brainrow

From Media Matters for America,
Fox’s Gibson on “golden opportunity” missed:

The day before the July 7 terrorist attacks on London buses and subways, Fox News host John Gibson stated that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) “missed a golden opportunity” because, if France had been selected to host the 2012 Olympics, terrorists would “blow up Paris, and who cares?” Following the London attacks, Gibson reiterated that the IOC ought to have selected Paris instead of London, because the British should “let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while.”

Brit Hume’s first thought on hearing of the terrorist attacks in London:

During Fox News’ coverage of the July 7 London bombings, Washington managing editor Brit Hume told host Shepard Smith that his “first thought,” when he “heard there had been this attack” and saw the low futures market, was “Hmmm, time to buy.”

Brian Kilmeade and Stuart Varney saw a bright side to the terrorist attacks coming during the G8 summit:

It takes global warming off the front burner. It takes African aid off the front burner. It sticks terrorism and the fight on the war on terror, right up front all over again.

From Talking Points Memo:

You may well have read it already. But if not I want to call your attention to the statement today of Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London. It ripples with all the unadorned democratic resolution and humanity the moment calls for, with none of the puffery and obfuscation and lies that will drag us all, eventually, into the pit…

I want to say one thing specifically to the world today. This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful. It was not aimed at Presidents or Prime Ministers. It was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Jew, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, for class, for religion, or whatever.

That isn’t an ideology, it isn’t even a perverted faith — it is just an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder and we know what the objective is. They seek to divide Londoners. They seek to turn Londoners against each other. I said yesterday to the International Olympic Committee, that the city of London is the greatest in the world, because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I’m proud to be the mayor of that city.

Tony Blair:

When they try to intimidate us, we will not be intimidated.

When they seek to change our country or our way of life by these methods, we will not be changed.

When they try to divide our people or weaken our resolve, we will not be divided and our resolve will hold firm.

If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart,
Absent thee from felicity awhile,
And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain,
To tell my story.

—Hamlet, by William Shakespeare

I visited England in May 2001, and spent two days in London. The people I met throughout England were some of the nicest people I had ever met, anywhere.

London took me by surprise, at first. Most places I visited had a relaxed small-town feel to them. London was a fast-paced, bustling, big city — one of the great capitals of the world. In the Tube, the London subway, I saw faces and heard voices from all around the world. I’d love to go back.

Hearing today’s news, my thoughts and prayers are with the people of London, and all of England.

In our thoughts and prayers, let’s remember someone else, too. According to this chart, 600 Iraqi civilians were “killed by warfare” in May. The chart doesn’t say how many were the deliberate victims of terrorist tactics like suicide bombs, or how many were “collateral damage” in the war. The chart does observe that the “average number of insurgent attacks per day” in May was 70.

I’m not making a political statement here, or minimizing the horror that happened today in London. We must not become so accustomed to violence and so accepting of daily suffering that today’s scenes from London, little by little, become part of “the new normal.” We need to shed a tear, from time to time, for all such suffering.

After I retired last year, I borrowed and read the first four Harry Potter books. Before I’d finished reading the fourth book, I ordered the fifth from Amazon.com, and waited impatiently until it arrived.

If you dismiss the Harry Potter books as children’s literature, or if you know Harry Potter only from the movies, you’re cheating yourself of something wonderful.

The sixth book is due on July 16. I’ve had my copy on order for some time now. In anticipation, I’ve been re-reading the first five books.

Recently much was made of parallels between the plot of the latest Star Wars movie and political current events. The movie was considered critical of aspects of the Bush Administration. Director George Lucas denied that the movie was about Bush or the War in Iraq:

Lucas said that a long time ago in a galaxy far away, he had read some history and wondered why, after going to the trouble of killing Caesar, the Roman Senate turned things over to his equally power-hungry nephew, Augustus Caesar? Or that after a revolution, France turned next to Napoleon, a dictator?

That’s what fueled the entire Star Wars saga, Lucas said. “It seems to happen the same way every time: There are threats, and a democratic body, the Senate, is not able to function properly.”

So I was interested, when reading Harry Potter books published before George W. Bush became president, to see parallels to current events every bit as strong as those in the latest Star Wars movie.

For example: Dumbledore, a very good wizard, objects to the practice, at a wizard prison called Azkaban, of using dementors as guards. Dementors are cruel magical creatures that torment the souls of anyone in their power. The Minister of Magic dismisses Dumbledore’s objections as “preposterous,” and adds, “Half of us only feel safe in our beds at night because we know the dementors are standing guard at Azkaban!”

In the books, there are good wizards and evil ones, who practice Dark Magic. Aurors are wizards specially trained to fight against Dark Magic. Voldemort, the worst of the Dark Wizards, led a reign of terror years before, then he mysteriously lost his powers and vanished. Most people in the magical world still fear even to speak his name. Many good wizards believe Voldemort is still alive, waiting to strike again.

The teenaged student wizards, including Harry, notice a certain mistrust between some of the adult foes of the Dark Side. One of their adult friends is talking about a senior official in the Ministry of Magic whom I’ll call John Smith, to avoid giving away too much of the story:

“He’s a great wizard, John Smith, powerful, magical — and power-hungry. Oh never a Voldemort supporter,” he said, reading the look on Harry’s face. “No, John Smith was always very outspoken against the Dark Side. But then a lot of people who were against the Dark Side… well, you wouldn’t understand… you’re too young….”

The teenagers complain, saying, “Try us, why don’t you?” So their friend takes them back to the peak of Voldemort’s power:

“You don’t know who his supporters are, you don’t know who’s working for him and who isn’t; you know he can control people so that they do terrible things without being able to stop themselves. You’re scared for yourself, and your family, and your friends. Every week, news comes of more deaths, more disappearances, more torturing…”

He continues:

“Well, times like that bring out the best in some people and the worst in others. Smith’s principles might’ve been good in the beginning — I wouldn’t know. He rose quickly through the Ministry, and he started ordering very harsh measures against Voldemort’s supporters. The Aurors were given new powers — powers to kill rather than capture, for instance. [Some suspects were] handed straight to the dementors without trial. Smith fought violence with violence[…] I would say he became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side. He had his supporters, mind you — plenty of people thought he was going about things the right way…”

Gosh, that sounds familiar.

Gosh, what a pal ol’ George W. Bush is:

President Bush told British Prime Minister Tony Blair to expect no favors at this week’s Group of Eight summit of major industrialized countries in return for backing the war in Iraq. Blair, who has made tackling global warming and relieving African poverty the goals of his year-long presidency of the G-8, will host fellow leaders at the Gleneagles Hotel in Scotland from Wednesday to Friday.

Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen says an emergency contraceptive named Plan B may shed light on what the abortion battle is really about:

Feminist advocates have always suspected that the anti-abortion movement is less motivated by the sanctity of life than by opposition to women’s rights. The fate of Plan B could settle the issue. Emergency contraception is the ultimate middle ground in an issue in which the middle has often seemed to be a black hole. One study has estimated that if Plan B were easily available, it could cut the number of abortions by half.

Yet the American Life League, the far-right wing of the anti-abortion movement, has said the organization is opposed not only to emergency contraception, but to any oral contraceptives or IUDs because they constitute “early abortions.” In Colorado, rape victims aren’t even told about emergency contraception in the ER. The governor, Bill Owens, said that to require hospitals to do so would raise “serious concerns” for Roman Catholics like himself, concerns more important than those of a woman carrying a rapist’s child.

…

If easy access to a pill that has been shown to significantly decrease the number of abortions is not a welcome development, what is the real point of the anti-abortion exercise? Is it to safeguard life, or to safeguard an outdated status quo in which biology was destiny and motherhood was an obligation, not an avocation? America leads the industrialized world in its abortion rate. Perhaps that is because it leads in hypocrisy as well.

In honor of Independence Day, here’s a rerun of an earlier blog entry. I’ve modified it a little, so I guess this is the “director’s cut”:

On July 2, 1776, representatives of 13 British colonies met in Philadelphia as the Second Continental Congress and declared their independence from England.

So why do Americans celebrate Independence Day on the 4^th of July, and not the 2^nd?

On July 4, the Congress approved the Declaration of Independence. They knew that they were taking a large and dangerous step, splitting from the mother country. They felt that they should justify their actions.

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another… a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We celebrate the 4^th of July because the founders took the time to explain themselves, and in doing so, gave birth not only to a new nation, but a new kind of nation, based not on territory or ethnicity, but on an idea.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…

Nowadays in Washington, D.C., “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” is considered a sign of weakness. Here’s what President Bush said in an interview in the Washington Post on November 18, 2002:

I’m the commander. See, I don’t need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.

Discussion topic: how have our leaders advanced since the days of the country’s birth?

Media Matters for America observes that Fox News’ “Supreme Court Analyst” C. Boyden Gray is founder of a group lobbying for the Bush nominees:

Fox News featured extended commentary by C. Boyden Gray in its initial coverage of the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, identifying Gray as a “Fox Supreme Court Analyst.” But how can Fox News hire as a “Supreme Court analyst” someone who also founded the Committee For Justice — a group committed to ensuring the confirmation of President Bush’s judicial nominees — without disclosing the conflict to its viewers?

Uh… lack of journalistic integrity?

Before George W. Bush’s Iraq speech last Tuesday, I was challenged to a drinking game: every time Bush mentioned 9/11, I should down a shot of tequila.

Children, listen to me: don’t engage in any recreational activity designed to destroy your brain cells. You’ll wind up getting the strangest ideas. Like this:

I can’t say they believe in no law whatsoever. They have repeatedly stepped into some of most personal and private activities and decisions of other human beings. But they clearly like to keep themselves beyond the reach of any law.

Uh, have we been wrong all this time about which religion the religious right follows?

See, children? Crazy talk! If you must play drinking games during President Bush’s speeches, try this one: down a shot of tequila every time Bush tells the truth. You’ll be surprised how little brain damage you will suffer.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich:

The president has no one to blame but himself. The color-coded terror alerts, the repeated John Ashcroft press conferences announcing imminent Armageddon during election season, the endless exploitation of 9/11 have all taken their numbing toll. Fear itself is the emotional card Mr. Bush chose to overplay, and when he plays it now, he is the boy who cried wolf.

In the original story, the boy cries wolf because he thinks it’s funny. In the current version of the story, Bush and Company cry wolf because they think there’s a political profit to be made. The real crime of both is that their lies dull our preparedness by blurring this important truth: there are wolves out there.

Got music playing in iTunes while I work. Up comes “Wichita Lineman,” written by Jimmy Webb and sung by Glen Campbell. Stopped working, in awe.

“And I need you more than want you, and I want you for all time”

Damn. That may be the single finest line ever written in any song.

If I didn’t know he doesn’t read, I would almost swear that President Bush has been reading popular books on business leadership. That could explain where he’s picked up the mantra “Do More With Less.” But in the absence of innovative ideas for specific ways to get more results from limited resources, the mantra is really just a nice item to add to a magical wish list.

Jonathan Chait considers why Bush won’t send more troops:

Virtually every independent analyst who does not want to withdraw from Iraq thinks we need more troops in order to win. Republicans at the Weekly Standard have said this. Democrats such as Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware have said this. The troops themselves say this, incessantly. A dearth of boots on the ground results in such predicaments as an inability to patrol the border where enemy fighters are swarming in, or the need to repeatedly fight for the same towns, which we lack the forces to occupy continuously.

But President Bush doesn’t think we need more soldiers. Comically, he also insists that in not sending more troops he is merely obeying the wishes of the “commanders on the ground.”

…

Given that the president obviously wants to win the war, what is his motivation for shortchanging the number of troops? It appears to be a combination of partisanship and genuine ideological fanaticism.

…

Bush’s continued stubbornness probably derives from a refusal to admit a mistake. If we need more troops now, that implies we needed more troops all along, which means that if the war ends badly, Bush must have made a colossal mistake. It’s characteristic of this administration that it would rather reduce the chances of being blamed for a national catastrophe than reduce the chances of the catastrophe happening in the first place.

Oakland, California evicts two businesses to make way for private developers:

Last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling approving a Connecticut city’s plan to take private land by eminent domain may seem far away.

But to John Revelli, whose family has operated a tire shop near downtown Oakland for decades, the implications hit home on Friday.

A team of contractors hired by the city of Oakland packed the contents of his small auto shop in a moving van and evicted Revelli from the property his family has owned since 1949.

“I have the perfect location; my customers who work downtown can drop off their cars and walk back here,” said Revelli, 65, pointing at the nearby high- rises. “The city is taking it all away from me to give someone else. It’s not fair.”

The city of Oakland, using eminent domain, seized Revelli Tire and the adjacent property, owner-operated Autohouse, on 20th Street between Telegraph and San Pablo avenues on Friday and evicted the longtime property owners, who have refused to sell to clear the way for a large housing development.

Ah, progress!

Via Numeralist, here’s Baghdad Dick.

I now inform you that you are too far from reality. —Baghdad Bob

Update: A few minutes after posting this entry, I found additional material in the same vein on PERRspectives Blog.

While President Bush’s statements on Iraq have entered the realm of the hallucinatory, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chutzpah and mendacity in the just the last few weeks hasn’t gone unnoticed, either.