiku, we learn that New York City will be offering discounts to peaceful protesters, or at least to those wearing a city-issued button proclaiming they are peaceful protesters:

     ...

Law-abiding protesters will be given buttons that bear a fetching rendition of the Statue of Liberty holding a sign that reads, "peaceful political activists." Protesters can present the buttons at places like the Whitney Museum, the Museum of Sex, the Pokémon Center store and such restaurants as Miss Mamie's Spoonbread Too and Applebee's to save some cash during their stay.

     ...

Oooh, the Whitney! I'm not so sure, though, that I'm ancient enough to think that sex is something one views in a museum. But food discounts and art museum discounts? Sign me up!

UPDATE: For a completely different take, a New Yorker's view that the buttons are sinister, see Elayne's post on the subject.

Steve
   PermaLink     

His True Message To America

(Via First Draft.)

Steve
   PermaLink     

Guard Call-Up Hits Home

Sigh...

3,000 Texans reporting for duty
Latest call-up is the state's largest since World War II
By JOHN W. GONZALEZ and RICHARD STEWART
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

ANGLETON - With waving flags, fireworks, speeches, music and bags of gifts, neighbors and families said farewell Monday to a Texas Army National Guard company headed to Iraq.

     ...

Across Texas, 3,000 Texas Army National Guard members report for active duty this week in the state's largest Guard call-up to combat since World War II.

After several weeks of training at Fort Hood and other domestic bases, the soldiers will deploy to Iraq for at least a year as part of the Pentagon's third major troop rotation since the war began in 2003.

     ...

The deployment marks the revitalization of the famed 36th Infantry Division, which originated in World War I and played a key role in World War II before being deactivated in 1968.

On May 1, the Army renamed the 49th Armored Division as the 36th Infantry Division, and early last month, the Pentagon announced the division would be part of Operation Iraqi Freedom-3. Guard members were urged to begin making arrangements with families and employers for a lengthy absence, likely about 18 months.

     ...

Does calling it an Infantry Division make it one? Will calling the operation "Iraqi Freedom-3" have any more positive consequences for Iraqi freedom than the first two operations of that name?

It seems likely this scene will be repeated around the nation many times, until some sort of serious plan for a withdrawal is implemented... and perhaps even a few times after that. Even if Kerry is elected, and even if he wishes to bring the occupation to an end, it is not clear to me how quickly he can do so. I am afraid these newly called up Guard troops will very much be in harm's way, and they probably won't be the last American troops sacrificed to this foolish war. And I cannot even begin to imagine how many Iraqi civilians will be endangered as the occupation wears on. (Occupation? given what's happening in Najaf, how about invasion?)

Among the various personal notes mentioned in the article, this one struck me particularly:

On Monday, Pfc. Charity Heckler, 19, stood arm-in-arm with her sister Faith Williams, 28, after Monday's mobilization ceremony at Houston's Armory drill hall.

Sigh, again. We can only pray that Hope is on the way.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Ouch!

Martin Frost, a Democratic congressman from Dallas, is in a hotly contested race against Republican Pete Sessions (go find your own link) for the 32nd District. Frost has been in Congress for decades, is well liked, is suitably conservative for a Democrat in Dallas, has lots of excellent endorsements, and is in the race of his life thanks to reredistricting. His opponent, a former state representative, has run a pretty shifty campaign, played games about debate schedules, etc. No real surprises there; Republicans know how to do those things.

But Sessions has to be hurting today. Recently, Frost's campaign announced that its yard signs were disappearing, and his campaign manager suggested Sessions might be responsible for the disappearances. Sessions, not surprisingly, issued a put-up-or-shut-up statement, demanding proof to back Frost's allegations.

Oops. Bad move on Sessions's part. From a Frost press conference, recounted in a campaign email too new to be on the web site (italics original, boldface mine):

Today, Congressman Martin Frost’s Campaign Chair, Marc Stanley, said the following at a press conference where Pete Sessions’ Dallas Police Department was revealed that, as a sitting member of Congress, Pete Sessions was caught stealing his opponents’ campaign yard signs:

“Yesterday, Pete Sessions called for people to bring forward evidence that would suggest his campaign would be involved in immature political tricks, like stealing yard signs. Here is evidence that not only suggests that Pete Sessions’ campaign would condone this type of immature prank; it is proof that he has participated in this foolish behavior.

“District 32 deserves more from their Congressman than impulsive, immature political stunts. It is normal for parents to worry about their teenagers getting hurt or caught doing something silly; they shouldn’t have to worry that their Congressman is going to engage is such childish behavior. These pranks have been conducted by a sitting member of Congress, and Pete Sessions himself must respond to his actions and apologize immediately. It’s time for Pete Sessions to start acting like an adult.

“I remember when I was a kid, there used to be an announcement that said, ‘It’s ten o’clock, do you know where your children are?’ The people of North Texas shouldn’t have to ask, ‘It’s 10:19, do you know where your Congressman is?’ He’s out stealing signs.”

Just so there would be no mistake, the email contained a .pdf attachment of the Dallas police record from when Sessions and another man were pulled over with a truck containing signs belonging to his opponent in a state representative race. (If someone is desperate for the file, I'll post it, but it's rather large, and I'm paying for my own bandwidth.)

It's not as if no Democrat ever stole campaign signs. One even got caught here in 2002. But to dare your opponent to bring forth the evidence against you, evidence you know is in the police record, is just stupid.

CORRECTION AND UPDATE: Sessions is already in Congress; redistricting led to two members of Congress running against each other. And here is a link to that .pdf file of the police report, on the excellent DCCC blog. And as usual, Josh Marshall (that's two different links) has more info than any two of the rest of us. It still looks bad for Sessions, as far as I'm concerned.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Bad Air Day

Air, not hair. Bad hair days rarely bother me: almost every day is a bad hair day. Even my recent and rare haircut last week did little to improve the mop on my head. And it doesn't inconvenience me in the least.

Bad air days are a different matter. If I recall correctly, five of the last eight days have been red air days: "unhealthy for sensitive groups." It has been pointed out to me before that virtually everyone who is not in the prime of youth and in the prime of health counts as part of a "sensitive group" for air quality purposes. We got a break over the weekend... the air quality was "moderate," and it was pleasant to be outdoors... but I knew today, hours before I viewed the alert, that I was breathing ozone. Combine it with a pollen alert, which was in the "moderate" level today, and you may as well count me out of the game.

I rarely drill down in the bad-air data provided by TCEQ (formerly known as TNRCC, that's our state equivalent of the EPA), but today I wanted to see what parts of the state and city were suffering worst. Two areas of Houston, with monitoring stations at Houston Bayland Park and Houston Westhollow, were especially good places not to be, if you wanted to enjoy breathing. Bayland Park is a couple miles north and maybe three miles west of me; I don't think of it as a particularly industrial area, but it frequently turns red on the spreadsheet, with ozone as the primary pollutant. But red areas aside, the whole Houston spreadsheet showed elevated levels of pollution today, almost all due to ozone. As if that were not enough, almost every city in the state for which readings are taken had elevated ozone levels today. (You may view this by clicking the link in the masthead above. If it's not Monday 8/16 when you read this, you'll have to select the date.)

According to the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention (GHASP),

The ozone smog problem in the Houston-Galveston area is, at least by most measures, the worst in the United States. Ozone smog is a corrosive, toxic gas, causing swelling, increased mucus, and increased lung sensitivity to agents that cause the air passages to contract.

In a study in Houston of children with asthma, lung capacity was reduced 20 percent after being outdoors for three hours when ozone was greater than 120 ppb. In addition to reducing the capacity of lungs, ozone smog lowers a person’s resistance to allergies, infections, and other pollutants in the air. Children, the elderly, persons who exercise outdoors, and persons with existing respiratory or cardiovascular disease are most vulnerable to ozone smog.

     ...

Read that first paragraph again. Houston is the worst in the U.S. Ozone is corrosive and toxic. It induces swelling, mucus, and congested air passages. While the situation has improved a little over the last decade, Los Angeles has improved faster, and indeed as of 1999 has less ozone than Houston.

As far as I know, I do not suffer asthma. God help the Houstonian who does; it's bad enough for those who don't. I'm not the athletic type, and I don't envy those who insist on, say, running every day. Some days, you may do your health more harm than good.

So... where does it all come from? A major study was begun in 2000, and as GHASP puts it, "[t]he scientific results suggest that plumes of industrial pollutants are the most important cause of the most hazardous ozone 'events.' " The linked page is well worth reading for its outline of our best understanding of the mechanism by which ozone is formed and distributed in Houston. Of interest to me is the theory that the ozone around Bayland Park is caused, not by industry, but by exhaust from cars, trucks and construction equipment. That makes a lot of sense to me, based on the location of major roads and of industrial areas in Houston.

One other thing: the myth that "trees pollute" by producing ozone precursors has been debunked (warning: link to 67-page .pdf file). But don't be surprised if someone tries it out on you.

And now if you'll excuse me, I'm exhausted, and need to lie down for a while. Maybe tomorrow will not be a bad air day. Just remember, vote Democratic... the air you save may be the air you breathe.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Welcome to NYC - Now Go Home

UPDATE: Before we get started, our favorite outstanding New York resident rhymer has something to say on that very subject! And now back to "Welcome to NYC - Now Go Home" ...

Well, maybe New Yorkers' reaction to the impending GOP convention is not quite that bad. Or maybe it is. Read what Paul Harris of The Observer (UK) has to say:

The smiling face of former New York mayor Ed Koch beams down from posters all over the city. 'The Republicans are coming,' it says underneath. 'Make nice.'

Fat chance. New York is bracing for one of the biggest showdowns in its political history as the Republican national convention comes to town at the end of the month. Meeting the army of delegates, politicians and lobbyists will be a vast array of protest groups that intend to make the Republicans' Big Apple stay as unpleasant as possible. Trying to keep order on the streets will be 20,000 police, secret servicemen and National Guard units. A quiet week seems out of the question.

     ...

Indeed it does. I don't know if this will be Chicago 1968 Democratic convention all over again or not. Frankly, I was too young to remember the details of that convention... well, OK, I was old enough, but in those days I was a quiet, studious sort, a poor kid focused entirely on his studies at a highfalutin' university to which he never expected to gain admission, rather than the raucous political activist I am now. Still, I remember some shocking scenes on TV, and I would not be surprised to see violence at the GOP convention this time. Chagrined, yes... surprised, no.

I was dismayed that the protesters at this year's DNC were effectively held in a cage. That is not right, no matter what the security concerns. Exercising one's free speech rights should not entail agreeing to be, de facto, in jail while one speaks, and indeed in jail somewhere far from the people one is attempting to address. There's not a lot of freedom in that.

But the protesters at the Republican convention appear to be better organized, and I doubt the police, Secret Service, National Guard etc. will be able to shut all of them down. More from The Observer:

     ...

[The protesters] run a 'snitch line' where people involved in the convention can leak details of events and where delegates have been staying. The protesters are widely believed to have infiltrated several people into working at the convention who will smuggle information out. [protest organizer Jaime ] Moran's plan is to send out teams of activists to disrupt as many events as possible.

'It's all coming along well,' he told The Observer at a meeting of protest groups in a city church. Moran, 30, son of a local cop, has become a minor media star in New York, but he is far from alone in plotting to make the city a place the Republican party will be reluctant to return to. In all, more than 250,000 protesters from all over the US and the rest of the world are expected to converge on the city during the four-day event.

Maps of where Republican events are being held have been distributed. They contain details of where delegates are staying, lobbyists' parties are being held and major corporate headquarters are located. Streets will be shut down, impromptu marches held, meetings disrupted and parties invaded.

Sit-down demonstrations will block traffic, protesters will chain themselves together and delegates' hotels will be infiltrated. There will be organised protests and marches, with City Hall permits, that are expected to attract hundreds of thousands of demonstrators.

John Flanigan and Tim Doody are two other protest co-ordinators aiming to make 31 August a day of direct action. They said they would shun the idea of applying for any form of permit.

'We already have a permit. It is called the American constitution. The idea that I have to ask for permission to protest my own government is ridiculous,' Flanigan said.

     ...

Right. That's my kind of permit. I'd venture that most New Yorkers agree with Flanigan, and with me, whatever they may think of having their roads blocked and their daily life disrupted.

But the practical reality is that many in the leadership of today's GOP don't give a good damn about the Constitution. Let me offer a prediction here and now. By the time the Republican convention is over, one or more protesters, American citizens, will not only have been arrested... thousands and maybe tens of thousands will be arrested, I'd venture... but also charged by John Ashcroft's sadly misnamed Justice Department with making a terrorist threat. Remember, you read it here first. Or maybe not. We're all learning how these guys think, and someone else may already have made the same prediction. If that isn't a sad statement of our national condition, I don't know what is.

New Yorkers all: know that we stand with you. You were assaulted grievously on 9/11/2001, and you are about to be assaulted again, morally if not violently. All of us, all Americans, were assaulted on that date and on 12/12/2000, when the Supreme Court halted a legitimate presidential election process and declared a winner who did not actually win... and we will never forget either assault, nor the one you are about to face. We will be watching. Whatever the SCLM will not show us, the independent media will. Whatever no media will show us, the now ubiquitous amateur video cameras of the protesters, together with the web, will. Whatever happens, we will see it. And we will not be silent.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Selected Links To Recent Posts

 
Click any permalink below to go to the original article on a previous page. Click a comment link below to add a comment to the original article. Your comment will be noticed, by the YDD at least: HaloScan has a page allowing me to view recent comments, no matter which post they refer to.

Florida GOP Secrets

Steve
   PermaLink     

Julia Child -- DOGGEREL!

Steve
   PermaLink     

Clark Explains Reality To Cheney

Steve
   PermaLink     

Blown Job

Steve
   PermaLink     

Inspiration

Steve
   PermaLink