blue girl

Still Crazy After All These Years

Res, that crazy guy, has asked me to be a guest blogger on his site while he's clubbin' it and conferencin' it in San Fran.  Am I allowed to say San Fran?  Many bloggers I've read look down upon those using short cuts when speaking or writing about San Francisco.  I haven't seen them dis people who say San Fran.  So, I'm leaving it.  Oh well.  If it's dorky.  It's dorky.  That's me!

Well, to make a really long story short, his blogging service "Blogger" made my almost-done-really-long-post short.  I was almost done and it ate half of it away.  I am really mad about it too, because not only was it funny, it was very timely.  I will re-write it, but not tonight.  Because I need to keep reading the book I just bought.

I discovered a new author while I was on vacation.

No, this is not a photo of when I discovered the author.  This is a photo of me and my friend on the beach when we discovered we needed more margaritas.  (And I believe we most likely found some!)

No, I discovered Anne Lamott.  I'm sure she's old news to most of you.  I'm sure she's either loved or hated by most or all. 

But I'm in the group who loves her.

Here's a sample paragraph from her book, "Plan B, Further Thoughts On Faith":

"Everyone I know has been devastated by Bush's presidency and, in particular, our country's heroic military activities overseas.  I can usually manage a crabby hope that there is meaning in mess and pain, that more will be revealed, and that truth and beauty will somehow win out in the end.  But I'd been struggling as my birthday approached.  So much had been stolen from us by Bush, from the very beginning of his reign, and especially since he went to war in Iraq.  I wake up some mornings pinned to the bed by centrifugal sadness and frustration.  A friend called to wish me Happy Birthday, and I remembered something she's said many years ago, while reading a Vanity Fair piece about Hitler's affair with his niece.  "I have had it with Hitler," Peggy said vehemently, throwing the magazine to the floor.  And I'd had it with Bush."

Ok.  Ok.  I know the whole Bush/Hitler comparison may be way off base.  Bush is probably not sleeping with his neice.  Just sayin.

Lamott combines that sort of writing and thinking above with writing of faith, love and hope.  She even prays to God each night to take her hate for Bush out of her heart.  I'm simply too tired now to find passages that will prove it, but will add more later.  I have to keep reading my book.

I'm glad to be back from our vacation, but I miss my friend & her family and I miss being with my son at the ocean.  We have got to do it more often.

If Franklin Harris Says It, Is It True?

My friend Jedmunds has had a hard day.  Blogger ate his really cool post (About what?  Not sure.)  where he said he was really loose, fingers on fire, just lettin' it fly.  His words magically formed into astonishing sentences, which when completed had a nice, organic quality to it.  Knowing Jedmunds the way I do, I'm sure the post was indeed the cat's pajamas.

He's going to try to re-write it this weekend, but says,
". . .Though I'm not sure where I'll find that time as a certain medical ethics advocacy group I am a member of has decided to protest in front of the homes of prominent surgeons, waving placards with pictures of tumors and open chest cavities and whatnot, hoping to make people realize just how gross surgery is."

I am proud of Jedmuds for being a member of that group!  All I do is sit in this house all day complaining to my husband about how gross surgery must be.  Like a C-section?  I always ask my husband if he thought he could've handled that if it came right down to it when I had our son.

He's like, "No way!  Too gross!  You would've been totally on your own."

And I'm like, "What??!!  Are you kidding me??!! You would've been lucky that you were in a hospital because I would've killed you!  For the damage I would've inflicted, they would've had to rush you into surgery immediately!!

But, see?  We're all talk, talk, talk.  And talk is cheap.  Jedmunds is actually doing something about it!  Good for you, Jedmunds!  Wave a placard in my honor tomorrow!

All this talk about gross things and killing leads me to my original reason for this post.  Integrity and Pat Buchanan.

Jedmunds continues in his post:

"I don't know much about The American Conservative as a publication. They probably don't represent the highest standards of integrity. But neither do I, so I'll link to their rumor without caring about it's veracity. If true though, I'd probably be pretty outraged, but only if my outrage hadn't been beaten into a cynical pulp by the continuing stream of outrages flowing from the Bush White House. Seriously, this is probably only the third or fourth worst thing this White House has done, and it's a doozy, if true of course. And I-ran I-ran so far away..."

The latest rumour out of the Bush white house, which if true we'll all be outraged by, but will result in the majority of Americans supporting the new front in the War On Terror, while we -- the outraged ones -- blog, blog, blog away -- is this from Justinlogan.com by way of Matthew Yglesias the TPM
Cafe:

What Is the Plan If There's Another 9/11?

According to Philip Giraldi, writing in the new issue (not online) of the American Conservative, it's to nuke Iran:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.  The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.  Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites.  Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.  As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.  Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

True?  Rumor?  Rumor that will turn out to be true?  Who the H-E-double toothpicks knows.  I am not writing here to figure out whether or not we are going to bomb Iran in the aftermath of another 9/11-type attack.  (I guess yes, right in time to really use it in the run-up to 2008.)

No, I want to give Jedmunds a little background on the American Conservative so that he can make an educated decision as to whether the writers there do or do not have integrity.

Ok.  According to Franklin Harris of lewrockwell.com, the American Conservative was launched by Pat Buchanan in September 2002 with two other gentlemen:  Scott McConnell, late of The New York Post, The New York Press, and Antiwar.com, and Taki Theodoracopulos.  (Say that last name three times!  Do it now!)

Harris continues:

Given its backers, it is clear the American Conservative plans to focus on the one area where Buchanan is strongest: military intervention.

The magazines mission:

"It is written especially for those who have begun to question whether Conservatism means, as many Beltway conservatives now would have it, that the United States should have bombed Serbia and should now embark on countless other wars that have little to do with America's own vital interests. It is written for those who question whether we ought to completely remake our wonderful country through continued mass immigration from all corners of the globe. It is written for those who understand what George Washington meant when he warned Americans of the dangers of passionate attachment to foreign nations."

Harris continues:

"If Buchanan, Taki, and McConnell didn't think the American conservative movement needs a drastic change from the pro-war rantings of Fox News and The Weekly Standard, they wouldn't bother starting the magazine in the first place, would they? The purpose of the American Conservative is to change minds, not follow polls.

For that matter, what has all of its warmongering got The Weekly Standard?  It is supposedly the leading "conservative" publication, yet it couldn't survive a day without its sugar daddy, Rupert Murdoch."

And this from DemocracyNow.org:

John Kerry received an endorsement from what many thought was an unlikely source: The American Conservative magazine.

In the article endorsing Kerry, the American Conservative writes: "The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.

Excerpt of an interview Amy Goodman had with Scott McConnell, executive editor of the magazine:

AMY GOODMAN: We're joined right now by Scott McConnell, who is executive editor of The American Conservative, author of the article on the November 8 issue, endorsing Kerry. The headline: 'Kerry is the One.'   Why are you so critical of George Bush?

SCOTT McCONNELL: Well, he has made very, very bad decisions as president, and the invasion of Iraq is, I think, the worst decision any American president has made, certainly since World War II, and perhaps longer. And it's made -- if democracy means anything, somebody who makes a decision like that has to be thrown out of office.

So, Jedmunds -- there you go.  A little googled background on the American Conservative.  Is it enough to know if they have any integrity?  I have no idea.  After all, while I think Amy Goodman is pretty cool, I have no idea who Franklin Harris of lewrockwell.com even is!  He could be a total lunatic for all I know.

But they are Conservatives and they did endorse Kerry and they completely mistrust the Neocons.

Hope this helped.

I Want To Party With Richard and Christopher

Two great Letters appear in the NYTs today in response to the article of June 10, "Dean's Remarks Draw Fire From Both Sides of the Aisle."

Richard Lundgren of Jacksonville, Florida writes:

Howard Dean is right on target in criticizing the Republicans.  Who needs a bunch of Casper Milquetoasts cowering in the corner of Congress when the United States is being dismantled economically, morally and institutionally?

As a contributing member of the Democratic Party, I want to see some backbone in Congress.  If the Democrats hope to succeed, they had better find their voice.  If their fundraising falls short, don't blame Howard Dean.

And then Christopher Christian (who's last name can only do us good, even in some subliminal way) of New York writes:

During the past four and a half years we have seen a president mislead us into war, begin the process of dismantling social security, push an extreme right-wing agenda and steadily make appointments of judges who support such an agenda, and meanwhile the Democrats have a lunch to chastise Howard Dean for speaking out against the Republican's abuse of power.

If Joseph R. Biden Jr. and John Edwards cannot lead, they should get out of the way and allow others to do so.  Half the country eagerly awaits someone with enough fire in his belly to speak out against this extremism.

Yes.  These are my kinda guys. 

I know Howard Dean said something like:  Republicans have never worked an honest day in their whole lives.  The horror of it all!  Oh, well.  Some have and some haven't! 

Why couldn't Biden have taken advantage of the airtime and turned it into, "Well, we've got a lot of business leaders who willingly take home huge salaries, while their companies are losing money.  They in turn lay off employees who make $13.00 an hour, losing their pensions and healthcare too.  That is, if the companies even offered these people these "perks" to begin with.

According to Molly Ivins, "The ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay reached 301 - 1 in 2003.  The average worker takes home $517 a week, while the average CEO earns $155,769 weekly, according to BusinessWeek.  In 1982, the ratio was 42 - 1.

Ivins continues her column with this little ditty, that literally makes me dizzy:

Dialogue between President Bush and a citizen during a February meeting in Nebraska, where Bush was trying to sell his scheme to privatize Social Security:

Woman: "That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute."

Bush: "You work three jobs?"

Woman: "Three jobs, yes."

Bush: "Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)"

(You have to register for Molly Ivins, but if you like her, it's well worth it.)

But, no -- all the Democrats did was publicly criticize Howard Dean for making outlandish statements. 

If being outlandish is Dean's weakness, then the Democrats should turn it into a strength.  Use the airtime, to make a bigger point.  Get the attention off Dean and onto the real issues.  Seems like a good strategy to me.

We cannot be very proud of those in Washington these days, but at least we can be proud of those in Florida and New York.

I raise my glass to you, Richard and Christopher!

Ain’t Nothin’ Like The Real Thing

There’s a rule in advertising that clients love to remind ad agencies of.  “Sell the sizzle, not the steak.”  Then there’s that other rule that agency gurus mutter when they’re blamed because sales don’t increase.  “Good advertising can only make a bad product fail faster.”

You can spend tons of money, backed up by good creative, advertising “New Coke.” But if it tastes worse than “Old Coke,” well then, you get the picture.  But you won’t get the New Coke.  And the ad agency will get fired. 

Why am I writing about empty promises that result in failure?  This post from Lance Mannion.  Besides his really funny line, “More Republican limbo dancing.  How low can they go?  How low can they go?”  There was this from Digby, quoting from Slate’s Timothy Noah:

“The fact is that the GOP doesn't have an agenda.  It has impulses:  to cut taxes, to increase Pentagon spending, and to mollify the Christian right wherever possible.  Does it act on these impulses?  Of course.  But what mostly gives the party appeal to the electorate is its ability to scream and yell while seldom being granted the opportunity to ban abortion or eliminate the Securities and Exchange Commission or declare war on France.  It stirs things up satisfyingly, while never requiring anybody to pay the price.”

The GOP has been selling the sizzle for more than 40 years.  And while branding their own party, they’ve worked even harder to brand the competition.  Which has been really successful, but dishonest.  Dishonesty in advertising?  I know you are all shocked!

They’ve been most successful branding the word “liberal.”  Anyone or anything they disagree with is “liberal.”

If you’ve ever started a sentence with, “Yeah, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but....” You’re a liberal.  Don’t like the idea of sending our soldiers to war, at a time of our choosing, without the appropriate amount of armor?  You’re a liberal.  Think the photos from Abu Graib revealed more than just a fraternity hazing?  You’re a liberal.  Think people deserve a living wage?  You’re a liberal.  Think our health care system is out of control?  You’re a liberal. 

Which begs the question.  Why do conservative pundits, knowing Bush is getting nowhere with his social security pitch, insist to us that he’s brave just for bringing it up?  But when Clinton tried to tackle our health care system, these same pundits could be heard screaming, “I’d rather be dead than red!”

You still watch the network news?  You’re a liberal.  You like to watch some of the raunchy shows on TV?  You’re a liberal.  Unless you’re a conservative.  Then you love South Park because sometimes they make fun of liberals.  (Forget the episode where the Devil and Jesus beat each other up with sex toys.  They also trashed a liberal in the same episode.)

Never mind that we are trying to help an extremely conservative, ultra-religious region of the world become a liberal democracy. 

Another GOP branding strategy has been their cry for smaller government.  And this was a simple strategy.  They just started saying the opposite of what liberals believed.  No wishy-washiness there.  They don’t like to be accused of parsing language.  It’s all black and white. Which they’ve parsed into their language to back up their strategies.

There was lots of sizzle to the “smaller government” strategy because the GOP could promise tax cuts.  But once again the sizzling is fizzling.  According to Jeffrey Sachs, Bush supported expenditure increases for popular items like education and prescription drug benefits but paid for these services by borrowing the money rather than ensuring sufficient tax revenues.”

Sach’s continues, “The problem is that Bush's reckless gamble has now built up considerable political momentum.  As soon as he was re-elected, Bush started to propose cuts in popular government programs, but his own party is rejecting those cuts.”

Why are members of his own party, the party of smaller government rejecting spending cuts for popular programs?  Because they want to get re-elected!  Even the voters of Republican candidates want something done for them by their government!  It’s odd that Republican operators never considered this little detail when reciting their smaller government mantra over the years.  They probably just thought, “we’ll deal with it when it happens.”

Problem is, it’s happening.  And they can’t deal with it.  And, according to all the polls, neither can the majority of Americans.

The latest sizzle they’ve sunk their teeth into is the “moral values” issue.  In a time where it seems all of us have little control, there’s always that ugly side of human nature, that they can take advantage of by the way, that allows us to believe that we can control the personal behavior of others.  But even this empty strategy doesn’t hold water, considering how Bush backed away from the religious right in his speech last night, based on the backlash from the Terri Schiavo fiasco and Bill Frist participating in a campaign to smear Democrats as being against “people of faith.”

What rallied Americans to re-elect Bush by a small margin was fear.  The GOP has lost sight of the fact that they were re-elected because they convinced a majority that Osama Bin Laden wanted Kerry to be president more than Bush.  Remember when Cheney cautioned us about how a Kerry presidency would invite nuclear armageddon to our cities?

Has the terror warning been raised since November 2nd?  Afraid not. 

If the response to Bush’s social security initiative and energy plan remains low and gas prices remain high, while people keep losing their jobs and the health care system keeps spiraling out of control, they might well indeed pull out the big guns again.  We better prepare for what Jim Jeffords predicted last month.  And that is the U.S. invasion of Iran to help set up the next Republican presidential candidate.

But, that strategy might fail this time as well, knowing that the invasion of Iraq was based on lies and deceit.  Which has left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.  This time, like New Coke, hearing nothing but empty promises, the majority of Americans may not buy it.

A Closer To Incite Inaction

The editorial page of the New York Times Thursday asked us to imagine Bush’s next visit to Japan. While there he visits the Bank of Japan, where that country’s $712 billion in U.S. government bonds is stored. W, never being one to shy away from a camera, has his photo taken by media around the world as he announces that the bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S., are, in fact, worthless i.o.u.’s.

Yes, the article said “imagine.” But with this administration’s very successful and relentless pursuit of defining their own reality, I’m surprised it hasn’t already happened. Given the fact that they were “against us” at one time in the past.

Then the piece asks us to imagine the same thing in China. Then around the world until he has repudiated the entire $2 trillion of U.S. debt held by foreigners.

It goes on to explain how Bush did exactly that in West Virginia on Tuesday.

“He posed next to a file cabinet that holds the $1.7 trillion in Treasury securities that make up the Social Security trust fund. He tossed off a comment to the effect that the bonds were not “real assets.” Later, in a speech at a nearby university, he said: “There is no trust fund. Just i.o.u.’s that I saw firsthand.”

Never mind that Social Security takes in more money than it needs to pay current beneficiaries. And the excess has already been invested in those Treasure securities that Bush dismissed. According to the editorial, “They carry the same legal and political obligations as all other forms of Treasury debt, every penny of which has always been paid in full and on time.”

He then acknowledged that future generations would have to pay up. But, he hoped that his real motives were crystal clear. His hope of persuading people to privatize Social Security.

Privatizing Social Security will not fix it, but will be the first step to eliminating it. And this new plan will increase the debt burden tremendously.

“Mr. Bush wants Americans to believe that the trust fund is a joke. But if the trust fund is a joke, so is the full faith and credit of the United States.”

Wow. Great way to explain and expose yet more shenanigans by this administration, er, PR department.

But here’s how the piece ends. And gets W & Co. off the hook. Readers will just shrug their shoulders and move on.

“Fortunately, the governments, institutions and individuals who hold United States debt can tell a publicity stunt from a policy statement. Still, casting aspersions on a basic obligation of the United States government is insulting and irresponsible.”

Would a right-winger ever end an article in such a composed way? I say no. They don’t want their readers to shrug. They want them to drink the koolaid, click their heels and take action.

Here’s how my right-wing alter ego would end this piece:

************************
Obviously other governments, institutions and individuals can tell a publicity stunt when they see one. Since George W. Bush landed on that aircraft carrier, he proved publicity is more important than policy for this administration. Which has had an unnerving effect. Their motivation to delude has lead to our nation’s inertia. They rely on the apathy of their audience to simply accept any reality put before them. Casting aspersions on a critical obligation of the U.S. government is not only insulting and irresponsible, it is unpatriotic. In fact it is elitist. And it is unacceptable. And un-Christian in it’s dishonesty. Although some may appreciate the nicknames and back room tomfoolery of those in this administration, it’s time for other governments, institutions and individuals to call these bunco artists on the carpet.

************************

NYT: You’re always going to be accused of being the Queen of all Liberal Media. At least give them a reason.

Stop Conservative Judges at StopLiberalJudges.com

The American Family Association (AFA) On-line is now selling Terri Schiavo bumper stickers. For only $27.00 you can buy 50 to pass out to every family at your church!

The AFA is using Terri Schiavo to promote their agenda at www.StopLiberalJudges.com.

Earth to AFA On-line readers and bumper sticker buyers: George W. Greer, the judge involved in the Schiavo case for years is a southern baptist, conservative Republican.

Since the right uses the word “liberal” to describe everyone they hate or simply disagrees with them, or anything at all they just don’t like, I have a suggestion. Since the people listening to them don’t seem to know one way or another anyway, let’s start using the word “liberal” to describe things that conservatives think are just great:

• Did you see the new Hummer? It is so liberal!

• My new country club? They’ve got a mens-only grille that is completely liberal!

• Did you see Tom Delay at that press conference? He was totally liberal!

• I never really liked Jesse Jackson before, but now I’ve got to say, I think he’s really liberal!

Special Edition: The Apologies

At the press conference yesterday where Terri Schiavo's brother was speaking, he apologized. Not sure exactly what he was apologizing for and who he was apologizing to.

Also, on Joe Scarborough last night, after he compared Terri's passing to that of John Lennon and Princess Diana, he also apologized, but again -- about what and to whom?

Also, why the "Special Edition" added to a broadcast that comes on at the exact same time every night?

Hopefully, this sorry situation has come to an end.

FLA Woman and the Many Sides of Joe Scarborough

We’ve come to know Husband Joe, Father Joe, Bad Back Joe, and Bermuda Shorts Joe rummaging through hurricane debris.

We also know Political Analyst Joe, Lawyer Joe and Congressman Joe, too.

And I’ve actually witnessed Common Sense Joe. Maybe I’ve been brainwashed by his tagline, but I’d swear on a stack of holy bibles, that I’ve heard him say things that make sense. Whether or not I agree with them.

But not last night. The entire show was about poor Terri Schiavo. (I’m not being sarcastic here. I mean it. Poor......Terri.....Schiavo.)

After the first few guests, pontificating about this family’s personal tragedy, that has become our nation’s newest past time on steroids, Joe interviewed Michael Schiavo’s brother, Brian.

Joe immediately switched from Right Wing Republican Joe to Calm Interviewer Joe. He listened respectfully, as Brian Schiavo answered all his questions, making perfect sense each and every time.

Brian Schiavo said, (paraphrasing, going from memory here because transcript is not up yet) “....Michael just does not get what is so hard to understand about this being Terri’s wish. Terri was his wife, his friend. They had discussed this matter. It is what she wanted.”

I thought maybe Husband Joe might show up and quickly morph into Common Sense Joe. I figured he might just understand, just a little bit, that husbands and wives might discuss such issues and come to agreements.

But no.

At the end of the show, Religious Right Joe showed up, dressed in his Sunday best. Lecturing us on the evil liberals at work trying to murder poor Terri.

He railed against the liberal judicial system and the fact that one judge has had so much authority in this case. I don’t remember if he talked about that judge by name, but I can only imagine that he was talking about Judge George W. Greer, who’s been involved in this case for years. And has repeatedly ruled in the favor of Michael Shiavo, in spite of his first name and middle initial.

Here’s a little background on the “liberal” Judge Greer.

He is 63 years old.

He is a conservative republican.

He is a southern Baptist, and until recently was a regular at church. (He stopped going to his church because of the reactions of some at his church to his Schiavo decisions)

But, here's the kicker. Maybe the real reason he's now been vilified as an evil liberal:

According to the St. Petersburg Times on-line, he was once the college roommate of none other than.......Jim Morrison, lead singer of The Doors!

A-Ha! Here we go again! These Republicans just cannot get over the 1960’s.

As they sit in their country clubs, they remember their younger selves fondly, drinking sodas at the the corner store while imagining Judge Greer jamming with Morrison and writing poetry in bell bottom jeans.

Granted, Judge Greer was not particularly fond of Morrison (at all) -- but, what do facts have to do with it.

So, as Religious Right Joe continued to lecture, all I could think about was Rock and Roll Joe.

And I thought to myself. People are strange.

To write or not to write for a friendly demographic

Before I created my actual blog, I assumed I would write specifically about politics. I envisioned a space where I could blast an opinion about David Brooks’ most recent column. Or maybe a little essay about how happy I am that I’ve discovered James Wolcott’s rants about GWB.

But, now that my blog is set up, I’m not so sure. I am concerned that no one will read it! I haven’t published yet and I’m concerned about cyber-circulation! I want my friends to support me. I even want them to use my blog as their home page. (One can wish.) But I can only think of a few who even care about politics.

My mind has been churning. Should I also discuss celebrity trials? The most recent episode of The Apprentice? How about the trials and tribulations of being a working mom? Gourmet recipes that are also easy to make? On-line dating services for my single friends?

This list can go on and on.

I’ve decided that I’m going to stick with politics and throw in some current events for good measure.

Whether that means I’ll be writing about Michael Jackson (doubt it), the joy of motherhood or how poor Christine Todd Whitman is called a RHINO by her fellow Republicans, I’ll just write what interests me most at the time and hope that my friends play along.

And hope that I make new friends, too.