Questions of Character

President Bush the great leader is far from the only fictional character,

bearing no resemblance to the real man, created by media images.

By PAUL KRUGMAN

George W. Bush, I once wrote, "values loyalty above expertise" and may have "a preference for advisers whose personal fortunes are almost entirely bound up with his own." And he likes to surround himself with "obsequious courtiers."

Lots of people are saying things like that these days. But those quotes are from a column published on Nov. 19, 2000.

I don't believe that I'm any better than the average person at judging other people's character. I got it right because I said those things in the context of a discussion of Mr. Bush's choice of economic advisers, a subject in which I do have some expertise.

But many people in the news media do claim, at least implicitly, to be experts at discerning character - and their judgments play a large, sometimes decisive role in our political life. The 2000 election would have ended in a chad-proof victory for Al Gore if many reporters hadn't taken a dislike to Mr. Gore, while portraying Mr. Bush as an honest, likable guy. The 2004 election was largely decided by the image of Mr. Bush as a strong, effective leader.

So it's important to ask why those judgments are often so wrong. 

White House Promotion Of Court Nominee Miers' Religion Is Appalling, Says Americans United
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Church-State Watchdog Group Rebukes Bush For Hypocrisy Over Religion Issue

I'm at your service, Mr. DeLay

A word of advice from a friend: If your GOP pals turn on you, take them down with you.

By Garrison Keillor

Oct. 12, 2005 | My Dear Mr. DeLay:

I have been waiting two weeks for one Republican to leap to your defense and express outrage at a grand jury so callous as to indict a virtuous man, and nobody has. They've all been coy and cautious and whispering to the press that you are not their favorite guy in the whole world, so I am going to stand with you, sir, and cover your back. I don't like to see a man abandoned that way. When you're a Jet and the spit hits the fan, you've got brothers around. You're a family man. I am an old liberal and if we had a Hammer, we would support him in the morning, and in the evening, all over this land. You are the greatest political fundraiser since William Marcy Tweed, sir, and that Texas grand jury is trying to referee a football game by the rules of badminton.

Corporate money not used for political campaigns? The thought is preposterous on its face. Any schoolchild knows that politics is not about highfalutin debates and policy papers; it is about putting the screws to the fat cats and squeezing them until they squeak and then hiring agents to level your hapless opponent with a barrage of rotten fruit and dead cats as you yourself stand above the fray, Bible in hand, your arm around some orphans, eyes upraised to Old Glory, your face nicely lit. And you win the race and go to work flogging your timid colleagues and raising truckloads of dough and building your war chest and scaring the bejeebers out of people. That's how it's done. 

 

 

This is a the "Frog March to jail" we have been waiting for.~ Hello In There

Rove's_Nightmare

Captured from PeterWerbe.com

WorkingForChange is putting this image on a billboard in Tom DeLay's home district of Sugar Land, Texas.

Ask most people "Corporate TV watching" people.

Are we at war? Where? Why? You'll here some

strange replies. I know I do. I plan on conducting

my own survey soon~ Hello In There

2,000 dead? Who cares?

Why is the country so oblivious to the Iraq war's casualties?

By Mark Benjamin

Oct. 10, 2005 | Sometime soon the war in Iraq will claim the life of the 2,000th G.I., a gut-wrenching milestone in the bloodiest conflict for the United States since Vietnam. Reports of deaths, particularly recently, have been coming in at a frightening clip. On Oct. 6, six Marines were killed by roadside bombs in attacks near Qaim and Karmah, bringing the total of American soldiers who have been killed in Iraq to 1,951.

Vietnam analogies can be dubious or prescient, depending on whom you ask. The 2,000th G.I. fell in Vietnam sometime during 1965, six years after the first two Americans were killed in a guerrilla attack. The final death count from Vietnam was 58,209.

The death rate in Iraq may not compare to those of World War I and World War II, in which, respectively, 116,516 and 405,399 U.S. soldiers were killed. Nevertheless, nearly three years into the war in Iraq, the mounting death toll doesn't seem to register with Americans. If Korea was the forgotten war, Iraq is invisible.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Do we have free speech in the U.S.A.?

No according to an article at Arab News  which stated that an outfit calling itself "Freedom House" had rated the world’s media, and that in terms of having a free press, America ranked only 27^th in the world.

Data from the report is available online at www.freedomhouse.org/research/pressurvey.htm

As early as the 1920s, when the predecessor of television, radio, first debuted in the United States, there was immediate apprehension about its potential impact on democracy. One early American student of the medium wrote that if control of radio were concentrated in the hands of a few, "no nation can be free."

As a result of these fears, safeguards were enacted in the U.S. -- including the Public Interest Standard, the Equal Time Provision, and the Fairness Doctrine - though a half century later, in 1987, they were effectively repealed. And then immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves.

read: Al Gore | The Threat to American Democracy
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/100605A.shtml

Must, Must Read, Gore on the Threat to American Democracy; "the subjugation of news by entertainment seriously harms our democracy: it leads to dysfunctional journalism that fails to inform the people." And the Boob Tube is at the Center of Dumbing Down Democracy.

• Say No to Arnold's Special Interest Election

• Reform Ohio Now

Important Elections Nov. 8 in
California and Ohio

This November, there's no Presidential election. But voters will be making critical decisions that affect all of us, and you can influence the outcome.

In less than five weeks, voters in two pivotal states -- Ohio and California -- will help determine the direction for the rest of the country. In Ohio, proponents of clean elections have placed four excellent measures on the ballot that will prevent corruption and voter abuse. If enacted, election reform could sweep the country.

In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his special interest allies have spent millions to put measures before the voters that are designed to gut health and education spending, dramatically weaken unions, and require a redistricting before the next census. If Arnold succeeds in these initiatives, you can be sure they will appear in other states as well.

Hundreds of millions of special interest dollars are being spent to defeat reform in Ohio and pass regressive measures in California.

But, we can all win by talking to voters one-on-one to increase understanding and voter turnout. Want to get plugged into the "ground game?"

Volunteer in California by clicking here.

Volunteer in Ohio by clicking here.

Can't Volunteer? By donating, you'll help sponsor grassroots efforts and special projects to mobilize the progressive vote November 8.

Donate in California by clicking here.

Donate in Ohio by clicking here.

Red State, Blue State, East Coast, Great Plains, or Desert Southwest -- the results of the California and Ohio elections will affect you, no matter where you live. Please, volunteer your time, give money or both. And, tell your friends to do the same. Together we can make a difference.

Sincerely,

Michael Kieschnick
President, Working Assets

" if ever there were a Supreme Court nominee who

is a sure  bet to put personal and partisan loyalty

above the law, it is Harriet Miers."

Will Harriet Miers vote to overturn Bush’s conspiracy conviction?
October 4, 2005

An angry groundswell has risen against the appointment of George W. Bush’s personal attorney to the US Supreme Court.

One key question must be asked: as a Justice, would she soon be asked to rule on a conspiracy conviction against her present boss?

In light of the new indictments against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the question may not be so far fetched.

DeLay was originally indicted on charges of violating campaign finance law. His lawyers have quickly raised serious technical challenges.

But now two additional charges have been filed by a second grand jury. Conspiracy is involved, taking things to a whole other level, including the possibility of jail time.

The prospect of “The Hammer” duck-walking in orange polyester to a Texas prison cell may warm progressive hearts everywhere. But there’s a much deeper message here about the case of Valerie Plame.

At some point, “someone” in the Bush White House made the decision to retaliate against Joseph Wilson. Wilson exposed as utter nonsense the Bush claim that Saddam Hussein was shopping for uranium in Africa. Wilson’s op ed in the New York Times blew an unfillable in the neocon case for an attack on Iraq.

To punish Wilson, Team Bush decided to out his wife Valerie Plame, by now the least covert operative in CIA history.

The legal gravity of this crime is up for grabs. Chicago-based prosecutor Peter Fitzgerald’s mandate to investigate it runs out at the end of this month. He says he was awaiting testimony from Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who just emerged from jail.

Nobody knows what Fitzgerald will do. Many speculate that an indictment of Karl Rove or “Scooter” Libby might be hard to make stick. That particular case might depend on the depth of Plame’s cover and other arcane considerations.

Indeed, the labyrinthian complications of the Plame case multiply the odds overshadowing any simple case against any single individual from the White House.

But conspiracy would be a different story. It would seem patently obvious that outing Plame had to have been discussed in some form by the very top of the Bush junta.

That Bush himself knew Plame was a CIA agent has long since been established. That Libby, Rove and Cheney knew is also beyond doubt.

So how the knowledge of Plame’s status somehow leapt to the ears of columnist Robert Novak and the likes of Judith Miller may be more important than the outing itself.

If Bush, Cheney, Rove and Libby did discuss such a retaliation, and then found a way to make it happen, we are suddenly out of the playoffs and into the World Series.

In Watergate, the coverup became the crime of importance. In Iran-Contra, it was who knew what when. In the Plame case, it could well be who discussed what with whom when.

Whatever the call, this case is certain to end at the US Supreme Court. And here we may or may not find Harriet Miers.

George W. Bush took the White House with the most blatant case of cronyism in US judicial history. The infamous Bush v. Gore decision that stopped the Florida 2000 recount was absolutely baseless in law. The use of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Equal Protection” clause was such an obvious non-sequitur that even the Justices who wrote the opinion held their noses and urged history to disregard it as precedent.

The five judges who rendered that heinous decision did so for strictly partisan reasons. William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra O’Conner had one agenda item: put George W. Bush in the White House.

Scalia and Thomas had blatant and obvious conflicts of interest involving employment of their offspring, among other things. But it did not phase them. Honor, propriety and the law demanded they recuse themselves. But they simply refused. They held themselves and their partisan interest and that of the Republican Party above all else.

Congress must now ask: what would Harriet Miers do? She is known only to be fiercely loyal to the persona of George W. Bush and the Republican Party. As David Sirota and others have pointed out, her sole qualification for the Supreme Court seems to be her position as a “de facto member of Bush’s immediate family.”

That may be sufficient for many now in Congress. But what happens when a case involving the Bush family comes to her?

Given Bush v. Gore and all else we know about this administration, the answer is obvious: regardless of the law, regardless of two hundreds years of precedent, regardless of what is moral and right, Harriet Miers will do what suits the short-term interests of George W. Bush.

As Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy and O’Connor showed in Bush v. Gore, American jurisprudence at its highest level is now defined by the immediate demands of the Republican Party.

Today we hear much hype about how little we know of Harriet Miers’s personal beliefs.

But if ever there were a Supreme Court nominee who is a sure bet to put personal and partisan loyalty above the law, it is Harriet Miers. If ever George W. Bush comes in front of her with a case concerning conspiracy or some other violation of the law, we all know how she will vote.

That’s why Bush chose her. That’s why the Senate must reject her.

--
HARVEY WASSERMAN’S HISTORY OF THE US is at www.harveywasserman.com, as is HOW THE GOP STOLE AMERICA’S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008, which he co-wrote with Bob Fitrakis.

Powering The War Machine Watch Andy Rooney's pointed and passionate criticism of the war in Iraq.   Archive

 

No Nonsense In November! VOTE AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #2!

Join the No Nonsense in November coalition to defeat the Texas Marriage Amendment. Individuals and organizations can join the coalition by completing the Coalition Partner Endorsement Form and returning the form via e-mail or fax to the coalition office (see return information on the endorsement form).

"Protesting against government policy,

protects our freedoms."

Protesters as Guardians of Freedom

I Gave My Copy of the Constitution to a Pro-War Vet

I Gave My Copy of the Constitution to a Pro-War Vet

By BRIAN J. FOLEY

T he mother of one of the soldiers killed in Iraq caused a commotion near the Veterans for Peace photo display of the fallen soldiers at last weekend's big antiwar protest in Washington, DC. She stood in front of the pictures crying and yelling, demanding a piece of tape to cover her son's face. She said she wanted to block it out so her son could not be "used" by the "protesters" in their "propaganda."

" ..There hasn’t been any serious debate

 about evolution for more than 

 50 years.."

 

Evolution Framing Brief

http://demspeak.com/?q=node/694

• view
• outline

Submitted by Dick Lessard on Thu, 2005-08-11 19:50. General Discussion | Peer Review

Draft Framing Brief: Teaching Evolution

Author’s Note: This is a first draft, written by an amateur ‘citizen framer’’ who never heard of George Lakoff, framing, or DemSpeak until a few weeks ago. I’m also not a scientist, though I’ve read quite a few books (including several by opponents of evolution) and have been following this issue for a decade or so. I know this brief is too long and wordy, and probably suffers from a variety of other shortcomings. But there is a pressing need for something like this, so as to peer review, "bring it on", and let’s make this as good as it needs to be.

America’s children deserve to be taught the best science today to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

THE PURPOSE of this Framing Brief is to give progressives common themes to address when talking about the teaching of evolution.

• The religious political right (RPR) frame is: It’s only fair to teach the flaws and controversy over evolution and to address alternative views such as "Intelligent Design".
• Our frame for evolution is: Our children deserve only the best science, to prepare them to become the doctors, scientists, researchers, technical professionals, and informed citizens and parents of the future. We celebrate the achievements of courageous pioneer scientists, past and present, and hold them up as examples for our children.

The following framing statements will enable us to speak of the strength of our position on teaching evolution and the moral values that position is based upon. Key words, phrases, and metaphors are recapped in brackets following each paragraph, e.g. [‘key phrase’].

FRAMING STATEMENTS

• "Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" -- so says John Marburger, President Bush’s science adviser . [‘cornerstone’, invoking President Bush’s science adviser as an authority figure.]
• Our children need to be taught real science. We have a moral obligation to teach our children only the best, time-tested explanations of scientific observations. We would be derelict in our duty to do anything less. A grasp of evolution is vital to fully understanding issues like infectious diseases, wildlife management, pest control, and genetically engineered foods. [‘moral obligation’, ‘derelict in our duty’,’vital’]
• Don’t Let America fall behind! Other nations teach evolution unequivocally in their science classes. BSCS textbooks, noted for their unflinching treatment of evolution, have been translated into 25 languages and are used in 60 countries. . As patriotic Americans, we want to preserve our country’s position as a world leader in scientific research by keeping the focus on strong science education. [‘unequivocal’, ‘unflinching’, ‘patriotic Americans’, ‘world leader’, ‘strong’]
• Let’s Energize and Enrich Science Teaching, including biology and it’s central organizing principle, evolution. Russian biology was set back for decades when it was made subservient to Marxist ideology. Thousands of evolutionary biologists were marched off to the Gulags or simply disappeared under the oppression of Stalinist Russia because their views weren’t compatible with Marxist ideology. We cannot afford to send America down that path. [‘Marxist Ideology’, ‘oppression’, ‘Gulags’, ‘path metaphor’]
• Evolutionary scientists are hard-working courageous truth-seekers. Darwin and the courageous pioneers that followed exemplified the virtues of patience with their painstaking research and observations compiled meticulously over many years. They pursued the facts wherever they led, irrespective of prejudices or pressure from established orthodoxy. What better values can we teach our children than these? We acclaim Darwin, Mendel, the Leakeys, and Watson and Crick as heroes and models for our children to emulate. Let’s name avenues, bridges, and airports after them. Let’s plan a special commemoration in 2009, the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species, as a celebration of one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time. [‘Courage’, ‘truth-seeking’, ‘virtue’, ‘defying orthodoxy’, ‘heroes’, ‘models for our children’]
• Evolution is open and stands up to scrutiny. Honest, hard-working scientists today publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Science and Nature. They do their work in the open, in full view of the public and their professional peers. Opponents of evolution bypass such scrutiny in favor of media campaigns because they know their weak arguments collapse under careful examination. [‘Open’, ‘Honest’, ‘hard-working’, openness, full-view, ‘evade’, ‘weak’, ‘collapse’]
• Evolution and religious faith do not conflict. Science respects its boundaries and does not address the ultimate questions about our souls, the meaning of life, the afterlife, or our relationship with God. Operating within its boundaries, science delivers proven results that enrich our lives and deepens our understanding of the world. [respect, ‘proven results’, ‘enrich’, ‘deepens our understanding’]
• Evolution makes biology exciting. Can you imagine teaching about the American Civil War without ever mentioning the issues of states rights and slavery? Without explaining the causes behind major events, history becomes a dull, brute-force memorization of facts. That’s exactly what happens when you teach biology without evolution, the central organizing principle of biology. Our children are born with an innate capacity to delight in the excitement of learning. Let’s feed that sense of wonder by emphasizing and strengthening the teaching of evolution in biology. [‘Civil War analogy’, ‘delight’, ‘excitement of learning’, ‘sense of wonder’]

-- so says John Marburger, President Bush’s science adviser . [‘cornerstone’, invoking President Bush’s science adviser as an authority figure.]
PIVOT POINTS

• Evolution implies atheism. This is a false dichotomy. Isn’t it arrogant to say that God could not be responsible for evolution? A deep study of evolution reveals an elegance, a brilliant yet simple power that is worthy of a most awesome God. Theologians, religious scholars, and deeply religious people from many different religious traditions have no problem accepting the reality of evolution. Our children are strong and smart, and their minds and souls will only be enriched by the study of evolution.
• But what about "Intelligent Design"? Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) is not science at all. It’s old-fashioned creationism with a thin veneer of sciency sounding stuff. Even President Bush’s own science adviser admits that "intelligent design is not a scientific concept". There are no IDC research labs or field studies, no IDC peer-reviewed scientific journals or papers, nothing. IDC is not an alternative science -- it is an alternative to science! Let’s get our children excited about learning real science, like evolutionary biology.
• But isn’t the Discovery Institute doing research in this area? The DI is a right-wing think tank, which, while it makes a token effort toward supporting basic research, devotes most of its effort to popularizing and marketing the IDC agenda. It is the focal point for the "wedge strategy", an insidious "Trojan Horse" strategy for systematically enforcing its religion-based agenda upon secondary school public education. As a side note, Philip Johnson, one of the main architects of the wedge strategy, has also written several books and articles casting doubt on the link between HIV and AIDS.
• We should "teach the controversy" over evolution. Here are two alternative rejoinders:
  1. What controversy? There is none --- at least not in the world of science. There hasn’t been any serious debate about evolution for more than 50 years. A few scientists, including some making pronouncements outside their specialties, have occasionally raised a few objections. Most of these objections have been soundly refuted, and those that haven’t merely deal with details that remain on the frontier of discovery. Instead of conveying a false image of uncertainty and doubt, let’s energize our students by conveying the excitement of true science as it pushes out the frontiers of knowledge.
  2. Teaching this phony controversy would hurt students by taking precious teaching time away from an important subject. Many people believe in astrology, but we are not going to give astronomy and astrology equal time. Time in the science classroom is very limited, let’s use it wisely to teach our children genuine time-tested scientific explanations like evolution.
• Evolution is a theory, not fact. This is an empty word game that plays on how scientists use the word "theory" versus how it is used in everyday common speech. Ordinary people use "theory" to denote almost any kind of hunch or guess. Scientists use "theory" to mean a clear consistent explanation that describes the relationships among a wide variety of facts. There is a theory of gravity that explains the attraction between masses. We don’t cast doubt on gravity because "It’s just a theory"! Let’s use classroom time wisely and teach solid time-tested theories -- like evolution.
   
  
  Never Say
  • "Intelligent Design Theory" (It’s not science and not a theory. Say "Intelligent Design Creationism" (IDC) to highlight the inextricable link between Intelligent Design and Biblical Creationism.
  • "Belief in Evolution" (That’s a word trap, since "belief" has so many different meanings and can equate evolution with a personal belief system such as religion. Use ‘accept the reality of evolution’, or ‘recognize the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution’ [suggestions for shorter phrases welcome!])
  • "Darwinism" (that lumps evolutionary science in with too many other ‘isms’). Evolution by natural selection is a theory that explains the diversity of biological life -- period. It’s not a philosophy, social program, or a religion.

This is a false dichotomy. Isn’t it arrogant to say that God could not be responsible for evolution? A deep study of evolution reveals an elegance, a brilliant yet simple power that is worthy of a most awesome God. Theologians, religious scholars, and deeply religious people from many different religious traditions have no problem accepting the reality of evolution. Our children are strong and smart, and their minds and souls will only be enriched by the study of evolution.