tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70051222024-03-07T05:37:48.959-06:00Canal Water Review"To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing." Hypatia
"Yeah. That pretty much sucks canal water." cwrCarolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1129147948846758692005-10-12T15:10:00.000-05:002005-10-12T15:12:28.850-05:00For JSome of it may annoy you, but I think you'll find the paragraph I mean. And I mean it.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1129140081938403402005-10-12T12:52:00.000-05:002005-10-12T13:01:21.946-05:00Progressive Prize?It's starting to get exciting now that we have some actual indictments (Delay, et al) and the prospect of more (Rove, et al) in front of us. No one is more excited than I to look toward the day that all of these threads of corruption and incompetence are pulled together so that even the most oblivious American can see that we have been led down a fairly long and rather thorny garden path these past few years.<br /><br />Howsomever, I do think progressives run the risk of taking our eyes off of a very important prize if we give in to our disaster fatigue and think we have done all we should do if we've made our donations, volunteered a bit of time, and snarked about Brownie. There were four (count them: Alabama, Missisissippi, Louisiana, Texas) states battered, some worse than others, by the double whammy of Katrina and Rita. Some parts of those states were literally leveled. In all four of those states, the ugly facts of racism and extreme poverty once again (after way too long a time of invisibility) raised their heads so that, unfortunately, the whole world could see them.<br /><br />There are scandals to be found in the aftermath of these hurricanes. More corruption. More incompetence. More fodder for future election speeches.<br /><br />In the meantime, there are very real people who live--or lived--in those areas whose lives and livelihoods were simply destroyed. Choose your motivation: humanitarian, pragmatic, political, whatever. Then think about these areas as places where an opportunity exists--but not for long--to correct past errors, reinvent the future, make things better, do it right for a change. <br /><br />How should we then act on such an opportunity?<br /><br />Two TPMCafe-folk have offered suggestions: BamaGirl in <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/11/135639/92" target="_self">"The Perfect Opportunity"</a> and progressivesouth in <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/11/11315/288" target="_self">"Progressives: Are We Blowing a Katrina Moment?"</a> As both point out--and I attempt to round out--these are red states with significant numbers of Democratic voters. This is a prize worth considering. . . .<br /><br />To that end, I also urge you to take action to urge your own congresscritters to make sure that funds allocated to these areas are done so with proper fiscal controls, that contracts be allocated to local entities to the greatest extent possible so that local residents can join in the work of rebuilding their own communities, that they look for ways to improve (not gut) federal programs that are intended to assist those who are in need of just such a safety net.<br /><br />Republicans have already jumped on the opportunities offered by Katrina and Rita to push their own agenda. We went through this after 9/11. It would speak to our own incompetence if we were to allow this to happen yet again.<br /><br />[Modified from <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/12/131135/22">post </a>at TPMCafe]Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1128451041733200862005-10-04T13:35:00.000-05:002005-10-04T13:37:21.733-05:00Change in comments sectionI've turned on the word verification for comments, since this site has started to receive some spam. <br /><br />As for spammers themselves, I wish for you all the heartbreak of psoriasis.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1121965054426547482005-07-21T11:35:00.000-05:002005-07-21T11:57:34.433-05:00Medicare Part DThe new Medicare prescription drug benefit is a trainwreck waiting to happen. Last night, I reviewed the health insurance information that my husband receives so that he can make decisions about our health plan for the coming fiscal year. He is a retired employee of a state agency. I was much relieved to see that the information provided about Medicare Part D boiled down to: Don't sign up! <br /><br />As a retired state employee, his insurance (and, thankfully, mine) provides better prescription coverage than Medicare Part D. What is even better is the commitment expressed by the agency that they will not seek to capitalize on the availability of Medicare Part D to reduce their costs. This is gold.<br /><br />Here's why.<br /><br />Medicare Part D will provide prescription drug coverage for eligible persons (seniors over age 65 and eligible disabled persons) effective January 1, 2006. The benefit requires that the participant pay first for Medicare Part B premiums ($78.20 in 2005) and then for Medicare Part D premiums ("about" $37 in 2006). This is all before receiving any medications. Then there is a $250 deductible. After that, the benefit is 75 percent of the cost of medications up to a certain point, i.e., when the participant has spent $2000 on the 25 percent of remaining cost. The initial cost is therefore, considerably higher than the $2250 usually discussed as the price of the benefit.<br /><br />Once this point has been reached, the participant falls into what is called "the doughnut hole." While still paying premiums for Medicare Parts B and D, the participant must also pay 100 percent of the cost of medications until he/she has paid a total of $5100 (not counting the continuing premiums) in "true out of pocket costs."<br /><br />After reaching the point of "catastrophic coverage," Medicare Part D will pick up 95 percent of the costs of medications.<br /><br />This means that anyone needing serious amounts of medications will pay more like $7000 before receiving substantial help from Medicare. And this is all for medications for which Medicare is pretty much paying full retail price, no price-lowering negotiations allowed.<br /><br />Somehow I'm not seeing Medicare Part D keeping a whole of folks from thinking about buying their medications in Canada.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1121962122880111562005-07-21T10:59:00.000-05:002005-07-21T11:08:42.880-05:00Cross Posting from TPMCafeI've been spending so much time at <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/">TPMCafe</a> that I've had little time to post here. I am, I must say, delighted at the level of discussion and the richness of ideas that I find there. Still, I am a bit distressed that I seem to be wandering away from my home base, so to speak, and neglecting what I had intended to be the purpose of this blog--generally pointing out those things that do and do not suck canal water in this modern world. When at TPMCafe, I do see that some folks publish stuff on their home blog and then republish it at the Cafe. I have felt uncomfortable with that, but I do think I have to get over it. There are only so many hours in a day for reading and writing.<br /><br />That being said, I think I'll start reposting stuff that I've written for TPMCafe here, as a means to catch up and also as a means to highlight what might otherwise get lost in such a rich web site. Just to make it all the more confusing, I think I'll post them for the dates on which they were posted at TPMCafe.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1121962509018831712005-07-16T11:29:00.000-05:002005-07-21T11:22:16.270-05:00Rove V. Cooper: Duelling EmailsOriginally posted at <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/16/114350/711">TPMCafe</a>.<br /><br />Karl Rove and Matthew Cooper had a telephone conversation on July 11, 2003. Each of them followed up on their conversation with an email to another person in their respective organizations. Cooper emailed his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. Rove emailed Stephen Hadley in the security section. Unless it is standard operating procedure in both organizations to document every telephone conversation in such a manner, it would seem that both understood that they had participated, however briefly (less than two minutes), in a significant interaction with potential national security implications.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/" target="_self">Michael Isikoff</a>, writing for Newsweek's July 18 [2005]issue (usually published a week earlier than the date stamp), gives us some information about Cooper's email (direct quotes emphasized):<br /><br /><blockquote><p>It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "<strong>Subject: Rove/P&C</strong>," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "<strong>Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation</strong> ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, <strong>"please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]"</strong> and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.</p><p>. . .</p><p>In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "<strong>big warning</strong>" not to "<strong>get too far out on Wilson</strong>." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "<strong>it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.</strong>" Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "<strong>not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ...</strong> "</p></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CIA_LEAK_ROVE?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-07-16-04-58-24" target="_self">John Solomon</a>, writing for the Associated Press (July 16 [2005], 10:18 a.m.)quotes from Rove's email to Stephen Hadley (direct quotes emphasized):<br /><br /><blockquote>Rove told then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley in the July 11, 2003, e-mail that he had spoken with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and tried to caution him away from some allegations that CIA operative Valerie Plame's husband was making about faulty Iraq intelligence.<br /><br />"<strong>I didn't take the bait</strong>," Rove wrote in the message, disclosed to The Associated Press. In the memo, Rove recounted how Cooper tried to question him<br />about whether President Bush had been hurt by the new allegations Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had been making.<br />. . .<br /><br />"<strong>Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming</strong>," Rove wrote Hadley, who has since risen to the top job of national security adviser.<br /><br />"<strong>When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this</strong>."</blockquote><br />While it would be better to have the full texts of the emails to review, there are a couple of points that might be gleaned from the evidence that we do have.<br /><br />First, while Cooper was reporting new information in an emerging story to his Bureau Chief and requesting additional investigation from other reporters, Rove was reporting one more activity in what was evidently a larger effort to minimize that story and preserve the credibility of claims that Saddam Hussein was seeking resources in Africa for manufacturing nuclear weapons. Rove was reporting to a national security advisor. He didn't provide any context for his reference to Niger ("He immediately launched into Niger." Niger what? Niger's economy? Niger's national dance troup?), indicating that the subject of "Niger" was under discussion and the context already known. Unless Hadley is the mysterious second source for Novak's article (notice how I don't really need to provide context for that reference?), then there was a wider group of individuals in the White House who were looking at strategies to deal with Joseph Wilson's thorn in their side.<br /><br />Yes, we pretty much "knew" this; this email simply confirms it. The next question is who participated in this group, and what was the full scope of their strategy to deal with Wilson and the whole issue of Niger?<br /><br />Second, Rove's email to Hadley does not seem to deal with the issue of Wilson's wife, by name or otherwise. Instead, Rove documents a two-minute conversation that includes discussion of a welfare reform story as well as "Niger" just before he is due to leave on a family vacation. That is, if nothing else, an admirable display of attention to detail on a day which one would expect to be fairly hectic in terms of tying up loose ends and making sure that the house didn't burn down, so to speak, while one is away. More than that, however, it points to how important the issue was at the time that even so short a conversation needed to be documented. That it does not include reference to the details of the imputation of nepotism against the Wilsons and the disclosure of a covert operative's identity suggests that (1) Rove recognized that the latter was illegal and didn't want it documented and/or (2) he was creating plausible deniability for himself should his disclosures ever become an issue. It is the latter element that is most interesting here.<br /><br />How is that so? When Rove talked to Cooper, he warned Cooper that Time should not get too "far out in front on this." He knew that Novak was going to be publishing an article that carried some serious water for the administration very soon. (Indeed, it may have hit the wire that very day.) He also knew that plans were in the works to have CIA Chief George Tenet fall on his sword for the administration, take the blame for the infamous sixteen words in the State of the Union address, and, at the same time, toss a grenade at Wilson by pointing out that there were still concerns about Hussein's aspirations for nuclear capability. That happened within days. If challenged, Rove could say, as his supporters seem to be doing now, that he was merely warning Time away from a story that the administration already expected to have under control and that, indeed, he never really gave much attention to the issue of Wilson's wife. Moreover, that wasn't what he was talking about, so, if it slipped out, he didn't even notice it, which, of course, is why he neglected to mention it in his email to Hadley. No smear here, move along.<br /><br />Of course, I could be pulling too much from the words (and omissions) of these emails, especially given that we don't have the full texts to look at. Nonetheless, two men talk, two men think their discussion is important enough to document, two men see the same discussion as important for very different reasons. You gotta wonder.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1121963691946659312005-07-06T20:24:00.000-05:002005-07-21T11:34:51.946-05:00Points about the Plame CaseOriginally published at <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/comments/2005/7/6/1568/95911/142#142">TPMCafe</a> as part of an ongoing discussion of elements of the Valerie Plame case.<br /><br />First, in what manner is Karl Rove to be considered a whistleblower? The implication of the information provided about Wilson being sent to Niger at his wife's suggestion, while false, is that something akin to nepotism occurred so that the spouse of a government employee could get a free trip to a foreign country. For this, Rove would have needed anonymity to protect himself from retribution for being a whistleblower?<br /><br />If the whole argument about "protecting sources" and the subsequent defense of Miller and Cooper for standing on principle and protecting their sources (at least until their sources give them a King's X) is based on protecting a putative whistleblower who is one of the most powerful men in the country and who in fact blew a false whistle (never mind the national security issues) regarding something that might be strongly questioned as an offense in the first place, then all those editorial writers have wasted a lot of ink and much of our time. If they want to protect whistleblowers (a good thing), I'd suggest they go find a real one (an even better thing).<br /><br />Second, although the specific statute under which administration officials are liable for prosecution when "knowingly" revealing the covert status of an intelligence agent may not apply to civilians such as Ms. Miller or Mr. (I choke on the honorific) Novak, I find it hard to believe that she, for crimes we now suspect, and he, for crimes any fool would be able to identify as treason, are not somehow subject to indictment under some statute. Surely it would not be possible for me, an ordinary blogger, to go to Langley, cuddle up to someone in the know, receive information about covert operatives one way or another, and then go blab the information on my blog--or my local corporate media outlet--without being subject to some criminal penalty.<br /><br />If neither I nor the two "reporters" under discussion are liable for any sort of penalty in those circumstances, I would think that Congress might want to do a little tinkering with the Patriot Act or something. After all, if it's suspicious to pay cash for a plane ticket, it's surely suspicious to publish the NOC list.<br /><br />Third (and last for now), I think we ought to make a distinction between Valerie Plame and the intelligence network that she was associated with. There is some question--whether valid or not--that she was still active as a covert operative at the time her identity was revealed. Similarly, there is some question--whether valid or not--regarding how much her identity may have been an open secret in some circles. The questions seem to be used to diminish the potential for ill effect from revealing her identity. We can argue that, I suppose, but our focus seems too narrow if we consider Valerie Plame to be the only one harmed by the actions of those who decided to reveal her identity. Ongoing activities and networks were compromised when her name was used to show the link between them and the CIA. This is not about one woman--and certainly not about Joe Wilson and his wife--it's about the network.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1120604463658551512005-07-05T17:07:00.000-05:002005-07-21T10:59:41.640-05:00On PatriotismAn essayist on another site watched a Fourth of July parade yesterday and felt great sadness because America has fallen so far short of her ideals and values. I marched in a Fourth of July parade yesterday and felt great joy that America was still the wonderful nation that I love. How could two people, who likely share the same political philosophy on a number of issues, come to such different conclusions?<br /><br />It could be because we each experienced two different kinds of parades. I'm guessing that his parade was one of those we could have watched on television with big marching bands, even bigger floats, and one or two celebrities displayed for cachet. My parade was something else altogether.<br /><br />My parade was led by two young boys in the 10-to-12-year-old range. They each carried a large flag, one the U.S. flag, the other the Texas flag. These flags were on 8-foot poles and had to be carried with the belt do-jigger that helps to hold them up, but they still take a lot of muscle after a very few minutes. These kids struggled, but they made it through two rounds of our entire (but very small) neighborhood.<br /><br />Before the parade started, all the participants gathered at a neighbors house for coffee and watermelon. (Yes, I thought that was a weird menu, too, but everyone seemed to be happy.) Once the group had gathered, the neighbor who had provided the flags (the big ones for the two boys to carry and lots of little ones for everyone else) asked us to begin with the pledge to the flag. We all put our hands over our hearts and said those precious words. Some folks seemed to put a little extra emphasis on "under God;" some of us just didn't say those two words; it all came out to "liberty and justice for all."<br /><br />So the little flag bearers led the parade.<br /><br />Next came me and My Prince. He was the band, and I was the band director. His "instrument" was a monstrous boom box borrowed from a neighbor playing a selection of the "world's greatest marches." My "baton" was an old fishing rod converted to use as a pointer some years ago.<br /><br />We and the flag bearers were surrounded by maybe eight bike riders, who swirled in and about as the mood struck. The bikes had flags and streamers and whatever else the kids could come up with for decoration. Some kids wore patriotic hats, some wore patriotic shorts. About halfway around the block we had an accident, so the whole parade came to a stop while we tended the (barely) skinned knee of an apparently severely traumatized bike rider. But, a little loving attention from mom, and all was much better. The parade proceeded.<br /><br />Behind the band came assorted parents and neighbors, mostly just strolling through the neighborhood. Again, there was some patriotic attire, or just a red shirt worn with bluejeans (shorts, of course). One nieghbor had made a "float" out of a roller skate with a broom handle to guide it.<br /><br />Since a good fourth of the neighborhood was in the parade, that left three-fourths of the neighborhood to be the audience. Most of the audience was either out of town or sleeping late, but still we had some folks sitting outside in lawn chairs. One neighbor heard the "band" and came running out to get his flag on its pole. One neighbor provided a "rest stop" with a cooler full of juice boxes.<br /><br />The day was already quite warm when our parade began. I was very much over heated by the time we finished, and, despite having done some carb loading before the event, I still wound up with low blood sugar. I was, in fact, beat. I slept for eight hours after we walked back home.<br /><br />But I was ever so glad to have spent that bit of the morning with my neighbors, giving the kids an active way to celebrate the day's meaning, and reminding myself about why I was so happy to be an American.<br /><br />I'm happy to be an American because this nation is founded on the concept that all men are created equal. Happily, that concept was eventually understood to mean <em>all</em> men, regardless of "race, creed, or color"--and, I should add, national origin. Even more happily, that concept was eventually brought to include women. It is sad, of course, that some folks in America have not fully embraced the concept of equality. These misguided persons hang on to the prejudices and hates of days gone by, promoting racism, sexism, religious bigotry, and homophobia. I feel sorry for them that their lives are so meaningless that they can only derive some purpose by propagating hate. What miserable creatures they must be. How sad that they cannot experience the wonder of a nation that was deliberately designed to give them a fair shot at life just because they can't stand for someone else to have the same benefit. I'm not sure that these people will ever be changed, but I am comforted to realize that they are only a small (though sick) minority of my fellow Americans. And I am comforted to realize that, as a nation, we have been slowly but steadily making sure that the concept of equality really does extend to all of our citizens.<br /><br />I am happy to be an American because, as an American, I have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The constitutional guarantees of the Bill of Rights are most precious. While those protections are often under attack--and while they are sometimes uncomfortable in their exercise--they are guarantors of a way of life that is precious and unique on this planet. Of course, I am saddened by the degree to which my fellow countrymen seem so callously unconcerned about protecting these same rights. Like frightened rabbits, rather than defend their country and the principles on which it was founded, they surrender rights for the illusion of safety. Still, I know that even today there are great patriots among us who will fight--with pen or sword--to defend those same rights, even for the sake the frightened rabbits. I hope I am one of those patriots, for I do so believe that these rights are precious--and inalienable.<br /><br />I am happy to be an American because I just think that red, white, and blue are excellent colors and make an excellent flag. The stars and stripes never fail to move me. Perhaps I was taught that by my father. My mother still tells the story about how we had turned on the old black and white TV in our tiny den to watch a ball game. When the national anthem began, I stood up in and put my hand over my heart as I had been taught to do--but not at home and not for something on television. Perhaps it is because I have lived in other countries that are less welcoming to the liberties that we take so casually. In those countries, nothing could be so welcome as the sight of our flag. In Dar es Salaam, I passed by our embassy each day--the same one that was later attacked by Al Qaeda--and was grateful to see the flag that flew atop the building. At night, it was especially comforting to see the spotlighted flag and remind myself that I would eventually be going home, and what a better home it was. Perhaps it is because one of my first reactions to the Attacks on 9/11 was to say, "Honey, we need to put the flag out." It hasn't been down since (although we did have to replace the old one with a new one a few months ago). Now I see it every day--<em>my</em> flag, <em>my</em> statement to the world that I stand for my country and liberty and justice for all.<br /><br />Now, it's sad that some folks see flying the flag as a political statement to be directed toward other Americans. What are they saying?Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1120196594886478062005-06-27T07:35:00.000-05:002005-07-01T00:45:21.886-05:00Radnofsky to oppose HutchisonI might have waited to think very seriously about the Democratic challengers to KBH, but since KBH has gone out of her way to insult me, I'm thinking I need to get busy now.<br /><br />So.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.radnofsky.com/">Barbara Ann Radnofsky </a>is looking pretty good right now. From the looks of her <a href="http://www.radnofsky.com/blog.asp">blog</a>, she's already covered the entire state more than once. I like what I see.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1120195679181818452005-06-25T00:00:00.000-05:002005-07-01T00:27:59.186-05:00Senator Hutchison assaults the patriotism of millions of AmericansKarl Rove, college drop out and advisor to the president, offered his considered opinion of "liberals" in a recent speech. His statement was so repugnant--and so false--that many were strongly offended by the remarks. They demanded an apology. Others demanded his resignation.<br /><br />The significance of his remarks comes from his closeness to the president and the perception that he speaks for the president in this matter. Clearly he did, and the president's press secretary confirmed it.<br /><br />One also wonders whether he speaks for other republicans when he utters such falsehoods, and apparently he does. <a href="http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/06/index.html#006895">TAPPED </a>took the time to call all of the republican senators to see whether they felt that Karl Rove expressed their views. All but two of the 55 were unavailable for comment in one way or another, but Rick Santorum's staff avowed the Mr. Rove did <em>not</em> after all speak for the senator. Indeed, on the matter in question, the Senator said: "On 9-11, there was no such thing as a Republican or a Democrat, and that’s what the senator believes."<br /><br />The lady from Texas has a somewhat different view. Her staff assured the TAPPED callers that this senator <em>did indeed agree</em> with Mr. Rove's views.<br /><br />So what is our senator saying about us? In Karl Rove's words, but with her endorsement:<br /><br /><blockquote>But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition.<br /></blockquote><br />As it happens, I don't believe in an afterlife that includes something called Hell. Otherwise, I would be tempted to damn them both to it.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1121962412149882742005-06-24T10:38:00.000-05:002005-07-21T11:13:32.153-05:00What Rove SaidOriginally posted on <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/24/113813/202">TPMCafe</a>.<br /><br />Yes, it was offensive, but, no, it doesn't seem like anything really new. If he hasn't said these words before himself, he's certainly responsible for crafting the message that has been repeated endlessly since September 12: <em>Either you are with us or you are the enemy</em>. Maybe he just couldn't find another puppet to carry the message for him this time; maybe he wanted to sink his own teeth into some raw meat and taste the blood himself.Whatever. <br /><br />Karl Rove is a little man.<br /><br />There is some justification in being angry about Rove's words, but I'm not so sure that there's much point in going after him as an individual. It's the words and their intent that matter more to my way of thinking--because he's not the only person in this Administration who has said the same thing. It's not worse because he said it; it's a lie no matter who says it.<br /><br />September 11 was a national tragedy. It was not, however, the first time that we had been attacked on American soil. It was not the first time we had been attacked by Al Qaeda. It was simply the first act which got the attention of the American public and the Administration so that both understood that something serious was happening in the world. <br /><br />When that happened, there were no Democrats or Republicans; there were only Americans. Indeed, it seems that there were no French at that moment, for they were Americans, too. And were we not all relieved when a then untarnished Tony Blair stood up and said that all of Great Britain would stand beside us?<br /><br />This unity included a strong desire for a military response to the Attacks. The Taliban were told to surrender Osama bin Laden or be attacked themselves. They didn't, we did--with international support. <br /><br />We entered that nation, making promises to rebuild what had been destroyed by 20 or more years of war. We wanted bin Laden, but we also wanted to make sure that Afghanistan was stable, no longer to be victimized by radical religion or politics.<br /><br />Our commander-in-chief failed on all counts. He didn't capture Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." He didn't bring the planners of the September 11 Attacks to justice. He did not stabilize Afghanistan. He did not help rebuild the country. He misappropriated funds earmarked for Afghanistan to begin planning for another war, not then authorized by Congress or supported by the American people. He then began to create a list of false reasons why he needed to prosecute the second war without winning the first.<br /><br />The pattern of the Administration is to exploit September 11 for political purposes. It was a windfall for presidential ratings; it was a cornucopia of opportunity to implement elements of his agenda that otherwise would not have passed; it remains the perfect instrument with which to terrorize the American public so that they focus on their fear and fail to see the corruption of the Administration. <br /><br />The pattern of this Administration is to look for simple solutions to complex problems, to denigrate thoughtfulness, to ridicule anything that smacks of intelligent deliberation. The degree to which the Patriot Act expands the authority of law enforcement agencies has nothing to do with the possibility of later indicting someone for terrorism--in their way of thinking. The degree to which one might be more successful in combatting an enemy whose purposes and strategies one knows and understands is lost on them.<br /><br />The pattern of the Administration is to use the word "liberal" as a pejorative term. Make no mistake that when the President called Senator Kerry "a Massachusetts liberal," he was not stating a fact, he was using hate speech. (In Texas, the preferred usage is "Taxachusetts Liberal.") Rove is simply using the same concept without the geographic prefix.<br /><br />The pattern of the Administration is to rewrite history to reflect its own preferred narrative of events. Reality, truth, fact--none of this is relevant. Only the story that makes the Administration the only hope and salvation of the American people in the face of a godless and dangerous world matters.<br /><br />Rove's statement is simply part of the pattern. Perhaps he created the pattern; perhaps not. It is, however, the pattern that is more important than the person who presents it. <br /><br />If his words make you angry and you want to fight back, do so, but not in anger. Do so coldly and with calculation. Take him down, if you can. <br /><br />But taking him down will not end the pattern--and it is the pattern that needs to be ended.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1118783083732024352005-06-14T13:13:00.000-05:002005-06-14T16:04:43.773-05:00Courting the Pro-Lynching Vote<a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:sr39is.txt.pdf">Senate Resolution 39 </a>was filed on February 7. That gave plenty of time for all 100 U.S. Senators to sign on as co-sponsors before the vote to approve it on June 13. Only 78 of them did--18 on the last day. Neither Texas Senator did.<br /><br />SR 39 is a resolution that expresses the Senate's contrition for having spent <em>decades</em> blocking any anti-lynching legislation at the federal level.<br /><br />Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, filed the bill and was joined by the majority of her colleagues. Because of that majority support, no record vote was taken. We can, therefore, only judge from their absence as co-sponsors what the true position of Senators Hutchison and Cornyn might be.<br /><br />In this case, I'm thinking that <em>actions speak louder than words</em>. Landrieu's move was not a trick to make Republicans look bad. Southern Democrats were the worst offenders in the days when lynchings terrorized communities across the South. Apparently, Landrieu's resolution was inspired by <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0944092691/ref=ase_journale/104-2677567-0605530">Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America</a>. Perhaps she had just read the book--or seen the <a href="http://www.chicagotogo.org/wisa1.html">exhibit</a>. I'm guessing that she was moved by the horror she saw in those pictures and ashamed to be part of a body that had done so much to make it acceptable that she wanted some atonement. Not reparations. Not vast new bureacracies and budgets. Just an apology--reconciliation--and a better future for our country: <br /><br /><blockquote>Whereas an apology offered in the spirit of true repentance moves the United States toward reconciliation and may become central to a new understanding, on which improved racial relations can be forged:</blockquote><br />Both parties are now actively courting minority voters. <em>Why</em> would anyone not support this resolution whole-heartedly?<br /><br />There's been quite a bit of <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/14/12284/6065">discussion</a> <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/14/134533/645">about</a> this <a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/14/13349/7476">vote</a> at the TPMCafe (where I've been spending way too much time lately). I checked some of my usual Texas blogs to see what they were saying.<br /><br />This from <a href="So">The Burnt Orange Report</a>:<br /><blockquote>. . . If the two senators from Texas couldn't find the moral courage to stand with the overwhelming majority of their peers in casting a symbolic vote against hate seven years to the week after the death of James Byrd, Jr. in Jasper County, then why should they deserve anybody's vote? </blockquote><br />Nada from <a href="http://www.pinkdome.com/">PinkDome</a>.<br /><br />Bupkus from <a href="http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/">Off the Kuff</a>.<br /><br />Dang, not even <a href="http://intellectualize.org/">The People's Republic of Seabrook</a>!<br /><br />Ah, you can always count on <a href="http://panhandletruthsquad.blogspot.com/2005/06/kay-bailey-pro-lynching.html">The Panhandle Truth Squad</a>! They ask: "Kay Bailey pro lynching?" Sadly, they don't mention that John Cornyn seems equally to be pro lynching.<br /><br />I would have thought this would be a matter of greater concern in Texas.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1118081320500431272005-06-06T13:08:00.000-05:002005-06-06T14:56:13.430-05:00Governor wants people with higher family values to put Texas in the rearview mirrorGovernor Perry cheerfully signed disastrous legislation for Texas families on Sunday. He did so in a religious facility, blithely blending church and state in both message and venue. And then he topped it off by pointing out that folks who place a higher value on marriage than he and his supporters should just go elsewhere.<br /><br />You couldn't make this stuff up in your worst nightmares.<br /><br />The bill signing was for SB 419, which is actually the continuation legislation for the Board of Medical Examiners. The bill is part of the regular Sunset Review process that happens with state agencies wherein there is a review of their operations and consideration of revisions to those operations before a proactive vote to continue the agency--or dismantle it. The BME legislation is pretty much "must pass" legislation. <br /><br />While the legislature could have voted the whole bill down, there really would have been hell to pay. Physicians would have faced all sorts of licensing problems in Texas and in reciprocal licensing with other states. Disciplinary actions, such as they are, would have been problematic. The BME covers other groups besides physicians, so there were quite a few dominoes in play here.<br /><br />The clever move to attach anti-abortion legislation to the bill gave the provision some major protection. The provision itself sounds like a nice-to-do thing because it just requires that a parent provide written consent for an unmarried minor's abortion. What's wrong with a parent consenting to a child's decisions about health? What's not to like about making sure that there is a paper trail? Plenty, of course. And the provision goes further in prohibiting third trimester abortions in all but the most extreme circumstances: the mother will die, the mother will suffer brain damage or paralysis, the fetus is brain-damaged.<br /><br />Here's the actual language:<br /><br />A physician commits an offense when, he/she:<br /><br /><blockquote>(18) performs an abortion on a woman who is pregnant with a viable unborn child during the third trimester of the pregnancy unless:<br />A) the abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the woman;<br />(B) the viable unborn child has a severe, irreversible brain impairment; or<br />(C) the woman is diagnosed with a significant likelihood of suffering imminent severe, irreversible brain damage or imminent severe, irreversible paralysis; or<br />(19) performs an abortion on an unemancipated minor without the written consent of the child's parent, managing conservator, or legal guardian or without a court order, as provided by Section 33.003 or 33.004, Family Code, authorizing the minor to consent to the abortion, unless the physician concludes that on the basis of the physician's good faith clinical judgment, a condition exists that complicates the medical condition of the pregnant minor and necessitates the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or to avoid a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function and that there is insufficient time to obtain the consent of the child's parent, managing conservator, or legal guardian. <br />(c) The board shall adopt the forms necessary for physicians to obtain the consent required for an abortion to be performed on an unemancipated minor under Subsection (a). The form executed to obtain consent or any other required documentation must be retained by the physician until the later of the fifth anniversary of the date of the minor's majority or the seventh anniversary of the date the physician received or created the documentation for the record.<br /></blockquote><br />I cannot imagine anyone wanting to have an abortion just for fun. I cannot imagine a mother--young or fully adult--who would want to give up a child in any but the most extreme circumstances. But "extreme" may vary from one woman to another. What one can handle physically may be much more than one can handle emotionally, or financially, or circumstantially. I cannot imagine having to make such a difficult decision without the emotional support of those who love me and care about my well being. The problem is, of course, that those would would fulfill such a role are not always the parents of the young woman who needs the help. Abusive families, dysfunctional families, hostile families abound in our society. This legislation doesn't make those families any better. Nor does it make it more likely that fewer young women will desire an abortion. Indeed, it may increase the likelihood of a speedier return to those good old days of back alley abortions.<br /><br />Judicial bypass still remains. If you want to do something positive now, look at <a href="http://www.janesdueprocess.org/">Jane's Due Process</a>. They help young women in crisis find the help they need--not necessarily abortions--help.<br /><br />Of course, there's still that interesting provision that applies to adults. Even when an adult woman and her husband decide that the risk of continuing a pregnancy is too great or that they cannot take care of a child with serious birth defects, the Texas Legislature and now the Governor want to step into that family decision to make their own rules about how that family will have to survive in the future. Perhaps Mama won't be brain damaged or paralyzed, but she can get along with a damaged heart or kidneys. So says <a href="http://www.inthepinktexas.com/index.php?p=260">Will Harnett</a>. Maybe the child will not be brain-impaired, but will have any one of a number of serious birth defects that will force the family into poverty, deprive their other children of any attention from exhausted parents, or create a living hell for an perpetually sick, or worse, unwanted child.<br /><br />I don't know what the circumstances would be that would lead me to make a decision to terminate a pregancy that I had carried for 6 months already. How could I cope with the crashing defeat of all my hopes and dreams for that child? And yet, none of us knows what our breaking point will be. We certainly don't know what it will be for <a href="http://www.inthepinktexas.com/index.php?p=260">another family</a>.<br /><br />And then we come to that other part of the Governor's bill signing. This was not a signing of legislation that required his signature. Nope. It was a political photo op--at a religious venue--to make sure that everyone knows that he, too, is a promoter of hate--in Jesus' name.<br /><br />HJR 6 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban, yet again, same-sex marriages and anything that vaguely looks like it. Just as the previous bill cuts gaping wounds in Texas families, this one purports to support family values while destroying families. Same sex families. Common law families. Private contracts that create some semblance of legal security for couples. Even the dignity of dying in the presence of someone you love. These will be wiped out by the passage of this constitutional amendment.<br /><br />It's all sick and sickening. And the Governor just put the icing on the cake when he said:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Texans have made a decision about marriage and if there is some other state that has a more lenient view than Texas then maybe that's a better place for them to live."<br /></blockquote><br />One of the ministers attending the signing whined that those who oppose these bills must want people of faith out of the public square. Funny thing. I didn't really want that before. Now I do. Me and <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=MATT%206&version=31;">Jesus</a>--just can't stand those hypocrites. Maybe <em>they</em> should find another state to live in.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1116584704580682292005-05-20T05:14:00.000-05:002005-05-20T05:25:04.586-05:00The Eye of the BeholderCharles Kuffner <a href="http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/005493.html#005493">comments </a>on a <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3188696">report </a>that Travis County DA Ronnie Earle spoke at a fundraiser recently. His assessment:<br /><br /><blockquote>All that said, I do agree it's not wise politics for Earle to have done this. He can't afford to let the editorial page tut-tutters make their inevitable case for moral equivalence between himself and DeLay, because once that happens, once this becomes a political squabble instead of a "cops and robbers" story, he's sunk. I hope they're clearheaded enough to draw a distinction, but I'm not confident of it. It sucks to be Caesar's wife, but that's the way it is.<br /></blockquote><br />I agree. Sometimes, no matter how [fill in virtue] we are, it's how we are seen that determines whether our [virtue] will be appreciated at its full and face value. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do it, especially when the whole world (more or less) is just waiting for you to screw up.<br /><br />I do believe that Ronnie Earle is a genuine hero, a Texas treasure. We are privileged to be served by such a man. But the stakes are now too high to just give away credibility, so I'm hopin' that he'll be a little more choosy in selecting his venues for getting out his message in the future.<br /><br />That being said, the folks in his audience probably needed to hear every word he spoke.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1116397796112925302005-05-18T01:25:00.000-05:002005-05-18T01:29:56.113-05:00A birthday!Monday was <em>Canal Water Review's</em> first birthday! And I missed it. <em>Sigh</em>. I hope the party was a grand one.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1116396943547106892005-05-18T00:17:00.000-05:002005-05-18T01:15:43.553-05:00Lend me your uterus!I have been avoiding thinking about all the anti-choice bills that have been filed in the Texas Legislature this session. It just seems too painful to put myself through the, well, pain of seeing the proposals, listening to the arguments, and thinking about the consequences of all this misguided claptrap that calls itself the Culture of Life and has nothing to do with life at all.<br /><br />Avoidance is, however, impossible. As I wander through various of my more or less <a href="http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/005473.html#005473">favorite</a> blog sites, the <a href="http://acapitolblog.blogspot.com/2005/05/attempt-to-tag-abortion-bills-to-board.html">screams </a>of <a href="http://www.inthepinktexas.com/index.php?p=260">agony</a> just get <a href="http://www.inthepinktexas.com/index.php?p=260">louder</a> and <a href="http://comeandtakeit.blogspot.com/2005/05/dead-man-talking.html">louder</a>.<br /><br />Since I am still in my Indiana Jones mood (forget the bullwhip, gimme the gun), here's my thought:<br /><br />We know that a <a href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002915.htm">hysterectomy </a>is the second most frequently performed surgery for <a href="http://www.4woman.gov/faq/hysterectomy.htm">women in the U.S. </a>There are 600,000+ hysterectomies performed in the U.S. each year. That's 1.2 million uteruses that could have been donated to deserving pro-life policymakers to help them do their own part to generate and, of course, protect more unborn lives.<br /><br />So this is what I'm thinking. Maybe we should set up a non-profit <strong><em>Foundation for the Promotion of Self-Reliance in Protecting the Unborn</em></strong>. Then anyone who has a hysterectomy can donate her uterus (the ovaries would be helpful, too, but they are not necessary because we could also take in donated <a href="http://www.visembryo.com/baby/stage2.html">embryos </a>from fertility clinics) to the Foundation. The Foundation, in turn, would select deserving policy-makers to receive their very own uterus so they can stop spending their time on trying to control everyone else's uterus and get busy making their own little unborn life to worship.<br /><br />I would like to nominate Representative <a href="http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist114/hartnett.htm">Will Harnett </a>to receive the first.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1116300020745781662005-05-16T21:56:00.000-05:002005-05-16T22:20:20.753-05:00Losing the warPatrick Cockburn <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=638525">writes</a> in <em>The Independent</em> about the status of the war in Iraq. He provides quite a bit of fodder for a discussion about whether the U.S. is actually losing the war. <br /><br /><blockquote>There is no doubt that the US has failed to win the war. Much of Iraq is a bloody no man's land. The army has not been able to secure the short highway to the airport, though it is the most important road in the country, linking the US civil headquarters in the Green Zone with its military HQ at Camp Victory.<br /></blockquote><br />The failure, he points out, was "in part political."<br /><br /><blockquote>Immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein polls showed that Iraqis were evenly divided on whether they had been liberated or occupied. Eighteen months later the great majority both of Sunni and Shia said they had been occupied, and they did not like it.<br /></blockquote><br />Other points:<br /><br /><ul><li>The U.S. forces are over-armed, using howitzers for police duty.</li><li>They were designed to "fight a high-technology blitzkrieg, but not much else." Supply lines were long and poorly defended. Ignorance of the local culture led to many mistakes right from the start of the occupation.</li><li>The U.S. forces are too thin on the ground--and they are used more as a fire-brigade, fighting fires everywhere, but never putting them out.</li></ul><p>Reasonable people can quibble one way or another regarding the elements of this failure, but I'm thinking that the evidence of failure abounds--and resounds with the death and injury of every American soldier, every Iraqi civilian, every roadside bomb, every victory shout from the "insurgents." Even so, as distressed as I am about the situation in Iraq, the question of winning or losing is not the most important point in Cockburn's article. This is.</p><blockquote><p>The greatest failure of the US in Iraq is not that mistakes were made but that its political system has proved incapable of redressing them. Neither Mr Rumsfeld nor his lieutenants have been sacked. Paul Wolfowitz, under-secretary of defence and architect of the war, has been promoted to the World Bank.</p><p>Almost exactly a century ago the Russian empire fought a war with Japan in the belief that a swift victory would strengthen the powers-that-be in St Petersburg. Instead the Tsar's armies met defeat. Russian generals, who said that their tactic of charging Japanese machine guns with sabre-wielding cavalry had failed only because their men had attacked with insufficient brio, held their jobs. In Iraq, American generals and their political masters of demonstrable incompetence are not fired. <em>The US is turning out to be much less of a military and political superpower than the rest of the world had supposed.</em> [emphasis added]</p></blockquote><p> How sad that this morning's conversation with My Prince, included the words:</p><blockquote><p>The reason the U.S. has won so many wars is because we've had a stronger military than anyone else. Bush has done a good job of levelling the playing field.</p></blockquote><p>My Prince doesn't read <em>The Independent</em>. He <em>did</em> show up for his military service.</p>Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1116238645464337212005-05-16T04:41:00.000-05:002005-05-16T11:15:05.663-05:00Alas, poor NewsweekThe story grows. <em>Newsweek</em> published a small <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7693014/site/newsweek/">story about prisoner abuse </a>at Guantanamo Bay. Riots occurred in the Middle East. Folks on the right are blaming <em>Newsweek</em> for the riots. <em>Newsweek</em> partially distances itself from its own story by noting that its original anonymous source is no longer so certain about the specifics of the abuses that he once told <em>Newsweek</em> reporters about. <a href="http://dailykos.com/story/2005/5/15/211444/985">Folks on the left </a>are pissed that <em>Newsweek</em> is backing off of its story and thinking that they are caving in to political pressure.<br /><br />Some folks think that they should boycott <em>Newsweek</em> because it reported the original story--"not supporting the troops" and all that. Some folks think that they should boycott <em>Newsweek</em> because it's not fully standing by its story--which has been reported elsewhere anyway.<br /><br />And I don't even shed crocodile tears.<br /><br />I ended my subscriptions (mine and the gift one for Mama) last year. After many years of subscribing for both of us, we both decided that we just didn't like some of the things that were showing up in <em>Newsweek</em>. Like the reports that John Kerry had selected John Edwards as his running mate that included not one, not two, but three homoerotic references to their camaraderie. Like the report on plans for the Democratic Convention that concluded with the snarky comment that the convention would be a John Kerry party, "whatever that is." Neither of us saw the need to pay hard earned money for that kind of crap in news stories, when all we wanted was news.<br /><br />Let me point out that this was not a decision lightly made. I discovered <em>Newsweek</em> in my first stay in East Africa. Young and apolitical, I was starved for news from home. On my island field site, I had no television, no radio. I picked up the national newspaper now and then, but there was little news from the U.S. One of the little local shops was dedicated to school and office supply sorts of things, and, on one of my visits, I saw a copy of <em>Newsweek</em> there. It turned out that someone on the island was a subscriber and hadn't pick up his/her copy that week. So I was lucky enough to be able to buy it instead. Thereafter, I made regular trips to the little shop and sometimes managed to have the same luck. On those days, I read the thing from cover to cover. It was there that I first heard of Watergate. It was there that I learned that Sissy Farenthold was running for governor. It was my link to sanity for the fourteen months that I lived in a very different world.<br /><br />When I came home, as soon as I could afford it, I became a subscriber to <em>Newsweek</em>. This means <em>many</em> years of reading the magazine, <em>many</em> years of watching the changes from serious news to ever lighter fare. As much as anything, <em>Newsweek</em> was an old friend. When <em>Newsweek</em> arrived each Tuesday, I would again sit and read the whole thing from cover to cover. It was just what I would do on Tuesdays. And I was really antsy when it didn't arrive until Wednesday.<br /><br />But my old friend let me down. I decided that <em>Newsweek</em> needed to get along without me--if only for a year or so--while I got over my snit with its slips toward bias. What I didn't realize--until today--is that I really don't miss it.<br /><br />I will feel some sadness if <em>Newsweek</em> suffers too much from this brouhaha, but not enough to spend my hard earned money for more crap.<br /><br />UPDATE: So lemme be a bit clearer on the story itself. As Arthur Silber <a href="http://coldfury.com/reason/?p=511">points out </a>the Stateside response against the original <em>Newsweek</em> story is being reoriented to: "<em>Newsweek</em> lied, people died." That is also crap. <em>Newsweek</em> didn't lie. It just used a shaky anonymous source to report a story that had already been widely reported in an attempt to present the story as one that could be corroborated by a more or less <em>official</em> U.S. source rather than those "suspect" allegations obtained from released detainees from Guantanamo. People died, but not because of <em>Newsweek</em>. They died because of resistance to the repressive regimes under which they lived and/or because of protests against much larger issues with the U.S., which also include the widespread perception that the U.S. is <em>making war on Islam</em>.<br /><br />I still don't care much for <em>Newsweek</em>. When my mama reads a supposedly objective news magazine and then asks me in a shocked whisper-- "Are they saying that Kerry is gay?"--I have to think they crossed the line into some alternate reality. When George Will's comments are printed in <em>Newsweek</em>, they are clearly labeled as opinion. I don't have to like what Will says to be able to tolerate his opinion in a news magazine. I do have to question how Michael Isikoff's reporting continues to be tolerated by the editors when he couldn't find objectivity with instructions printed on his keyboard.<br /><br />The criticism from the right--<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20050516/pl_nm/religion_afghan_bush_dc">including the White House now</a>--is, as Silber suggests, just another attempt to intimidate the press. Too bad my subscription cancellation won't be strong enough to counter that, but it's all I've got.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1115660017007959172005-05-09T12:21:00.000-05:002005-05-09T12:33:37.100-05:00Sexualizing America's childrenRep. Aaron Pena's <a href="http://acapitolblog.blogspot.com/2005/05/why-didnt-parents-stop-raunchy-texas.html">A Capitol Blog </a>provides an interesting insight into the things that attract the attention of our state's legislators. He points to this <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3171356">column published in the Houston Chronicle </a>which refers to Rep. Al Edward's bill that attempts to de-sexualize Texas school cheerleaders' routines. Rep. Edwards has taken a lot of heat for introducing this bill, and the House has taken even more heat for even debating it when there are critical issues that need to be dealt with.<br /><br />The heat may or may not be deserved, but Rep. Edwards should not be faulted for raising the issue. As Froma Harrop writes:<br /><br /><blockquote>Yes, in the cosmic order of the universe, high-school cheerleading is small stuff. But it is part of a big problem: the sexualizing of America's children. That parents and educators let high-school girls perform erotic routines at public events simply shows how oblivious grown-ups have become. Why don't they just set up a pole in the gym afterward, and charge admission?<br /></blockquote><br />Yea, verily. And, 2 percent Republican that I appear to be, I say that, not because I am getting more prudish as I am getting older, nor because of some longing for the good old days when kids could be kids and not miniature adults. Nope. I'm saying that because it's just plain stupid for parents to hypocritically want their precious children to be protected from evil influences while allowing them to actively participate in simulated sex in public as part of a family-oriented activity and still think that they can blame someone else when little Melissa turns up pregnant--or with that gift that keeps on giving, genital-herpes-for-virgins (the oral version).Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1115655501530149282005-05-09T11:13:00.000-05:002005-05-09T11:18:39.820-05:00With age comes wisdom, my child<p>I couldn't resist following the link provided at <a href="http://www.burntorangereport.com/archives/003813.html">Burnt Orange Report </a>to another one of those "what kind of X are you?" Poor Byron scored 20 percent Republican, much to his consternation. I am similarly consternated (well, it <em>should</em> be a word!) at my 2 percent score. I prolly should have answered "go solar," but I really, really wanted some payback for polluters. <p><p><table cellpadding="8" width="75%" align="center" border="1"><tbody><tr><td valign="center" style="color:#ffffff;"><center><b><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica;"><!-- --><span style="font-size:85%;color:#0000c0;"><i>I am</i>:</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#c00000;">2%</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;color:#0000c0;">Republican.</span></span><!-- --></b></center></td><td valign="center" align="left" style="color:#ffffff;"><blockquote><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times;font-size:78%;color:#000000;"><!-- -->"You're a complete liberal, utterly without a trace of Republicanism. Your strength is as the strength of ten because your heart is pure. (You hope.)"<!-- --></span></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><center><b><a href="http://paulkienitz.net/republican.html">Are You A Republican?</a></b></center>Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1115313282417983122005-05-05T12:14:00.000-05:002005-05-05T12:54:03.423-05:00Texas Heroes (Part IV)<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/img/130/4065/640/38471036_ORIG.jpg"><img style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; MARGIN: 2px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/img/130/4065/400/38471036_ORIG.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Uncle Son's medals <a href="http://www.hello.com/" target="ext"><img style="BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; BACKGROUND: none transparent scroll repeat 0% 0%; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px" alt="Posted by Hello" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/pbh.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" /></a><br /><br />We lost another one last week. This time, my side of the family took the hit. My mother's brother had another stroke and died. This leaves her with only one sister and one brother now--only three of ten left living.<br /><br />This brother--my Uncle Son--was one with whom Mama was very close, so that meant that she was very much grieved by his loss and also that she <em>had</em> to attend his funeral. For someone in her frail health and severely handicapped condition, this was no easy task. <br /><br />I rented a "luxury" car so that she would have a comfortable seat. It turned out to be quite comfortable--all leather and easily adjustable with electric controls. They don't make luxury cars like they used to, I guess (not that I ever had one), since there was no room in the trunk for her wheel chair. We might have made it, but the spare tire was placed so awkwardly that there was just no way to fit it in. Fortunately, we have a spare, smaller chair designed for travel, so we threw that in instead. Along with a large seated walker and extra padding for the motel bed she would sleep on.<br /><br />There were adventures along the way, but I'll forego those to get to Mama's beloved brother. He had a real name, but the family always called him Son. And Son was her favorite, younger than her by about 16 months. <br /><br />There are three things that I remember Uncle Son for. One is his music. He played a mean guitar and once had his own band. Mama said that he taught himself to play the guitar while sitting by her bedside when she was so ill those many years ago. He entertained her to take her mind away from the pain. In later years, I remember Uncle Son coming to our house for Christmas Eve. In those days, while Mama could still entertain a houseful of people, all sorts of relatives and near relatives and just close friends came over for an evening of singing and nibbling. The nibbles might have included such delicacies as Spam Salad sandwiches or the ever-impressive Vienna sausages wrapped in white bread and stuck on a toothpick. The singing was all gospel all the time. We didn't mess around with Christmas carols--we just got down with some really old songs that everyone knew by heart. Uncle Son played his guitar, and we all sang. It is still among the most wonderful memories of my earlier life.<br /><br />Another thing that I remember Uncle Son for is his sense of humor. He could always make a joke about whatever was going on. We see this as something of a genetic trait among people in our family and always rejoice when it pops up in yet another generation. As much as we grieved for Uncle Son, we also laughed to remember his pranks and the joy he gave us. <br /><br />The third thing that I remember about Uncle Son is that he was Mama's favorite brother. This is not just because he was funny and musical, but because--even though he was her "little" brother--he took care of her like one thinks a brother should (with love and just a little meanness). Mama's illness kept her from school for two years. That put her behind for graduation. Apparently, Uncle Son lagged a bit behind, too, so that he could--as he promised my grandfather--take care of Mama at school. They were seniors together, and graduated together, but not before Uncle Son got to remind Mama that she was still a sister to be properly tormented. Mama tells a story about the day that Uncle Son decided to hook her foot with his and start pulling her down from her desk. Her left hip was locked so that she could not bend at that joint; she was effectively helpless as he dragged her down. Son thought it was funny even though I suspect that Mama was more than a little panicked. There were other stories--all now told with great laughter--all speaking of a brother-sister relationship that was very special. It was also "special" that Uncle Son's wounds in the war crippled him for a time and gave him his own limp, hardly noticeable when I was old enough to think about it, but severe enough in the early days of his recovery to give him even greater empathy and compassion for my mother. In later years, I saw the special love that Mama had for this brother and realized, with much gratitude, that it was fully returned when Uncle Son stood by her at Daddy's funeral. He was her rock then as he had been in those dark days of her illness. There's no way I wouldn't have done everything I could to take her to say her final goodbye to Uncle Son.<br /><br />Sadly, I realize that there is much that I do not know about Uncle Son's military service--his rank, his unit. We know that he entered the European theatre through Italy. We know that he was wounded when he tried to save another wounded soldier stranded on the battlefield, but was himself hit by sniper fire. Those medals include a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star. I don't know what the other battle ribbons and medals are for, but I took several pictures so that I could look them up.<br /><br />This, however, I do know. He was a hero to my mother. That makes him a hero to me.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1114622433348670422005-04-27T12:04:00.000-05:002005-04-27T12:20:33.350-05:00The Language of PoliticsOver at <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/">Talking Points Memo</a>, Josh Marshall is, once more, tracking the Republican use of language on an issue. He spent quite of bit of time a while back looking at how Republicans discovered that "privatization" of Social Security was not selling well with the American public, so they switched from talking about "private accounts" to "personal accounts" (and blaming the former terminology on the Democrats). Marshall had entry after entry detailing the shift in media reports as they followed the Republican Party line about labels for the same old sow's ear.<br /><br />Now Marshall is tracking the use of the term "nuclear option" as it refers to a change in Senate rules on the use of the filibuster. The term was coined by Trent Lott, used widely by Republicans, quoted by Democrats and the media. Then, Republicans discovered that it wasn't selling well with the American public, so they are trying to change the label for the rule change to "constitutional option" (and blaming the former terminology on the Democrats).<br /><br />Marshall's efforts are more about media actions and than how successful the strategy of changing labels works. There is something revealed in the process he apparently believes (and so do I) that tells us about the degree to which the corporate media are lazy, duped by party press releases and repetition, and/or corrupted by association with power.<br /><br />The interesting thing about both of these label shifts is how blatant they are. The shifts are easily documented and clearly reflective of deliberate strategy. There's nothing subtle about it.<br /><br />Even more interesting, however, is the failure of both linguistic campaigns to move public opinion on the issues. The public still doesn't like the proposed changes to Social Security. They still don't like the changes to Senate rules. And it's not like the public fully understands either issue. It more like the choice of label or frame really does set things up in people's minds; you can call it by another name, but the first one has already determined attitudes.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1114621251016848672005-04-27T11:05:00.000-05:002005-04-27T12:00:51.016-05:00HJR 6There are plenty of <a href="http://www.burntorangereport.com/archives/003749.html">other</a> analyses of this amendment, including records of live-blogging from In the <a href="http://www.inthepinktexas.com/index.php?p=199#more-199">Pink</a> <a href="http://www.inthepinktexas.com/index.php?p=198#more-198">Texas</a> and <a href="http://www.inthepinktexas.com/index.php?p=198#more-198">PinkDome</a>. I could join in on the <a href="http://www.pinkdome.com/archives/Rafael%20AnchiaHJRstatement.doc">statements</a> <a href="http://www.pinkdome.com/archives/LGRLRelease.doc">about</a> <a href="http://blog.lgrl.org/archives/2005/04/hjr_6_passes_wi.html#more">hate</a> and <a href="http://www.pinkdome.com/archives/HJR%206%20Speech.doc">bigotry</a>. I could really join in on the sarcastic comments about terrorists attacking marriage in church fellowship halls.<br /><br />For a moment I was cynical enough to think that this amendment was simply a means to boost conservative turnout for the 2006 election, but Charles Kuffner, <a href="http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/cat_thats_our_lege.html#005351">thinking the same thing</a>, found a correction in his comments that reminds us both that the election which would decide the fate of this amendment will be held in November 2005, not 2006. At least I am not alone in my cynicism about this.<br /><br />The wonder (for Texas) is that 29 House members stood up for their principles and voted against the amendment. <br /><br />I'm now trying to think what I can afford to do to reward their courage. I could only afford two stuffed bees to give to our Killer D's, so I chose to give one to Garnet Coleman and the other to Eddie Rodriguez, both favorites of mine and both courageous on many issues, not just redistricting. This time around, I'd like to give them all something.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1114492269956630892005-04-25T23:04:00.000-05:002005-04-26T00:11:09.960-05:00Deja vu all over againI took a trip down memory lane last week when I went to a meeting of Austin's zoning and platting commission. Once upon a time, a long time ago, I was more or less a regular at those meetings. Zoning <em>and</em> platting were hot items in my part of the city in those days, and heady days they were. <br /><br />We had massive zoning "studies" going on wherein the city would zone three or four thousand acres in one big zoning ordinance. We had limited purpose annexation and regular purpose annexation. We had neighborhoods versus developers, developers versus environmentalists, environmentalists versus neighborhoods. We had city planners with fire in their eyes. We had virtual blood baths every Tuesday and Thursday and most days in between while we worked our way through obscure zoning codes and wrangled over watersheds.<br /><br />Then the real estate market tanked or something, and things slowed down. That gave us time for Austin Plan, a sector by sector plan for the whole city--which came to not much of anything after months and months of meetings and public hearings. At one point, I think I had 11 linear feet of Austin Plan on my bookshelves. Fortunately, the city had begin residential recycling by the time I realized that I could no longer afford to devote my shelf space to a slice of local history.<br /><br />Then things really slowed down--and my job took up time--and I wasn't involved in local things so very much anymore. Until a couple of weeks ago when my neighborhood association decided that it was time to have another meeting. Once a year is about how often we meet to talk about dog poop and kids playing in the street versus cars driving on the same street. This meeting was a little early, but why not, I thought.<br /><br />At the meeting, one of my neighbors mentioned that he had received notice of a zoning case near his house. My ears perked up, and I realized that it was a big honking office development that would affect us all if we weren't careful about it. And that put me back in the middle of things I had long ago forgotten about.<br /><br />It was interesting from several perspectives to see the differences that time had wrought. Meeting with the city meant going to a rabbit warren in a high rise office building. In the old days, there was less rabbit warren and less high rise. The old cubicles had been replaced by actual offices--and we met in an actual conference room. Instead of hauling out huge maps, the planner just called up plats and aerial photographs on his computer. <br /><br />Meeting with the developers to discuss the case was similarly different. I had dealt with the company in the past when it had a different name, but I recognized the conference room. The company representatives were different--and younger than me this time around. The atmosphere felt different this time, though. Perhaps the combination of age and experience gave me confidence. Perhaps the simple cordiality of the meeting was more pleasant than my memories of past conflicts. In any case, it was prettty much--what can we do to make this work? So we told 'em. And they agreed to what we asked and more. I mean, who gets a 750 foot setback without asking?<br /><br />The next step was to get a formal motion from the Zoning and Platting Commission to say what we had agreed to. There was some shuffling in the background with my neighborhood. I really don't want to take on any more responsibility much less leadership, but there was a bit of a vacuum there for a few days. I slipped into the role of representative without much strain--but only for the one hearing, we all agreed.<br /><br />The Commission still meets in City Council Chambers, but, of course, Austin has a new City Hall and new Council Chambers. This was my first visit. I arrived early to scope out the parking issues--which turned out to be pretty simple since there is now an actual parking garage. The next hurdle was getting through security. This surprised me, although I suppose it shouldn't have. Still, there's no metal detector at the Capitol these days, so I was startled by the metal detector and x-ray machine for bags and three guards on duty. <br /><br />Entering the Chambers took a bit of time, since sign in is still required for testimony. The hall was caretainly bigger than the old one and made even larger by the presence of actual windows. Lots of them. Whole glass walls of them. The distance separating the audience from the dais had also increased. There were several monitors and screens around for projection, but no evidence of what might be showing on Cable Channel 6. (Does the Commission still show up there anymore?) I think that someone making their first visit to the Chambers could be intimidated by their arrangement--and the entry hassles. I was just fascinated by the change of venue and atmosphere.<br /><br />Since we had worked out prior agreements with the developers and city staff had concurred with those agreements, our case would have been voted on by "consent" (without discussion) had Save Barton Springs not appeared to lodge a protest against development in that part of the city. At that point, everything fell back into place for me, and I was exactly where I remembered being. In fifteen years, nothing has changed after all.<br /><br />The staff presented the case. The developer's agent stated his position. SBS made their case. I presented the neighborhood view--and slipped in a little history. The Commission approved the case and passed it on to City Council. I am told that SBS will have a "substantial presence" at the Council hearing on the case.<br /><br />And what's at issue? A large office development in an environmentally sensitive watershed. The development could generate a lot of traffic at peak hours, which means air pollution that eventually pollutes the water. (Yes, your car pollutes the water you drink as well as the air you breathe. And a poor road system makes it worse.) SBS wanted to see single family residences on one-acre lots instead of the proposed 3-4 story office buildings limited to 20 percent impervious cover. <br /><br />Oh, dear. And there I was, mentally screaming: Do you realize how much those houses would cost these days? Do you have any idea how much the county will raise my property taxes because of those fancy-assed houses? And who's gonna tell those rich neighbors you want me to have to forego fertilizing their lawns or propertly dispose of used motor oil? And why do I have to put up with more neighorhood noises 24/7 when the office workers would go home--somewhere else--at 5:00? And--well, the list goes on. I've been down this road before. Literally. <br /><br />All of it brings back those same old problems. My neighborhood shouldn't exist. It's the oldest subdivision in the area, platted in the 1940's. Houses weren't built until the 1960's. It's small and secluded. There are still a few vacant lots in the subdivision, but they will soon be built out. Even so, one of my neighbors still has a few goats in a side lot. We only got a sewer lines within the last five years. Before that, our aging septic tanks were probably worse than any traffic in the area for pollution. The earlier residents of the neighborhood (in 27 years, weve lived there longer than just about everyone else) were independent-leave-me-alone kinds of folks. Many of the current residents still are.<br /><br />So. This neighborhood shouldn't exist because it's built on a sensitive watershed. In a karst area. In an aquifer-recharge zone. With drainage problems that suggest that some tributary or some creek or other is being frustrated by the presence of houses where water really wants to flow.<br /><br />Still it exists. Which means that those of us who generally had no clue about the enviromental sensitivity of the area when we sank our life savings into our property--which was rural in those days before the city sprawled out to capture us with annexation--have to figure out how to continue to live in the area and protect our steadily eroding quality of life. <br /><br />Much has changed in the past fifteen years--and nothing has changed. The city even says they will start a new planning study--a neighborhood plan--for our area this fall. I can hardly wait.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7005122.post-1114368657805956322005-04-24T12:27:00.000-05:002005-05-11T12:10:53.216-05:00Texas Shield Law for JournalistsRep. <a href="http://acapitolblog.blogspot.com/2005/04/judiciary-committee-hears-reporters.html">Aaron Pena </a>has proposed <a href="http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&amp;amp;CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00188&VERSION=1&TYPE=B">HB 188</a>, a shield law for journalists. The bill was<a href="http://www.house.state.tx.us/committees/broadcasts.php?session=79&cmte=330"> heard </a>in the Judiciary Committee on April 18. I didn't attend the hearing, since the bill is not one that I would normally track, and I haven't listened to the broadcast, since I'm using a dial-up connection (broadband is too expensive for a retired Prince and the bride-who-works-for-a-nonprofit).<br /><br />Having said that, I still (of course!) have an opinion. Or at least some pressing questions. As I read the bill, it really doesn't cover the kind of situation that we see with the Valerie Plame case. In that case, a federal law against revealing the name/identity of a U.S. spy is prohibited, but someone at the White House did so, telling several reporters Valerie Plame's name and identifying her as a CIA operative. This was done for political reasons. The actual investigation by the federal prosecutor seems to be over, but there have been no public announcements that tell us what the results are. The reporter who actually revealed Plame's identity seems not to be suffering any ill consequences of his bad act, but two others, facing jail time for not revealing their sources, are appealing to the Supreme Court.<br /><br />I've written about the Plame case before. It just really irks me, and not merely because it all arose for political reasons. As much as I disdain President Bush and his administration and pretty much all he stands for and just about everything he has done as president, the issue for me is something else altogether.<br /><br />The First Amendment protects freedom of the press. More than that, it tells us that one of the core values of our nation is that the press be free to speak the truth, that our democracy depends upon that. For someone like Robert Novak to toss that core value aside for purely partisan reasons, to do so in conspiracy with others, is an attack on the Constitution and our nation. Now to hide behind that same First Amendment and claim immunity from revealing his co-conspirators is a abominable act. And, oh, yeah, by the way, people's lives were jeopardized because of his criminal act, a career was trashed, national security was damaged, and we're still losing American lives because he was party to a conspiracy to dupe the American public about the justifications for war.<br /><br />I guess you could say that I feel rather strongly about this issue.<br /><br />And, yet, I can see the need for a shield law in Texas. My question is this. Let's pretend for a moment that the Governor makes a speech about an issue and includes incorrect information. Let's pretend that someone had already given him the correct information and, upon hearing the incorrect information in the speech, chooses to publish the correct information on her own via an op ed. Suppose then that the Governor, unhappy with that, decides to take retribution by discrediting the op ed writer and, in the course of doing so, knowingly reveals that the op ed writer's spouse is an undercover narc for one of our regional drug task forces--and reveals his identity. What then? If a reporter participates in that kind of partisan activity, committing a crime in the process, would the proposed shield law protect him/her? Should it? Or should I just get over it and accept the fact that a higher principle is at work because, even though it might let one scumbag get away with trashing the Constitution, it's important to maintain that higher principle?<br /><br />I guess I've answered my own question. The higher principle should win. But, still, I am just so irked with Robert Novak. I hope he gets a pimple in a tender place.Carolyn A. Parkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12551006143302849884noreply@blogger.com0