Deep Throat Revealed! (so why is it ME who's gagging?)

So after three and a half decades of mystery, the man we've come to know as Deep Throat appears in a doorway, supported by a walker, looking frail enough to expect that death will surely be visiting in the next year or two. Strange to think that the American political landscape turned on the words uttered, the facts given by this grandfatherly-looking guy.

The bare bones facts of the Watergate Affair are bizarre and convoluted. What it boils down to is that people associated closely with the President, perhaps even Nixon himself, ordered a break-in of the Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate complex, in Washington DC. A night watchman came across the men in the headquarters, and had them arrested.

Enterprising reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward caught wind of it, started connecting the dots, and eventually were able to tie the story credibly to the White House. When it was discovered that Nixon had a taping system in his office, well...without going into too many details, the President's stack of lies began to crumble. The scandalous affair ended in the one and only resignation of a President of the United States, and a series of corrective laws which emerged in its wake.

So the question remains: why am I gagging over the revelation of who Deep Throat is? Because it made me flash back to the details of Watergate. As awesome and tacky as they are, they are nothing--nothing--in comparison to what our current President has done. Think I'm stretching the truth?

--President Bush began a war on a premise that's been since proven false. In this war,
conservative estimates claim 24,000 Iraqis have died, 1700 Americans. (I recall not a single
death caused by the Watergate scandal). You don't cause optional wars. You just don't.
--We've incurred $300,000,000,000 (300 billion) in debt to fight the Iraq war. While
Watergate cost money to prosecute, a buckets-to-0ceans is analogy is about right.
--The world in general thinks we're absolutely nuts to be in Iraq. While they thought we were
nuts during Watergate, they admired that we could uproot a cancerous aspect of our
government without a collapse of it.
--The recent memo found in England is strong evidence that Bush was committed to invade
Iraq 9 months before he ordered it, and states that he was gathering evidence to justify the
war to the American public.
--Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neil says that Bush was planning to Invade Iraq eight months before 9-11.

Chooose any one of the above items, and it's far worse than Nixon was ever guilty of in Watergate. Far worse. That all five of them could happen under one president is chilling.
And yet the idea that Impeachment could be seriously considered for GW Bush is almost laughable. The man is so entrenched with the powers that be, his party SO in control of the mechanisms of government that even a left-ended guy like me doesn't even seriously consider the possibilty, despite all the fine reasons to impeach, or at very least, pressure him to be the 2nd President to resign. The Democrats lack the power and the Republicans lack the moral will to demand better of the president, or resist the power he wields. This is a far more shameful period of American history than Watergate ever was.

I thought the lesson of Watergate was to create government that earned its people's trust, that behaved ethically, and that admitted its mistakes as it tried to right them. The lesson of Watergate though was quite different: secure absolute power and there will be no Watergate.

Thank You, Soldiers

Tomorrow's Memorial Day. I feel the need to thank those of you who have served to defend America by choice, or by any method you ended up wearing a uniform.

We on the left tend to get a lot of things thrown at us, most of which we don't deserve. One of those things often thrown our way is that we hate the military, and worse, that we hate the soldiers who are sent to the far flung ends of the globe for various reasons, and in the name of our defense.

What those who make these charges against us expect people not to realize is that our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles have served, and have died too. And in many cases, we have served. Why would we be against the military? That's our relatives, our friends and neighbors we supposedly hate.

That kind off stupid thinking is part-n-parcel to many conservatives who don't have enough capability to process nuance to understand that an American can be against the unjust war soldiers been sent to fight, but very supportive of the soldiers who have been sent to fight it.

While I never served in uniform, I lived on military bases most all of my life 'til I was about 16. My dad was a career pilot in the Air Force. He even volunteered for Viet Nam as his last tour of duty before he retired. So if there's someone who's seen or is sympathetic to the military point of view, it's me.

That doesn't make me think that I should support sending our soldiers to Iraq. However, I think that once we did, we should have provided them the proper armor to protect themselves. I hope this isn't too nuanced for you to understand, because it makes total sense to me.

And as we come upon this solemn holiday, I can't help but think of those who have come before, in justified and unjustified wars, who have had to give all, who have had to suffer the terror of being in a war zone and seeing others around them dying. I thank you one and all for your sacrifice.

Two Measurements that will make you feel G-O-O-D

Remember Freedom Fries? Two plus years ago, the Republican propaganda machine ginned up American nationalism to convince us to send our boys and girls to die in Iraq. The cynical process was bizarre on so many levels, but one of its strangest aspects was manifested in this little episode. A North Carolina Congressman got the House of Representatives cafeterias to change their menus, turning French Fries and French Toast into Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

It was an intentional slap in the face of the French, who refused to be bullied into supporting the invasion of Iraq. How dare those funny-talking French have their own opinion! So a pair of US Congressmen indulged in bald-faced jingoism in order to fan the coals of the efforts to convince Americans to allow invasion.

It was a really really dumb American episode, at which the world laughed uncomfortably. Who could be comfortable as the world's biggest power prepared to invade a country which hadn't so much as issued a threat to harm America?

Ah, but here's the good news: that North Carolina Congressman now doesn't support the war. He obviously feels a little foolish about his footnote in history, and now distances himself from the I Hate The French movement. I love it when people finally come around!

Remember this: it's never too late to do the right thing.

Speaking of coming around, maybe just maybe Fox News viewers are starting to wise up just a little bit. And since the best way to wise up is to stop watching, you should be encouraged to know that that's exactly what they're beginning to do.

This article details how their ratings in the key demographic--the people their advertisers want to watch Fox News--have been dwindling for the past six months.

"April '05 marks "the sixth consecutive month where FNC declined versus prior month in M-F, primetime P25-54 (every month since Nov '04),""

Since the more you watch Fox the less informed you really are, this can only be good for liberals, Democrats, and truth, and bad for Republicans, the Right wing, and our esteemed President.
So as you look around the bleak political landscape and wonder at the future of our country, note this: there are measurements which suggest that all is far from well for the powers of ignorance. These folks are getting tired of their own bull, and it's not a moment too soon!

Russert: Talk Show Host, Or Potato Head?

I watched Meet the Press this morning, with Tim Russert. The guest for the entire hour was Democratic party head Howard Dean.

I think the bottom line is that if you didn't like Howard Dean before watching, you probably continued not to. And if you're like me--I like ol' Howard--then you thought he did well. A transcript of the whole hour is available at that clickable icon above, so if you have the interest, check it out.

Howard Dean is a wild card of sorts because of what he says, how he says it, and peoples' reactions to what he says. He doesn't dance around sensitive issues, he lays them out. He laments how Republicans keep getting elected on issues like God, guns and gays, when what's far more important are jobs and health care and national security. The Republicans figured out a long time ago how to hit emotional hot buttons to cause reactions in people. Those hot buttons often have little to do with peoples' day-to-day lives, but they work on election day nonetheless.

After the hour was over, my wife turned to me and complained about the format. "It's like Tim Russert pulls out every quote, yanks it out of context, then asks guests if he wasn't being too rash, or if he wanted to apologize." I was happy to see Dean stick by his word and offer no apologies.

But more importantly back to my wife's complaint, Dean spent about 47 minutes answering questions of Russert but most all of that was spent defending this or explaining that instead of being able to detail a Democratic vision. Dean was able to work that in to his response several times, but it most importantly, that wasn't Russert's objective. His objective isn't to delve into a guest's platform, but to confront him with his own words.

It's an odd format which seems like journalism--it's all about facts, right? There are dated and sourced quotes put on the screen, and well...facts don't lie, do they? That's not the really important question. What we should have after 47 minutes of watching a guest is a far better understanding of who they are, what solutions they have to offer, and how they will manifest their vision.

We didn't get that today.

I don't suggest that Mr. Potato Head (couldn't resist, with a name like Russert) isn't tough on Republicans. I've seen him be pretty strident with them too. But I will suggest that his show is far more about the heat than the light. And that one of America's premiere journalism programs is far less of one than it could be.

Tim Russert should be tough as hell on his guests. And he should ask the question--and be prepared to listen--"What is your vision for changing America for the better?" He should also say something like "We've covered a lot today, but maybe there's something we didn't hit on that you'd like to talk about..."

That doesn't mean Tim wouldn't get to probe even during guests' free question. But wouldn't it be nice if we got to see guests who didn't spend all their interview defending themselves. The questions Tim asks, regardless of the guest, tend to have a "what the hell were you thinkin'" tone to them.

So Tim, since I know you're a regular reader here (I jest) I expect a change...next weekend. Got it? Thanks!

One of the Greatest People You Never Knew Died on Saturday

Although she was born in Foo Chow China, she wasn't Chinese. Although she had all the benefits of an upper middle class life, most of it was spent working to benefit those who had less. Though she had a passionate liberal streak a mile wide, she was one of the most respectful people I've ever known, even to those without the benefit of her liberal perspective.

I didn't meet her 'til she was 76 years old, but the day I met her she was out cross-country skiing. She was a textbook example of how to live life, then how to greet death. She found out last Thursday that she was going to die, then on Saturday she passed on. At home. In bed. If you've gotta go, but there aren't that many more better ways to say adieu than that.

She was former Vermont State Senator Jean Ankeney. Jean was an old school liberal, and if you don't know what that means, let me illustrate. When she lived in Cleveland as the wife of a surgeon, she started a library in a very rough, decidedly un-white neighborhood. Active in family planning, once she moved to Vermont she became active in the Planned Parenthood outlet there. Jean thought life should, if at all possible, make sense. Things like libraries and Planned Parenthood are great dispensers of sense.

In 1992 the leader of the Democratic Party in Chittenden County came to her and asked her to run for the state senate. She didn't really want to, but she figured if this young man could raise kids, complete his residency at the local hospital to become a doctor, all while being a lieutenant Governor at the same time, maybe she could give that Senate seat a run. So she told Howard Dean that she'd do it. And did. And won re-election four more times.

She and the soon-to-be Governor Dean went head-to-head a lot, though. His inflexibility on balancing the budget conflicted often with her primary focus: early childhood development and education issues. Governments often find spending wherein there's not a statue or a building to put a plaque on the most expendible, when something's got to go. But she and Dean came together more often than not, and remained friends to the end.

I met her in 1998 when I moved to Vermont ahead of my family. The idea: get to know the area to determine where to live once they got there. 4 days into looking for a place to live on my own for the 5 months before the family moved up, I came across an ad saying something like "live on 12 acre farm free in exchange for dusting and household duties." That was just what I was looking for! Decidedly cheaper than cheap.

So I went to meet her and her aunt at her farmhouse. We hit it off and I moved in the next day. I got to know Vermont on a country farm with a big barn, sheep, horses, chickens, and more snow than you could shake a snow shovel at. It was really, really great. I spent January through May walking her dogs, starting the fire in her wood stove, shoveling out the driveway, and vacuuming.

And she told me what she thought was important about Vermont. Just two things: its people, and its nature. She loved both with equal passion. And a lot of that rubbed off on me.

My family and I moved back to Texas two years later, but I stayed in contact with Jean. She was the personification of decency. And tough. Rural Vermonters are that way, especially as their bodies get older and even the simple becomes difficult.

But then last summer I took the family back for a visit to Vermont. Jean was gracious enough to let us spend, probably five nights back at her house. We got to take her up to Lake Placid on a day trip. It was a splendid day (splendid being a word Jean would have used to describe it), topped off by a brisk ride across Lake Champlain on the ferry. We exchanged lots of smiles, without any discernible reason for them other than the pleasure of the moment.

There are many kinds of great people in this world. Some demand attention and adulation, which powers their efforts. But some of the great ones just go about their work quietly, their determination to make this world a better place quiet, but resolute. Jean made no more noise than she had to, but her efforts were felt in large and small ways. Vermont without her would have still been a wonderful place, but less so.

I thank the powers that be that Jean and my paths crossed. I know she made me a better person without my even knowing it.

What's More Optimstic Than Planting a Tree?

Not one darned thing. Here in Texas, where shade is more important than most other places, planting a tree is also an act of kindness to your fellow men and women.

But you should first know that here in what's called the Hill Country it's not like the John Wayne movie version of Texas. There's far more green than brown, at least 'til mid-summer. There are 40-100 foot trees all over the place. The 100' trees have their toes in the streams and rivers, and the 40' ones have roots that search deeply in the limestone and caliche for moisture.

My little town had the wisdom to turn an old railroad right-of-way into a bike path, once the tracks had been ripped up. It cuts diagonally across town and is only a mile and a quarter long. But if you're counting, that's 2 & 1/2 miles to and fro if you're looking to get a little exercise. Along the way every quarter to half mile benches have been put on both the southwest and northeast sides.

There are trees here and there, but mostly it's bathed in sunlight. As I reported here last January, the local Native Plant Society--yes, they have them in Texas--sponsored a planting of 30 trees and shrubs at the end of the bike path. I can report now that all but one survived the planting. That's a very good record.

The county's Democratic Club bought a 5' tall Burr Oak--a fine specimen in fact. And last Saturday myself and two women members showed up with shovels and mulch in hand. We found a good spot to plant the tree, where a couple of years hence it will shade a bench, and began digging. We found a few spoonfuls of soil along with the boulders we excavated, and it took about 45 minutes of hard digging to get deep enough. But finally we did. We posed for pictures with our tree, then went on home.

Planting a tree, to me, is one of the most optimistic of endeavors. It says "I believe in the future." Little trees are all about possibilities. You don't know what they'll be when they get older, but barring the worst, they'll be big, they'll be green, and they'll cast shade. And for a shady character like me, it doesn't get much better than that.

Missing in Action: THE LIBERAL PRESS

We've heard it now for decades: the press has a liberal bias and pushes things which make Republicans look bad and Democrats look good.

I've worked in the press for more than 20 years now from the eastern seaboard back home to Texas and I can tell you that there are examples of both liberal and conservative bias in newsrooms all over the place. Period. There are only 2 units of measure which really matter:
1. The sum of those bias's--which bias wins out more often, or the degree of seriousness in that bias, and
2. What the press chooses NOT to cover.

Well here's an atomic bomb-sized subject NOT being covered. It's an article from the London Times talking about papers leaked pertaining to talks with American officials in July of '02. Within those papers are these quotes:
"A separate secret briefing for the meeting said Britain and America had to “create” conditions to justify a war."
and
(Jack) "Straw suggested they should “work up” an ultimatum about weapons inspectors that would “help with the legal justification”. Blair is recorded as saying that “it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors”.

This stuff references potentially impeachable offenses. They are smoking gun styled materials. Now, keep in mind I'm not saying here that the President is guilty, that here's proof; he lied. I'm not saying that here's the evidence; the President should be impeached.

What I AM saying is that this should be investigated for its legitimacy, and that it should be reported in our notoriously liberal media. Strange thing is, as I search the liberal media for mention of it, I find nothing. A scan this morning of abcnews.com, foxnews.com, msnbc.com, and the Clinton News Network (CNN.com) yields new twists and turns in Michael Jackson's trial, the fact that Harry Reid apologized to Bush for calling him a loser, and a projected winner in today's Kentucky Derby. But no mention of the scandal that's all over the papers in the UK.

"But wait!" as they say..."there's more!" 88 members of the House of Representatives have formally submitted a letter requesting more information directly from the president about this memo.
They asked:
1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

Surely you would think that the liberal media, being served up such a scandalous buffet of tidbits would be all over this...but you'd be wrong to think that. The liberal media is missing in action.

And I gotta say, I don't want a liberal media. I want one which lives up to what it's supposed to do: cover the news in a fair and unbiased way. Investigate. Find the facts and report them. It's entirely possible that this scandal doesn't actually have merit. THAT'S what a real media's pressure and investigative might could determine...if that media existed. I'm sorry to report, that media is gone without a trace.

Ben Cohen, and our Nuclear Family

Have you been here yet? It's Ben Cohen's True Majority web site. There's a :90 video within which Ben makes a point using little beads as representative of our nuclear weapons. It's pretty shocking stuff which, if true, should knock us all out of our chairs.

There's a whole lot of things that are done with our tax dollar of which we have hardly a clue. Decisions made a time zone and a thousand miles from here easily go undetected. It would be interesting to know if Cohen's little video is accurate...let me know if you find something out.

The PUBLIC Broadcasting System

Could we play a little game here? Let's play like you've never heard of PBS, and I'm going to tell you some things about it. I really want you to try to discorporate from whatever suppositions you have about the network. Here's a 1-paragraph snapshot of its purpose:

PBS was created in 1967 "not to sell products," but to "enhance citizenship and public service." This vision was articulated by the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, which proposed a system free of commercial constraints that would serve as "a forum for debate and controversy," providing a "voice for groups in the community that may otherwise go unheard" so that we could "see America whole, in all its diversity."

1. PBS was created to be free of commercial influence.
2. PBS was created to help Americans be better citizens.
3. PBS was created to be a forum for debate and controversy.
4. PBS was created to be a vehicle for the disenfranchised to be heard.

It's important to keep these things in mind because PBS is up to its eyeballs in criticism these days. In its attempts to be free of commercial influence, it's run donors and potential donors off because of programs which haven't pulled punches in their criticisms of those donors, or the industries they represent. People who give millions of dollars to have their names associated with PBS aren't fond of being criticized by same.

PBS lives up to its pledge to help make Americans better citizens by holding candidate forums and debates, both regionally and locally so that voters can become more acquainted with candidates' views. The Newshour with Jim Lehrer takes the time it takes to go into stories in depth. And there are dozens of other ways that PBS empowers viewers with information that will only enhance their understanding of our world.

#3 above is where PBS really gets into hot water. Its mission is to be a forum for debate and controversy has gone more unrealized than not. Though every few years some Republican or another gets so angry that tax dollars are going towards a network which doesn't cowtow towards him that he proposes de-funding PBS. As quickly as the politician proposes it viewers shout them down, and the de-funding attempt tends to rot on the vine. But now Republicans control the House, the Senate, the Presidency and the Supreme Court. If ever there were a time when it could happen, now's that time.

And then there's #4: Gays are disenfranchised. Don't believe it? What other subset of our culture has had the President propose a constitutional amendment to keep them from having the rights that the rest of us do? If they'd been black, hispanic, oriental, the President would have been shouted down as a bigot. But since it was gays Bush was talking about, he didn't get his way, but he got his objective: to enflame his bigoted base just in time for last November's election.

That aside, I'm referring here to this controversy about this children's program on PBS. Postcards From Buster is about an animated rabbit who goes all around the country finding out how different Americans live. Well, how dare Buster go off to Vermont and visit a household with two mommies who were operating a farm that was turning maple sap into maple syrup. There was of course no mention of homosexuality or gayness. There were just two mommies in that house.

By the reaction of the right wing media you'd think Michael Jackson had declared he was opening up a home for wayward boys. In the firestorm of controversy, PBS pulled the episode from its schedule and took a pretty big black eye from right wing special interests. Going back to its charter, PBS failed to live up to #3 or #4, despite its best efforts.

So as you read this with your own opinion, and you're perhaps thinking that "yeah, but PBS needs to be fair and balanced" I'll tell you that no--it doesn't. It needs to live up to its charge. The ideas of the right wing and of conservatives, and of business and the mainstream culture is well represented in the media. There are what? 2 or 3 all business networks, plus all the cable news outfits have hour-long programs on about business + special cut-ins constantly letting us know where the stock market is going.

But let's just say you're disenfranchised. What the heck--I'll say gay. Where's your network? Which programs can you point to which represent your interests, push information that's important for gay people to know? I don't think a half-hour of Will and Grace every week quite cuts it.

My point is that the units of measure we might judge PBS--the fair and balanced one--is not a valid measure because that is not its purpose.