 |
|
|
|
Etiquette For Showing Support For An Accused Child Molester
Via Michael Jackson's web site:
"Special area for fans," "fan access" and "show your support" are not words typically associated with felony arraignments. It wasn't clear if anyone was sponsoring an arraignment after-party, however. By Ed Moltzen · 30 April 2004
Jeff Jarvis Takes On The FCC
Jeff Jarvis takes on the FCC's actions against Howard Stern Show broadcasters in a lengthy piece in The Nation. The piece prompts a discussion over at the New York Radio Message Board. By Ed Moltzen · 30 April 2004
NY Times Correction Du Jour
Flattery will get them nowhere:
By Ed Moltzen · 30 April 2004
Who's A Chickenhawk?
"Chicken hawks shriek like a hawk, but they have the backbone of a chicken. We know who the chicken hawks are. They talk tough on national defense and military issues and cast aspersion on others. When it was their turn to serve, where were they? A-W-O-L, that's where they were." - Sen. Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat. "Just because we fight without rancour and without selfish object, seeking nothing for ourselves but what we shall wish to share with all free peoples, we shall, I feel confident, conduct our operations as belligerents without passion and ourselves observe with proud punctilio the principles of right and of fair play we profess to be fighting for." - President Woodrow Wilson, New Jersey Democrat and chickenhawk. By Ed Moltzen · 29 April 2004
Marketing Line Of The Day
"95% of Americans Like Cereal. 57% Like Sex. We've Got Cereal." -- Cereality Cereal Bar & Cafe. By Ed Moltzen · 29 April 2004
Life Imitating Scrappleface
This headline is now live over at the United Nations' news web page: "Security Council unanimously votes to keep WMDs out of terrorist hands" The story explains: "In the public debate last week to suggest amendments to the text, several speakers cautioned that the most important aspect about the resolution was not enforcement. They emphasized that the Council would have to get separate approval for the means of enforcement." But, aside from that, it's a strongly worded measure. By Ed Moltzen · 29 April 2004
New York City: Protecting The Rights Of Transsexual Sixth Graders
The New York City Council's Education Committee is proposing a new, anti-harassment code for New York's Schools that would protect kids against bullying. This phrase is included in the proposed legislation:
It's good to know, after all these years, that we're not actually born male or female, but we're "assigned" a "legal sex." By Ed Moltzen · 29 April 2004
NY Times Correction du Jour
Sometimes, you just have to sympathize:
By Ed Moltzen · 29 April 2004
What Is The Name Of This Show?
Hugh Hewitt described Chris Matthews' questions of Sen. John Kerry last night on MSNBC's "Hardball" as softballs. (Via Instapundit) Often, it's very difficult to prove real bias on the part of a journalist or interviewer on the basis of a single interview alone. Here are the questions - just the questions - Matthews asked the presumptive Democratic nominee last night on "Hardball." Should he be allowed to keep the show named "Hardball" after this?
As a man who was in war, and you were in a war in Vietnam, when you read the papers, like in Fallujah today. You check up during the day, as you�ve been doing today about what�s happening over there with our men, coming back in, trying to retake that city. What do you think you know that the average guy who hasn�t been in a war knows?" "MATTHEWS: When you�re in combat, and you�re facing the enemy every day and you get up, do you have a sense of the politics of that war all the time? Or is it, like in Vietnam�somewhere in the Vietnam experience you decided this war isn�t the right war. KERRY: Yes. MATTHEWS: Tell me about that."
You�ve saved them through thick and thin, through all changes of attitudes about the war. Why are they�what do they mean to you?" "MATTHEWS: You�ve got them. What do they mean to you?" "MATTHEWS: Maybe it�s a small distinction, but I think people could figure this out if you helped them. The difference between a medal, that you�that you keep and a ribbon that you might, for a political�to make a political statement in 1971, you might toss at the capital steps. What�s that distinction?" "MATTHEWS: Do you think this is a stupid argument that�s going on from the other side, attacking you for throwing away what you said, or implied, or allowed the people to imply were medals when in fact they�re ribbons?" "MATTHEWS: But they do have, Senator, a piece of videotape going back 33 years of you talking to a Washington, D.C., reporter, a woman reporter, saying, after she says you threw�you tossed your bronze and your silver... KERRY: Right. MATTHEWS: �And beyond that,� you said, and you said �other ribbons.� You allowed her... KERRY: I didn�t say other ribbons. I said, �And the others.� MATTHEWS: And the others. Well, you allowed�you allowed her to use the word �medals.� KERRY: Well, we all did. We all... MATTHEWS: But you know they were ribbons." "MATTHEWS: Why do you think, along those lines, a vice president who has three deferments, why do you think he�s putting his three deferments up against your three Purple Hearts?" "MATTHEWS: I�ll tell you what matters to a lot of people, our generation. I�m almost as old as you. Very close. And I remember guys in college who were all right wing and hawkish on the war in Vietnam and then you said, �Are you going to join?� Because they all could have been officers. And they said, �No, I�m participating in the system.� Meaning they�re going to�they�re going to get out of it through deferments or whatever. What do you think of guys like Cheney who said, �I�m going to have a kid at the right time. I�m going to grad school at the right time. I�m going to stack up those deferments till I�m 83 years old, before they get anywhere near me�? And they�re also hawkish." "KERRY: I have historically never begrudged the choices that people made. MATTHEWS: Even hawks who avoid the war?" "MATTHEWS: What went out, it basically tracks what you did the other day on �Good Morning America.� And the question your staff put out, under your name, is, is Bush telling the truth, President Bush, when he said he had no special privileges or favoritism in jumping 150 places to get in the Air Guard in Texas? What do you think about that? Is that something you care about? You want to know the truth? KERRY: He ought to answer that question. MATTHEWS: Why?" "MATTHEWS: Is it accountable�should the president be accountable for skipping that�that physical when he was in the military?" "MATTHEWS: Should he prove that he was in the Guard and actively involved in the Guard when he was out of town, he was in Alabama?" "MATTHEWS: Do you think the people around the president have hoisted themselves on their own petard by bringing up this issue of your service?" "MATTHEWS: Is it relevant that you served in combat and faced enemy fire and the president of the United States did not? Is that a relevant fact, when picking a commander in chief for the next four years?" "MATTHEWS: If you had to vote between two candidates, one who served in the military and one who didn�t, and they�re actively conducting a war, would you look at the service records of both men?" "MATTHEWS: Are you a stronger man for having gone through that rite of passage? KERRY: Yes. MATTHEWS: Facing combat? KERRY: Yes. MATTHEWS: With the enemy? KERRY: Yes." "MATTHEWS: We�re here in Ohio with Senator John Kerry for his job summit here in Cleveland. I want to get to the jobs thing. I promise you, we�ll get to it in a couple minutes. But this president has made�and he is the issue, the president of the United States, because he�s running for reelection. And you�re offering yourself as an alternative, as an alternative plan. The president of the United States was asked by the press the other day if he�d ever made any mistakes as president. And he said he hadn�t. What do you think of that answer?" "MATTHEWS: The absence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, does that justify a statement that he did make a mistake?" "MATTHEWS: Was he mistaken to think there were weapons of mass destruction there?" "MATTHEWS: Do you think he�s�he�s afraid that his testimony won�t jive with the vice president�s?" "MATTHEWS: I mean, they�re not the Menendez brothers. I mean, they don�t have some major crime to hang�hang up. You were a prosecutor. You just brought me into an area of great opportunity here. If you had two witnesses, two material witnesses, you had two, even defendants, and they said, and they were accused of operating together in some sort of theft or whatever, and they said, �Can we testify together?� What would you have said as a prosecutor?" "MATTHEWS: Well, I make the analogy, but generally, in terms of human nature, do you think people have good reason for wanting to testify together?" "MATTHEWS: But he says he never makes mistakes. So why would he be afraid to do it alone?" "MATTHEWS: Was he mistaken? Was he led to make this mistake by his advisers, that these people are going to be happy as hell to have us be there and there wasn�t going to be any nationalistic resistance to our�our occupation of Iraq? Was that a big mistake?" "MATTHEWS: Should this guy have fired a bunch of people for that intelligence failure?" "MATTHEWS: You�ve spoken at length and very completely about the how question. But why do you think we went to war? If there was exaggeration of WMD, exaggeration of the danger, exaggeration implicitly with the connection of al Qaeda and 9/11, what�s the motive for this? What�s the why? Why did Bush and Cheney and the ideologues around take us to war? Why do you think they did it?" "MATTHEWS: We�re back with Senator John Kerry. You go through the towns of this state, like Spencerville, and there�s only a few buildings left in the downtown areas, maybe a Blockbuster, maybe a dinette. All the factories are old and rusting. And can you change that or is that just the past?" "MATTHEWS: The other day, I bought one of those XM radios for the car and I called up to get it installed. And I get a guy about a half-hour later. He�s got an Indian accent. He�s in Bangalore somewhere. And it took the longest�and I said, forget about it. I�ll use online to get this thing fixed. Why are we going around the world to get our radios set up or our computers set up, or why isn�t there somebody in this town or city or this part of Ohio that can work for 15 bucks an hour? Apparently, they�re paying them good money over there in India to help us get our computers online or help us get our problems with high tech fixed up." "MATTHEWS: Can you make health care cheaper than a phone bill? That�s what we�re talking about here. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: Serious. Long distance to India is cheaper for those companies than giving health care to an American worker." "MATTHEWS: Do you think this administration and its political handlers like Karl Rove are capable of realizing they can�t beat you on the jobs issue, they can�t beat you on foreign policy, so they are going to drop this nonsensical stuff? Don Evans, the secretary of commerce and the president�s good friend, said you look French the other day. Are they going to after Teresa because she was born in Mozambique? Are they going to try to build the idea that you�re like Mike Dukakis or you�re like Al Gore, a little different than most people? You know what they did the last couple times." MORE: Some additional thoughts on MSNBC's actions surrounding the Matthews-Kerry interview can be found at Wizbang. By Ed Moltzen · 28 April 2004
Communism and Terrorism
According to this travel warning from the State Department, urging Americans to reconsider non-essential travel to the Philippines, there's a pretty strong link between the Communists and the terrorists:
It's worth noting that, among other things, Al Qaeda soldier Ramzi Yousef sought sanctuary in the Philippines so he could plan the Project Bojinka terror plot. (The plot failed; it was uncovered when Yousef accidently set his apartment on fire and a local police dispatcher stumbled onto the operation.) By Ed Moltzen · 28 April 2004
Oil-For-Food-For-Terrorism?
Claudia Rosett, in the Wall Street Journal, writes today that funds from the crooked, U.N.-run Oil-for-Food Program for Iraq made their way into some very questionable, crooked places with clear links to international corruption and, yes, terrorism (emphasis added):
If this scandal was lacking a tangible, clear connection to the attacks upon the U.S., it may have one now. This was a program overseen by the highest levels of the United Nations' leadership, and its funds were commingled with a Taliban sympathizer, The Bank of Bin Laden and an Iraqi nuke maker? If this true, it could lay the foundation for a full-blown U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations - or at least a serious discussion about it. By Ed Moltzen · 28 April 2004
NY Times Correction Du Jour
If you're going to write a story in your newspaper about an accuracy scandal at another newspaper, you'd probably want to be accurate, no?
By Ed Moltzen · 28 April 2004
John Kerry and Patriotism
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." --William Shakespeare, Hamlet "I don't need any lessons in patriotism or caring about America from the likes of Tom DeLay and the right wing, whose motivations can be questioned ... " - April 3, 2003. " The Republican leadership has attacked our freedom to speak and even our very patriotism. "Recently Tom Delay tried to make a political issue of my call for new leadership. Well, I refuse to have my patriotism questioned by him or anyone else." - April 9, 2003. "Why not have a military that is strong but at the same time advances our ideals around the globe? And why not have a president who understands the truth that the flag and patriotism do not belong to any one party; they belong to all Americans?" - May 3, 2003 "It is time to renew the spirit of service and citizenship, of duty and the patriotism that belongs to no one President and no one party, but should enlist all our people to do their part, in many different ways, to make our country better. " May 19, 2003. "We're going to remind this president that the American flag and patriotism doesn't belong to any political party - it belongs to all of us as Americans." - June 5, 2003. "I'm running for President to remind this president that the American flag and patriotism doesn't belong to any political party - it belongs to all of us as Americans." - June 7, 2003. "We are going to lead this country of ours to a better place, and we are going to prove to the world that the real definition of patriotism is not going to be stolen by those who believe the flag or patriotism belongs to them. The real definition of patriotism is how we make our country stronger for our children. The environment— WARREN OLNEY: We're out of time, Senator." - June 26, 2003. "I want our government to keep faith with people like Eric Alva. Days after he graduated from high school, Eric Alva walked into a Marine recruiting station in San Antonio. He was five foot one and weighed ninety pounds. The recruiters told him the minimum weight requirement was 102 pounds. But Eric was determined. His father had served in the Army in Vietnam – and Eric wanted to do his part for his country. He worked out, bulked up and joined the Marines. He became a leader. But on issue after issue this Administration has not kept faith with that promise; it has betrayed his patriotism and all those whose gifts and faith and sacrifice are what makes this nation great." - July 13, 2003. "Let me just close by saying to all of you that I will also not allow this president and this administration to define patriotism. The flag of the United States does not belong to any party or to any president or to any ideology. He belongs to all of us as Americans -- MR. DONALDSON: Thank you, senator." - July 15, 2003. "I just want to take one minute, if I can, to divert, because I learned on the way over here of a plan in the Pentagon that was made public today to cut the pay of 148,000 troops who are serving in Iraq, to cut their pay, because they say they can't afford to pay them the $75 of imminent-danger pay and $150 of family-separation pay. And I call on the president, by the end of today, to make it clear that not only is that not an option, not only is that not a definition of patriotism or support for these troops, but this administration should apologize for even giving the families and those troops the anxiety of thinking that that might be the regard in which they are held in 120-degree heat while they are taking fire on all sides and standing for our country. I'm sure you will join me in that." - Aug. 14, 2003. "And many of us who served in the military have a sense of patriotism that doesn't belong to either party, it belongs to the country. The flag doesn't belong to either party, it belongs to the country. And I think that President Bush, frankly, right now, is letting down a lot of veterans, because veterans across the country are having a harder time getting into the VA." - Sept. 2, 2003. "This president lives out a creed of greed for he and his friends. I'm tired of seeing chief executives be permitted to take the millions or billions to Bermuda and leave the average American here at home stuck with the tax bill. You know what I call that? Unpatriotic. And we're going to define patriotism for this country." - Sept. 8, 2003. "And when it comes to patriotism, when I hear the Vice President and others talk about it or Tom Delay, let me remind them about patriotism. In America, there are 135,000 veterans waiting six months to see a doctor for the first time at the VA. "There are over 400,000 veterans who have been denied access to the VA because they're told they don't have the money. "Well, they had the money to give a tax cut to people earning more than $400,000 a year and I say to you, my definition of patriotism, and I say to them, my definition of patriotism is you don't ever forget your obligations to those who've wore the uniform of your country. " - Sept. 5, 2003. "We deserve a president of the United States who will write laws for all Americans, not for campaign contributors. And I intend to be a president for all Americans who takes back the flag of our country because it doesn't belong to any party, doesn't belong to any president. It belongs to all of us as Americans. And we deserve a president who stands up for patriotism and its real definition, which is doing what makes our country stronger and safer and more secure." - Sept. 9, 2003. "The Reserves are losing their health care when they come back, they may lose their job. There's a disparity in pay between them, and I think it is clear that every single one of us up here would believe that we're tired of hearing Tom DeLay and Dick Cheney and others throw patriotism at us. "We're taking back the flag for the United States of America, and we're going to make it clear the real definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of their country. And we are going to do that." - Oct. 9, 2003. "When the President runs attack ads claiming Democrats are opposed to the War on Terror it is an assault on our very patriotism." - Dec. 1, 2003. "And what's this President going to find when he brings it on? When he brings on every tool in his right-wing arsenal to stop us from taking back our democracy? When he brings on the attack ads that question our patriotism? When he brings on the right-wing talking heads-the Ann Coulters, the Sean Hannitys, the Rush Limbaughs-to try and stifle dissent and shut us up?" - Dec. 2, 2003. "But I know from my own service to country that the flag of the United States does not belong to any president or to any political party or to any ideology. I believe it is the essence of patriotism-and it is the essence of patriotism to hold our country to a higher standard of behavior. " - Dec. 3, 2003. “I can't wait to stand up when Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush question the patriotism of Democrats, I'm going to remind them that the real definition of patriotism begins with keeping faith with those who wear the uniform of our country." - Jan. 2, 2004. "I will not stand for Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, President Bush or others challenging the patriotism or the ability of Democrats to question the direction of our country. "And I'll use everything in my power to stand up to them to present what I think is the real definition of patriotism in our country." - Jan. 4, 2004. "We saw what they did to challenge the patriotism of Max Cleland, a triple amputee, a man who left three of his limbs on the ground in Vietnam. They challenged his patriotism. His regret is he didn't stand up and fight back. I'm going to fight back, and I'm going to fight back with Max Cleland at my side and with a lot of other veterans who understand that this war is a war that they rushed into, that they have put our troops at greater exposure of risk than we had to." - Jan. 11, 2004. "I also intend to expose the despicable tactics George Bush, Karl Rove and their disciples on the radical right. They do not really defend their politics of privilege on its own terms; instead, they take refuge in false appeals to patriotism. We do not need - and we will not accept - lectures on patriotism from the likes of Steve King and Tom DeLay. " - Jan. 14, 2004. "And I'm not going to listen to Tom DeLay or the president or anybody else lecture the Democratic Party about patriotism, when the first act of patriotism is keeping faith with people who wore the uniform of our country." - Jan. 22, 2004. "I am determined to run a campaign on the great challenges facing this country-from creating jobs, to solving our health care crisis to getting our nation's ballooning deficit under control. But I will not sit back and allow my patriotism to be challenged." - Feb. 21, 2004. "And you know, it's curious to me, George, how angry they get and how-sort of, they throw patriotism around and so forth. I don't know what it is that all these Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam or fight in a war have against those of us who did. And I look forward to having a great debate with them about how you make America secure." - Feb. 23, 2004. "PRESSMAN: Do you think they're challenging your patriotism? Sen. KERRY: When you question somebody's commitment to the defense of your nation, you're questioning their commitment to the country." - Feb. 29, 2004. "They challenged John McCain's record as a prisoner of war. There were people out there calling him the most unbelievable things. They did the same thing to our colleague and friend, Max Cleland, who left three limbs on the battlefield in Vietnam, and they challenged his patriotism. There is a Republican attack squad that specializes in trying to destroy people and be negative. I think the president needs to talk about the real priorities of our country. And that's what we're looking forward to." - March 11, 2004. "But in South Carolina, John McCain's sacrifice as a POW was used to attack his fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief. In 2002, an America hero, Max Cleland - who lost three limbs in Vietnam - was defeated for reelection to the Senate with ads that questioned his patriotism and his commitment to our national security. " - March 13, 2004. "I'm not going to listen to them talk to me about patriotism and defense of country." - April 18, 2004. By Ed Moltzen · 27 April 2004
Al Franken's Boss Takes A Hike
The Mark Walsh era at Air America Radio has come to an end...a full three weeks after it began. The Chicago Tribune is reporting (registration required) Walsh "stepped down" as boss at the liberal-leaning radio network on Monday. Air America - which officially went live on March 31 - has already been kicked off its stations in Chicago and Los Angeles and grappled with bad press from an alleged check-bouncing controversy. (However, fans in those two cities can still hear Air America programming via the prestigious Internet.) Rush Limbaugh, whose afternoon, nationally syndicated radio program competes with Air America star Al Franken, said on his show this afternoon that Walsh and Air America parted ways shortly after Walsh made a bombastic, anti-Limbaugh speech before a trade group. There's more discussion of this story over at the New York Radio Message Board. By Ed Moltzen · 27 April 2004
The U.N.: We're Really Not Irrelevent. Really.
The United Nations says it's not irrelevent any more.:
Tharoor didn't say which "hard threats" on which the media chose to focus - whether they have focused on the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia; or 800,000 slaughtered in Rwanda; or the threats created out of the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program; or starvation and lawlessless in Somalia. But really, he said, the U.N. isn't irrelevent. He added, "...(W)e cannot afford merely to echo the media's priorities." MORE: The Rasmussen Report just released a finding that "Just 38% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the United Nations these days. Forty-four percent (44%) have an unfavorable view." As more and more Democrats contemplate the centerpiece of Sen. John Kerry's national security and foreign policy strategy, the phrase "buyer's remorse" may be entering into more and more discussions headed into the Democratic National Convention in July. MORE: Correction - the buyer's remorse has already begun. (Via James Taranto.) By Ed Moltzen · 27 April 2004
Partying Underground
According to a casting notice at Backstage.com (subscription required), they're making a new movie "about underground parties in NYC."
It's not like the world needs any more reasons to hate New York or anything. But it's nice to know there's still plenty of work available for ingénues. By Ed Moltzen · 27 April 2004
Firing Ben Brafman
So Michael Jackson has fired Mark Geragos and Ben Brafman as his lawyers, saying:
The last time a big-name client fired Ben Brafman so publicly, Sammy "The Bull" Gravano was cutting a deal and readying to enter witness protection. Don't count on the same outcome this time. By Ed Moltzen · 26 April 2004
The Environmental Governor
New York's Gov. George Pataki picks a week when gas prices have reached yet another all-time high to announce speed limits are going up around the state:
The regions where the higher limits are in place do not include Long Island, where driving slower than 65 means taking your life in your hands. By Ed Moltzen · 26 April 2004
Mr. Electability Melts Down
Drudge has a preliminary transcript of Sen. John Kerry's appearance this morning on Good Morning America, where he was asked whether or not he ever admitted throwing his own war medals over the White House fence during a Vietnam war protest:
It goes downhill from there. The real sign of trouble is when Kerry says, "this comes from a president who can't even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the national guard." Previously on the Bush-National Guard issue he said, "You know, it's not an issue that I've chosen to make an issue, and it's, I think-it's not what I'm running my campaign on." If nothing else, it looks like Kerry just lost a week of campaigning to this, as he tries to re-re-explain his remarks on the medals. A Roundup of Response: The Curmudgeons' Corner: "Here is Kerry being his Clinton best. 'I did not say I had trajectoral relations with my medals...I had trajectoral relations with my ribbons.'"
Glenn Reynolds: "It's pretty devastating."
LaShawn Barber: "Unfortunately for him, he's left a verifiable trail of lies."
Elsewhere, Rasmussen Reports' daily tracking poll has President Bush jumping to his biggest lead over Kerry in more than a month and a half. By Ed Moltzen · 26 April 2004
Using The Facilities
This just crossed the wire, from Roswell, Ga.:
At last: a poll where Americans aren't evenly divided. (Insert "weapons of mass destruction" crack here.) By Ed Moltzen · 26 April 2004
A Threat
Iran's President Khatami is threatening the U.S.:
Some might say that doing nothing would be suicide - especially for the Iraqis. By Ed Moltzen · 25 April 2004
True Oldies
New York radio veteran Scott Shannon is trying something new: a web-based, nothing-but-oldies music station called "TrueOldiesChannel.com"
That's almost as bad as hearing "Sympathy for the Devil" on Lite FM. By Ed Moltzen · 25 April 2004
"Be Extra Careful"
A "Fan Sponsored & Organized Candlelight Vigil" has been planned for the Gates of Neverland Ranch, on behalf of accused child molester Michael Jackson.
By Ed Moltzen · 25 April 2004
He Campaigned Against Abortion Before He Campaigned For It
The John Kerry-Abortion-Opponent story had a shelf-life of about five minutes this week but, for historical purposes, it's interesting to go back and take another look. It's not just Kerry who's flip-flopped. At first blush, it looks like Kerry is taking part in another 180. But, in truth, Kerry has always backed the the view of mainstream Democratic leadership. It's just that that view has changed. According to reports, Kerry said in 1972:
In Steven Hayward's book, "The Age of Reagan," we learn that is precisely the view that George McGovern had in 1972. And others in the party - including Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Sen. Edmund Muskie and Rev. Jesse Jackson - were even more hawkish on abortion:
Over the next few years, Catholic Democrats would adopt another position that lasted them for more than a decade: they would be "personally opposed" to abortion but support the law. Once in government, though, they would work to restrict abortions. Joseph A. Califano Jr., the former LBJ confidant and Health, Education and Welfare secretary under President Jimmy Carter, writes in his new book, "Inside," that he was so conflicted about the issue that on the night before his Senate confirmation hearings in 1977 that he consulted his parish priest. The priest told Califano that he wouldn't even be in a position to change abortion regulations unless he was in government. Once there, the priest told Califano, it was acceptable to uphold the laws of the land while - at the same time - working to change them. Califano accepted that. Once confirmed as HEW secretary, he handed down regulations that restricted when government funds would be used to pay for abortions. But he also upheld the basic tenets of Roe v. Wade. Like Kerry, Califano is a Mass-going devout Catholic. For now, Kerry says he is "personally opposed" to abortion, but supports a woman's right to choose. But he also says:
(He equates abortion with "population control." Think on that one a second.) It seems that Kerry has now moved way beyond the Califano doctrine. So when he says he's "personally opposed" to abortion, what does that mean? That, in his personal time, he volunteers in adoption clinics? The country has - even a good number of Catholics have - been willing to vote for candidates who support abortion rights. The country has moved beyond that as the determining factor in how voters vote. But in 2004, it's not clear whether they'll support a candidate whose faith and conscience, apparently, has no center of gravity on even the most basic issue. Old school Democrats like Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Edmund Muskie and Jesse Jackson never had to face that situation. This year, Kerry might. By Ed Moltzen · 25 April 2004
"Think Real Hard: Did You Ever See This Guy?"
Gothamist scoops the world on Jerry Orbach filming his last scenes as Det. Lenny Briscoe. More dapper than Andy Sipowicz and as witty as Barney Miller, Briscoe entered the 27th Precinct during the Bush Administration. The First Bush Administration. He'll be missed a helluva lot more than Ross, by the way. By Ed Moltzen · 24 April 2004
NY Times Correction du Jour
"Went astray" sounds nicer than, "it just slipped our minds," but you get the point. By Ed Moltzen · 24 April 2004
Like Everything Else - Split Down The Middle
Gallup's latest polling number on abortion find that half of all Americans consider themself "Pro-choice," while the other half consider themselves "Pro-life." Overall, Americans consider abortion to be the thirteenth most important issue heading into Election Day, Gallup finds - trailing issues including "corporate corruption," "the federal budget deficit" and "immigration." Gallup also reaches this conclusion:
By Ed Moltzen · 24 April 2004
Taking On The King Of All Media
Cathy Seipp made an "offhand crack" about Howard Stern during a recent appearance on the Dennis Miller show, and the King of All Media teed off on her yesterday.
More than half the country doesn't vote, which means she probably had better than a 50-50 chance of being right on the voting remark - even if it was a throwaway comment. Anyway, Drudge is reporting that Howard's ratings are way up in New York - but so are President Bush's poll numbers nationally. By Ed Moltzen · 23 April 2004
Gang Report
From the Nassau County (Long Island) D.A.'s office:
The Nassau County D.A., Denis Dillon, opposes the death penalty. By Ed Moltzen · 23 April 2004
Everyday Allegations
A judge is still weighing the allegations, but her some of her fans have already seemed to reach their verdict, according to emails to the home economics diva posted to her trial web site:
If nothing else, Martha's lawyers are in the process of savaging Juror Chappell Hartridge in a way they could never do to the primary witness against her at trial - Douglas Faneuil. Hartridge doesn't sound like the kind of guy many people would want to make godfather to their children. "Troubled" would be a generous way to characterize some of the incidents he's being accused of by Robert Morvillo, Martha's chief lawyer. But Morvillo has to prove to a judge that not only was he entitled to a basic voir dire (search for the truth) during jury selection, he was entitled to give each potential juror a complete background check. Bet you can't wait for your next jury duty notice now, can you? By Ed Moltzen · 23 April 2004
NY Times Correction du Jour
Not exactly the best kind of story to incorrectly write about a brother-sister/in-law relationship:
By Ed Moltzen · 23 April 2004
Politics and Rap
Especially French-looking politicians. By Ed Moltzen · 22 April 2004
Fallows-cy
James Fallows’ piece in the most recent issue of The Atlantic Monthly, “Blind into Baghdad,” is drawing a lot of attention from folks who oppose the Iraq war and President Bush. (Al Franken has been reciting Fallows’ “findings” on his radio show like it’s a set of talking points stapled to his hand.) In the article, Fallows spends much time making the argument that the Bush Administration – including the likes of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz - knowingly ignored detailed warnings for what lay ahead in Iraq once major combat operations ended. It would truly be maddening... if it wasn’t such a load of manure. Fallows was then-President Jimmy Carter’s chief speechwriter from 1977 to 1979. So a guy who worked for the folks who gave us Desert One is now lecturing America on what constitutes military readiness. (Next thing you know, John Dean will be running around saying it's all worse than Watergate!) With that in mind, it’s worth taking a look at what Fallows writes and matching it up against reality. The full text of the article is found here, but here are some of the highlights: The first tip-off that Fallows is working with flimsy evidence is this: It takes him a full 1,100 words just to get to his point – that a State Department study called “The Future of Iraq” spelled out prescient advice for President Bush’s war cabinet on how to avoid post-combat disaster. The war cabinet, as Fallows tells it, blew the study off and knowingly or recklessly sent our boys to their deaths. (Franken, gushing over report, says it proves Wolfowitz, etc., “have blood on their hands.”) The main points in “The Future of Iraq” and other warning signals are, as Fallows tells us: - It was urgent for the Coalition to get Iraqi electricity back to pre-war levels quickly once the Saddam regime fell; - It was urgent to hand over major, domestic security operations to the Iraqi military as quickly as possible; - Proper U.S. troop strength was a must.
Luckily, we don’t have to wait so long to figure out what went wrong with Fallows’ story. Let’s look at his main points, one at a time. 1)The power grid issue. According to “The Future of Iraq”, the coalition was advised to get Iraqi power up and running at pre-war levels, on the double. In another report Fallows cites, the Army War College suggests getting the grid up to pre-war levels within four months. It wound up taking between four and five months, according to CPA infrastructure reports. It’s worth noting that American casualties were actually greater in the months after the grid was back to pre-war levels than in the months before. So not only did the coalition do what the State Department study group and War College advised, it turned out to be pretty much a red herring anyway since it didn’t stem bloodshed; 2) The Coalition should let the Iraqi military play a role in security post-Saddam. Good in theory, but not in practice. CPA Administrator Paul Bremer, in formally disbanding the military, noted that the Iraqi military had already dissolved itself. Had it? Well, for the most part, the Iraqi military traditionally did a few things very well: run their rape rooms, use weapons of mass destruction to kill lots and lots of people, and surrender. Boy, did these guys know how to surrender. They started surrendering before the war even started. During the war, others simply walked off their posts and headed back into the community. In fact, running away from their jobs was such a fun pastime for the Iraqi military, they even tried surrendering to TV news crews during the first Gulf War. There were essentially two sources of information that suggested the Iraqi army was a capable military machine: “The Future of Iraq” study commissioned by the State Department, and Baghdad Bob. Fallows might have been more intellectually honest if he had quoted the latter; 3) The U.S. army should be equipped at proper troop strength which, Fallows says, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz failed to order. This is an issue that’s been subject to intense debate since before the war started, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that a war critic would latch onto it. But Fallows’ sourcing here is – to be generous – suspect. Fallows relies in his piece on media reports and an interview with former Army Secretary/Enron executive Thomas White – who was forced to resign after some disagreements with Rumsfeld and the president (not to mention the bad Enron press.) Using partial quotes from a disgruntled White, Fallows backs into hearsay quotes from Gen. Eric Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff. Shinseki, White is quoted as saying, suggested the Army should put way more troops into Iraq than it had in Bosnia. We have to take former Enron executive White’s word for it because Fallows didn’t bother to interview Shinseki himself. (It’s apparently OK to use hearsay quotes via a disgruntled ex-employee to slam the Bush administration, but Clinton supporters demanded DNA evidence to believe the 42nd president did wrong. And then they changed the subject when they got that evidence. But we digress.) Shinseki did make a splash when he suggested a couple hundred thousand troops might be needed in the Iraq effort – a suggestion other war planners, including Gen. Tommy Franks – denied. But, during a March, 2003 pre-war Senate hearing, Shinseki was asked to elaborate on his thoughts:
So, “Clinton’s Army” had major recruiting problems that were fixed by the time the Iraq war was launched, and retaining those recruits was never a problem. Shinseki continued:
Shinseki also talked about re-jiggering the mix between National Guard troops and full-time military personnel, as well as combat-ready personnel versus administrative staff. Fallows quotes other aspects of Shinseki's testimony. But it doesn't fit into Fallows' theory, so the author accuses the general of being "loyally vague" in his Senate testimony. Did Shinseki suggest there were no troop strength issues? No. But did he sound a warning that kids would die in Iraq because not enough soldiers would be deployed? Not quite. Fallows also rehashes, accusingly, Vice President Cheney's remarks that Iraqis would greet U.S. troops as liberators. But then Fallows fails to note that most of the post-combat violence in Iraq has been instigated largely by Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist henchmen and al Qaeda affiliates. Rank-and-file Iraqis, including a majority of Shia, oppose the violence. Fallows joins in a wild overstatement that has, for some reason, become treated as gospel. He wraps up the Atlantic piece by throwing out more accusations on the fly. Rumsfeld, he said, "(p)recisely because he could not foresee all hazards...should have been more zealous about avoiding the ones that were evident—the big and obvious ones the rest of the government tried to point out to him." Avoiding hazards that are evident? You mean like the potential for Saddam to have blown up oil fields? The potential for hundreds of thousands of refugees to attempt to flee to places like Turkey and Iran? The potential for the Iraqi army to collapse under the weight of its cowardice, ineptitude and neglect? Like those evident hazards? Like Sen. John Kerry, Fallows also points a finger of judgment at Bush Administration "triumphalism." But it's not that President Bush believes is views are superior to all others just genocidal, murderous tyrants. (Fallows' old boss, Jimmy Carter, could have used a little triumphalism when it came to Daniel Ortega, Leonid Brezhnev, Fidel Castro and the Ayatollah.) Finally, Fallows accuses the president of not having an interest in details - of only wanting to pursue large causes regardless of the obstacles. He should pick up the phone and call CIA Director George Tenet, in that case, and let him know that the president won't be needing all those daily, in-person briefings on every detail of threats to national security. Maybe, instead, when the next crisis arises, President Bush can read the work of a State Department study group before making all of his decisions. Either that, or he can pick up the phone and call up Baghdad Bob. By Ed Moltzen · 22 April 2004
Because There Aren't Enough Real Issues
The city comptroller said the contract wasn't exactly made of the greatest stuff on earth, since it unfairly cut out other soft drink vendors from the process. He's fighting to block the iced tea from city property.
Snapplegate will now play out through the New York State court system. By Ed Moltzen · 22 April 2004
Quote Unquote
So Michael Jackson was indicted, and all he got was this lousy statement put out by his lawyers:
They didn't note, as Michael Jackson has in the past, that it's perfectly "normal" for a grown man to "sleep with little boys," that there's nothing "wrong" with dangling little babies from hotel balconies and that he really has a "pigmentation" disease. By Ed Moltzen · 21 April 2004
Kerry and the U.N.
The entire program itself was $39 billion, meaning more than 15 percent of the entire U.N.-run relief effort would have been actively skimmed through the time the United Nations Security Council blocked U.S., British and Spanish efforts to get support for the war in Iraq. Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has spoken repeatedly about giving more and more power in Iraq to the same people who protected - and allegedly pocketed some of - Saddam's 15 percent skim. Here's some of what he's said in the past year plus: "And I believe very deeply that making a better effort through the United Nations, trying harder to bring people on board with us strengthens America." - Jan. 30, 2003 "That's why I was one of the first Democrats to speak up and urge President Bush to go to the United Nations - because even a country as great as the United States needs some friends in this world." - March 14, 2003 "...President Bush made an enormous mistake in not building a broader coalition or winning the support of the United Nations because, after all, Saddam Hussein broke an agreement with the world, not just the United States." - May 15, 2003
"And we should bring NATO, we should bring the United Nations, we should bring other countries into the effort. We can still manage most of the security operation, even as we do that, but the humanitarian and the governance components of this must be broadened." - July 13, 2003 "... They're going through the back door, you know, rather than the front door. I mean, they're kind of reaching out to countries, but they're trying to keep it on the QT. A number of countries have said, 'Look, we're prepared to be helpful, but we think we ought to do it through the United Nations,' which is something that this administration, obviously, just hates to do. I think that when you're dealing with the lives of young Americans, you don't let pride get in the way." - July 16, 2003 "We need to protect our troops, and that mean that pride should not prevent this administration from going to the United Nations and doing what they should have done in the first place." - July 16, 2003 "Look, I voted to protect the security of the United States of America based on the information that we were given, and I voted correctly to put the United States in a place to go to the United Nations and hold a clearly miscalculating evil person accountable to the United Nations standards." - July 21, 2003 "It is imperative to get the United Nations to help not because of any politics but because it just makes plain, old American common sense to have as many nations carrying the burden and risk as possible. " - Aug. 25, 2003 "And I'll tell you, after I'm sworn in, one of the first things I'm going to do is go to the United Nations and turn over a new chapter in America's relationship with the world, one that strengthens our security and our safety." - Aug. 31, 2003 " I believe the president made a—an unbelievably bad decision, a dramatic decision not to bring the United Nations in earlier and to refuse the offer recently for them to be involved. We need to take the target off of American soldiers and reduce the sense of American occupation." - Sept. 2, 2003 "I—I voted to do the responsible thing for America, which was to have a threat of force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable and to go to the United Nations." - |
