There will be a billion words written about the Libby pardon, so let's make this simple: anyone who still thinks Al Qaeda is a greater threat to this country than the Bush crowd is an idiot.
diderot
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Too Delicious
For nearly two presidential terms, the loyal sheep of the Republican party swallowed their reservations. The offset was too enticing. If they remained perfectly loyal to the sometimes irrational dictates of the Bush administration...the Bush administration would remain loyal to them. A permanent GOP majority was the goal--wasn't that what Herr Rove promised? Surely a little capitulation...a few chips off the Constitution...a few war deaths...were worth that prize.
But guess what. As those sheep now recognize their inevitable path to another electoral slaughter, they are attempting to jump the fence. Question the torture...worry now about the forfeit of individual rights...even belatedly withdraw your previously unfailing support for the Iraq fiasco. Senators now are rising...one after another...to acknowledge what the President would never concede--any sign of fallibility with George and Dick's Excellent Adventure. As if their 'courage' now could bring back the tens--maybe hundreds of thousands of deaths that this abortive decision wrought.
Well, my GOP friends, you now understand the not-so-hidden underside of the Bush omerta. Loyalty is essential. But it works only one way.
You pay homage to him.
He walks out on you--just like he did his military obligation to the country.
diderot
But guess what. As those sheep now recognize their inevitable path to another electoral slaughter, they are attempting to jump the fence. Question the torture...worry now about the forfeit of individual rights...even belatedly withdraw your previously unfailing support for the Iraq fiasco. Senators now are rising...one after another...to acknowledge what the President would never concede--any sign of fallibility with George and Dick's Excellent Adventure. As if their 'courage' now could bring back the tens--maybe hundreds of thousands of deaths that this abortive decision wrought.
Well, my GOP friends, you now understand the not-so-hidden underside of the Bush omerta. Loyalty is essential. But it works only one way.
You pay homage to him.
He walks out on you--just like he did his military obligation to the country.
diderot
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Ruled by the Mob
For the sake of argument, let's say you're one of the few remaining citizens who believes in George Bush--that his intentions were honorable, his patriotism pure, his fiasco in Iraq a simple mistake, his true nature sincere and divinely guided and quintessentially American.
Then you should be asked to explain this: the vast majority of his White House employees, bound by the laws of the land, including post-Watergate mandates for transparency, virtually ignored the governmental email system--instead choosing to communicate almost exclusively via their personal Republican party accounts.
This is criminal. This is illegal (see the Hatch Act). This is something to make even Tony Soprano blush.
Now a semi-honest Congressional investigation says it would like to see exactly what those governmental employees were doing at our expense on their party emails.
Guess what. Of the 81 employees whose records are sought, 55 somehow can find no record of how they corresponded. Nothing.
Remember that Nixon was impeached esssentially for erasing one single tape recording.
You remaining Bush supporters can call your President incompetent, or clueless, or simply stupid. But in any case, a crime is a crime. He should spend his remaining time in a jailyard full of stocky inmates named Bluto.
Then the could do to him what for almost seven years he has done to all of us.
diderot
Then you should be asked to explain this: the vast majority of his White House employees, bound by the laws of the land, including post-Watergate mandates for transparency, virtually ignored the governmental email system--instead choosing to communicate almost exclusively via their personal Republican party accounts.
This is criminal. This is illegal (see the Hatch Act). This is something to make even Tony Soprano blush.
Now a semi-honest Congressional investigation says it would like to see exactly what those governmental employees were doing at our expense on their party emails.
Guess what. Of the 81 employees whose records are sought, 55 somehow can find no record of how they corresponded. Nothing.
Remember that Nixon was impeached esssentially for erasing one single tape recording.
You remaining Bush supporters can call your President incompetent, or clueless, or simply stupid. But in any case, a crime is a crime. He should spend his remaining time in a jailyard full of stocky inmates named Bluto.
Then the could do to him what for almost seven years he has done to all of us.
diderot
Sunday, June 10, 2007
What's Wrong With America?
It's not often you can find out the answer to that question in a single hour's time. And all you have to do is sit yourself in front of the computer and watch Sunday's replay of Meet the Press. The proceedings lay bare the roots of what's poisoning our political discourse, protecting our pimping press, and accelerating the disintegrating state of our national character.
The initial pas de deux features Colin Powell and Tim Russert, not simply rewriting history, but effectively ignoring it as they attempt to pirouette past the damning evidence that proves the role of each in the disastrous killings of nearly 3,500 unwitting U.S. service people in Iraq. Powell, attempting to exonerate himself, instead displays what a weak, pathetic, puerile and cowardly lion he really is. Yes, he admits, 'we were wrong'--but it wasn't his fault. It was the intelligence community--and the Congress--and the administration--and, in fact, 'all of America' who believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Utter and treasonous bullshit.
Before the invasion, hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets to protest, not because they were troublemakers or anarchists or Bush-haters. But because they were Americans. They were patriots. They were willing to wait for facts...willing to protect our Constitution...willing to speak truth to power.
On that last point, enter the weasel Russert.
Now...after the bloodshed; after the unmasking; after the weeping widows and children...he can act the role of the still pandering inquisitor, putting to Powell all the questions, now faux, that would have been so helpful, so responsible, so demonstrative of at least the minimal journalistic competence had he the honesty and cojones to ask them when it mattered. He, like Powell, continues to walk in the inextinguishable light of his own ego, capable of wishing away the dark alleys of his own malfeasance.
Then, after the break, ushered in on cue is the great antidote for the lunatic right threatened by any uncomfortable truth--yet another attack on Hillary Clinton. Its mad doctors are current and former reporters for the New York Times, partners in profiteering on yet another helping of putrid slime for the uncaged neocon cannibals. Foremost is Jeff Gerth, possibly the worst, and certainly the most damaging journalist in the history of our republic. He is the author of one delusional and ultimately discredited fabrication after another, from Whitewater to Wen Ho Lee to Loral Communications--each of which sailed inexplicably past the would be editors of that would be left wing newspaper. This man should be behind bars--not continuing to soil the national fabric with his filthy game of make believe.
But instead, see how much easier it is for the 'insiders' of journalism and the body politic to pretend none of their sins ever happened...exculpated by the holy water of their own self-righteousness...cozy in the comfort that the vast legions of Beltway co-conspirators will protect them from the slightest taint of wasted American blood and tears that so decidedly stains their souls...if not their consciousness.
diderot
The initial pas de deux features Colin Powell and Tim Russert, not simply rewriting history, but effectively ignoring it as they attempt to pirouette past the damning evidence that proves the role of each in the disastrous killings of nearly 3,500 unwitting U.S. service people in Iraq. Powell, attempting to exonerate himself, instead displays what a weak, pathetic, puerile and cowardly lion he really is. Yes, he admits, 'we were wrong'--but it wasn't his fault. It was the intelligence community--and the Congress--and the administration--and, in fact, 'all of America' who believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Utter and treasonous bullshit.
Before the invasion, hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets to protest, not because they were troublemakers or anarchists or Bush-haters. But because they were Americans. They were patriots. They were willing to wait for facts...willing to protect our Constitution...willing to speak truth to power.
On that last point, enter the weasel Russert.
Now...after the bloodshed; after the unmasking; after the weeping widows and children...he can act the role of the still pandering inquisitor, putting to Powell all the questions, now faux, that would have been so helpful, so responsible, so demonstrative of at least the minimal journalistic competence had he the honesty and cojones to ask them when it mattered. He, like Powell, continues to walk in the inextinguishable light of his own ego, capable of wishing away the dark alleys of his own malfeasance.
Then, after the break, ushered in on cue is the great antidote for the lunatic right threatened by any uncomfortable truth--yet another attack on Hillary Clinton. Its mad doctors are current and former reporters for the New York Times, partners in profiteering on yet another helping of putrid slime for the uncaged neocon cannibals. Foremost is Jeff Gerth, possibly the worst, and certainly the most damaging journalist in the history of our republic. He is the author of one delusional and ultimately discredited fabrication after another, from Whitewater to Wen Ho Lee to Loral Communications--each of which sailed inexplicably past the would be editors of that would be left wing newspaper. This man should be behind bars--not continuing to soil the national fabric with his filthy game of make believe.
But instead, see how much easier it is for the 'insiders' of journalism and the body politic to pretend none of their sins ever happened...exculpated by the holy water of their own self-righteousness...cozy in the comfort that the vast legions of Beltway co-conspirators will protect them from the slightest taint of wasted American blood and tears that so decidedly stains their souls...if not their consciousness.
diderot
Friday, June 8, 2007
John Drury
For some reason, I woke up this morning thinking about John Drury, probably the most kind, decent, caring and self-effacing co-worker I've ever known. That claim is all the more noteworthy because John was a TV anchorman in the 70's, a job where an outsized ego and self-centeredness were almost prerequisites.
We worked together for WLS-TV in Chicago, an 'owned-and-operated' station, meaning the network itself held the keys, rather than some independent local concern. And for them, this was an extremely lucrative proposition; their five 'O and O's' generated far more profit than the network itself. We were among the first 'Eyewitness News' formats, derided accurately by competitors as a 'happy talk' substitute for real news. And indeed, the nature of our product was kinetic, and often nearly vaudevillian in nature.
Against this, John was as comfortable and welcoming as your grandpa's Barcalounger.
In those days, Channel 7 dominated the local news ratings. The competitors vainly tried to copy the format, to no avail. Eventually WBBM, the CBS station in town, figured out it might as well do something different, and began presenting itself as the 'hard news' alternative. Same actors, different play. But following classical marketing theory, it worked. When you can't compete doing the same thing, doing something different is frequently helpful. (Think Volkswagen in the same era, putting the lowly Bug up against all those behemoth U.S. models). And thus, WBBM went from being a blip on the ratings meters to two blips.
Enter the dramatic conflict. The network's roving band of 'outside consultants' arrived in town, and began a presentation with their trusty foam-core boards (yes, Virginia, there was a time before Powerpoint). What those graphs showed was that, IF THE TREND CONTINUED, WBBM could indeed catch WLS in the ratings race in a couple of years! Whatever will you do?
(It should be noted that WBBM's small increase came largely at the expense of the other station in town, not WLS. The ratings and other research showed that people still loved the WLS product and people as much as ever.)
The droll and disgusted news director of the station put the question right back to the consultants--'well, what would you do?'
Unfortunately, they were ready with an answer. "In order to show the market that you're not complacent, you've got to shake things up. Show some aggression."
"OK," the news director said distractedly. "Exactly how do we do that?"
"We think you've got to fire one of you main anchors. Doesn't make any difference which one. Just fire someone."
No one was distracted anymore.
The news director lasted about 60 seconds more before getting up, proclaiming this 'the stupidest f**king idea I've ever heard", and walking out of the room.
You can guess the rest. A couple months later John Drury was out of a job...and the news director departed not long after.
There was a flood of protest after Drury's departure. "How could you take him off the air? We love him!", was the general tenor of the thousands of respondents. Unfortunately, the consultants were not around to advise exactly how to answer that question.
But when the news director...the guy who built the ratings powerhouse from the foundation up...was ushered out the door for his insubordination, those same consultants were quick to begin collecting additional fees for 'finding' his successor. The man they chose arrived with a decent resume...and a nasty cocaine habit.
And thus did one of the dynasties in the history of local news begin to dismantle itself.
John Drury rebounded nicely. He became the iconic anchor for the independent WGN TV for years...poetically returned to WLS to finish his anchor career...and was inducted into the Chicago Journalism Hall of Fame.
Sometimes nice guys do finish first.
diderot
We worked together for WLS-TV in Chicago, an 'owned-and-operated' station, meaning the network itself held the keys, rather than some independent local concern. And for them, this was an extremely lucrative proposition; their five 'O and O's' generated far more profit than the network itself. We were among the first 'Eyewitness News' formats, derided accurately by competitors as a 'happy talk' substitute for real news. And indeed, the nature of our product was kinetic, and often nearly vaudevillian in nature.
Against this, John was as comfortable and welcoming as your grandpa's Barcalounger.
In those days, Channel 7 dominated the local news ratings. The competitors vainly tried to copy the format, to no avail. Eventually WBBM, the CBS station in town, figured out it might as well do something different, and began presenting itself as the 'hard news' alternative. Same actors, different play. But following classical marketing theory, it worked. When you can't compete doing the same thing, doing something different is frequently helpful. (Think Volkswagen in the same era, putting the lowly Bug up against all those behemoth U.S. models). And thus, WBBM went from being a blip on the ratings meters to two blips.
Enter the dramatic conflict. The network's roving band of 'outside consultants' arrived in town, and began a presentation with their trusty foam-core boards (yes, Virginia, there was a time before Powerpoint). What those graphs showed was that, IF THE TREND CONTINUED, WBBM could indeed catch WLS in the ratings race in a couple of years! Whatever will you do?
(It should be noted that WBBM's small increase came largely at the expense of the other station in town, not WLS. The ratings and other research showed that people still loved the WLS product and people as much as ever.)
The droll and disgusted news director of the station put the question right back to the consultants--'well, what would you do?'
Unfortunately, they were ready with an answer. "In order to show the market that you're not complacent, you've got to shake things up. Show some aggression."
"OK," the news director said distractedly. "Exactly how do we do that?"
"We think you've got to fire one of you main anchors. Doesn't make any difference which one. Just fire someone."
No one was distracted anymore.
The news director lasted about 60 seconds more before getting up, proclaiming this 'the stupidest f**king idea I've ever heard", and walking out of the room.
You can guess the rest. A couple months later John Drury was out of a job...and the news director departed not long after.
There was a flood of protest after Drury's departure. "How could you take him off the air? We love him!", was the general tenor of the thousands of respondents. Unfortunately, the consultants were not around to advise exactly how to answer that question.
But when the news director...the guy who built the ratings powerhouse from the foundation up...was ushered out the door for his insubordination, those same consultants were quick to begin collecting additional fees for 'finding' his successor. The man they chose arrived with a decent resume...and a nasty cocaine habit.
And thus did one of the dynasties in the history of local news begin to dismantle itself.
John Drury rebounded nicely. He became the iconic anchor for the independent WGN TV for years...poetically returned to WLS to finish his anchor career...and was inducted into the Chicago Journalism Hall of Fame.
Sometimes nice guys do finish first.
diderot
Thursday, May 31, 2007
May 31
I've always liked this day. First, my brother's birthday--and believe me, he's had a lot of them to remind me. Second, a signal to the start of summer. Some even contend May 31 is the true birthday for baseball, since the Philadelphia Athletics were formally founded on this date in 1859 to play a game then called 'town ball'--20 years before Abner Doubleday 'invented' the game. Personally, I can't comment one way or the other. But you could ask my brother--I think he was there.
At any rate, May 31 should also have a special meaning this year. It may even be an historic watershed. Because on May 31, 2007, two seemingly incompatible events did, indeed, occur. Word came from the Associated Press that in the first quarter of the year, our economy almost tanked. In the sense that economic growth, as such, was reported at an almost-invisible 0.6 percent in the United States. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan says there's a one-in-three chance that we'll actually slide into a recession this year. This is not good.
And on this same morning, the New York Stock Exchange, the Grand Arbiter of all things economic, opened at the highest point in its history.
Think about that--we're about to go under, and everyone is partying on the top deck. Welcome to the Titanic Economy.
Do you think that maybe--just maybe--we've reached the point where the wealthy may have taken a piece of the pie too big for even their swollen jowls?
diderot
At any rate, May 31 should also have a special meaning this year. It may even be an historic watershed. Because on May 31, 2007, two seemingly incompatible events did, indeed, occur. Word came from the Associated Press that in the first quarter of the year, our economy almost tanked. In the sense that economic growth, as such, was reported at an almost-invisible 0.6 percent in the United States. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan says there's a one-in-three chance that we'll actually slide into a recession this year. This is not good.
And on this same morning, the New York Stock Exchange, the Grand Arbiter of all things economic, opened at the highest point in its history.
Think about that--we're about to go under, and everyone is partying on the top deck. Welcome to the Titanic Economy.
Do you think that maybe--just maybe--we've reached the point where the wealthy may have taken a piece of the pie too big for even their swollen jowls?
diderot
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Vive la France
In his book, Paris in the 50's, former Time magazine correspondent Stanley Karnow describes the status of an intellectual class,
"...venerated as authorities on everything from art, literature and music to politics, economics, religion and complex social issues. Their Olympian status mirrored the respect long shared by the French for the power of ideas and for the elite caste that shaped and spread them. Their books and essays...triggered squabbles that, judging from the endless reports in the newspapers, enthralled the public."
Contrast that with a recent column in Fortune magazine:
"...are some American parents actually hostile to education? In my travels I'm seeing evidence that the answer is yes. I was talking some time ago with a group of school superintendents from Maryland. The dominant mood was frustration--a sense that they weren't making the progress with our kids that they wanted. A few...surprised me by saying they had received complaints from parents who were angry because their kids were being made to learn algebra: 'What do they need algebra for? It's hard!' A middle-school vice principal...in Nebraska...reported the same thing: parents angry over kids having to learn algebra. Until recent years you wouldn't...complain to school administrators that your kids were getting too much education. Now parents evidently feel it's safe to do so."
Granted, the comparison is made across an ocean, a cultural divide, and half a century, but I wonder if we Americans will ever come to grips with a cancerous fault on our body politic--the mistrust and (increasingly) outright hostility to fact-based knowledge. Ours is a culture in which what is believed is gaining significant market share over what is known. Ours is a faith-based intelligence.
A very small but telling example is the case of Monica Goodling, an underling at the Justice Department who admitted this week in her Congressional testimony that she 'stepped over the line' in applying tests of political fidelity to the Republican party in judging the merits of what were, by law, supposed to be apolitical civil service appointments. Not included in her testimony, but reported earlier by one of her superiors, was her tearful, near hysterical private reaction upon discovering she would be called on the carpet: "All I ever wanted to do was serve this President!" As if that were a defense. In her mind, apparently honoring what you truly believe trumps what is legally mandated. And this person is a lawyer.
For at least a generation, we have heard the disapprobations: "elitist snobs", "pointy-headed liberals", or for that matter, just plain "liberals". These are people to be mistrusted; they are out of touch; they flaunt their intelligence--their facts. Their ideas are dangerous. Fear them. Fight them.
In truth, speaking of those Paris intellectuals of the 50's, a good case can be made that for all their learning and pretense, they were sometimes not just out of touch, but in fact, wrong. Many of them were so blinded by their fervor for the tenets of the Communist Manifesto that they refused to accept the savagery of Stalin--until they were forced to confront the facts. They were not omnipotent.
But that's not the point. The enduring vision is of a French society where intelligence was and is honored, challenged, debated and observed, all as a matter of course. Opinions matter--but facts do more. Thinking is an assumed part of existence.
Compare that to this place where America has come...where facts are denied...where allegiance to one dogma is the sole path to both power and salvation. In so doing, we can only ponder our nation in terms of the French during World War II.
Do we see ourselves in the role of their valiant patriots, who formed a Resistance to a cult-based occupier?
Or are we to become more like the occupier itself?
-diderot
"...venerated as authorities on everything from art, literature and music to politics, economics, religion and complex social issues. Their Olympian status mirrored the respect long shared by the French for the power of ideas and for the elite caste that shaped and spread them. Their books and essays...triggered squabbles that, judging from the endless reports in the newspapers, enthralled the public."
Contrast that with a recent column in Fortune magazine:
"...are some American parents actually hostile to education? In my travels I'm seeing evidence that the answer is yes. I was talking some time ago with a group of school superintendents from Maryland. The dominant mood was frustration--a sense that they weren't making the progress with our kids that they wanted. A few...surprised me by saying they had received complaints from parents who were angry because their kids were being made to learn algebra: 'What do they need algebra for? It's hard!' A middle-school vice principal...in Nebraska...reported the same thing: parents angry over kids having to learn algebra. Until recent years you wouldn't...complain to school administrators that your kids were getting too much education. Now parents evidently feel it's safe to do so."
Granted, the comparison is made across an ocean, a cultural divide, and half a century, but I wonder if we Americans will ever come to grips with a cancerous fault on our body politic--the mistrust and (increasingly) outright hostility to fact-based knowledge. Ours is a culture in which what is believed is gaining significant market share over what is known. Ours is a faith-based intelligence.
A very small but telling example is the case of Monica Goodling, an underling at the Justice Department who admitted this week in her Congressional testimony that she 'stepped over the line' in applying tests of political fidelity to the Republican party in judging the merits of what were, by law, supposed to be apolitical civil service appointments. Not included in her testimony, but reported earlier by one of her superiors, was her tearful, near hysterical private reaction upon discovering she would be called on the carpet: "All I ever wanted to do was serve this President!" As if that were a defense. In her mind, apparently honoring what you truly believe trumps what is legally mandated. And this person is a lawyer.
For at least a generation, we have heard the disapprobations: "elitist snobs", "pointy-headed liberals", or for that matter, just plain "liberals". These are people to be mistrusted; they are out of touch; they flaunt their intelligence--their facts. Their ideas are dangerous. Fear them. Fight them.
In truth, speaking of those Paris intellectuals of the 50's, a good case can be made that for all their learning and pretense, they were sometimes not just out of touch, but in fact, wrong. Many of them were so blinded by their fervor for the tenets of the Communist Manifesto that they refused to accept the savagery of Stalin--until they were forced to confront the facts. They were not omnipotent.
But that's not the point. The enduring vision is of a French society where intelligence was and is honored, challenged, debated and observed, all as a matter of course. Opinions matter--but facts do more. Thinking is an assumed part of existence.
Compare that to this place where America has come...where facts are denied...where allegiance to one dogma is the sole path to both power and salvation. In so doing, we can only ponder our nation in terms of the French during World War II.
Do we see ourselves in the role of their valiant patriots, who formed a Resistance to a cult-based occupier?
Or are we to become more like the occupier itself?
-diderot
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Dads
I've never really figured out exactly how I feel about Joe Morgan, the Hall of Fame second baseman and now national ESPN announcer. But I do feel he is has hit on something fundamental in this quote:
"I hear a lot of people talk about their Dads being their best friends. In fact just the other day I heard Tiger Woods in an interview talking about his Dad being his best friend. Well, my Dad wasn't my best friend. He was my Dad. My Dad taught me responsibility and he taught me how to be a man. My friends are my friends, and my Dad was my Dad. I understand that a lot of people think that way about their father, but I never did. He had a responsibility to me and I had one to him, and I don't always find that with friendships. I always had the belief that he was above my friends. And he was."
diderot
"I hear a lot of people talk about their Dads being their best friends. In fact just the other day I heard Tiger Woods in an interview talking about his Dad being his best friend. Well, my Dad wasn't my best friend. He was my Dad. My Dad taught me responsibility and he taught me how to be a man. My friends are my friends, and my Dad was my Dad. I understand that a lot of people think that way about their father, but I never did. He had a responsibility to me and I had one to him, and I don't always find that with friendships. I always had the belief that he was above my friends. And he was."
diderot
Overwhelming...
Sometimes the tentacles of audacity, stupidity, manipulation and sheer criminality of Bush Inc. are simply too much to comprehend at one time. Like the giant octopus of Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, it comes from every direction and devours everything in its wake.
It seems beyond the imagination of even a Jules Verne that all of these things could be exposing themselves at the same time:
diderot
It seems beyond the imagination of even a Jules Verne that all of these things could be exposing themselves at the same time:
- James Comey, a former deputy to Alberto Gonzalez, testifies that he had to personally intervene in 2004 to prevent Gonzalez and Chief of Staff Andrew Card from coercing a sickbed signature from Gonzalez' predecessor, John Ashcroft. Ashcroft had been in intensive care for several days in a D.C. hospital when someone at the White House dispatched Card and then White House counsel Gonzalez to force him to sign off on continuation of the domestic wiretapping program. Ashcroft, then F.B.I. director Robert Mueller and Comey all threatened to quit if Gonzalez and Card didn't back off. They did, but Bush intervened by ruling that the program could continue even without the consent of his own Attorney General
- Last week, Gonzalez was subpoenaed and ordered by Congress to turn over emails pertaining to any role Karl Rove might have had in the U.S. attorney firings. The deadline was yesterday. Not only did Gonzalez not deliver the goods, he didn't even bother offering an explanation, or responding in any way. The nation's top law enforcement official does not obey the law
- An investigation by the World Bank itself concludes that Paul Wolfowitz, "...did not accept the bank's policy on conflict of interest, so he sought to negotiate for himself a resolution different from that which would be applied to the staff he was selected to head."
- As has been the custom, Bush has chosen a senior lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers to lead the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is responsible for monitoring the deeds of people like the National Association of Manufacturers. As a going away present, the Association gave him a $150,000 bonus. The lobbyist explains that even though ethics guidelines would prevent him from ruling on matters concerning the association itself for two years, it doesn't mean he'll stop involvement with issues pertaining to individual members of the association, or even similar trade groups involving the same companies
- Two years ago, when she was 31, Monica Goodling was given responsibility for screening potential U.S. attorneys. Her requirements consisted of a law degree from Pat Robertson's Regents University (somewhat worse than a mail order medical diploma). In her role, she asked candidates deep legal questions like, "who is your favorite President?", and "have you ever cheated on your spouse?" She kicked out anyone suspected of being a Democrat
- As described in the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City, "...Americans recruited to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad were chosen, at times, for their loyalty toward Republicanism rather than expertise on Islamism. The coalition government relied heavily on...a large cadre of eager young neophytes whose brashness often gave offense in a very age- and status-conscious society. One young political appointee (a 24-year-old Ivy League graduate) argued that Iraq should not enshrine judicial review in its constitution because it might lead to the legalization of abortion."
diderot
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Jerry Falwell
Would love to listen in on the conversation at the pearly gates. I wonder what Falwell is saying in response to the question of how his actions really spread the word and deed of his maker here on Earth.
diderot
diderot
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)