Since Rudy Giuliani referred to George W. Bush as “America’s Churchill”, I thought a direct comparison of the biographies of the two men was in order. The Churchill biography is taken from a web page devoted to Churchill at the
National Library of Scotland.
Winston Churchill (1874-1965) vs George Walker Bush (1946-present)
His early life: Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill was born at Blenheim Palace on St Andrew's Day, 30 November 1874. His father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was a younger son of the Duke of Marlborough. His mother, Jennie Jerome, was the daughter of an American business tycoon.
Winston's childhood was privileged but not particularly happy. Like many Victorian parents, Lord and Lady Randolph Churchill were distant figures. Letters from his schooldays reveal a willful and somewhat rebellious little boy.
George W. Bush’s early life: George Walker Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut on July 6th, 1946. He grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas, which made him slightly more of a Texan than his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, who would himself eventually become president. Bush’s grandfather would also serve as a U.S. senator, thus firmly establishing the younger Bush’s credentials as a man of the people. His mother, Barbara Pierce Bush, was an autocratic tyrant who could verbally disembowel the young man at 40 paces, and who’s angry glare once caused Lyndon Johnson to wet himself.
Bush’s childhood was privileged but not particularly happy. Like many upper class parents, Bush the Elder and Barbara were distant figures. Poorly crafted, almost dyslexic, letters from his schooldays reveal a willful and somewhat rebellious little boy. G.W. survived these rough early years by indulging his love of nature, which usually entailed torturing and then killing various small animals who were unfortunate enough to fall into his grasp.
A roving commission: In 1895 Churchill graduated from Sandhurst. He travelled to the United States and Cuba, saw action on the north west frontier of India in 1897, and the following year joined Kitchener's expeditionary force to the Sudan and participated in the cavalry charge against the Dervishes at the battle of Omdurman.
His adventures continued in 1899 when he sailed to South Africa as a correspondent of the Morning Post to cover the Boer War. He was captured and spent his twenty-fifth birthday as a prisoner of war, before escaping and making his way across the enemy lines to Durban.
GW’s roving commission: Between the ages of 20 and 25, GWB managed to graduate from both Yale University and Harvard. While at Yale he was a member of the exclusive Skull and Bones Society, and saw action at every available opportunity (nudge, nudge, wink, wink…). In his senior year he joined the Delta Kappa Epsilon expeditionary force that crashed a keg party at the Sigma Chi house. He was also on the cheerleading team.
Bush’s adventures continued at Harvard, where he received an MBA degree, an achievement notable for two reasons. The first being that he thus was the first president to hold an MBA degree, and the second being that his economic policies and poor record of success in the world of business proved once and for all the worthlessness of an MBA degree.
Bush avoided military service in Vietnam and was not a prisoner of war during this period. He was, however, pulled over by cops on a number of occasions after drinking a few too many, and let off with a warning after they learned how well connected he was. He spent his 25th birthday passed out on a friend’s sofa after a particularly hard night of partying, but bravely made it home the next morning.
The Young radical: Churchill was first elected to parliament in 1900, shortly before the death of Queen Victoria. He took his seat in the House of Commons as a Conservative member for Oldham. After four years he crossed the floor and joined the Liberals, rising swiftly through their ranks. As President of the Board of Trade he helped to lay the foundations of the welfare state, while his brief tenure as Home Secretary is still remembered for the Tonypandy Riot and the siege of Sidney Street.
GWB’s Lost Years: Bush spent most of the 70’s in an alcohol and drug induced stupor while his well-connected father tried to keep him from getting into too much trouble. At one point GW managed to cross a floor successfully without falling down, and this was hailed as great success by all concerned.
A frank and clear-eyed friendship: In 1908 Churchill married Clementine Hozier, granddaughter of the 10th Earl of Airlie. They had five children, four of whom survived into adulthood. The marriage was to prove a long and happy one, though there were quarrels. Their personal correspondence sheds much light on the private people behind the public myth. From the first years of their marriage Winston and Clementine routinely ended their letters with drawings. He was her 'pug' or 'pig'. She was his 'cat'.
A bleary-eyed friendship: In 1977 Bush married Laura Welch. His wife went through a stop sign in 1963 at the age of 17, killing one of her high school friends. The Bush’s have twin daughters, and Bush reportedly gave up drinking after they were born, succumbing to demands from his wife. Well, not exactly after they were born, more like five years after they were born, and a full nine years after their marriage, but who’s counting? So far neither Bush daughter has been involved in a homicide.
Bush has pet names for his wife, sometimes referring to her as “the lump” or “the lump in the bed”. Laura in turn includes pictures at the end of letters she writes to him, because in Bush’s own words, he “don’t read so good”.
The world crisis: By the time war broke out in 1914 Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty and already a major national figure. As the conflict in Europe degenerated into a stalemate he became convinced that the only way to end the war quickly was to mount a huge out-flanking attack on Turkey through the Dardanelles. But his attempts to force the straits using only ships foundered, leading to the disastrous Gallipolli landings and costing Churchill his job.
Rather than remain idle, Churchill sought active service on the Western Front. In January 1916 he was appointed as Lieutenant-Colonel commanding the 6th Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers.
GWB goes into business: Newly married and with children soon to be on the way, the now 31 year old Bush started in the oil industry in 1977 with the founding of Arbusto Energy. The company was set up using the remaining funds from his educational trust that had not spent on cocaine and hookers. Despite the abject failure of this enterprise, (Bush’s company never found a drop of oil), Bush was bailed out by family friends in the energy industry, parlaying his ownership of the failed company into positions as CEO and Board member on two other energy companies. It’s suspected but not proven that Bush was also guilty of insider trading while at Harken Energy; as President, Bush has prevented release of the SEC report on it’s investigation of this charge.
The member for Dundee: Churchill successfully contested Dundee for the first time in May 1908. His ministerial responsibilities kept him away from his constituency. There were also clear differences in lifestyle and background between Churchill and most of his constituents. By the time of the 1922 election, support for the Labour party had grown and the local newspapers were hostile to Churchill.
Worse still, appendicitis kept him from active campaigning.
Clementine spoke in her husband's place, but was spat upon for wearing pearls. When the result was declared, Churchill was left, as he wryly observed, without a seat, without a party and without an appendix.
Bush’s fails miserably: Bush ran unsuccessfully for congress in 1978. This was just one year after his marriage to Laura, and obviously a sad attempt to “prove himself” to his father. When the result was declared, Bush was left without a seat, passed put at a party, and with an inflamed liver. Subsequently came the alcoholic years, then the dry drunk years, and finally the failed businesses, which he was saved from only because of his father’s contacts. This protracted neutering that Bush suffered through eventually broke him spiritually, and he made a pact with Satan, aka Karl Rove, who would eventually come to play an important role in the life of the younger Bush.
From war to war: Between 1922 and 1924 Churchill left the Liberal party and rejoined the Conservatives. Anyone could 'rat', he remarked, but it took a certain ingenuity to 're-rat'. To his surprise he was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in Stanley Baldwin's government - a position he held until the Tory defeat in 1929.
During the 1930s Churchill fell out with Baldwin over the question of giving India greater self-government and became more and more isolated in politics. His dire warnings about the rise of Hitler and the dangers of the appeasement policy initially fell on deaf ears.
Bush becomes President: Bush finally realized that a rich network of family connections would carry a man of his obviously limited ability only so far. Politics seemed the way to go, but this time Bush reentered public life guided by the firm, clammy hand of Karl Rove, who engineered a surprise victory over a popular Democrat incumbent Anne Richards to make Bush the Governor of Texas. This success was achieved largely due to a whispering campaign initiated by Rove that intimated that Richards was a lesbian.
Subsequently Bush ran for President in 2000, and managed to win in spite of himself, failing upwards as he had from the earliest days of his post-1977 adult life.
The finest hour: Churchill's role in the Second World War needs little introduction. His immediate contribution was to instill in the British people his own fiery resolve and will to resist. Throughout the tense summer of 1940, when Britain stood alone, his speeches proved an inspiration.
Yet Churchill did more than just talk. He toured the country inspecting the bomb-damaged towns and cities. He also worked tirelessly on diplomatic and military initiatives to regain the offensive. It was from Scapa Flow that he sailed in August 1941 for a crucial secret meeting with President Roosevelt.
9/11: Bush’s role in the days subsequent to the 9/11 attacks need little introduction. After shrugging off the threat of terrorist attacks for the better part of a year, Bush spent the early hours of September 11, 2001 bravely touring the country in search of a safe bunker to hide in. Weeks later he traveled to Ground Zero, where he posed standing next to a firefighter. Afghanistan was invaded, the Taliban overthrown, and Osama Bin Laden, the leader of al Quaida, was allowed to escape. Bush responded to this utter failure by working tirelessly on diplomatic and military initiatives to find an excuse to attack Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
The tide of victory: As the threat of German invasion receded, the tide of war began to turn. Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union brought Churchill an unlikely ally in the person of Joseph Stalin. The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour transformed the war into a truly global conflict. It also precipitated the United States into the war, and with the Americans came the promise of an ultimate Allied victory. By October 1942 Churchill clearly felt confident enough to accept the Freedom of the City of Edinburgh.
Churchill worked tirelessly to keep the Grand Alliance alive, shuttling between capital cities and conferences. It is often forgotten that he celebrated his 70th birthday during the war. While he tried hard to project a fit and active public image, the strain inevitably took a toll on his health.
Catastrophic success: Bush invaded Iraq with a grand “Coalition of the Willing” that included the combined forces of Albania, Azerbaijan, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Micronesia, Tonga, and a few former colonial powers. Victory came quickly over a decrepit and demoralized Iraqi army, and by May of 2003 Bush clearly felt confident enough to prance around in a flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier under a banner reading “Mission Accomplished”. Subsequently the mission un-accomplished itself, and the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq approached 1000 by the time of the fall 2004 election.
While Bush tried hard to project a fit and active public image during this conflict, the strain inevitably took a toll on his health. On a number of occasions he fell off of various devices, including bicycles and Segways, and almost choked to death on a pretzel on at east one occasion.
The final years: Churchill did not allow his shock defeat in the 1945 General Election to silence him for very long. He remained a hugely important international figure, and used his status to speak out about the new threats posed by the Cold War and the need for reconciliation in Western Europe. In October 1951 the Conservative Party achieved a narrow victory at the polls and Churchill became Prime Minister once again. Failing health forced him to resign the premiership in April 1955, but he remained an MP until 1964.
The final years: Bush did not allow his shock defeat in the 2004 Presidential Election to silence him for very long. He remained a widely ridiculed international figure, but used his status as an ex-President to speak out about the threats posed by nuclear proliferation and poor reading skills. In November 2008 the Republican Party achieved a narrow victory at the polls and Bush’s brother Jeb became President. Bush was named to the cabinet in the newly created position of Secretary of False Compassion. Failing health brought on by years of substance abuse early in his life eventually caught up with him, and G.W. Bush passed away on July 14, 2009.
Psst, George! Stick to the script!
Somebody really needs to get these guys a script. Yesterday on FOX, Newt Gingrich tried to save Bush’s ass by saying that it would be "silly" to argue that the war on terror could be won, conveniently ignoring Bush’s previous statements on the matter.
FOX News Channel contributor and former Republican speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Senator John Kerry would be "really silly" to argue that he could "win the war on terror." But President George W. Bush made precisely that claim just one month before he contradicted himself on August 30, saying, "I don't think you can win it."
Well I guess that Bush is a silly, silly man, because this is the news today:
President Bush tried today to stop the political fallout over his comments last weekend that the war on terror might not be winnable. Indeed, "we will win" that war, Mr. Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in Nashville.
"We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win," Mr. Bush said. He spoke on the second day of the Republican National Convention in New York City, where Mr. Bush will deliver his nomination-acceptance speech on Thursday.
Crossballs Update
More on the conservative hand-wringing and whining over “Crossballs’. Not only is there a column up at the GOP website complaining about the show, but one of the expert guests is threatening legal action. James March, who is a lobbyist for the ‘Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms’, has whined about his treatment in this posting. Apparently ranting wasn’t enough for March, who in a letter dated May 28th, had his lawyer threaten Viacom that he would “exercise his legal remedies to the fullest extent of the law” unless they agreed not to broadcast the episode he was featured in.
Here’s some commentary on a thread where the entire sorry episode is regurgitated:
“I thought the Debate Show (MTV Tv Production - I was interviewed and selected as a knowledgeable member of the gun community) would be an opportunity for me to support our side in protecting the Second Amendment. But, instead I was a set up for a comedy routine. I spent most of the day preparing. They stood me in the audience as if I were an audience member and asked me "what do you find interesting about shooting?". I answered that it is a zenish experience, timing the release of the trigger with the aiming of the firearm, that its fun and isnt an olympic sport for nothing. One of the panelists was an a**wipe commedian [ed: original spelling] and proceeded to show how i proved guns were just an extension of guys penis's. He had a penis pump that he brought out and asked one of the panelists if he'd agree to give up his guns in exchange for the penis pump. He reduced our gun rights to a penis pump.
Basically i was the set up for HIS joke. I spent all f***king day prepping for this opportunity to debate about gun control and they reduced it to a joke. I walked off the set and demanded a car to take me home. that, or have the balls to put me back on. they didn't - i left...
f**kers all. hollywood can suck my barrel! [ed: hmm, intended or unintended irony?].... they consider themselves so liberal, so passionate, yet they are a bunch of money hungry, dishonest sh**s!
Pass along that the "Debate Show" is a bunch of liberal sh**ts setting up honest gun owners for their own comedic purposes. Dont be shy, they weren't. They tried to humiliate a member of our community. F'her the little lying biatch
And this is from Jim March himself:
Funny you should mention threats.
The single biggest idiot was this...well, obviously professional actor, who supposedly had a psychology degree and was involved in "treating" people with "gun afflictions" by dealing with their underlying "sexuality issues". Ya. I knew things had gone WAY south once I realized this bizarre gadget he'd just handed me was something I'd vaguely heard of but never seen. A penis pump. Swear to God.
Anyways. This same moron was also a "hunting advocate". 'Cept he didn't like guns. So he advocated "manly hunting". With rocks. Cut to video of three morons in camo wandering through the woods annoying various furred/feathered critters with thrown rocks.
Ok, so by the end of this bizarre crap as the closing credits are rolling, he pulls out a fairly big rock and holds it in a throwing position, growling and snarling at me, and making pathetic throwing motions.
I came *this* close to pulling a knife on his dumbass. Had my hand all the way in my pocket. Paused there, thought better of it.
WTF??!! No, I can’t imagine why anyone would think you’re a nutcase who deserved to be publicly ridiculed.
March continued…
Another thing: the particular anti-gunner they "pitted me against" (camo hat boy) wasn't entirely acting. They've told me several times now that he does in fact hold strongly anti-gun positions. Which I well believe; he put a LOT of hardcore bitterness into his approach. Susan Marie Weber in contrast describes a more "playful, silly" tone on her episode, and the actor "pitted against her" didn't "go for the throat".
My guy on the other hand...
The sumbich literally had me in fear for my life once that dang rock came out.
Another participant in the thread chimes in with this helpful bit of advice…
You may have already covered this with your lawyer, but it strikes me that your biggest leverage in this whole mess is the guy with the rock.
If he was an "employee" of the show (or otherwise "in on" the deception), it seems to me you have a really strong course of action against them due to the fact that an "employee" of theirs put you in fear of bodily harm.
If the "rock guy" is NOT an "employee" of Viacom etc., it would seem you still have a good point to stick in them legally due to their negligence in creating an unsafe work environment and / or their participation in the conspiracy to create the tauma they caused you to suffer by their actions.
Have you considered filing a police report against the "rock guy"?
I seem to have heard that in many states it's a crime for one person to threaten the life of another person, and since you were feeling threatened enough to be prepared to defend yourself with a knife, what happened would certainly seem to qualify (and you have video tape as evidence!).
The farther the police take this, the more likely ViaCom is to either hand you big gobs of cash, or at least never air your episode and maybe cancel the series.
And then there’s this…
Don't know if this matters, but was that rock real? When I was a kid I bought a fake rock, a tad bigger than a softball, but made of very soft, easily 'squish-able' foam. It looked like it came straight out of a granite quarry. Could not have weighed more than an ounce or two.
The reason I ask is this; if it was real, you maybe could use that against the 'producers' for actually putting your life in danger. If it was fake, then the whole show was OBVIOUSLY misleading, and they then would not have a leg to stand on. Either way, you could use it to your (great) advantage.
You have to admit, that’s great legal reasoning. If the rock was real, Viacom is screwed because you’re safety was threatened. If it was fake, they’re screwed because it means the entire show was a fraud. Brilliant!!
Actually, now I really want to see that episode.
Crossballs
Some conservative pundits are apparently upset at having been ambushed during participation in what they thought was a ‘Crossfire’ type talk show, only to learn that they’d been duped into appearing on a Comedy Central parody/prank show. The new show is titled ‘Crossballs’ and will begin airing shortly. The premise of the show is to invite one or two actual pundits or talking heads on the show, ostensibly to discuss a topic in their general area of expertise. However, the remaining guests on the show are actors who merely portray actual pundits/talking heads, and who do so in the most offensive, sophomoric, irreverent and humorous way possible.
On paper it sounds like a better idea than it probably will turn out to be. Using over-the-top improvisational humor to skewer the pompous fakes who parade around TV spouting off about the topic du jour sounds like it could be highly entertaining. But I suspect the show will have limited shelf-life (at least one reviewer agrees). For one thing, the secret is apparently out. Recruiting serious guests to serve as victims will be increasingly hard once the show starts to air. It will probably become all but impossible to recruit anyone except the real fringe players, and embarrassing them on national TV wouldn’t really be entertaining; it would be kind of like making fun of retarded puppies.
The second reason why this show seems destined to be a short-lived phenomenon is that judging from the few reports I’ve seen, the “experts” recruited to appear on the show are non-entities who even regular viewers of CSPAN wouldn’t be able to recognize. How is the Comedy Central audience supposed to be able to appreciate the humiliation of a gun-rights activist when they have no clue who the guy is to begin with? And if the point of the show is to watch the hi-jinks of the “fake” guests, why bother having real guests to begin with? Why not make the entire show a parody of talking head type confrontation shows?
In the ads I’ve seen I recognized at least one of the actors involved on ‘Crossballs’ as being a member of the ‘Upright Citizens Brigade’, Matt Besser. When UCB appeared in Houston last year one of his bits involved playing for the audience a series of prank phone calls he’d made. It’s a long story, but apparently his actual phone number in NYC was only one digit removed from the support line number for an internet provider company. So, he’d get phone calls from perfect strangers at random times during the day and night, asking for help on getting their internet connection to work. After a while he got tired of explaining the mixup, and began to pretend that he was actually working at the help desk, providing useless but hilarious assistance to unsuspecting callers. Remembering his skill at improvising these bits with the increasingly confused customers makes me think that ‘Crossballs’ may be worth watching while it lasts. But don’t expect it to be around for long.
Is Bush A Moron: Iraq Handover
Today’s edition of IBAM is from a brief press conference held by Bush and Tony Blair during the NATO summit. The topic: the rushed handover of Iraq.
Grade Level = 6.8
Reading Ease = 70.8
Grammar Measure = .113 (9 errors, 80 sentences)
He's a guy that stood up to Saddam Hussein.[“…who stood up to …”]
And every conversation I've had with him has been one the recognizes human liberty, human rights.[???]
He's the person that orders suiciders to kill women and children
And we just -- and as Prime Minister Allawi has said publicly many times, he will not cower in the face of such brutal murder.[mangled]
Look, they can't whip our militaries. They can't whip our militaries. [“military” or “military forces”]
Afghanistan, which was a terrorist haven -- this is where the terrorists plotted and trained to come and kill, not only in America, but elsewhere -- is now heading toward elections. [mangled]
And my position is, is the best way to defend yourself is to find the few, the few -- and I believe that's what he's saying, that we're going to find those few before they continue to bomb whoever happens to be in their way.[Just read it…]
The more reconstruction there is, the more people willing to help with the education of children, the more people willing to help rebuild hospitals, the more people willing to be -- to help to rebuild this destroyed infrastructure, infrastructure destroyed by the Taliban or by Saddam Hussein, the better off the world will be. [mangled]
And the -- actually, we've been contemplating this move for a while.[mangled]
Is Bush A Moron: “Bomb Ireland” Edition
Bush was interviewed by an Irish reporter prior to his visit to that country on the way to the NATO summit. It didn’t go exceedingly smoothly, because the reporter, unschooled in the protocol that American journalists have learned to follow, actually interrupted Bush a number of times when it became clear that he was not interested in really answering the questions posed. So expect the bombing of Ireland to start any day now…
Here are the results:
Grade Level = 5.8
Reading Ease = 74.1
Grammar Errors = .122 (15 errors, 123 sentences)
And if they think that a few soldiers represents the entirety of America, they don't really understand America then. [subject-verb agreement; “…then they don’t really understand America.”]
Tony Blair has been a strong advocate for not only battling terrorists, but [also] promoting freedom, for which I am grateful. [but also]
But, nevertheless, there's no doubt in my mind [that] President Chirac would like to see a free and democratic and whole Iraq emerge.
But what they should be angry about is the fact that there was a brutal dictator there that had destroyed lives.[“…who had destroyed lives”]
But we have found a capacity for him to make a weapon.[what?]
And no one can argue that the world is better off with Saddam -- if Saddam Hussein were in power.[mangled]
But the God I know is not one that -- the God I know is one that promotes peace and freedom.[mangled]
Because one of the great admonitions in the Good Book is, don't try to take a speck out of your eye if I've got a log in my own. [what? Should be: “Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," while the log is in your own eye?]
I wouldn't have made the decisions [that] I did if I didn't think the world would be better.
One of our greatest allies of -- in the world is your neighbor, Great Britain. {mangled]
We just had a difference of opinion about when you say something, do you mean it.
And same in Afghanistan. [not a sentence]
And America -- I'm the first President to ever have called for a Palestinian state.[mangled]
That's, to me, sounds like a reasonable, balanced approach.[“That, to me, sounds like…”]
Is Bush A Moron: Jun 17, 2004
From comments made today after a cabinet meeting:
Grade Level = 8.0
Reading Ease = 63.9%
Grammar Errors = .225 (9 errors, 40 sentences)
The errors were:
We discussed primarily the economy.[split infinitive]
And I was pleased with the report I got. [“…the report that I received”]
There's more to do to make sure [that] this growth is sustained throughout the decade.
Primarily it requires a proper understanding of the role of government to the economy. [?? “…the role of government to the economy”?]
…and to make sure [that] workers are trained for the jobs of the 21st century.
We fully understand [that] terrorists will try to shake our will,
The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
There's numerous contacts between the two.[number agreement]
Is Bush A Moron: G8 Edition
From Bush’s closing press conference at the conclusion of the G8 summit:
Grade Level = 5.9
Reading Ease = 73.3%
Grammar = .093 (26 errors, 281 sentences)
The list of his errors follows:
There's excellent law enforcement operations -- joint operations.[“There are excellent…”]
There's an enemy which lurks out there that is willing to kill on a moment's notice.[which/ vs that]
The latest prosthesis were put on their hand -- were put on their arms.[protheses; hands]
And in his lap was several weapons.[“…were several weapons…”]
And therefore, it's a -- it's a easy place to start conversations.[mangled sentence; “an easy place…”]
But democracy in the heart of the Middle East is going to be a -- an important change for that region, that troubled region. [a vs an]
See, I believe [that] free societies best meet the aspirations of the people living in those societies.
And now there's -- we will make sure he honors his commitment. [mangled]
Okay, I'll give your question more answer.[WTF??]
Because, you know -- and they're anxious that we honor what we say because they want to be free, they want to be free people. [mangled]
No, I wasn't -- I was just kind of -- I'm trying to get to where your question is leading.
It's -- that's -- that's the duty of a government, is to train and equip and provide police and army to protect their people from people who are willing to kill innocent life.
I haven't talked to the Vice President about this matter, and I suggest -- recently -- and I suggest you talk to the U.S. Attorney about that.
There's excellence -- there's excellent intelligence-sharing,
And those were the instructions out of -- from me to the government.
What she's referring to is a -- members of a Delta team came to see me in the Oval Office and brought with me -- these were the people that found Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, hiding in a hole.
Saddam Hussein -- if you -- we had seven people come to my office.
Seven people came to my -- they had their hands cut off because the Iraqi currency had devalued.
And I am -- I am -- it -- I'm grateful for their bravery
Is any local press here, at all, by the way?
It -- look, this is -- we made the right choice to come down here for this summit.
Look, there is -- we're united by values.
And so, therefore, it's -- this is a -- it facilitates good and healthy conversation.
I've got a -- I've got the -- I will be paying tribute to President Reagan here in about an hour and a half or so,…
Bush included a definition of “sovereignty” for those who are interested:
We'll respond to their requests when sovereignty is fully transferred. That's the definition of full sovereignty. You see, when a government is fully sovereign, they then make requests on behalf of their people.
Someone’s Brain Must Have Been Outsourced
On Lou Dobbs this evening, he was showing some examples of viewer mail on a topic that has attracted a great deal of his attention lately, outsourcing of jobs to low-wage countries like India. One of the letter sticks in my mind, and was from a Cathy Loring of Falls Church, Virginia. Thisd is taken verbatim from the transcript:
"I've heard numerous people on your show stipulate that the outsourcing of jobs will not affect our economy in a negative way and will actually allow for more jobs in the United States. However, in the mean time, who is paying into our social security system? People better wake up and smell the pitfalls before their cupboard is bare."
I’m sure that sets some type of record for the greatest number of metaphors ever to be mixed within the same sentence.
Why Would Anybody Want To Win This?
Okay, I’ve been taking a break. A lot has happened. Torture, beheadings, train explosions in North Korea. Yes, a lot of reason to be alarmed and/or outraged. But what finally tipped the scales and got me to begin posting again was this (via TSN).
TORONTO - The World Cup of Hockey 2004 Organizing Committee unveiled the new WCH 2004 Championship Trophy on Wednesday. Designer Frank Gehry presented it to WCH 2004 Organizing Committee members Ted Saskin and Ken Yaffe at the Hockey Hall of Fame.
Gehry, a Toronto native and life-long hockey fan, was approached by the WCH Organizing Committee last year to create a new trophy for the upcoming tournament that would reflect the global spirit of the game. The trophy will be awarded to the winning team September 14.
"I was raised with it (hockey)," Gehry explained. "We were a poor family so the only thing I could do was listen to Foster Hewitt on Saturday night. It is because of my interest in hockey that I was even interested in designing the trophy. I think my understanding of the game and what trophies mean to players, and to the fans, made it a very important assignment."
The trophy is comprised of four components: a base, pedestal, cup and shell. It's made from a composite alloy of copper and nickel as well as solid cast urethane. The pedestal and base provide support or a "stage" for the shell and cup. The cup sits inside the trophy and is removable from the top of the shell for engraving and display purposes. The shell is made of an array of twisted rectangular shapes sitting on end that are reminiscent of skate marks in the ice.
Water-clear urethane was used to give the trophy an "ice-like" appearance and Stereo Lithography Apparatus (SLA) was used to precisely shape the components into a multi-dimensional puzzle.
"I've seen all of the (NHL) trophies," he said. "They are all very traditional. I think the one thing about the first World Cup of Hockey trophy is that it broke from tradition and it opened the door for us to do a new one."
My first reaction upon seeing this monstrosity was to wonder whether it had actually been purchased at Ikea. Is it a spitoon? A planter? An umbrella holder? Would any self-respecting hockey player actually take pleasure at carrying this thing around the ice in a victory ceremony? It would be like being a parent who was presented with their child’s first efforts at ceramic art. Exactly how are you supposed to react to the misshapen lump of pottery that is possibly an ashtray, possibly a bowl, possibly a doorstop or paperweight? You repress the urge to vomit in your own mouth, and tell them how much you love it and are glad that they gave it to you. But you manage to, over time, shift it from it’s prominent position in the living room, onto shelves that are further and further away from the judgmental eyes of visitors. You can’t come right out and say what’s all too obvious; that it’s an incredibly ugly piece of crap that you’d prefer not to have to look at ever again.
Similarly with this contribution from Mr. Gehry. He may be (according to critics, who of course are never wrong) one of the greatest architects of the 20th century, but I do know that this is possibly the worst trophy I have ever seen. I wouldn’t be surprised to see teams in the upcoming World Cup intentionally throwing games in order to avoid having to be associated with it in any way.
Is Bush A Moron, Episode 18: Bush Meets The Press Corps(e)
The White House press corps(e) showed a few signs of life tonight, but not nearly enough. When it gets to the point where Bush can joke about things being scripted, or make a big deal about getting asked a question that he wasn’t prepared for, things are pretty bad.
I just saw a bit of the analysis on the news shows, and astoundingly, it was almost praising him. Chris Matthews in particular kept going on about Bush’s “signs of humility”. I don’t know what drugs he was on when he watched the press conference, because I saw precious little evidence of humility. I mean, he was asked flat out whether he had anything to apologize for regarding the 9/11 attacks, and he just dodged the question. Where’s the humility there?
Anyway, here’s the data from the speech analysis:
Grade Level = 6.3
Reading Ease = 74.0
Grammar Index = .150 (62 errors, 413 sentences, or about 1 error in every 7 sentence spoken)
And now for the errors:
There's 135,000 now as a result of the changeover from one division to the next.[“there is/there are]
I'm constantly asking him does he have what he needs, whether it be in troop strength or in equipment.[“…whether in troop strength or…”]
He was a threat because he funded suiciders.[Ding! Ding! Ding! The magic word!
And one of the things was, he was amazed at how deceptive the Iraqis had been toward UNMOVIC and UNSCOM, deceptive in hiding things.[“…was that he was amazed…”]
This guy was a torturer, a killer, a maimer.[Is “maimer” a word?]
There's mass graves.[there is/there are]
I mean, he was a horrible individual that really shocked the country in many ways,[“individual who really shocked the country…”]
I was — on that day, I was angry and sad.[mangled sentence]
Angry that al Qaeda — I thought at the time al Qaeda, found out shortly thereafter it was al Qaeda — had unleashed this attack.[mangled sentence; missing “that”]
There was, you know, kind of departments that at times didn't communicate[“There was, you know, kind of departments…”????]
In other words, he would serve it as a blackmail.[Not sure what to make of this. Could be “It would serve as blackmail”, or “use it as blackmail”. “Serve as a blackmail” makes it sound like Hussein was serving shots.]
And I presume the 9/11 commission will find out — will follow up on his suggestions and his recollection, and garner the truth.[mangled sentence]
And my answer to that question is, is that, again I repeat what I said earlier, prior to 9/11, the country really wasn't on a war footing.[“…question is that…”]
And so what I'm telling you is, is that sometimes we use military as the last resort,[“…telling you is that sometimes”; “use the military as…”]
I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it. [“…wish that you had given me…”; “so that I could have planned for it”]
our commanders on the ground have got the authorities necessary to deal with violence[“have the authority…”]
They want security so [that] they can advance toward a free society.
Every threat we must take seriously.[“we must take every threat seriously”]
I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who just came back — he's the head of the Iraqi Survey Group — reported some interesting findings from his recent tour there.[“thought that it was”; mangled sentence]
And that money is — it will benefit the Iraqi people.[mangled sentence]
And they were happy — they're not happy they're occupied.[mangled sentence]
Let me put that quote to Woodward in context, because he had asked me if I was — something about killing bin Laden.[mangled sentence]
And why — I say that because that provides the ability for our agencies to coordinate better and to work together better than it was before.[I just give up…]
The lessons of 9/11 — one lesson was we must deal with gathering threats, and that's part of the reason I dealt with Iraq the way I did.[mangled sentence]
the truth of the matter is [that] most in the country never felt that we'd be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us.
I changed the way that the relationship between the president and the CIA director.[This isn’t a sentence]
Yes, John, my response is [that] I don't think people ought to demean the contributions of our friends into Iraq. People are sacrificing their lives in Iraq from different countries.[“People from different countries are sacrificing…”]
We would have had — we hadn't got our relationship right with Pakistan yet.[mangled sentence]
And therefore, when we see threats overseas, we got to take them — look at them in a new light.[“we’ve got to take them/look at them”]
The American people need to know [that] my last choice is the use of military power.
It is something that — it's a decision that is a — it's a tough decision to make for any president because I fully understand the consequences of the decision.[mangled sentence; I guess this means that the decisions where he has no idea of the consequences are the easy ones.]
Libya was a nation that had — we viewed as a terrorist — a nation that sponsored terror, a nation that was dangerous because of weapons.[mangled]
It's a dangerous — it was a dangerous network that we — that we unraveled.[ditto]
You know, I just — I'm sure [that] something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer.[mangled sentence; He must have been having some sort of flashback episode to his MBA days at Yale at this point in the press conference…]
You know, I hope I — I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes; I'm confident [that] I have. I just haven't —you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not quick — as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.[mangled sentence. Actually this part of the transcript is rather creepy; classic psychopathic behavior – “The psychopath is one of the most fascinating and distressing problems of human experience. For the most part, a psychopath never remains attached to anyone or anything. They live a "predatory" lifestyle. They feel little or no regret, and little or no remorse - except when they are caught. They need relationships, but see people as obstacles to overcome and be eliminated. If not, they see people in terms of how they can be used. They use people for stimulation, to build their self-esteem and they invariably value people in terms of their material value (money, property, etc..).
A psychopath can have high verbal intelligence, but they typically lack "emotional intelligence". They can be expert in manipulating others by playing to their emotions. There is a shallow quality to the emotional aspect of their stories (i.e., how they felt, why they felt that way, or how others may have felt and why). The lack of emotional intelligence is the first good sign you may be dealing with a psychopath. A history of criminal behavior in which they do not seem to learn from their experience, but merely think about ways to not get caught is the second best sign. "
And I heard — I heard a summary of that from Director Mueller, who feels strongly that we — and he'll testify to that effect, I guess, tomorrow.
I shouldn't be prejudging his testimony, but what — my point was that I'm open for suggestions.
So long [as] I'm the president, I will press for freedom.
Those who yell will not be asked to -- I'll tell you a guy who I have never heard from.
I look forward to helping — for the American people to hear, you know, what is the proper use of American power?
One thing is for certain, though, about me.[“One things is certain, though, about me”]
Today’s episode is for a brief meeting Bush had with the press pool on Easter. The primary topic discussed was the famous PDB memo that was declassified earlier, in which Bush was warned about Al Quaeda’s plans to carry out attacks in the U.S. The short story: “If we’d known the exact date, time, place and flight numbers, we would have done something about it.”
Grade Level = 6.6
Reading Ease = 72.0%
Grammar Index = .152 (9 errors, 59 sentences)
The following is a list of most of the errors made during the Q/A session with reporters:
Obviously, I pray every day there's less casualty. [“..there are fewer casualties…”, “there’ll be fewer casualties…”]
But I know [that] what we're doing in Iraq is right
My response was exactly like then as it is today,…[“was exactly like then…”???]
As you might recall, there was some specific threats for overseas that we reacted to. [“…there were some specific threats…]
Had I known [that] there was going to be an attack on America, I would have moved mountains to stop the attack.
I would have done everything I can.[“I would have done everything that I could”]
That's -- we were doing precisely what the American people expects us to do:[“…expected us to do”]
…it was hijacking of airplanes in order to free somebody that was being held as a prisoner in the United States. [“…to free someone who was being held…”]
IBAM Episode 16: Snarkiness, Freudian Slips and a Surprising Bit of Vocabulary
Today’s edition of “Is Bush A Moron” includes three samples from recent days. The first comes from a brief exchange with reporters, where Bush showed some level of snarkiness (or something) in his interaction with “the AP guy”. It was cited by a couple of bloggers as an example of --- well, I’m not exactly sure. My interpretation was that it was yet another case of Bush getting testy when members of the press aren’t sufficiently servile. In this case, it was a reporter who addressed him as “Sir”. This seemed to tick him off, as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you a couple of questions. Who is the AP person?
Q I am.
THE PRESIDENT: You are? [Then ask it…]
Q Sir, in regard to --
THE PRESIDENT: Who are you talking to?
Q Mr. President, in regard to the June 30th deadline, is there a chance that that would be moved back?
And so it continued… Apparently members of the press are expected to address Bush as “Mr. President”, or failing that, as “Your Excellency” or “Oh Exalted One”. “Hey, Asshole” is not recommended.
The other two samples are pretty standard, and come from campaign appearances on 4/5/04 in Charlotte, NC and on 4/6/04 in El Dorado, AK. Summary statistics for these appearances are below:
language usage index scores
Sample
Reading Ease
Grade Level
BRI-2
Press Pool (4/5/04)
69.8%
7.5
.152
Charlotte, NC (4/5/04)
68.0%
7.2
.123
El Dorado, AK (4/6/04)
75.5%
5.6
.116
Average
71.1%
6.7
.130
Samples pulled from these appearances are below:
But the family was pleased to hear that we -- its son would not have died in vain.[mangled sentence]
No, the intention is to make sure the deadline remains the same. I believe we can transfer authority by June 30th. [missing “that”;”…make sure that the deadline…”, …believe that we can transfer…”]
The United Nations representative is there now to work on the -- on a -- on to whom we transfer sovereignty. [mangled sentence]
…my judgment is, is that the closer we come to the deadline, the more likely it is people will challenge our will. [“…the more likely it is that people will challenge…”]
…that's why the CPA issued the statement they issued. [“…statement that they issued.”]
But, Stretch, I think throughout this period there's going to be tests. [“there are going to be tests”]
Because one of the things that's going to be very important for the next ambassador to Iraq -- this will be the person that takes Jerry Bremer's place -- will be the willingness and capability of working with a very strong -- a country in which there's a very strong U.S. military presence, as well as a coalition presence. [mangled sentence]
It took me very little time to make up my mind, once I determined al Qaeda to do it, to say, we're going to go get them.[????]
I want to thank the staff for putting up with me and the entourage. [the entourage and me]
I am optimistic about our future, not only because of what I see today, but because of what I know we have overcome.[“…but also because…]
Let me just review right quick the economic history of the last couple of years.
It's a day in which we realized oceans could no longer protect us from enemies which hate what we stand for.[“..realized that oceans…”; “…enemies that hate…”]
That was one of the changes that was necessary in order to protect this country.[“…that were necessary…”]
There's still a gap, but nevertheless, more people are owning their own home.[“…people own their own home”]
Biotechnology are strong.[“Biotechnology is strong.”]
…it seems reasonable to ask the question whether or not there's results.[…whether or not there are results”]
Money from those grants go to about 3,500 state and local one-stop centers around the country.[‘’goes to about 3,500…”]
We want the governors -- and let the governors distribute the money to programs which actually are training people for jobs which exist.[which vs that]
And as a result of micromanagement -- missed opportunities for jobs which exist in the communities, in which people are looking for work.[which vs that]
But, unfortunately, there's loopholes in the program.[“…there are loopholes…”]
It was a different -- we entered a different period on that day.[mangled sentence]
It's also that day, right after that day, I announced a doctrine that said,[“it was also that day (?)”]
I looked at the information on Iraq and -- the intelligence -- and saw a threat.
We're still being challenged in Iraq, and the reason why is a free Iraq will be a major defeat in the cause of terror.[“…the reason why is that a free Iraq…”]
Finally, another thing we need to do is we need an energy policy in this country.
What I'm telling you is, is that in order for this job base to be secure,
What I'm telling you just doesn't apply to the automobile manufacturing world.[“What I’m telling you doesn’t just apply to…”]
I mean, when you -- there's a lot of -- the main reason why people from around the world want to come here to study is because we're on the leading edge of change.[mangled sentence]
You just heard me describe how your state has changed, and it's going to even change even faster as time goes on.[“It’s going to even change even faster”????]
And the reason you ask that -- I asked that question, at least, is because I believe every child can learn.
And now people that were once in the textile industry are now in the health care industry, making more money, I want you to know.[“…people who were once…”]
The program spends about $4 billion a year in grants on states -- to states.
One of my jobs as the President is to analyze programs, and if they're not doing the job they're supposed to do, is to redesign them so they do the job they're supposed to do, so that we properly spend taxpayers' money.
In other words, we need to make the system more flexible, more available to workers, and less dependent on foreign -- of federal rules, in order to make sure that the money gets to the people who need it most.
So, step one is to change the system on how -- the relationship between the federal government and the state government.
We believe that by making sure the cap is a strong cap on overhead money, we will save about $300 million, which means an extra $100,000 -- a 100,000 workers get trained.
And so what we need to do is to make sure that people are judged -- people who are spending your money are judged on what we care about.
And if the state doesn't make progress, then it only makes sense to take some of the money that is being sent to the states and send it directly to the job trainers, so that we actually do meet what we expect to have happen, and that is people being trained for the jobs which exist.
It's a legitimate role of the federal government, is to help people who want to help themselves.
They realize their job -- they could be doing better.
And Mackham will tell you there's a lot of brave people there that want to be free [there is/there are]
There's economic isolationists that want to wall us off from the rest of the world.[ditto]
See, one of the things we did, in working with the Congress, is reduce the effects of the marriage penalty.[“…things that we did…was to reduce the effects…”]
We want there to be a small business sector which is really strong.[which/that]
There's jobs.[“there are jobs”]
It's just some people are used to working in different kind of fields.[“it’s just that…”; “…kinds of fields”]
If you've got yourself a retired NASA employee in your neighborhood, it seems like to me you want to be able to have that person go into the classrooms and teach science or math.[“…It seems to me that…]
That means people need to be, in some cases, reeducated for the jobs which exist.[“…means that people…..for jobs that exist”]
There's ways to find work, it's just up to you.[there is/there are]
There's a lot of people wondering whether or not they can go back to school.[ditto]
There's a lot of second chances in this world to go back to school.[ditto]
But let me remind you right quick what we have come through
When I was coming up -- in Midland, Texas, I want you to know -- there you go -- which is where Laura is today, helping her Mom move, and she sends her love -- but we thought oceans could protect us from harm's way.[mangled sentence]
Threats are dealt in different ways, by the way.[???? “Dealt with in different ways”???]
Not every threat is dealt with the way I decided to deal with the threat in Iraq. [this one just gives me a headache…]
We're not going to cut and run from the people who long from freedom.[“Long from freedom”???]
I want to appreciate your service.[This just confused me. Is he trying to say that he appreciates their service? That he wants to express appreciation? Or that he wants to be able to feel that he appreciates their service. But at some indefinite point in the future?]
If you're somebody looking for work, it's going to be harder to find work when the country is thinking about, we're going to war.
The cost of health care is tough to expand the job base.[What the hell does this mean?]
That's an interesting statistic I want people to focus on right quick.
In other words, there's going to be jobs
And there's ways to get retrained for the jobs.
I think all high schools ought to participate in what's called the NAEP. The NAEP is a national norming test. It's not a national test. It says, there is -- they take the Arkansas test and they compare them to other states to determine whether or not standards are being met. That's all it is.[That makes it perfectly clear. NOT]
In other words, we've got some kids -- one of the things that's important for those of us in positions of responsibility, you've got to be just flat honest about things.
But it says to a kid -- take math and science, is what it takes.
The other thing I want to do is to make a -- we've set up a Presidential Math and Science Scholars Fund, $50 million of federal money matched by $50 million in the private sector -- we'll be able to raise that -- that says that when you go to college, we'll enhance your Pell Grant if you continue to take math and science programs.
…that there's a lot of people that need help now…
See, that's the way you make sure people are trained for jobs which exist. [“…the way that you make sure…”; “…jobs that exist”]
That's what your -- you get productivity increases.
And I want to appreciate you very much, Bob, for being a responsible CEO,…[He did it again! “I want to appreciate you, Bob, but I’m just not in the mood today. Maybe tomorrow, when the voices in my head have stopped”]
First, I want to congratulate her on being her valedictorian of her high school class.
In order to make sure jobs are here -- stay at home -- in order to make sure the country is leading edge of technological change, we have got to make sure people have the skills necessary to fill those jobs.
Just to close with two points. One, and it may have been a Freudian slip, but during one of the speeches, Bush used the line “Laura reminded me that one time on the TV screens in the summer of 2000 we saw, "March to War." He usually phrases this as “summer of 2002” in his canned speech, but maybe the truth inadvertently came out.
Finally, and this was a shocker, he actually used the word “peroration” in a sentence, and actually seemed to be using it correctly. It came towards the end of the speech in Arkansas, when Bush said:
You want to say something? Yes, okay. Here I am in my "peroration." That's kind of the emotional part before the conclusion. Anyway, go ahead.
The dictionary defines “peroration” as follows:
Noun; the conclusion of a speech or discourse, in which points made previously are summed up or recapitulated, esp. with greater emphasis.
It’s been longer, much longer than I had planned on since my last posting to this site. But I’m back today with a new edition of IBAM, and am busily working on yet another one that I hope to have up by Monday. In the meantime, I welcome the small band of loyal visitors to this site; I had a brief a few weeks ago when a posting I’d done months ago concerning the Texas redistricting case was linked to by Bart Cop. But fame is fleeting, site visits are down, and I’m resigned to languishing in obscurity on the periphery of the world of blogdom.
Two sets of data today from back in late February. In one, Bush answers a few questions while meeting with Georgian President Saakashvili on 2/25/04. He also met with the German Chancellor on 2/27, and spoke on the economy during a campaign stop in Louisville, Kentucky on 2/26. I have a large backlog of these to post but for now this should satisfy the masses. Here are the numbers:
language usage index scores
Sample
Reading Ease
Grade Level
BRI-2
Saakashvili (2/25/04)
63.1%
7.7
.057
German Chancellor
62.1%
8.0
.107
Louisville, KY (2/26/04)
68.7%
6.9
.108
Average
64.6%
7.5
.091
Below are selected quotes from The Leader’s mouth. Some are annotated with the actual error, others are just there for you to marvel at.
We're going to start with the American press, and then there will be a Georgian press, and then there will be an American press, and then there will be a Georgian press.[Is he referring to journalists or wrestling moves?]
Hopefully, as the Georgia economy approves -- improves -- and I'm confident it will -- there will be opportunities for business opportunities.[approves vs improves; missing “that”; “…opportunities for business opportunities…”]
So the President has got a good vision and this has been a good trip.
It's one of the things that, I think, makes the country unique and strong.[“…one of the things that…make the country unique…]
Then we had some corporate scandals, scandals which affected our confidence.[that vs which]
And that obviously was not only in Afghanistan, but in Iraq. [“but also in Iraq]
But we can have an environment so if somebody decides to take the risk, that they can succeed and, therefore, end up employing people.
One of the exiting things about our country is that there's a lot of companies run by very skilled women.[“there are a lot of companies…]
And the best way to talk about it is to have people who are actually living lives that -- which have been affected by policy.
Jim was bragging backstage about the success of this company is really based upon the fact you've got great workers [“that the success of this company…”; “…the fact that you’ve got great workers”]
There's a person I met at the airport I want to herald.
It also affected our psychology, made us realize oceans were no longer -- could no longer protect us from an enemy which hates what we stand for. [mangled sentence; which/that]
But we dealt with it straightforward.[??????]
Saddam Hussein said, I'm not going to expose my weapons, I'm not going to get rid of my -- I'm not going to allow inspectors in, he said.
We overcame it because the role of government is not to manage the economy, the role of government is to create an environment in which entrepreneurs are willing to create risk and create new jobs.[Just what the country needs – more entrepreneurs who are willing to create risk!]
Now, let me talk about the death tax, right quick.
I think a person ought to be able to live their farm -- leave their farm to whomever they choose.
It makes -- it's, in my judgment, bad policy, and it's on its way to being put to extinction.
I say, on its way -- you'll hear me talk in a minute that these -- some of these taxes don't really go away.
The cost of frivolous and junk lawsuits is high on our society.
Going to change unless Congress acts.[Not sentence.]
We need to make sure our job-training programs work.[missing “that”]
This is a major initiative of our administration, is to provide the opportunity for people to retrain so that their skills -- they've got the skills necessary for the new jobs being created in this economy.
Because there's thousands of companies all across America.[there is/there are]
Women-owned business is, I think, a very hopeful part of the future of this country.
That's code word for, I'm going to raise your taxes.
And, by the way, you can't have investment unless there's savings.[there is/there are]
I often have to argue that the tax relief was better spent than government could have spent the money.
It's a -- it affected -- I appreciate the checks finally arriving.
Yet More Evidence That The Democrats Should Ignore The South
Concerned that there hadn’t been enough recent news stories depicting southerners as stupid, ignorant rednecks, the Georgia legislature passed a law banning women from getting genital piercings. All women, young, old, whether voluntary or not.
Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for female genital mutilation.
The bill would make such mutilation punishable by two to 20 years in prison. It makes no exception for people who give consent to have the procedure performed on their daughters out of religious or cultural custom.
An amendment adopted without objection added "piercing" to the list of things that may not be done to female genitals. Even adult women would not be allowed to get the procedure. The bill eventually passed 160-0, with no debate.
Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.
"What? I've never seen such a thing," Heath said. "I, uh, I wouldn't approve of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to be doing."
The ban applies only to women, not men. The bill has already been approved by the Senate but now must return to that chamber because of the piercing amendment. Both chambers of the Legislature must agree on a single version of a bill before it can go to the governor for final approval.
I can only hope that the “I’ve never seen such a thing” comment from Rep. Heath refers to pierced female genitalia, rather than female genitalia in general. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the latter was the case.
Another bizarre factoid concerning the case of Susan Lindauer, who has been charged with being an Iraqi spy. It turns out that her name shows up on a public petition sponsored by the “Western Washington Fellowship of Reconciliation”. Lindauer signed the petition, and her name and address can be seen here. the petition was for those who wanted to “stop the spread of the anti-terrorist war to Iraq”. As they describe themselves,
[The] WWFOR seeks to replace violence, war, racism and economic injustice with nonviolence, equality, peace and justice. It links and strengthens FOR members and chapters throughout Western Washington in promoting activities consistent with the national FOR statement of purpose. WWFOR helps members and chapters accomplish together what we could not accomplish alone.
FOR is a faith-based, interfaith, pacifist organization which works on a variety of peace and justice issues.
All of which raises the question: If someone is really involved in spying for Iraq, why in the world would they publicly sign a petition opposing the invasion of Iraq, knowing full well that signing such a petition would likely bring themselves to the attention of government authorities? More to the point, is Lindauer being targeted at least partially because of her opposition to the Iraq invasion?
Susan Lindauer, 41, was arrested in her hometown of Takoma Park, Md., and was to appear in court later in the day in Baltimore, authorities in New York said.
She was accused of conspiring to act as a spy for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and with engaging in prohibited financial transactions involving the government of Iraq under dictator Saddam Hussein
According to an indictment filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Lindauer made multiple visits from October 1999 through March 2002 to the Iraqi Mission to the United Nations in Manhattan.
There, she met with several members of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, the foreign intelligence arm of the government of Iraq that allegedly has played a role in terrorist operations, including an attempted assassination of former President George H.W. Bush, the indictment alleged.
What makes this story interesting is that the same Susan Lindauer’s name pops up in a number of web posting concerning the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. Specifically, concerning allegations that the U.S. government shifted blame from Syria onto Libya as payback for Syria’s support of the first Gulf war in 1991.
Lindauer, then a congressional staffer, met in 1994 with a Dr. Richard Fuiz, who was alleged to be a CIA operative in Syria during the 1980s. Fuiz had a gag order placed in him by the Clinton administration shortly after this meeting, preventing him from publicly commenting on the issue. The following comes from a web posting describing this initial meeting between Lindauer and Fuisz (see also here). Note especially the section where Lindauer claims that she was (at the time) a victim of surveillance and harassment.
Last month, MEIB reported that Dr. Richard Fuisz, a major CIA operative in Syria during the 1980s, met with a congressional staffer by the name of Susan Lindauer in 1994 and told her that that the perpetrators of the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland were based in Syria. One month after their meeting, the Clinton administration, which holds Libya responsible for the bombing, placed a gag order on Dr. Fuisz to prevent him from publicly discussing the issue.
While Dr. Fuisz is still unable to comment on this matter because of the gag order, MEIB has obtained a copy of a formal deposition filed by Lindauer in 1998 in which she recounts this conversation in detail. This deposition (see below) has been submitted to the court in which two Libyan suspects are currently on trial and to U.N. officials, who have attempted to persuade the Clinton administration to lift the gag order on Dr. Fuisz.
Lindauer says that she has been subject to intense surveillance, threats, and attacks since she began meeting with Libyan officials in 1995 to discuss her knowledge of the Lockerbie bombing. "Someone put acid on the steering wheel of my car on a day I was supposed to drive to NYC for a meeting at the Libya House. I scrubbed my hands with a toilet brush, but my face was burned so badly that 3 weeks later friends worried I might be badly scarred," Lindauer told MEIB. "Also, my house was bugged with listening devices and cameras -- little red laser lights in the shower vent. And I survived several assassination attempts."
So, is Susan Lindauer an Iraqi spy? Is she being set up? Is she a nut case? This is all very curiuous, and something tells me that there’s both more and less to this story than there would appear to be at first glance.
It does seem, from the meagre evidence I've found, that Lindauer may be a bit of a flake. "Little red laser lights in the shower vent", acid, and assassination attempts? If these staements from Lindauer are accurate, then either she is a victim of some serious government malfeasance or she is totally unreliable as a witness for anything. And if the later is true, why is the government wasting time chasing down and investigating someone who is possibly delusional?
Group That Stopped Gay Marriages in New Paltz Was Involved in Florida (2000) Recount
The latest news out of New Paltz, NY is that a judge has issued a restraining order blocking the mayor of the town from performing any more same-sex marriages.
ALBANY, N.Y. - A state judge on Friday barred the mayor of a college town from performing more same-sex marriages for a month, saying Jason West was ignoring his oath of office.
State Supreme Court Justice Vincent Bradley issued a temporary restraining order against the 26-year-old New Paltz mayor at the request of the Florida-based Liberty Council, which acted on behalf of a local resident.
The Liberty Council is affiliated with Jerry Falwell Ministries. A little bit of research turns up the fact that the Liberty Council was also involved with attempts to stop hand-counting of ballots during Florida’s recount fiasco that followed the 2000 presidential election. According to this story at WorldNetDaily, the Liberty Council filed an appeal on behalf of three Florida residents to stop the hand counting, which ultimately was stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs the state of Florida, has agreed to expedite an appeal filed Wednesday by three Florida residents who claim the hand counting of ballots in selected Florida counties -- all of which have canvassing boards controlled by Democrats -- is unconstitutional. The appeal asks the court to immediately halt the manual recounts of ballots.
On Wednesday, a judge, appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton within the past six months, denied a request for a temporary restraining order on the hand counting procedures. Liberty Counsel immediately appealed that decision to the 1lth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Jim Bopp, an Indiana attorney, is assisting Liberty Counsel in this appeal.)
The three Florida residents bringing this appeal are represented by Liberty Counsel, the religious freedom law firm that recently became affiliated with Jerry Falwell Ministries. Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, and my son, Jerry Falwell Jr., serve as co-counsel of the organization. While Liberty Counsel has been involved in some crucial religious freedom cases in recent months, this appeal could very well be the most significant one it ever presents in court. In fact, this case could make history as a determining factor in the final decision of who will sit in the Oval Office as our nation's president.
I’d say that last statement was accurate. Yes, it’s interesting that the same outfit that was deeply involved in the sequence of events that ended up with George Bush in the White House, is also behind the legal actions to block gay marriages in New York. Also the fact that they’re linked to Jerry Falwell.
Liberty Council has been involved with a ton of lawsuits along this general line, including one where they successfully sued a transit system because they had refused to accept advertising for a seminar on “preventing homsexuality”. Also here, here, and here. Hell, let’s just let them tel you themselves the things they’ve been involved in, as they boast on this page.
This week’s episode of IBAM covers four recent events. Three of these amounted to campaign appearances, although they weren’t billed as such. The fourth was an interview that Bush did with a correspondent for an Arabic TV network (and no, it wasn’t Al Jazeera).
The three campaign appearances were on Feb 13 at Archbishop Carroll High School in Washington, DC; on Feb 16 at Nuair Manufacturing in Tampa, Florida; and remarks on the economy at an event held Feb 19 in the Presidential Hall of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in DC. The interview was posted on the Whitehouse website on Feb 18, although the transcript indicates that it took place on January 29. It was conducted by Mouafac Harb of the “Middle East Television Network”. The METN is the propoganda network created by the U.S. State Department and broadcasts Arabic programming by satellite from the ancient middle-eastern city of Springfield, VA.
The scores are mediocre as usual. It’s also notable just how poorly Bush did during the interview, where almost a fifth of his statements (17%) had some sort of grammatical error.
language usage index scores
Sample
Reading Ease
Grade Level
BRI-2
Archbishop Carroll HS (2/13/04)
72.7%
6.3
.072
NuAir Manuf. (2/16/04)
70.7%
6.6
.069
Eisenhower Bldg (2/19/04)
68.7%
6.9
.085
Arabic TV (2/18/04)
66.2%
7.5
.172
Average
69.6%
6.8
.099
Below is a list of representative speech errors by Bush from these four appearances. And believe me, I’ve dropped a lot of them out:
I think it's very important for us to work, not only in D.C., but around the country for…[missing “that”; “but also…”]
A society that doesn't want to leave any child behind is a society which says,…[“…a society that…”]
…why is Catherine making a unbelievably tough call to drive hours to another state, or out of this district to a state. [“an unbelievably tough call…”]
You know, when I was looking for a Secretary of Education, I wasn't interested in finding a theorist, somebody who talked about the philosophy of the education, or talking about somebody -- trying to find somebody who has actually done it. [broken/mangled sentence]
So I think we need to raise the bar everywhere [“… think that we need…”]
Then I think you've got measure. [What???]
And when you find a child that needs help. [“…who needs help”]
…a parent has got the ability to take extra money [“…has the ability…”]
But the other thing about local control of schools, is the more power there is at the local level, the more parents have an opportunity to change things. […is that the more power there is…”]
I know you got an advertising campaign getting ready to go. [“I know that you have…”]
They also take on a lot of students that are the so-called hard to educate, [“…students who are…”]
There's some other things we need to do here in this country. [“there is” vs “there are”]
There's some powerful interests in Washington that don't want to see this happen. [ditto]
There's a couple of things she said. [ditto]
There's a lot of fantastic community college systems here in Florida and around the country. [ditto]
But as the economy changes, as these new machines come into be, people need to learn how to use them.[??? “as these new machines come into be”?]
The American way is understanding people come here to put food on the table for their children. [verb use (“…is to understand”); missing “that” (“…is to understand that…”)]
The fact that you're willing to get in there and race those kind of cars on those steep banks says a lot about you, though -- positive, I might add. [“those kinds”]
But the fact that there's more money in your pockets have made this economy strong. [“…has made this economy strong”]
But there has been some pretty interesting points that have come out of it. [“have been…”]
And then, of course, there's the individual stories about hard-working, decent Americans worried about their families and what they do with the more money in their pocket. [“there are the individual stories…”; “the more money in their pocket”???]
The strength of this country is the fact we've got people who are willing to volunteer to serve a neighbor in need. [missing “that”]
It means our workers become the best in the world, [missing “that”]
One, the workers here, it means that there's reliable jobs. [“there is” vs “there are”]
And that's why so much talk with the economists are about -- are people investing, because that investment cycle will lead to the increase of employment.[“…talk with the economists is about…”]
And so Sam -- Sam is a person who -- Sam has got him a small business [mangled sentence; “Sam has a small business”]
And therefore we need a work system that is -- promotes legal activity, not illegal activity. [mangled sentence]
But we've also got to make sure -- but personal responsibility being responsible for your families, also an important part of making sure people get educated here. [mangled sentence]
It means they've got more money to make decisions, whether it's to save or go on a vacation to Texas, or to have a quality of life issue at home [just think about this one for a bit…]
There needs to be serious consequences for people who are -- don't tell the truth. [need/needs; mangled sentence]
Unreliable supplies of energy creates uncertainty for price. [“…supplies of energy create…”]
There's some special interests here in Washington… [“there is” vs “there are”]
And these tax relief will be -- will expire on an irregular basis. [“this tax relief…”; mangled sentence]
The tax burden will go up by $2,000 if they doesn't make the tax cuts permanent. [??? “…if they doesn’t”??]
Let me walk you through, right quick, of what these families and small business owners and large business and CEOs have dealt with, [“let me walk you through…of what these families…”??]
When you turn on your TV screen in the summer of 2002 and it says, "America's March To War," that's not very conducive for investment [“conducive to investment”]
Some estimates say up to -- and if you're interested in job creation, why not focus on the job creators? [mangled sentence]
I'm going to talk a little bit about in regards to one of our guests, but -- -- the death tax is a bad tax, bad tax. [mangled sentence]
There are very powerful interests here in Washington that prevent the kinds of laws to pass that will help control costs. [just, wow…]
But one thing's for certain, is we need to make the tax cuts permanent
That's $28 billion going into the U.S. Treasury out of your pockets -- be reducing demand by that amount, be taking capital out of small business coffers if that happens. [be speaking poor English…]
It made life easier by being -- that money, to help pay for the preschool tuition, it took pressure off of their bill paying. [mangled sentence]
I believe there needs to be a Palestinian state… [missing “that”]
…so long as there's groups of terrorists willing to murder… [“there is” vs “there are”]
And I fully understand there needs to be a firm commitment to fight off terror in order for that to happen. [missing “that”]
I mean, gosh, there's a lot of countries that are very much involved in Iraq. [“there is” vs “there are”]
Pakistan is another country which is evolving… [“country that is evolving”]
My views are one that speaks to freedom. [? Number agreement? “…views speak to freedom”]
I believe people can self-govern around the world. [missing “that”; “I believe that people around the world can self-govern”]
See, one of the interesting things in the Oval Office -- I love to bring people into the Oval Office -- right around the corner from here -- and say, this is where I office, but I want you to know the office is always bigger than the person.[Jesus. mangled sentence; missing “that”; “this is where I office”???]
King Abdullah of Jordan, the King of Morocco, I mean, there's a series of places -- Qatar, Oman -- I mean, places that are developing -- Bahrain -- they're all developing the habits of free societies. [mangled sentence]
One, I do believe they understand the need to reform. [“…believe that they understand”]
But I also know they agree that we need to continue to work together to fight terror. [“know that they agree”]
There's a -- the murderous ambitions of a few are trying to derail the hopes of many. [mangled sentence]
And it's -- I have visions of a university system that really leads the Middle East in education and on the forefront of science and engineering -- because I know the Iraqi-Americans who are here, very bright, capable, honorable people who have come to our country, realized the benefits of freedom, taken advantage of some fantastic opportunities and made great citizens. [mangled; missing “that”; not a sentence]
These are people that are willing to kill people… [people who are willing…”]
They kill innocent women and children and not care about it. [Tonto, Tarzan and Frankenstein…]
More Muslims have died at the hands of killers than -- I say more Muslims -- a lot of Muslims have died -- I don't know the exact count -- at Istanbul. [just read it…]
I wonder if the Bush administration even thought about how mean-spirited this was going to appear. And how nakedly political. Some journalists are reporting that White House sources are telling them that they do not expect this to pass but they need to fire up their base. They'd go this far for purely political reasons? I guess I really was naive.
Well we can’t say we didn’t see this coming. Republicans have no issues to run on – the economy is sluggish, and the new jobs just aren’t there; the budget deficit has exploded; Iraq continues to be a mess; the prewar excuses for invasion are now widely seen to be just that; and Osama Bin Laden’s trail is as cold as Spot’s corpse.
So what do you do when you have no issues to run on? You use a hot button issue like gay marriage to whip up a frenzy. It motivates your conservative base, scares a good number of moderates into considering voting for you, and lobs a couple of hand grenades into the Democratic camp. Accordingly, Bush today officially proposed the passage of a constitutional amendment that would “preserve the sanctity of marriage” by defining it to legally be only between a man and a woman.
It really is a smart, if sleazy, political tactic. Democrats are going to be forced to either support or hedge their response to this proposal. If they come out for it, or don’t come out sufficiently strongly against it, a good number of their supporters might stay home, or vote for someone like Nader. If they oppose it, they risk offending the vast hordes of middle America who might feel comfortable watching neutered gay men on TV shows like “Will & Grace” and “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy”, but who draw the line at letting them marry one another.
In an earlier post on this topic, I suggested that if Republicans went down this road there was a way to fight their efforts and force them to drop it as an issue. The logic was that if they could be convinced that the political price for this strategy was too high, then it would simply fade away and they’d start to base their campaign on other issue, like national security and taxes. A lot of the rationale I had at the time has now gone out the window because of subsequent event. At the time, I assumed that the goal was to prevent the issue from being brought up in the first place, and I thought there might be a reasonable chance of doing that.
Since my original post, of course, events have more or less forced things upon us. First we had the Massachusetts ruling, and for the last couple of weeks we’ve had gay marriages occurring in San Francisco. Over the weekend it seemed that Chicago and New Mexico might soon start following suit. So the issue is out there, front and center. It’s not like we can make it go away. Thus, it’s entirely expected that there’d be pressure for politicians to do something to stop the process. When Bush now proposes a constitutional amendment, he can claim to be bowing to pressure, because, frankly, a lot of conservatives are in an uproar.
Let’s revisit what I stated in my original post:
The question thus becomes how best to counter such tactics. The thing to keep in mind is that tactics like this aren’t used by Republicans because they are necessarily driven by an antipathy towards gays. Many of them might be, but that is not the primary motivation. Rather, it is simply politics. Republicans believe that this is a winning issue for them, and they’ll dangle the proposition of a constitutional amendment against gays in front of the more rapid zealots, and stoke the fires of fear in socially conservative moderates. But more likely than not, this issue will be immediately dropped after the election. It’s a way to win, not a crusade.
What I propose is a variation of the Barney Frank rule. Recall that back in 1987, Republican’s under Newt Gingrich initiated an infamous whisper campaign implying that Tom Foley was gay. Things got so out of hand that the openly gay Frank threatened to retaliate by publicly naming a number of closeted House Republican members. The rumors quickly stopped. The Frank rule says basically that “outing” of a closeted individual is acceptable only when the person in question is using a position of power and influence to engage in gay-bashing as a matter of politics or policy.
Using gay-marriage as a wedge issue in order to win an election certainly qualifies as such an instance in my opinion.
Accordingly, I’m amending my proposed strategy, and proposing the following. All those who oppose the proposed constitutional amendment, and Republican effort to gain votes by gay-bashing, should immediately begin to expose closeted Republican elected and nonelected party officials, as well as their staff, whenever there is sufficient evidence to do so. Why do this?
1. It’s already proven that it will work, as was shown by Barney Franks in 1987. As long as Republicans feel there is no cost for them in pushing this issue they will do so. When a few of them start getting exposed as secretly gay, the rest of them will start worrying about the possible damage to the party (as well as, possibly, themselves). It’s ugly but it will work.
2. It brings up hypocrisy as an issue. Why are so many Republicans who may actually be gay, supporting this gay-bashing strategy? Why aren’t they speaking out against it? Notice that this also applies to non-gay Republicans who may have gay colleagues or staffers. The public doesn’t like politicians or political parties that have the taint of hypocrisy about them, and this is a way of sticking it to Republicans.
[As an aside, any “liberal” who uses the Frank Rule in this manner isn’t open to the charge of hypocrisy. The assumption is that the amendment is being pushed for political purposes. Exposing supporters of the amendment as gay, and hypocritical, is perfectly legitimate. It really only becomes an issue if you start bringing third parties into it, since under the Frank Rule, they have no political power.]
3. It puts pressure on log cabin Republicans. There are, of course, a number of Republicans who are openly gay. They can, of course, choose to decry the exposure of closeted colleagues as unfair. But they need to be asked (repeatedly); why are you still in a party that is pushing such a discriminatory piece of legislation? Demand that they publicly announce their position. Challenge them, and ask them if they will refuse to support Bush (or any other politician) who supports such an amendment. Criticism of them must be loud, public and repeated.
4. Why bring in a politician’s or party leader’s staff? What can justify exposing someone who doesn’t hold elective office, or isn’t in a position of power? Let’s be honest. I think that a case can be made that a politician’s staff is as guilty he or she is when their boss takes a position that is sleazy but politically useful. These are not indentured servants. They are free to leave any time they wish. They continue to work for certain individuals because (a) they agree with them politically, and (b) they think it will further their careers. If Congressman Joe Blow is going to come out publicly in support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, then why shouldn’t their staff have to face the consequences of their boss’s actions? I repeat; this is about gay bashing in order to obtain political power. If staffer X is gay, but is willing to accept that his boss and colleagues push legislation that discriminates against gays, what he’s really saying is that he doesn’t care what happens to other gays and lesbians. His career is more important. He’s already chosen what side he’s on, and that makes him fair game.
It is very clear that the movement to push a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is nothing more than the open use of gay-bashing in order to win votes. If liberals, progressives and supporters of gay rights are serious about fighting against this bigotry, then they are going to have to try something other than appealing to people’s better nature. The Democratic party, and candidates, of course, will want nothing to do with this strategy (although I wonder what Barney Frank is thinking right now). So it will probably be left to the fringe media and the internet to get the ball rolling. May be a few highly recognizable names being outed could have an impact, as long as it was done with an explicit explanation of why it was occurring. Exposure and embarrassment shouldn’t be the point. In other words, the issue shouldn’t be “Governor Y is gay!”, but, “Why is Governor Y opposed to marriage rights for gays when he himself is gay?” (note: the use of the term “Governor” is completely gratuitous and is meant to suggest nothing about politicians in certain large southern states).
It’s all about framing. The fact that someone may be a closeted gay is not the issue. The fact that someone may be a closeted gay who publicly supports an amendment that is discriminatory towards gays isan issue.
There are others who may be far better at this than myself, but today I decided to take a stab at Peggy Noonan. Her latest offering in the Wall Street Journal is titled “Broken Glass Democrats Can their anger overcome Bush's normality?” It brings hagiography to a whole new level.
Noonan opens
…A lot had happened since I'd last spent time with him, in July, for an interview for Ladies Home Journal, and I was eager to get a sense of how he's feeling, thinking and looking as the election gears up. Also I've been tough on him lately and wondered how he treats people under such circumstances.
That’s it; never mind about what he has to say about Iraq, the economy, what he intends to do during the election campaign. Let’s cut to the most important issue. What does he think about me?
The president bounded into the Roosevelt Room at 10:30 on a weekday morning with a flurry of aides behind him. He looked tanned, rested and perhaps preoccupied.
Perhaps preoccupied, perhaps drugged…
He made a point to make and maintain eye contact with each of us, now this one and now that, as he talked. He shared thoughts, observations and stories in a way that seemed both free-associative and thematically linked.
“In a way that seemed both free-associative and thematically linked?” I believe that I know what that means, since I’ve had to endure reading enough examples of this type of speech on his part, while working on the IBAM project. Is that kind of like, “totally unrelated thoughts that have a patina of lucidity if you don’t examine them too closely?” Or, “mindless blather that is meant to convince the listener that Bush knows what he’s talking about?” Like when you haven’t studied for the exam but are trying to con the teacher into believing that you understand the material.
What the president's associates and allies had been telling me seemed completely true. His spirits were high, and at points he seemed loaded for bear. He has rock confidence that his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have been right and have helped the world. He suggested that you've got to stand your ground when it's the high ground. He made it clear he intends to.
He wound it all up, took no questions, and left with the flurry.
More macho posturing; no surprise there, or that Noonan swooned over it. But then we return once again to the point of the article; what did he think of me?
How did he treat me? I'd like to say he was cool because that would suggest he's been reading my columns and they've had a huge impact. In fact he was friendly as ever.
That’s probably because even if he has read your column, which is unlikely, he doesn’t have a clue who the fuck you are, Peggy.
There are several ways to interpret this. I choose to believe he is hiding his pain.
Kind of like when the really cool hunk in high school ignored you and pretended that he didn’t know you, it wasn’t because he really didn’t know you, it was because he cared about you too much and he was too shy to say so. Inside he was really hurting. because whatever explains his behavior, it has to have something to do with what he thought of you.
…Mr. Bush's poll numbers are down, but the blue states are blue and the red states are red. And no one knows what will change that.
…This year the Democrats do seem hungrier than usual, in part because of the continuing wound of the 2000 election… They feel a heightened passion. …Have you seen them out there? Teddy Kennedy revitalized and refocused, as if this is his last great campaign; the entertainment-industrial complex in full battle cry; television producers energized by the battle, political wives making passionate speeches, young voters entering the process, whether for Howard Dean or someone else.
Yes, the street are literally full of celebrities, entertainment moguls, and television producers crying out for justice.
This is rise of the Broken Glass Democrats. Remember Broken Glass Republicans in 2000? They'd crawl over broken glass to help their guy and get the change they wanted. I think we are seeing the beginning of that with the Democrats.
I was asked this week why the president seems so attractive to the heartland, to what used to be called Middle America. A big question. I found my mind going to this word: normal.
Why do so many people in Middle America admire Bush? To quote Charles Shultz, “Have you ruled out stupidity?” The rest of the column is just amazing.
Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He's normal. He thinks in a sort of common-sense way. He speaks the language of business and sports and politics.
I’m glad that he can speak at least one language. Too bad it’s not English.
You know him. He's not exotic. But if there's a fire on the block, he'll run out and help. He'll help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, "Where's Sally?"
He’ll run out and help, but only after he first disappears for a few hours to an undisclosed safe location, returning after the flames have been extinguished to shake his head at the sight of the damage, “tsk tsking” for all to hear. He’ll then, after much prompting, agree that an inquiry into what caused the fire would be a good idea, but look at his watch and say, “I’d like to stick around and help with the investigation, but I’ve got a lot of stuff to do tonight…good luck, though!”, before running off to the country club for cocktails.
He's not an intellectual.
News Flash!!!
Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world. And then when the fire comes they say, "I warned Joe about that furnace." And, "Does Joe have children?" And "I saw a fire once. It spreads like syrup. No, it spreads like explosive syrup. No, it's formidable and yet fleeting." When the fire comes they talk. Bush ain't that guy. Republicans love the guy who ain't that guy. Americans love the guy who ain't that guy.
I don’t even know where to begin with this drivel. “Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world?” What the hell does that even mean? Fight the fire, yes. But after it’s out, it’s somehow wrong to ask, why did the fire start in the first place? How were the escapes maintained? Could we have done something to prevent it? What can we do in the future so that something like this won’t happen? I agree that Bush isn’t interested in the answers to these types of questions, but an attitude like his is one sure way to ensure that there’ll be plenty of fires to fight in the future.
But of course, what Noonan is really saying is that, when faced with a crisis or threat, there’ll be those who prefer to study the situation, to gather more facts and analyze them before deciding on a course of action. And there are those, like Bush, who act first. But let’s imagine that instead of a fire, there was the sense that a burglary or house invasion was occurring at little Sally’s house. Should good neighbor Bush wait to find out what the facts are, or instead burst in, guns blazing, shooting at anything that might be a threat? If it turned out that what sounded like a violent struggle was merely the sound of a loud TV, it’ll be no consolation to Sally that heroic neighbor Bush has gunned down her parents by mistake. There are times when action is called for and there are times when a “normal” person will think before acting. To put it in terms even Noon would understand, “Look before you leap” is not a recipe for intellectual paralysis.
So as far as Noonan’s statement that “Republicans love the guy who ain't that guy; Americans love the guy who ain't that guy” goes, I think that everyone would like the guy who “ain’t that guy”. But it’s a false choice that Noonan provides.
Someone said to me: But how can you call him normal when he came from such privilege? Indeed he did. But there's nothing lemonade-on-the-porch-overlooking-the-links-at-the-country-club about Mr. Bush. He isn't smooth. He actually has some of the roughness and the resentments of the self-made man. I think the reason for this is Texas. He grew up in a white T-shirt and jeans playing ball in the street with the other kids in the subdivision. Barbara Bush wasn't exactly fancy. They lived like everyone else. She spoke to me once with great nostalgia of her early days in Texas, when she and her husband and young George slept in the same bed in an apartment in Midland.
Cue the violins. Excuse me while I gag…
A prostitute lived in the complex.
Insert gratuitous Neil Bush joke here…
George W. Bush didn't grow up at Greenwich Country Day with a car and a driver dropping him off, as his father had. Until he went off to boarding school, he thought he was like everyone else. That's a gift, to think you're just like everyone else in America. It can be the making of you.
After he went to boarding school, of course, it was a 25 year blur of booze, drugs and hookers, interrupted briefly by some actual work when he had to get out of being sent to Vietnam. Years later, he would reluctantly use his family connections to jump start careers in business and politics, sobbing to himself each night as he slept about the simpler life that he had left behind, a sort of latter day Charles Foster Kane. Oh to be normal again!
I just caught the repeat of the William Campenni interview on CSPAN. It was brief (less than 30 minutes), and here are the highlights:
He confirmed that he overlapped with Bush only during 1970-71 (exact dates unclear)
Campeni had been based in Pittsburgh; he served in Houston temporarily at Ellington AFB, and returned to Pittsburgh afterwards. This accounts for the article cited by some yesterday describing his story about a hijacking incident in 1972, which said that he was based in Pittsburgh at the time.
Exactly when he left Houston is unclear; it was sometime in 1971. He was definitely gone by 1972
Campenni said that he was not put up to it (the letter) or contacted by anyone in the administration, but says he wrote the letter on his own
He continued to defend the reserves; repeating much of what was contained in his letter (e.g., the reserves could be called up at any time)
He specifically drew comparisons between the reserves then (circa Vietnam) and now; seemed offended that others would try to make a political issue out of this. He said something to the effect of, “will someone like Terry McAullife in 30 years try make political points about someone who had served stateside in the reserves during the current war on terror?” He still tries to push the argument that there is no distinction between how the reserves operated then and now, and rejects the idea that people got into the reserves to avoid being sent to Vietnam.
Continued to say that it was Johnson and McNamara’s fault that the reserves didn’t get called up
My overall impression: This is someone who has practically nothing to add in terms of being a reliable witness to what Bush did or didn’t do during this time period. He’s certainly not in a position to comment on anything that occurred in 1972 or thereafter (and probably for a good portion of 1971 as well). He seems to be a career officer in the Air National Guard (30 years), who is more concerned with correcting what he sees as a set of mistaken beliefs about the nature of the reserves and how they operated then and now. He may or may not have an overblown view of the importance of the ANG; I don’t know enough to make a judgement one way or the other. But I think that correcting the facts about Bush is less important to him than correcting the facts about the ANG.
Today being Friday the 13th, I thought it appropriate to take advantage of the date and post the thirteenth episode of IBAM. Following up on yesterday’s posing, today’s covers an appearance Bush made earlier this week at a factory in Springfield, Missouri (SRC Automotive, 2/9/04). The numbers were: Grade Level = 6.7, Reading Ease = 70.4%, and Grammar = .071 (21 errors, 297 sentences).
[As a public service, I’m also including this link to a site that provides treatment for anyone suffering from Triskaidekaphobia]
Here are the errors:
People are owning their own home. [verb use; “People own their own homes”]
One of the most important things our society must do is to train people for jobs which exist. [missing “that” (“…things that our society must do…”); incorrect verb form (“…is train people…”); “that” vs “which” (…”jobs that exist”)]
It's tough times when the country is in a recession. [number agreement; “It is a tough time” or “They/these are tough times”]
See, when you're a CEO of a corporation, you have a responsibility -- Jack knows that and I suspect he might talk about -- at least when he talks, you'll hear he recognizes that. [missing “that”; “…I suspect that he might…”, “…you’ll hear that he recognizes…”]
…and now they know there will be a consequence in America for not telling the truth. [missing “that”]
And then, of course, as you know, I made the tough decision to secure America by -- after having gone to the United Nations and after having worked to give Mr. Saddam Hussein a chance to disarm himself. [broken/mangled sentence]
War is not conducive to -- for investment. [ditto]
Small businesses are feeling pretty good about their future, because there's incentives for them to invest. [“there is” vs “there are”]
Anyway, I do want to talk to you real quick that -- this is one of the real challenges we face -- a couple of challenges. [broken/mangled sentence]
I believe we need to have tort reform… [missing “that”]
I know we need tort reform particularly when it comes to health care. [ditto]
We've expanded them in the Medicare law, but I want people to understand they're available now. [ditto]
I believe we need to make the tax cuts permanent. [ditto]
--. See, one of the things that's fabulous about this country is people can start their own business. [ditto]
That means that it was the tax relief passed by Congress encouraged him to invest. [ditto]
And I hope that the state of Missouri uses the community college system here in a way that says, let's devise curriculum based upon the needs of the employers, [missing article; “devise a curriculum”]
And the best way to do it is to trust the local people to put a curriculum in place to train people for jobs which actually exist. [“which” vs “that”]
Mr. Mayor, this is a good way to recruit business, by the way, is if you've got a good worker training program so that the employers know that they can find somebody who can do the job. [?? poor structure]
See, one of the things she's saying… [missing “that”]
See, tax relief can be used to spend, and that's good, because it increases consumer demand, but tax relief also is being saved by a lot of our families, and that savings are really important in a society that rests upon the flow of capital. Savings actually is capital to be invested so people can find work. [“those savings are really important…”; “Savings…are capital…”]
It's got good folks here, good, honest, down-to-earth, hardworking people that really represent the backbone of America. [“hardworking people who really represent…”]
I’ve also reproduced a couple of things he said that aren’t errors, but Bushisms. Not real classics, but weird all the same:
Before I begin to talk a little bit about the economy, and then of course have our panelists talk about what they think, and some of the decision-making they made.
Except when you're marching to war, it's not a very optimistic thought, is it? In other words, it's the opposite of optimistic when you're thinking you're going to war. [Might the word be, “pessimistic”?]
Is Bush A Moron, Episode 12: Bush Visits Pennsylvania
Bush today spoke at a high school in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The topic was “education and the changing job market”. It was not a speech, and was typical of the kind of forum he’s used to discuss issues – make a few points, bring up some commonly used catch phrases and issues, and parade a few citizens to bolster the arguments your trying to make. Previously, I’ve ignored these appearances because I assumed that since they were so scripted there would be no reason to expect sub-par performance on Bush’s part. But after looking at how he did today in Harrisburg, I may need to start paying closer attention to these types of things.
Overall performance; Grade Level = 7.3, Reading Ease = 68.2%, BRI-2 Grammar = .114 (35 errors, 306 sentences). Examples of his errors are below:
It's a high school that's willing to raise the bar, …, willing to use curriculum that actually works. [“use a curriculum”]
But the truth of the matter is the strength of this country is the heart and souls of the American people, [missing “that”; “…truth of the matter is that the strength…”]
Remember, this country has been through a recession, an attack by an enemy which clearly hates what we stand for. [which/that]
The first idea is to make sure there's certainty in the tax code. [missing “that”; “make sure that there’s certainty”]
There's too many junk lawsuits which are running up the cost of doing business. [number agreement; “there is” vs “there are”]
We need to get less regulations on people who are trying to create jobs. [“fewer regulations”]
You see, when you have blackouts or brownouts, and you're trying to employ people, it's awful hard to have -- to do so. [mangled/broken sentence]
In other words, there's a lot of things we can do. [“there is” vs “there are”]
I know the entrepreneurial spirit; I know the fact we've got the best workers in the world. [missing “that”]
And as we overcome the recession and war and emergency, we'd better make sure we've got a work force that is prepared for the higher-paying jobs of the 21st century. [missing “that”]
We've got to make sure that math and sciences are -- we've got to focus on math and science. [mangled/broken sentence]
And another interesting part of our society which oftentimes gets overlooked is the fabulous community college system in America. [“which” vs “that”]
You've got a great community college here in -- Community colleges are available and affordable. [mangled/broken sentence]
…, to prepare folks for the jobs which actually exist. [“which” vs “that”]
So what you're about to hear is educational excellence here in Harrisburg exists; [missing “that”; “what you’re about to hear is that educational excellence…”]
And by that I mean, is that it's important to have local control of schools so that good superintendents and good principals are able to be -- adjust according to the circumstances. [broken/mangled sentence]
What's changed is we're finally asking the question, are we getting any results for our money. [missing “that”; “What’s changed is that we’re finally asking…”]
There's been a -- because we haven't focused that intensely on measurement. [broken/mangled sentence]
There's some kids who are just being shuffled through. [“there is” vs “there are”]
If you don't know whether a child can read and write and add and subtract, it's likely that child will be just shuffled through. [missing “that”; “…it’s likely that that child…”]
I believe every child can learn, [missing “that”; “believe that every child…”]
And so what we're talking about really here is the basics of job training, aren't we? [“…what we’re really talking about here is…”; “is the basics” vs “are the basics”]
Would you share with us your story? [? technically correct, but unusual]
That's one of the bottlenecks, to make sure more advanced placement -- AP means raising the bar, is what it means. [missing “that”; mangled/broken sentence]
But you've got to able to have some -- got a skill set that makes you employable. [broken/mangled sentence]
There's jobs in this part of the world that may require a different skill set than you have. [“There are jobs…”]
Cari, first of all, understands her most important responsibility is to love her child with all her heart… [missing “that”]
At home, we're going to be a society which understands the issues facing our fellow citizens, [“that” vs “which”]
I want to highlight a couple of passages that illustrate Bush’s inconsistent use of grammar. In the same setting, he can make a number of a particular type of error, and then say something in which he does not make the same error. For example, consider the term “curriculum”. You can say “the curriculum”, “a curriculum”, or “the curricula”. You can’t, as Bush does in the following cases, simply drop the article:
And what the measurement system allows you to do is, one, analyze curriculum –
…and, by the way, using curriculum that actually works, not curriculum that sounds good, not curriculum that may be based upon some interesting theory, but curriculum that actually makes a difference, so that when we measure we can see clearly that children are learning to read.
Yet, later on in the same appearance today Bush said the following:
And one of the reasons you measure, by the way, is to test whether or not the curriculum is working. And if the curriculum is not working, you need superintendents and principals and teachers bold enough to say, it's not working. And so you then you pick what you think will work, and then you've got to train teachers to teach curriculum.
What’s striking about this is that almost within the same breath, Bush correctly says “the curriculum”, but then also uses the term incorrectly.
[Kudos to Bush on one count at least. At one point in the appearance he spoke the sentence, “For those of you looking for work out there, take advantage of the opportunities available to embetter yourself”. Yes, “embetter” is actually a real word, albeit one that is rarely used. So his vocabulary may be broader than suspected. Either that, or even his mistakes sometimes take the form of actual English. After all, even a monkey at a typewriter could eventually produce Shakespeare.]
The folks at Free Republic are drooling over a letter to the editor printed in the Washington Times that is supportive of George Bush’s National Guard service record of 30 years ago. It’s from a Col. William Campenni (ret.), who now lives in Virginia. The letter staes that “George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971". The letter goes on to state the names of two superior officers (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian,
both deceased) that they had in common at the time, and further states that “while we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots…”.
It’s doubtful what the value of this letter is, partly since Campenni more or less admits that he didn’t know Bush very well, and in any event the period in which he says that they served together seems to be prior to the one covering the events now in dispute.
What does seem clear is that Campenni is in no position to say what Bush was doing by late 1972, since according to an article posted on Free Republic just this past December, Campenni was stationed with a different unit of the ANG operating out of Pittsburgh by November of ‘72. So, not much new is added by way of explaining where Bush was and what he was doing.
Campenni’s sudden defense of Bush is rather interesting, since this letter is not his first on this topic. He wrote a letter to the Observer, a Virginia based publication, back in May of 2003, in which he defended Bush’s ANG service. Curiously, that letter includes a number of passages that are identical to some included in the letter just published in the Times.
Is Bush A Moron, Episode 11: “Meet The Press Interview, 2/8/04
The reviews of Bush’s MTP interview on Sunday are in, and they aren’t pretty. Even conservatives were not impressed; Liberal Oasis and Calpundit
both summarize the consensus with selected quotes from a number of sources, e.g.:
…stammering and unsteady.
"If he loses this year, this will be the day he lost it."
…bobbled his answers
…pretty dismal performance
The tongue-tied blather…
…tired, unsure and often bumbling
Evan Andrew Sullvan (!) cites an email from an anonymous conservative reader saying the following:
”It was the single worst performance by an elected official on that show that I've ever seen. The President was inarticulate in the extreme; he avoided answering almost every semi-difficult question, repeatedly asking permission to "step back" as a way to provide a canned statement about how he's had to make tough decisions during times of war (i.e., don't second guess any decision I made regarding Iraq); and he often seemed to fail to grasp the meaning of various questions, pausing awkwardly for long periods of time before giving non-responsive answers.”
I can’t put it any more succinctly than Josh Marshall:
”Most of his responses were disjointed collections of slogans and administration talking points, with a number of disingenuous or outright dishonest points tossed in.”
The Daily Howler was not impressed with Tim Russert’s performance, however.
What happened to that frightening bulldog—the one the press has talked up for years? You saw it—that bulldog turned to a puddy-tat, coughed a hairball and died. What became of Bulldog Tim? That “dog” didn’t bark, hunt or slobber.
Irrelevant “answers” went without follow-up. Blatant misstatements by Bush went unchallenged. Bush was allowed to give long, windy speeches—speeches so long and so slow that it sometimes seemed that Russert must have left the building.
I’ve looked the transcript over and I have to say that it wasn’t a particularly shining day for either of them. Pundits are shocked that Bush was inarticulate? Excuse me, but is this news? . The man is reasonably good at reading from a teleprompter, or delivering prepared speeches, but can’t do the job in an unscripted setting. This is something that I’ve tried to document on this site, simply by looking objectively at Bush’s actual performance during such unscripted speaking sessions. It’s just that there are so few opportunities to observe how bad he is, that people have a higher impression of his command of issues than he deserves. Keeping him away from the press has been a long standing policy. That’s why the decision to go on MTP was so surprising; no matter how much preparation went into it, there was absolutely no way that he was going to appear to be anything other than foolish.
Okay, let’s run the numbers for Bush. The table below summarizes the figures for Bush’s MTP performance. There were 371 sentences in the sample. One somewhat surprising statistic is the Readability Index score of 69.3%, which is a little lower than Bush typically gets [Remember, lower scores on this measure indicate simpler speech; it’s equivalent to the percentage of adult speakers who’d be able to understand it]. But as I believe I’ve alluded to previously, this can be a misleading indicator. The calculation of the Flesch Reading Ease Index takes into account average sentence length. And long sentences don’t need to be grammatical or particularly well constructed. Indeed, one characteristic of Bush-speak is that he uses either very short, simple sentences (which would result in a high Readability Index score), or he strings together a number of related thoughts or statements into a single, jumbled, ungrammatical sentence. This latter behavior would lead to a lot of grammar errors (BRI-2 Index), but might actually result in a relatively low Readability Index. As can be seen, the BRI-2 index shows that more than a tenth of Bush’s sentences had a grammatical error.
language useage index scores
Sample
Reading Ease
Grade Level
BRI-2
MTP (2/8/04)
69.3%
7.7
.134
Here is a list of selected quotes illustrating the grammatical errors that Bush made during the MTP interview. Read em and weep…
There is a lot of investigations going on about the intelligence service, [number agreement; “There is”/”There are”]
It was kind of lessons learned.[What? Not a sentence]
The Congress has got the capacity to look at the intelligence gathering without giving away state secrets, and I look forward to all the investigations and looks. [What?!? “…all the investigations and looks”? ]
There is going to be ample time for the American people to assess whether or not I made a good calls,…[number agreement; “a good call”/”a good calls”]
…and I look forward to that debate, and I look forward to talking to the American people about why I made the decisions I made. [missing “that”; “decisions that I made”]
I wish it wasn't. [missing “that”; “I wish that it wasn’t”]
Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. [missing “that”; “I wish that it wasn;t true…”]
I will be glad to share with them knowledge. [“…share knowledge with them”]
…and I want that intelligence service to be strong, viable, competent, confident, and provide good product to the President so I can make judgment calls. .[missing “that”; “so that I can make…”]
Listen, we got some five let me let me, again, just give you a sense of where I am on the intelligence systems of America. [mangled sentence]
Sitting behind this desk making a very difficult decision of war and peace, and I based my decision on the best intelligence possible, intelligence that had been gathered over the years, intelligence that not only our analysts thought was valid but analysts from other countries thought were valid. [not a sentence; “was” vs “were”]
First of all, I strongly believe the CIA is ably led by George Tenet. .[missing “that”; “strongly believe that…”; also a split infinitive]
We've got people working hard in intelligence gathering around the world to get as good an information as possible. [number agreement]
We have given extraordinary cooperation with Chairmen Kean and Hamilton. [“with” vs “to”]
As you know, we made an agreement on what's called "Presidential Daily Briefs," and they could see the information the CIA provided me that is unique, by the way, to have provided what's called the PDB, because – [missing “that” (“…the information that the CIA provided…”; mangled sentence]
Now, let me which is—this is a vital question [mangled sentence]
And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. [“there is” vs “there are”]
And I made the decision to go to the United Nations, by the way, quoting a lot of their data in other words, this is unaccounted for stockpiles that you thought he had because I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman, [mangled sentence]
It's too late in this new kind of war, and so that's why I made the decision I made. .[missing “that”; “decisions that I made”]
And the worst nightmare scenario for any president is to realize that these kind of terrorist networks had the capacity to arm up with some of these deadly weapons, and then strike us. [number agreement; “these kind”/”these kinds”]
I'm dealing with a world in which we have gotten struck by terrorists with airplanes, and we get intelligence saying that there is, you know, we want to harm America. [mangled sentence]
Let me take a step back for a second and there is no such thing necessarily in a dictatorial regime of iron clad absolutely solid [not a sentence/mangled sentence]
Well, Tim, I and my team took the intelligence that was available to us and we analyzed it,… [“My team and I”]
His brother was one of the people that was assassinated early on in this past year [subject-verb agreement; “…one of the people that were assassinated”]
In other words, the worlds of the U.N. Security Council said we're unanimous and you're a danger. [“worlds”?]
In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences. [number agreement; “…there aren’t serious consequences”]
He obviously was concerned, but he I said, you know, I'm a Methodist, what are my chances of success in your country and your vision? [mangled sentence]
I call it a vital role because there is a lot of roles being played by different players, but the U.N. will play and this role is a very important role. [number agreement; “there are a lot of roles…”; mangled sentence]
And the reason why I felt like we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea, because we had run the diplomatic string in Iraq. [not a sentence]
And the reason I'm not surprised is because there are people in that part of the world who recognize what a free Iraq will mean in the war on terror. [missing that; “the reason that I’m not surprised…”]
There is no question in my mind that people that I have seen at least are thrilled with the activities we've taken. [“people whom I have seen”]
And my only point to you is these people are committed to a pluralistic society. [missing “that”; “my only point to you is that these people…”]
I believe that and I believe this country must continue to lead. [missing “that”; …I believe that this country…”]
Every person that is willing to sacrifice for this country deserves our praise, and yes. [“Every person who is willing…”]
It's historic times. [number agreement; “It is a historic time” or “These are historic times”]
In other words, the evidence we have uncovered thus far says we had no choice.[missing “that”; “…says that we had no choice”]
If we still have them, but I you know, the records are kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the records. [mangled sentence]
Military doesn't work that way. [“The military doesn’t work that way.”]
We had politicians making military decisions, and it is lessons that any president must learn, and that is to the set the goal and the objective and allow the military to come up with the plans to achieve that objective. [?? “…it is lessons that any president must learn…”; number agreement]
And what those numbers show is the fact we have been through a lot. [missing “that”; “…the fact that we have…”]
So, you show that the numbers kind of I'm not suggesting the chart only shows the bad numbers, but how about the fact that we are now increasing jobs or the fact that unemployment is now down to 5.6 percent? [mangled sentence]
And I look forward to debate on the economy because I think one of those things that's very important is that the entrepreneurial spirit of this country be strong and the small business sector be strong. [subject-verb agreement; “…one of those things that are” (vs “that is)]]
I have shown the American people I can lead. I have shown the American people I can sit here in the Oval Office when times are tough and be steady and make good decisions, and I look forward to articulating what I want to do the next four years if I'm fortunate enough to be their president. [missing “that”; “…that I can lead…”, “…that I can sit here…”]
Just FYI, John Edwards appeared on Fox this weekend and was interviewed by Chris Wallace. His numbers:.
language useage index scores
Sample
Reading Ease
Grade Level
BRI-2
Edwards (Fox Interview)TD>
66.0%
8.3
.034
Previous Editions of IBAM can be found at these links:
We may never know who he or she is, but the PR person who wrote the statement of apology for Justin Timberlake following yesterday’s Superbowl halftime show deserves to receive some type of special recognition. The statement released by Timberlake attributed the exposure of one of Janet Jackson’s breasts to an unexplained “wardrobe malfunction”, a phrase that will surely go down in history as one of the greatest examples of weasel-speak ever written, released, faxed or spoken.
I missed most of the Superbowl yesterday, having previously agreed to go see the play “Proof”. My luck with Superbowl watching has never been particularly good over the years. When I have watched the entire game it’s usually been a blowout, so two weeks ago when I was asked if I’d like to attend the play, I thought nothing of it. Little did I know that by doing so, I’d miss one of the better games ever, and most importantly the first step in the decline of American civilization as we know it. Otherwise known as the infamous breast exposure of Janet Jackson.
When I first read that “wardrobe malfunctions” were being blamed for the incident, all I could think about was that it night have been inspired by Houston’s association with NASA. Yesterday being the anniversary of the last shuttle disaster, perhaps unavoidable. Is clothing apparel really as complicated as the space shuttle? Does it require teams of scientists and engineers in order to operate smoothly? Perhaps hydraulic devices need to be used to make sure that Janet Jackson’s breasts don’t collapse under their own weight, brought down by gravity and exploding the thin layers of leather enclosing them. The words “wardrobe malfunction” seem to suggest some sort of complex human behavior; I’m sure that machines are involved, although I can’t say exactly how.
Well, at least now we know who the mystery guest was for the halftime show.
My guess is that there are at least three people who are pleased with the publicity that the yawn inducing “accident” has generated. The first is obviously Jackson herself, who has a new album coming out (if you’ll pardon the expression) next month. What a fortunate set of circumstances! Everyone is talking about her, and this might just help with sales of her new album!! FYI, here is the outfit that she was originally set to wear during the halftime show.
The second is Justin Timberlake, who managed to squelch all of those “Justin Timberlake is gay” rumors for at least another month.
The third is Kid Rock, who had a “wardrobe malfunction” of his own, offending a lot of people who have nothing better to worry about. Today, everyone is talking about Janet Jackson’s breast, and absolutely no one is complaining about pancho desecration.
More Hummus Please; But Fewer Burned & Maimed Bodies
“Arabic programming was a cute detail, the volume was intrusively loud and the graphic images of burned and maimed bodies on the Arabic news channel were highly uncalled for.” – Jay Hallen
Here’s an update on the wunderkind who is busy setting up Iraq’s new stock exchange. The Wall Street Journal published an article yesterday about the 24-year old who is rebuilding Iraq’s stock exchange. A strange job for someone so young. The first sentence of the article in fact says that “At Yale University, Jay Hallen majored in political science, rarely watched financial news stations and didn't follow the stock market.” It doesn’t exactly sound like the kind of person I’d pick to reopen the stock market for an entire country. Going to Yale, perhaps he was a member of “Skull and Bones”? But I digress… The Journal article goes on to say:
…Mr. Hallen, a private-sector development officer for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, was given the job immediately after arriving in Baghdad in September.
Mr. Hallen admits that he wound up in Iraq rather by accident. In 2002, he began pursuing a White House job, and though none materialized, he stayed in close contact with the man who interviewed him, Reuben Jeffrey. When Mr. Jeffrey went to Iraq last summer as a senior economic-development adviser, Mr. Hallen e-mailed to ask whether there were any job openings… A few weeks later, Mr. Hallen got a phone call from a Pentagon personnel officer, who told him he had been given a job in the Coalition Provisional Authority and needed to be in Baghdad in less than a month. "Needless to say, I was in a mild state of shock," he says.
Mr. Hallen, who graduated in 2001, has spent the past few months in a crash course in high finance.
Mr. Hallen's most difficult task has been winning and keeping the confidence of Iraqi investors and traders alarmed by his youth and lack of experience in the financial sector. It hasn't been easy.
In early November, Mr. Hallen traveled to Baghdad's Hamra Hotel for a lunch meeting with Luay Nafa Elias, who runs an investment company here. Mr. Elias says he was expecting to meet a middle-age man and therefore was astonished to see the baby-face Mr. Hallen sit down at the table and order a plate of kabobs. "I had thought the Americans would send someone who was at least 50 years old, someone with gray hair," says Mr. Elias.
As the lunch continued, Mr. Elias found himself impressed by Mr. Hallen's confident tone and his repeated promises to quickly open a stock market that is the envy of the Arab world.
Mr. Elias's faith in Mr. Hallen, however, began to evaporate when the market's opening was delayed without explanation, first to the middle of this month and then into February. "Maybe someone older and more experienced could have gotten this done on time," Mr. Elias says.
Far be it for me to question the judgement of the Coalition Governing Authority. I mean, they done such a bang-up job so far, what could possibly go wrong with choosing a 24-year old with no financial experience to set up the stock exchange for an entire nation?
Facts about Hallen are hard to come by on the web. I found one letter to the editor from him complaining about the sorry state of a bus tour company in NYC. He also was at one time a sportswriter (possibly sports editor) for the Yale campus newspaper. At one time, this daily published a response that someone had written, which took issue with an earlier published letter from Hallen. It seems that He had criticized the choice of the Indigo Girls as the main entertainers at some big campus event (“Spring Fling”), saying things like “they only appeal to women”. He was criticized for being sexist and homophobic; his original letter was unavailable so I can’t judge.
There was another notable mention of Hallen that I stumbled across. It was a review of a children’s play in which he had a role, Dr. Seuss’s “The Lorax”. Not really germane to his present duties, but some of the passages in the review did strike a chord with me in the context of his present job aiding the reconstruction of Iraq:
The Lorax starts in an imaginary world full of colorful, nonsensical creatures and Truffula Trees, where everything and everyone is happy. The Once-ler (Jay Hallen, SM '01) presides over this little utopia, all the while dancing with trees and singing the praises of his green pet cat and miffmoffermoof suit. One day, the Once-ler stumbles upon the realization that the Truffula Trees sprinkled throughout the countryside can be used to create a wonderfully versatile product known simply as Thneed. The Once-ler induces a Thneed fad--similar to the polyester craze of the '70s--in which he encourages everyone to run out and get some of his fabulous new product. As demand increases and the Once-ler becomes greedier, more and more Truffula Trees are chopped down to aid his quest to "bigger" his business. The countryside becomes dead and polluted, and--here comes the moral of the story--harmony is lost.
…With a big cheesy grin spread across his face and eyebrows so highly arched they look like they're about to jump off of his head, Hallen stands out with his portrayal of the greedy Once-ler. His remarkably pliable, green-painted face creates a sympathetic villain,teaching the audience that the concepts of absolute good and absolute evil are often far too simple for the complexities of the real world.
Whatever. Perhaps the only interesting thing about him that I could find came in the form of yet another letter to the editor (Yale Daily News), containing a review of a certain Middle Eastern restaurant near the Yale campus that had apparently been praised in an earlier article. In addition to criticizing the décor, food, ambience, and, basically everything about the place, the letter contained the following passage:
The first shock came the moment we stepped into the restaurant, when our eyes were assaulted by bright fluorescent lighting that created a dining atmosphere about as inviting as a Rite-Aid. While the 36" TV playing Arabic programming was a cute detail, the volume was intrusively loud and the graphic images of burned and maimed bodies on the Arabic news channel were highly uncalled for
. So Mr. Hallen’s dining experience was ruined by the fact that Al Jazeera (or something similar) was showing explicit pictures of the victims of violence, possibly (dare I say?) victims of some Israeli attack that happened to occur that day. (I say this because I assume that Arab TV wouldn’t be focusing on the victims of Palestinian suicide bombers, but I could be wrong). Whatever the case, I hope that in his current position in Baghdad, Mr. Hallen is sufficiently insulated from anything that would affect his delicate sensibilities. No doubt the suicide bombings and random killings of civilians, soldiers and policemen are far enough out of his earshot that he can digest his meals more easily than he could on that distant night in New Haven.
It’s been a while and there have been a number of events that I’ve neglected to cover since the last episode of IBAM. So today’s posting is a compilation of recent Bushisms that goes back a ways. It covers the period roughly from the time of his Thanksgiving Day visit to Iraq, up to the most recent event, a brief interaction with the press pool in Roswell, New Mexico. Also included are the results from the last Democratic debate, held last week prior to the New Hampshire Primary.
Roswell, 11/22/04: There are no major mistakes, but it’s a very short exchange. I reproduce this exchange in it’s entirety because it seems so weird and funny. Maybe it’s just me, but the man seems to have an uncommon obsession with ribs (see also here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. At this photo op, Bush personally bought $42.95 worth of food to go, and left no tip. Read it for yourself (Bush at the “Nothin' Fancy Café” in Roswell, New Mexico, 1/22/04):
THE PRESIDENT: I need some ribs.
Q Mr. President, how are you?
THE PRESIDENT: I'm hungry and I'm going to order some ribs.
Q What would you like?
THE PRESIDENT: Whatever you think I'd like.
Q Sir, on homeland security, critics would say you simply haven't spent enough to keep the country secure.
THE PRESIDENT: My job is to secure the homeland and that's exactly what we're going to do. But I'm here to take somebody's order. That would be you, Stretch -- what would you like? Put some of your high-priced money right here to try to help the local economy. You get paid a lot of money, you ought to be buying some food here. It's part of how the economy grows. You've got plenty of money in your pocket, and when you spend it, it drives the economy forward. So what would you like to eat?
Q Right behind you, whatever you order.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm ordering ribs. David, do you need a rib?
Q But Mr. President --
THE PRESIDENT: Stretch, thank you, this is not a press conference. This is my chance to help this lady put some money in her pocket. Let me explain how the economy works. When you spend money to buy food it helps this lady's business. It makes it more likely somebody is going to find work. So instead of asking questions, answer mine: are you going to buy some food?
Q Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. What would you like?
Q Ribs.
THE PRESIDENT: Ribs? Good. Let's order up some ribs.
Q What do you think of the democratic field, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: See, his job is to ask questions, he thinks my job is to answer every question he asks. I'm here to help this restaurant by buying some food. Terry, would you like something?
Q An answer.
Q Can we buy some questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Obviously these people -- they make a lot of money and they're not going to spend much. I'm not saying they're overpaid, they're just not spending any money.
Q Do you think it's all going to come down to national security, sir, this election?
THE PRESIDENT: One of the things David does, he asks a lot of questions, and they're good, generally.
It’s especially interesting to read Bush’s brief explanation of how the economy works. Extrapolating from his summary, I envision the following scenario: 1. Tax cuts give people extra money. 2. People spend extra money on ribs. 2. Café owner gets money. 3. Increased demand for ribs leads to expansion of restaurant. 4. More people are hired. 5. More ribs consumed. 6. More expansion. 7. Even more ribs consumed. 8. Entire population of U.S. drops dead from massive heart attack caused by over consumption of ribs.
The numbers for this performance are pretty grim, with a grade equivalent of 3.6, reading level of 85.6, and BRI-2 grammar score of .066 (missing “that”, i.e., One of the things [that] David does, [is that] he asks a lot of questions, and they're good, generally). But at least he seems to have this economy thing down pat.
These results are shown in the following Table along with scores from a few other recent Bush speaking engagements. Included in the Table are results from the Roswell episode, an 11/27 Q/A with reporters after Bush’s visit to Baghdad, a brief exchange with reporters during a visit by Jordanian King Abdullah on 12/4, a press conference held on 12/15, a press pool Q/A session on 1/4/04, a joint press conference with Mexican President Fox on 1/12, and a joint press conference with the Canadian Prime Minister martin on 1/13.
I’ve also made a minor, but long overdue, modification to the way that the BRI-2 grammar measure is calculated. Previously, Bush statements such as the following might not have turned up as grammatical errors under spell-checking:
And I think when people begin to realize that, when people begin -- that were, I would call them fence-sitters, when people begin to realize that the Saddam regime is gone forever, and that the new society that will emerge will be a fair society, it will protect people, and protect people from the -- protect them based upon their own religious views, for example, guarantee them rights -- is what I mean by "protect," that it's more likely people will begin to sign on to the future of Iraq.
There may not be any obvious errors, other than it being a long, run-on sentence. But strictly speaking, it’s not a long, run-on sentence, because it’s essentially a series of incomplete thoughts strung together. The structure is horrible. It’s as if the man can’t put together two complex thoughts into a single coherent sentence. Much of his speaking is characterized by this type of performance, which I just don’t commonly observe in the other people I’ve looked at. I can’t think of a good reason why this shouldn’t be taken into account, and so from now on these types of broken or mangled sentences will be counted as grammatical errors.
So, here are the Results for Bush from the samples I just described:
language useage index scores
Sample
Reading Ease
Grade Level
BRI-2
Thanksgiving (11/27/03)
80.8%
5.3
.097
King Abdullah (12/4/03)
64.2%
8.2
.055
Press Conf (12/15/03)
68.6%
7.5
.068
Press Pool (1/1/04)
74.2%
6.3
.086
Bush/Fox (1/12/04)
64.8%
7.8
.100
Bush/Martin (1/13/04)
65.6%
7.8
.170
Roswell/ribs (1/13/04)
85.6%
3.6
.066
Average
71.9%
6.6
.092
The results of this sample, covering almost two full months of unscripted speaking engagements by Bush, are pretty mediocre. The average readability index is 71.9%, with a grade equivalent of 6.6. The average BRI-2 grammar index is .092, which is far worse than anything obtained by him in any of the previous episodes of IBAM.
In no particular order, then, here are some examples of errors in Bush’s speechifying, as discovered in the sources cited:
I-35, as you know, if you're a Texan -- well, you know. [broken/mangled sentence]
But I also reminded them what I said publicly, that it's up to them to seize the moment [“reminded them about what I had said…”]
I think the game plan they've got now in place is a good plan. [missing “that”; the game plan that they’ve got…”]
And he said, sir, I wouldn't take you in there if I wasn't convinced that we could do this in a way that would safely bring you to the troops. [“wasn’t” vs “weren’t”; split infinitive]
But I did encourage them, to let them know that we have confidence in their ability to self-govern and we respect their culture. And we want to help them. [missing “that”; “and that we respect their culture”]
It had a wonderful rainbow behind he and his generals. [“his generals and he”?]
Oh, met the chiefs -- head of the -- two council members, the chief of the council and one of his compatriots -- Baghdad. [broken/mangled sentence]
It was getting down to the grass roots level, to -- you've seen me enough to know when I see these mayors, I tease them about filling the potholes. That's what -- you know, they've got a job to do, and they're doing it. [broken/mangled sentence]
Well, I told her that -- she knew all along -- actually, I didn't mean Laura and the girls, I meant the girls. [broken/mangled sentence]
And that's -- they're upbeat. [broken/mangled sentence]
Well, I'm telling you, this is -- again, had this been jeopardized in any way, we wouldn't put myself and/or you all in this position. [broken/mangled sentence]
And it is in the Pentagon, as well, a copy of it, which I found to be very -- so I remember going into the Pentagon and -- somebody took – [broken/mangled sentence]
“The emergence of a peaceful Iraq will transform the region in a positive way, that will make it more likely that the world is peaceful.” [“That” instead of “which”]
And that we're constantly talking about that message and encouraging people to participate. [Not a sentence]
I think what need to happen is he needs to be brought to justice. [need vs. needs; missing “that”; “I think what needs to happen is that he needs…”]
It's in this country's interest that Afghanistan emerge as a peaceful country. [subject-verb agreement; “that Afghanistan emerges…”]
There's a lot of areas where we do work together. [Subj-verb agreement; “There are a lot of areas…”]
And I'm confident people aren't going to agree with every decision I make. [missing “that”; “I’m confident that people…”]
The strategy that I've outlined in order to do my solemn duty -- and my duty is not only to keep the country more secure, but more prosperous and a better country, as well. [not a sentence]
And then of course, there was the tax relief -- a stimulus package which was necessary to make sure that we had ample revenues coming into the Treasury in the first place. [that vs which; “a stimulus package that was necessary…]
See, without the tax relief package, there would have been a deficit, but there wouldn't have been the commiserate -- not "commiserate" -- the kick to our economy that occurred as a result of the tax relief. [inappropriate word used; meant to say “commensurate”, not “commiserate”]
When you say there's over 60 nations involved in Iraq, that means that there's international support in Iraq. [subj-verb agreement (there is/ there are); missing “that”, “”say that there’s…”]
Well, first of all, I have constantly said that we need to have a immigration policy that helps match any willing employer with any willing employee. [“a” vs “an”]
Make sure everybody -- let's all start from the same basis, if you don't mind. [broken/mangled sentence]
To answer your question, we're -- the Defense Department will try to learn more from Saddam Hussein as time goes on. [broken/mangled sentence]
And that's -- I do believe that there are going to be some people who are persuaded that since Saddam Hussein has been captured, that he will never return, and therefore, they need to be a part of the emergence of a free Iraq and a free society, and that there -- and it's going to be very important for the Iraqi authorities to reach out to those people and talk about a system that guarantees minority rights, and a system which says that for some the future is bright. [broken/mangled sentence]
He's going to come back up and brief Condi and me in a little bit of time. [Condi and I? Condi and myself?]
And as well, it's very important for them to listen to those voices in their country who are demanding freedom. [who vs that; “listen to those voices in their country that are demanding freedom”]
I mean, I don't know the details which caused him to recuse himself. [that vs which; “the details that caused him to recuse himself”]
…we appreciate the fact the Iranian government is willing to allow our humanitarian aid flights into their country. [missing “that”; “the fact that the Iranian government”]
So that's one of my resolutions, which may require eating less desserts, kind of getting a little trimmer, to take the pressure off the knee. [“less dessert” or “fewer desserts”]
Democratic NH Debate:
Finally, for the record, and for comparison to the abysmal performance shown by Bush, I’m posting the results of the last Democratic debate, held prior to the NJ primary. One thing that really jumps out at me is the poor performance of Dennis Kucinich; his answers to questions were too complex (high grade equivalent and low readability). Kerry tended to be more long-winded (confirming the knock that’s currently made on him), whereas Dean and Clark were almost at the same level as Bush in terms of language complexity, but none of the Dem candidates scored lower than Bush.
language useage index scores
Name
Reading Ease
Kucinich
56.3%
Sharpton
64.2%
Kerry
64.8%
Edwards
66.3%
Lieberman
69.7%
Dean
71.1%
Clark
71.9%
Bush
71.9%
language useage index scores
Name
Grade Level
Kucinich
10.4
Sharpton
9.2
Kerry
8.5
Edwards
8.3
Lieberman
7.4
Dean
6.7
Clark
6.7
Bush
6.6
Kucinich also had many more grammatical errors than his Dem opponents (see below). On this last factor, at least, he’s really into George Bush territory. The other thing that should be noticed is the high performance of the remaining candidates on grammaticality of speech. Dean, Clark and Lieberman had perfect scores for grammaticality, with Kerry and Edwards not far behind. Bush trails all Dems, including Kucinich. In fact, once you exclude Kucinich, if you averaged the grammatical errors committed by all of the six remaining Democratic contenders (yes, even including Al Sharpton), their mean BRI-2 score of .0078 is less than 1/12 that shown by George Bush (see above). And if you limit it to only those four Democratic candidates who have a reasonable chance of winning the nomination (Dean, Kerry, Clark, Edwards), their average grammar score was .005. In other words, in unscripted performance answering questions from reporters, Bush made nearly 20 times as many grammatical errors as the people whom he’s likely to face in the upcoming election.
Pre-Emptive Action Against Republican Gay-Bashing: A Modest Proposal
"A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization."
"Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."
So said G.W. Bush in his State of the Union speech last night. It has been expected that Bush would try to make the issue of gay marriage work to his advantage somehow during his reelection campaign. Recent announcements, as well as his speech last night, make it clear that this is going to be done in two ways.
One approach is going to be the $1.5 billion dollar “Healthy Marriages Initiative”. This initiative actually serves two purposes. First, it is aimed at low-income couple, and will provide training to help them develop interpersonal skills that sustain healthy marriages. A form of blackmail, it effectively requires that those dependent on certain forms of Government assistance be legally married, since they are only eligible for it if they are in fact married. There may be rational reasons for wanting low-income couples to be married (e.g., poverty rates for single- versus multiple-parent families), and “semi-coercive” measures like this are nothing new, having been enacted in one form or another since the welfare reforms of the mid 90’s. Bush’s proposal more than doubles the amount of money available for these types of programs from around $700 million to the stated proposed amount of $1.5 billion.
The second purpose served by these programs becomes clear. Surely Rove and company must know, and expect, that inevitably in an election year the issue will arise of how to deal with gay marriages. Are gay couples to be eligible for the same types of benefits, especially if they have a marriage that is recognized by their State? Now, statistically speaking, the number of low-income, gay couples who are married is likely to be miniscule (even moreso if children are involved). There may in fact be no one this policy actually applies to in the entire country at the present time. But if the issue gets raised by gay-rights activists looking for some type of equity and equal treatment, Bush gets to tout the sanctity of traditional marriage. This potentially wins support among conservative Democrats who are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, and puts Democrat candidates into a bind. If they support the status quo (meaning that gay couples are not eligible for the programs, even in States that recognize their marriage), they lose support from gays and sympathizers. If they challenge the status quo and publicly advocate making gay couple eligible for these types of programs, they lose the support of conservatives who might otherwise be tempted to vote for a Democratic candidate in the fall.
The second way in which the “gay-card” will be played by Republicans is more overt, and will come in the form of proposals to amend the constitution in such a way that gay marriage will become illegal. Bush as much as called for such a measure in last night’s SOTU, and we can expect events such as this to occur with increasing regularity over the course of the year. In fact, we can expect that Bush will beat this issue to death, since it may be effective for the same reasons just stated; Democrat candidates will be put on the defensive and will lose no matter which side they argue. It also has the fringe benefit of motivating the conservative base.
The question thus becomes how best to counter such tactics. The thing to keep in mind is that tactics like this aren’t used by Republicans because they are necessarily driven by an antipathy towards gays. Many of them might be, but that is not the primary motivation. Rather, it is simply politics. Republicans believe that this is a winning issue for them, and they’ll dangle the proposition of a constitutional amendment against gays in front of the more rapid zealots, and stoke the fires of fear in socially conservative moderates. But more likely than not, this issue will be immediately dropped after the election. It’s a way to win, not a crusade.
What I propose is a variation of the Barney Frank rule. Recall that back in 1987, Republican’s under Newt Gingrich initiated an infamous whisper campaign implying that Tom Foley was gay. Things got so out of hand that the openly gay Frank threatened to retaliate by publicly naming a number of closeted House Republican members. The rumors quickly stopped. The Frank rule says basically that “outing” of a closeted individual is acceptable only when the person in question is using a position of power and influence to engage in gay-bashing as a matter of politics or policy.
Using gay-marriage as a wedge issue in order to win an election certainly qualifies as such an instance in my opinion. Accordingly, I’ll propose the following for discussion and consideration. If Republicans persist in pushing proposals that can only be interpreted as thinly-veiled forms of gay-bashing in order to win votes, should Democrats or anyone with insider knowledge threaten to “out” prominent closeted Republicans? Would this be effective, and would it be acceptable?
Regarding the issue of effectiveness, it’s already proven that it will work, as was shown by Barney Franks in 1987. Of course, one shouldn’t assume that Republicans don’t mean what they say. If they talk about constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, they may actually end up doing it eventually. All the more reason to stop them. If they are driven by fanaticism and principle, threatening a few Republicans with “outing” won’t matter to the Bush administration, and will not likely prevent them from pushing the issue of gay marriage. But if these “trial balloons” are merely a cynical way off manipulating public opinion in order to win an election (which I think is the case), I predict that this issue would very quickly be dropped by the Bush team when they are faced with threats of retaliation against closeted Republicans. At some point, someone will come to Bush and tell him that they’ve got 5 Senators and two dozen members of congress who are, to put it nicely, “unhappy” with the situation.
As far as fairness goes, again I see nothing wrong with exposing the hypocrisy of closeted Republican lawmakers who benefit from public campaigns that would seek to deprive other gays of their rights. When Republicans win elections, they win power, closeted or not. If there are Republican individuals in positions of power, then they should be “outed” if they support these types of policies, especially when a clear intent of proposing the measures to begin with is to win political power in the first place.
Should this type of tactic apply to anyone other than directly responsible individuals? For example, should staffers, family or associates be targeted as well? I’d say not, since they aren’t the ones engaging in rank hypocrisy. But elected officials should be fair game, it seems to me. So I’ll throw it out there. What do you think?
Latest News on Austin PP Boycott
I’ve been deliberately trying to steer away from this issue because, frankly, the less that I have to do with some of the nitwits involved in this boycott the better. But I came across a couple of items today on the Houston Coalition for Life message board that are worth mentioning.
First, it seems that some limited construction has started once again on the new PP clinic. According to a post from Chris Danze, a portable building has been set up on the construction site, and several work trucks were on site Tuesday (none with logos, names or markings). Work appeared to be focused on underground electric. Second, the boycotters also asked for boycott supporters to call and put pressure on Ramon Carrasquillo, the owner of Rainbow Concrete Supply Company in Austin. According to the letter Danze wrote,
Rainbow Concrete Company until now has refused to supply concrete to the project. But now Mr. Carrasquillo is under TREMENDOUS pressure to give in and provide the concrete. The forces of darkness are bearing down with all their might to crush Mr. Carrasquillo and his company if he does not supply the concrete. The pro-abortion forces in Austin are pulling out all the stops to get their way. Mr. Carrasquillo needs our prayers and support now. This is time critical. His address is: Ramon Carrasquillo 5712 Hero Drive Austin, TX 78735
phone: 512-385-7676 (press the star key on your phone to leave a message.)
Here’s some more background information, from the main Coalition for Life site run by David Bereit:
Chris [danze] reports that the abortion forces have targeted Ramon Carrasquillo, owner of Rainbow Materials, who was cited in 2001 by the City of Austin and the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission for numerous environmental violations because of concrete dumping in and near the Colorado River. The owner is still facing the possibility of massive fines and possible jail time. But, as Danze said, "The case has still not been settled. This ominous 'cloud' has been hanging over Mr. Carrasquillo as he has worked to get required cleanup permits and actually do the cleanup while trying to satisfy the legal authorities. But now he may be off the hook. Mr. Carrasquillo has been told that if he will 'give the concrete' to the Planned Parenthood project these problems 'will go away'."
I have know way to know if there is any truth to this allegation by Bereit. But I was rather bemused by the rest of his post here”
Does this sound like bribery, extortion, or what? It seems that the abortion industry will stop at nothing to impose its harmful agenda. Efforts are already underway to investigate whether illegal actions have taken place. It appears that some city officials in Austin are willing to pander to Planned Parenthood and set aside the responsibility to protect the environment and enforce the laws of the people of Austin to get concrete for a privately owned abortion business.
My quess is that nothing illegal has occurred. I think we can assume, considering the state of politics in Texas these days, that the AG would be looking into this situation real fast if these allegations had any merit at all. Otherwise there’d be no need for the anti-choicers to pressure Mr. Carrasquillo, who presumably could simply notify the AG or the media about his plight at the hands of nefarious government officials. Something tells me that David Berewit could get through to the "appropriate authorities" if he really needed to. The fact that they haven't tells me there's nothing there. In any event, it’s a bit ironic to see Bereit and his ilk making accusations of bribery and extortion, when that is what the entire Austin boycott is based on.
If you oppose the Austin PP boycott I strongly urge you to consider contacting Mr. Carrasquillo using the information posted above, making it clear to him how much community support there is for this facility, and that his efforts in assisting the construction will not be forgotten by those who believe in choice.
And while you’re at it, give Danze himself a call and let him know how you feel about him and the boycott. As previously posted on his site, here is the contact info:
Home Tel.: (512) 306-1326
Maldonado & Danze Inc
Business Tel.: (512) 837-9677
email: mdinctim@austin.rr.com
Also in local PP news, Texas anti-choicers are trying to actively recruit spies to infiltrate PP clinics in the state. It’s all because of a recently enacted law called the Woman's Right to Know Act (HB15), which became effective January 1st. The new law requires that women considering abortion be given “factual information” about the risks of abortion, their alternatives, and accurate full-color pictures of fetal development. Women are then forced to endure a 24-hour waiting period. They also must provide proof of identity and age. As the Coalition for Life site puts it,
Since Planned Parenthood has previously demonstrated a willingness to violate other laws that hamper their lucrative abortion business, the Coalition for Life will be conducting research to ensure that area Planned Parenthood abortion facilities comply with this new law or face stiff financial penalties. If you or someone you know are interested in helping with the research, please e-mail us at: xxxxxx
So two things: if there is anyone reading this who’s somehow involved in family planning/PP activities in Texas, be on the lookout for spies who are trying to obtain evidence that these draconian and intrusive laws are not being followed to the letter. On the other hand, if you yourself want to infiltrate the Coalition for Life to obtain information on what they are instructing their operatives to do, contact information for them can be found at at this website.
Toby Keith Aaron Sain Jumpstarts a Career
Another nobody from the world of country music is attempting to jumpstart a musical career using a bit of opportunistic flag waving. You’ll recall that last year Toby Keith was able to parlay his song “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American)” into C&W stardom, after struggling for years as a fry cook and male prostitute. [OK, he had previously had a few albums and some hits, but nothing comparing to the success he achieved with this jingoistic bit of crap. And while I can’t vouch for the fry cook and male prostitute sidelines, he must have been supporting himself somehow, since music certainly wasn’t doing it for him].
Meet America’s next stupid thing, Aaron Sain. If you’ve never heard of him, join the club. He is a producer/musician based in Nashville, who appears to be making a move to be this year’s Toby Keith. As I learned from Free Republic, he’s recorded a song called “Hey, Hollywood”. It’s meant to be “response to leftist attacks” from Hollywood liberals/entertainment types who have been denigrating America (or G.W. Bush; the two appear to be interchangeable to some people) through their nefarious causes and public comments. Just as Toby Keith went from has-been to super-star by jumping on the jingoism bandwagon, Aaron Sain is trying to make a name for himself by doing a bit of liberal-bashing.
A member of the conservative group RightMarch.com has recorded a new country song responding to the leftist attacks against President George W. Bush and America coming from country music artists such as the Dixie Chicks and Willie Nelson as well as liberal Hollywood actors.
"Country music fans -- like so many of us -- are proud Americans, and don't take kindly to people taking unfair potshots at our Commander-In-Chief when our country is at war," RightMarch.com said in an e-mail to supporters on Monday. "That goes for anyone, from country 'stars' to Hollywood 'stars' -- it's a free country, and you're free to speak your mind, but that doesn't mean Americans have to listen to that drivel."
The group points to country music legend Willie Nelson's latest "protest song" against Operation Iraqi Freedom and Bush as an example of the ongoing attacks from the left.
…The lyrics to Nelson's song entitled "What Ever Happened to Peace on Earth?" ask "how much oil is one human life worth?" and "how much is a liar's word worth?"
"Enough is enough," RightMarch.com proclaims in the e-mail. "Willie's obviously been hangin' around with his Hollywood crowd too much lately -- but we've got a way to help bring back the TRUTH, and we're gonna use country music to do it, y'all."
RightMarch.com revealed in the e-mail that one of its members named Aaron Sain has a band named The Right Brothers and has written and recorded a song rebuking liberal actors called "Hey Hollywood."
This single is not available in stores, but can be downloaded for free in various formats.
"This is a fun way to fight back against the lies of the radical left, while also arming ourselves with the truth," RightMarch.com contends in the e-mail.
RightMarch.com says they hope to "fight back against the lies of the loony left coming from Hollywood, the liberal media and groups like MoveOn.org."
Here are the lyrics to this bit of drivel:
"Hey Hollywood" by The Right Brothers
Well I heard some movie stars talking on TV
Said they were being a voice for you and me
Saying things like "no blood for oil" and "not in our name"
And just like the roar of an F-16, I heard this country say
Hey Hollywood, we hear your message and it don't sound good
Your just running this country down with our troops overseas
Hey Hollywood, take a look around if you would
And if you don't love this land you're free to leave.
Now don't get me wrong I know you got a right
To say what you want and never apologize
You can protest all day and shout what you believe
But the rest of America has the right to kindly disagree
Hey Hollywood, we hear your message and it don't sound good
Your just running this country down with our troops overseas
Hey Hollywood, take a look around if you would
And if you don't love this land you're free to leave.
I'll even help you pack your bags if you want, if you wanna leave.
Hey Hollywood, stop running this country down.
Hey Hollywood.
Well it’s not exactly in the same league as “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue” (or “Iraq and I Roll” by Clint Black), for that matter, but it’s an admirable effort. Not surprisingly, the idiots who wrote this song, as well as those who have been praising it, don’t note the irony of the lyrics which in one breath can state that ”I know you got a right to say what you want and never apologize. You can protest all day and shout what you believe.”, but in the next one say ”And if you don't love this land you're free to leave; I'll even help you pack your bags if you want, if you wanna leave.. I guess one shouldn’t expect intellectual consistency from idiots.
Who is Aaron Sain? As I said, he’s a music producer/musician based in Nashville. Among some of the stars he’s had a hand in producing are the Backstreet Boys; someone named Josh, who apparently has been wowing the crowds at shopping malls in upstate New York; Plus One, a Christian boy band; and purported teen sensation Kaci Cassidy.
Here are the lyrics to one of Kaci’s songs, cowritten by Aaron Sain:
Intervention Divine (written by: Jeff Boyett/Kelly Shiver/Aaron Sain)
Sarah's screaming,another daddy's leaving
How can that much hurt be justified
Frankie's a dealer his nickname is "The Healer"
He makes a living helping people die
Babies making babies,people going crazy
Andy's new best friend's a 45
Circle us with angels,walk us through the danger
Give us light to get us through the valley
full of shadows
and Deliver us from evil,we are only people
You know we can't make it on our own
O.Lord,we need intervention divine
Michael is surfin',revenge at school is certain
He's clicking www.bomb
Street gang invasion,we've become a
dead-bolt nation
Security and innocence are gone
We're still discriminating, we're angry and
we're hating
We're living in a modern babylon
From America to Asia, Europe to Australia
We're on our knees, Lord hear your children cry
Repeat Chorus
Yikes! Maybe it’s just me but this song seems just a tad depressing. With this kind of product on his resume, it’s no wonder Sain was looking to try another approach, one that has already proven to be successful in transforming talentless hacks into successful megastars. I’ll be watching with bated breath to see how this latest contribution to America’s cultural legacy fares.