Because of people who put up new blogs like this.

THIS is a great campaign ad:



There are worse things that could happen than for more people to want to channel Edward R. Murrow....especially now that Les Moonves has essentially laid a turd on the CBS anchor chair by putting Katie the Cupcake in it.

Aside from the fact that when I try to organize my thoughts about ABC's White House propaganda being given to schools as educational materials I just want to stand in the middle of the room screaming, there's a little voice inside of me that says ABC is reveling in all this free publicity. You already know how I feel, and others are covering the subject quite nicely, thank you very much.

However, in the interest of providing a public service to those who aren't blog junkies like me, here, via Steve Gilliard, are some contacts where you can weigh in:

ABC Television Network
Phone: 212-456-7777
77 West 66th Street, New York, NY 10023-6298

Robert Iger, President
Executive Offices: 818-560-1000

Kevin Brockman, VP for Publicity
Phone: 818-460-6655

ABC Audience Relations
Phone: 818-460-7477
[Must navigate phone tree, to leave a 30-second message
in their ‘specials’ voicemail box. Be sure to reference
‘the path to 9/11’ in your voicemail.]

ABC Media Relations (people assigned to this movie):
Patrick Preblick: 212-456-7819
Email: patrick.k.preblick@abc.com

Jonathan Hogan: 818-460-7016
Email: jonathan.hogan@abc.com

Erin Felentzer: 818-460-6642
Email: erin.felentzer@abc.com

Network News desk: 212-456-2700

Fax: 212-456-4866, 212-456-2795

Email: netaudr@abc.com

Link to webpage for contacting local ABC affiliates [a great tool!]
http://abc.go.com/...


mPRm Public Relations
Phone: 323-933-3399

Tom Chen
Email: tchen@mprm.com

Theresa Black
Email: tblack@mprm.com

Jennifer McIntosh
Email: jmcintosh@mprm.com


BBC Television [They are slated to show the "movie" as well on Sunday 9/10, on BBC 2]
Phone: 08700 100 222
BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Glasgow G2 3WT

BBC "Path to 9/11" page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...

BBC Complaints webform:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...

Editor's Blog [commenting here is the same as making a complaint]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...


Scholastic
Phone: 212-343-6741, 212-343-6100
557 Broadway, New York, NY 10012

Richard Robinson, CEO
Email: rrobinson@scholastic.com

Jeffrey Mathews, Vice President, Investor Relations, or Tonia Bellamy
Phone: 212-343-6741
Email: investor_relations@scholastic.com

Corporate Communications: 212-343-4563
newws@scholastic.com

Customer Service:
Phone: 212-343-6741, 800-724-6527 (toll-free)
M-F, 7:00 am to 9:00 pm and Sat., 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, CST
[Scholastic is promoting with teacher guides and letters to 100,000 high school teachers. Tell Scholastic that they are breaching the trust they have carefully built with a generation of teachers and parents. They lean heavily left and are not the enemy, so please be respectful.]


Clinton Foundation
Phone: 212-348-8882
Fax: 212-348-9245
Website contact form
http://tinyurl.com/... [sorry, but this is a long one]
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/


Democratic National Committee
Phone: 202-863-8000
430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003
Website contact form:
http://www.democrats.org/...


Your Local School Board
[Parents of highschoolers: Consider contacting your school board to let them know you are not pleased to see propaganda pushed to your children--a "captive" audience. I can't list that info obviously, but the action is well worth the time.]


Unions - AFL-CIO and Change to Win
[Union members--use the webform or email to contact the right site and tell them to use the threat of those big pension plan investments on the fund managers listed below to help pressure ABC]

AFL-CIO, 815 16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006
Contact webform:
http://www.aflcio.org/...

Change to Win, 1900 L Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 721-0660
Fax: (202) 721-0661
Email: info@changetowin.org


Apple
Main phone: 408-996-1010
1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014
http://apple.com

Steve Jobs, CEO
Email: steve@apple.com, stevej@apple.com, sjobs@apple.com

Public Relations:
Katie Cotton, Vice President of Worldwide Corporate Communications
Email: katiec@apple.com

Steve Dowling, Corporate PR: 408-974-1896
Email: dowling@apple.com

Media Helpline: 408-974-2042

Apple investor relations: investor_relations@apple.com


iTunes
http://www.apple.com/...
Simon Pope, Public Relations: 408-974-0457
Email: simonp@apple.com


Pixar
Main phone 510-752-3000
Fax: 510 752-3151

Steve Jobs
Email: steve@pixar.com

Public Relations
Email: publicity@pixar.com

Pixar Animation Studios Press Contacts:
Steven Argula 510-752-3947
Email: SArgula@Pixar.com

Angie Bliss 510-752-4123
Email: bliss@pixar.com

Investor Relations:
Phone: 510-752-3720
Fax: 510-752-3442
Email: ir@pixar.com


The Walt Disney Company
Phone: 818-560-1000
Fax: 818-560-1930
500 S. Buena Vista St. Burbank, CA 91521-0931
http://disney.go.com/

Robert A. Iger, President and CEO

Zenia Mucha, Senior Vice President, Corporate Communications
Asst. Anne Wolanski & Elisa Chacon
Phone: 818-560-5300 CA, 212-456-7255 NY
Fax: 818-846-7319 CA, 212-456-1424 NY


Disney Board of Directors
George Mitchell, Chairman (contact info at DLA Piper)
Phone: 212-335-4600
Fax: 212-335-4605
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 29th Floor, New York, NY 10020-1104
Email: george.mitchell@dlapiper.com

John E. Bryson
John S. Chen
Judith L. Estrin
Fred H. Langhammer
Robert Iger (President, CEO)
Steve Jobs (see Pixar and Apple)
Fred Langhammer
Aylwin Lewis Monica C. Lozano
Robert W. Matschullat
Leo J. O’Donovan, S.J.
John E. Pepper, Jr
Orin C. Smith


TOP DISNEY INSTITUTIONAL SHAREHOLDERS

FMR Corp. (Fidelity Management & Research Corp)
Phone: 800-343-3548, 617-563-7000
Fax: 617-476-6150
82 Devonshire St., Boston, MA 02109
http://www.fidelity.com
Edward C. Johnson III, Chairman and CEO

State Street Corporation
Phone: 617-786-3000
225 Franklin St., Boston, MA
http://www.statestreet.com/
Ronald E. Logue,Chairman and CEO
Investor Relations - S. Kelley MacDonald, Senior Vice President
Email: ir@statestreet.com

Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd
Phone: (+44) (0)20 7116 1000
1 Churchill Place, London E14 5HP
http://www.barclays.com
John S. Varley, Group Chief Executive and Executive Director
Investor Relations Email: irsec@barclays.com
Press contact info: (+44) (0)20 7116 4755

Wellington Management Company, LLP
Phone: 617-951-5000
Fax: 617-951-5250
75 State St., Boston, MA 02109
http://www.wellington.com
Perry Traquina, CEO

Legg Mason Inc
Phone: 410-539-0000, 877-534-4627
Fax: (410) 454-4923
100 Light St., Baltimore, MD 21202
http://www.leggmason.com
Raymond A. Mason, Chairman & CEO
Corporate Communications: 410-454-2616
Email: webinquiries@leggmason.com
Web form for PR: http://www.leggmason.com/...

Vanguard Group, Inc.
Phone: 610-648-6000, 877-662-7447
Fax: 610-669-6605
100 Vanguard Blvd., Malvern, PA 19355
John J. Brennan, Chairman and CEO

Southeastern Asset Management, Inc
AKA Longleaf Partners Funds
Phone: 800-445-9469
6410 Poplar Ave., Suite 900, Memphis, TN 38119
http://www.longleafpartners.com/...
O. Mason Hawkins, Chairman/CEO

Morgan Stanley
Phone: 212-761-4000
Fax: 212-762-0575
1585 Broadway, New York, NY 10036
http://www.morganstanley.com
John J. Mack, Chairman and CEO
Media Inquiries: mediainquiries@morganstanley.com
General Info: genlfeedback@morganstanley.com
Institutional Services: instfeed@ms.com

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Phone: 309-766-2311
Fax: 309-766-3621
1 State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, IL 61710-0001
http://www.statefarm.com
Edward B. Rust Jr., Chairman and CEO
Media: home.pa-newsroom.168d00@statefarm.com

Capital Research and Management Company
Phone: 213-486-9200
Fax: 213-486-9217
333 South Hope St., Los Angeles, CA 90071
http://www.capgroup.com/
Larry P. Clemmensen, President
Media Relations: mediarelations@capgroup.com
Chuck Freadhoff, 213-486-9988
Kelly Malarky, 212-641-1721


TOP MUTUAL FUND HOLDERS


Longleaf Partners Fund
[see Southeastern Asset Management above]

Vanguard 500 Index Fund
[see Vanguard Group above]

College Retirement Equities Fund-stock Account
Administered by TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC
Phone: 212-490-9000
Fax: 212-916-4840
730 Third Ave., New York, NY 10017
http://www.tiaa-cref.org/
Herbert M. Allison, Chairman, President, and CEO
[NOTE: This company prides itself on being socially responsible]

American Balanced Fund
http://www.americanfunds.com/
[see Capital Research and Management above]

Fidelity Magellan Fund Inc.
[see FMR Corp. above]

Van Kampen Comstock Fund
Administered by Van Kampen Funds
Phone: 713-993-0500, 800-421-5666, 800-847-2424
221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020
Michael Kiley, Managing Director, President and CEO
http://www.vankampen.com/

Hartford Capital Appreciation Hls Fund, Inc.
Phone: 877-836-5854
Fax: 860-843-5775
200 Hopmeadow Street, C1W, Simsbury, CT 06089
Email: investmentonly@hartfordlife.com
http://ilf.hartfordlife.com/...

Vanguard Institutional Index Fund-institutional Index Fd
[see Vanguard Group above]

Fidelity Capital Appreciation Fund
[see FMR Corp. above]

Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund
[see Vanguard Group above]


MAJOR DIRECT HOLDERS


Michael D. Eisner
Robert Iger
Thomas O. Staggs
Peter E. Murphy
George Mitchel

And out there in Blogtopia (™ Skippy) and elsewhere:

• John reprints a letter from the Executive Director of the DNC slamming Disney/ABC for this slanderous miniseries
  
• Howie Kurtz, of all people, outlines much of the so-called "facts" that the makers of this miniseries pulled out of their asses, and again, John weighs in.
  
• E&P on more made-up shit.
  
• Wingnut Hugh Hewitt reprints an e-mail in which a Disney executive admits that the purpose of the miniseries is to focus on "Clinton Administration failures."
  
• Digby decides it's time to go all out and pull out the book on Disney's founder, Walt Disney's participation in the McCarthyite witchhunt of the 1950's.
  
• Pam notes that the seven minutes of Bush sitting like a cigar store Indian reading My Pet Goat have been wiped from the record in this miniseries as well.
  
• John Amato at Crooks and Liars has video of Richard Ben-Veniste on Countdown last night, notes how Tom Kean Sr. (are you listening, NJ voters?) approved the falsehoods in the script.
  

That ought to get you started.

For the last four years, we've been told that it's inappropriate to question the president at a time of war, even though this president STARTED that war. For the last four years, we've been expected to take this Administration's lies at face value. For the last SIX years, we've watched this Administration blame everyone else for its own failings -- liberals, Democrats, the media, and of course, the right's favorite whipping boy, Bill Clinton.

If you look at the FACTS, you see in Bill Clinton a man trying mightily to address as ever-growing threat while Congressional Republicans and the Washington press hacks were obsessed with removing from office a man who wasn't part of their club, impeaching him for "lying" about sex -- a lie that wasn't one, because "sex" in the Paula Jones case had already been defined as "intercourse."

Here is what the president they claim was busy getting blown while Osama Bin Laden was gathering strength was actually doing:

CNN, July 30, 1996:

President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.

Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

Washington Post, October 3, 2001:

The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

Does anyone actually believe that Congressional Republicans would have given Bill Clinton the cover he would have needed to bring Bin Laden to the U.S. at that time?

How about the millennium plot to blow up the L.A. airport?

Ahmed Ressam, 23, had illegally immigrated to Canada in 1994. Using a falsified passport and a bogus story about persecution in Algeria, Ressam entered Montreal and claimed political asylum. For the next few years he supported himself with petty crime. Recruited by an alumnus of Abu Zubaydah’s Khaldan camp, Ressam trained in Afghanistan in 1998, learning, among other things, how to place cyanide near the air intake of a building to achieve maximum lethality at minimum personal risk. Having joined other Algerians in planning a possible attack on a U.S. airport or consulate, Ressam left Afghanistan in early 1999 carrying precursor chemicals for explosives disguised in toiletry bottles, a notebook containing bomb assembly instructions, and $12,000. Back in Canada, he went about procuring weapons, chemicals, and false papers.

In early summer 1999, having learned that not all of his colleagues could get the travel documents to enter Canada, Ressam decided to carry out the plan alone. By the end of the summer he had chosen three Los Angeles–area airports as potential targets, ultimately fixing on Los Angeles International (LAX) as the largest and easiest to operate in surreptitiously. He bought or stole chemicals and equipment for his bomb, obtaining advice from three Algerian friends, all of whom were wanted by authorities in France for their roles in past terrorist attacks there. Ressam also acquired new confederates. He promised to help a New York–based partner, Abdelghani Meskini, get training in Afghanistan if Meskini would help him maneuver in the United States. In December 1999, Ressam began his final preparations. He called an Afghanistan-based facilitator to inquire into whether Bin Ladin wanted to take credit for the attack, but he did not get a reply. He spent a week in Vancouver preparing the explosive components with a close friend.

On December 14, 1999, Ressam drove his rental car onto the ferry from Victoria, Canada, to Port Angeles,Washington. Ressam planned to drive to Seattle and meet Meskini, with whom he would travel to Los Angeles and case LAX. They planned to detonate the bomb on or around January 1, 2000. At the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) preinspection station in Victoria, Ressam presented officials with his genuine but fraudulently obtained Canadian passport, from which he had torn the Afghanistan entry and exit stamps.The INS agent on duty ran the passport through a variety of databases but, since it was not in Ressam’s name, he did not pick up the pending Canadian arrest warrants. After a cursory examination of Ressam’s car, the INS agents allowed Ressam to board the ferry. Late in the afternoon of December 14, Ressam arrived in Port Angeles. He waited for all the other cars to depart the ferry, assuming (incorrectly) that the last car off would draw less scrutiny. Customs officers assigned to the port, noticing Ressam’s nervousness, referred him to secondary inspection. When asked for additional identification, Ressam handed the Customs agent a Price Costco membership card in the same false name as his passport. As that agent began an initial pat-down, Ressam panicked and tried to run away.

Inspectors examining Ressam’s rental car found the explosives concealed in the spare tire well, but at first they assumed the white powder and viscous liquid were drug-related—until an inspector pried apart and identified one of the four timing devices concealed within black boxes. Ressam was placed under arrest.

Fox News reports on Ressam's 2005 sentencing:

SEATTLE — The man convicted of plotting to blow up the Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium was sentenced Wednesday to 22 years in prison.

Ahmed Ressam's (search) sentence reflected his cooperation in telling international investigators about the workings of terror camps in Afghanistan (search).

But Ressam, 38, could have received a shorter sentence had he not stopped talking to investigators in early 2003. Prosecutors argued that his recalcitrance has jeopardized cases against two of his co-conspirators.

In sentencing Ressam, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour (search) said he hoped to balance U.S. resolve to punish potential terrorist acts with Ressam's cooperation. Coughenour also said he hoped to send a message that the U.S. court system works in terrorism cases.

"We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, detain the defendant indefinitely or deny the defendant the right to counsel. ... Our courts have not abandoned the commitment to the ideals that set this nation apart," he said.

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred thirty-eight days after Bill Clinton took office. I didn't hear him blaming George Herbert Walker Bush, did you? You know where the bombers are now? In prison. For the rest of their lives. Without military tribunals, wiretaps of ordinary Americans, surveillance of library reading, or monitoring of Google searches.

Perhaps Disney's executives should take a look at Bill Clinton's Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

Remember the 1998 Sudan bombing? The one that wingnuts now deride as "bombing an aspirin factory" to distract from the Lewinsky scandal? They sang a different tune then:

President Clinton won warm support for ordering anti-terrorist bombing attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday from many of the same lawmakers who have criticized him harshly as a leader critically weakened by poor judgment and reckless behavior in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal.

A few senators, however, noted that the timing of the attack raised the question of whether Clinton had ordered it to deflect attention from his personal affairs. Others suggested the scandal may be preventing the president from paying attention to critical international problems.

But most lawmakers from both parties were quick to rally behind Clinton in a deluge of public statements and appearances yesterday, a marked contrast to the relatively sparse and chilly reception that greeted his Monday statement on the Lewinsky matter.

"I think the president did exactly the right thing," House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said of the bombing attacks. "By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists."

Gingrich said he was told "very precise details" of the attack before it occurred, and praised Clinton's aides for being "sensitive to making sure we were not blindsided in this." Other congressional leaders, several of whom were on vacation or difficult to locate, said the White House had made an effort to notify them before the attacks.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called the attacks "appropriate and just," and House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said "the American people stand united in the face of terrorism."

Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) praised Clinton for doing "the right thing at the right time to protect vital U.S. interests against terrorist attacks," and House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said the United States "should respond forcefully when U.S. lives are at stake."

It was clear from several lawmakers' statements that support for Clinton was not just a knee-jerk reaction, but also a response made easier because of former GOP senator and current Defense Secretary William S. Cohen. "I have enough confidence in [Cohen] to believe that he would not be involved in anything orchestrated for domestic political purposes," Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) said.

Gingrich dismissed any possibility that Clinton may have ordered the attacks to divert attention from the scandal. Instead, he said, there was an urgent need for a reprisal following the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

"Anyone who watched the film of the bombings, anyone who saw the coffins come home knows better than to question this timing," Gingrich said. "It was done as early as possible to send a message to terrorists across the globe that killing Americans has a cost. It has no relationship with any other activity of any kind."

To underscore this view, Rich Galen, one of Gingrich's top advisers, sent an e-mail to conservative radio talk show hosts entitled "Wag the Dog," after a recent movie of the same name in which White House spin doctors concoct an international crisis to draw attention away from a president's sexual indiscretions.

"Speaker Newt Gingrich has made it clear to me" that the attacks were necessary and appropriate, Galen said. "This is a time to put our nation's interests ahead of our political concerns. I am asking you to help your listeners, your friends, and your associates to look at this situation with the sober eyes it deserves."

Gingrich made the same point himself during a conference call with House Republicans late yesterday, telling colleagues that while none of them has to mute criticism about the Lewinsky matter, "on this topic I think it's very useful and I think it sends a powerful signal to the world" that the GOP stand with Clinton.

But Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one of Clinton's severest critics earlier in the week, said, "There's an obvious issue that will be raised internationally as to whether there is any diversionary motivation." Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.), a possible presidential candidate in 2000, noted "there is a cloud over this presidency."

And Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who called on Clinton to resign after his speech Monday, said: "The president has been consumed with matters regarding his personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be given to this issue to call for military action."

Told of these criticisms, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, branded them "preposterous," and noted that Osama bin Laden, suspected of bankrolling the installations that were bombed, "is one bad mother."

"Even if that [a diversion] were an element, what in the hell does it do to us around the world for leading American officials to even suggest that?" Biden asked. "It is not very sound judgment to speak in terms of motivation other than national security at this moment."

Here's more on Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts. I found these in a 30-second Google search.

Meanwhile, Sam Seder reminded us last night of what a bang-up job George W. Bush has done in apprehending Bin Laden. Here it is, in Captain Codpiece's own words:



Given the Bush Administration's dismal record even AFTER the devastating 9/11 attacks, it's understandable that his toadies would want to rewrite history. However, it's beyond reprehensible for a major television network to attempt to influence an election by rewriting history, and it's doubly reprehensible for said network to distribute it to public schools as educational material.

George W. Bush, March 13, 2002:

And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

George W. Bush, yesterday:

Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?

So at which time was he full of shit? Then or now?

Keith Olbermann does it again.

Transcript:

It is to our deep national shame—and ultimately it will be to the President’s deep personal regret—that he has followed his Secretary of Defense down the path of trying to tie those loyal Americans who disagree with his policies—or even question their effectiveness or execution—to the Nazis of the past, and the al Qaeda of the present.

Today, in the same subtle terms in which Mr. Bush and his colleagues muddied the clear line separating Iraq and 9/11 -- without ever actually saying so—the President quoted a purported Osama Bin Laden letter that spoke of launching, “a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government.”

Make no mistake here—the intent of that is to get us to confuse the psychotic scheming of an international terrorist, with that familiar bogeyman of the right, the “media.”

The President and the Vice President and others have often attacked freedom of speech, and freedom of dissent, and freedom of the press.

Now, Mr. Bush has signaled that his unparalleled and unprincipled attack on reporting has a new and venomous side angle:

The attempt to link, by the simple expediency of one word—“media”—the honest, patriotic, and indeed vital questions and questioning from American reporters, with the evil of Al-Qaeda propaganda.

That linkage is more than just indefensible. It is un-American.

Mr. Bush and his colleagues have led us before to such waters.

We will not drink again.

And the President’s re-writing and sanitizing of history, so it fits the expediencies of domestic politics, is just as false, and just as scurrilous.

“In the 1920’s a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews,” President Bush said today, “the world ignored Hitler’s words, and paid a terrible price.”

Whatever the true nature of al Qaeda and other international terrorist threats, to ceaselessly compare them to the Nazi State of Germany serves only to embolden them.

More over, Mr. Bush, you are accomplishing in part what Osama Bin Laden and others seek—a fearful American populace, easily manipulated, and willing to throw away any measure of restraint, any loyalty to our own ideals and freedoms, for the comforting illusion of safety.

It thus becomes necessary to remind the President that his administration’s recent Nazi “kick” is an awful and cynical thing.

And it becomes necessary to reach back into our history, for yet another quote, from yet another time and to ask it of Mr. Bush:

“Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

The answer to that question is, as it always has been, "No." This president HAS no sense of decency.

For the last few days, I've been thinking that I really have to blog on the upcoming "docudrama" by a conservative activist, allegedly based on the 9/11 Commission Report, to be broadcast on ABC television, that places the blame for the attacks solely on the shoulders of Bill Clinton. But every time I sit down to do it, I get so angry that I go into a kind of paralysis and I just sit here spluttering helplessly.

So I'm going to cop out on this one, and let the King of all Media Activism, John Aravosis, do the heavy lifting here, here, here, and here.

And Jennifer Nix tells of trying to be recognized as a member of the press even though she isn't a right-wing blogger here and here.

And Digby reminds us to "consider the source(es)."

It's ironic that ABC, the network owned by a company that has been the target of boycotts by Christofascist zombies disturbed over their gay policies, and which pulled the plug on the Mel Gibson-helmed Holocaust film, is not just broadcasting, but promoting, wingnut propaganda about 9/11 in an attempt to rescue George W. Bush's failed presidency and disastrous Iraq war. Why would ABC pull the plug on Mel Gibson and let this project go ahead? Perhaps it has more to do with what Sam Seder revealed last night, which is a Wall Street Journal Washington Wire blog entry from June 1, 2006:

Lobbyists for Walt Disney Co. seek to avoid fallout from a controversial story by its ABC News unit stating that House Speaker Hastert is under Justice Department investigation.

Disney and other movie studios are seeking Republican support for repealing a provision in last month’s tax bill that costs the industry $181 million over a decade. The provision narrowed the benefits of a manufacturing tax break to companies with wage earners; since movie stars work as independent contractors, Hollywood would lose much of the benefit.

Industry lobbyists were once confident that they could repeal the provision as part of a follow up tax bill planned for June. But ABC’s Hastert story has made the parent company’s lobbying task more difficult

This isn't the first time that a drama based on the events of 9/11 sought to burnish the image of a man who, when presented with the now-infamous August 6 PDB, snapped at the CIA analysts who brought it to him, "All right, you’ve covered your ass." This isn't the first time that a drama based on the events on 9/11 sought to burnish the image of a man who sat in a classroom for seven minutes after the second plane hit the World Trade Center and then spent the day flying around the country. Instead, the Showtime docudrama DC 9/11: Time of Crisis portrayed instead a president who had a "Come and get me, coppers!" moment.

If the morons who still believe and trust this president feel a deep-seated need to believe in and trust and love the daddy figure who beats them and then tells them it's for their own good want to watch this swill because it helps repair the cracks that appear in their worldview when reality intrudes, it's their business. And I'm wondering if all the attention we are paying to this piece of swill is just doing ABC's bidding, providing it with free publicity. The problem is that Americans have become so incurious that many can no longer tell the difference between fiction and reality. When 65% of Republican and even almost a third of Democrats still believe that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, something is very, very wrong with the way Americans are processing information.

But amidst all the hoopla surrounding the fifth anniversary of the attacks, with televised repeats of every program that dealt even tangentially with the attacks running in a seemingly endless loop, one has to wonder what it must be like to have lost your husband, or your brother, or your father, or your son on that day and have to sit by while your president's supporters use the corpse of your loved one as a political tool.

Jill McGovern of Wyckoff, NJ, a mother of two daughters who lost her husband in the World Trade Center, doesn't have to wonder, because she's living it:

Jill wants people to remember Sept. 11. She appreciates the memorial services and candlelight vigils and cannot thank people enough for the generosity they have shown toward her family.

But she also hates the heightened coverage of the attacks this time of year. She dreads turning on her television. She has no need to relive Scott's death through the umpteenth replay of the plane slamming into his building or the tower collapsing in a horrendous implosion of dust and debris.

"When it starts to be those days leading up to the [anniversary], I feel like it's happening all over again," Jill said. "I feel like Scott's going to die all over again, and I can't stop it."

Nor does Jill want to see commercials for Hollywood and made-for-television movies related to Sept. 11.

"It's absolutely capitalizing on the event and the anniversary," she said. "I don't think it's respectful to the families."

No, it isn't. But after all, what are the feelings of a young widow from Jersey and her daughters, who were four and two years old when their father died in the attacks, compared to the need to put lipstick on this pig of a president?

How long do you think Republicans would be supporting a war started by Bill Clinton if this happened:

Pakistan signs peace deal with pro-Taliban militants
Agence France-Presse, The Associated Press

Published: September 5, 2006

MIRAN SHAH, Pakistan The Pakistani government and pro-Taliban militants announced that they signed a peace accord Tuesday aimed at ending five years of violent unrest in a tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

The agreement came as a NATO-led offensive in southern Afghanistan continued for a fourth day, with U.S. artillery and airstrikes killing 50 to 60 suspected Taliban militants Tuesday, a NATO spokesman said.

Under the peace deal, the militants are to halt attacks on Pakistani forces in the semiautonomous North Waziristan region and stop crossing into nearby eastern Afghanistan to attack U.S. and Afghan forces hunting Qaeda and Taliban forces. It came as Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf, was set to visit Kabul on Wednesday in a move aimed at improving strained relations between the United States' two key allies in the fight against terrorism.

The accord calls for Pakistani troops to stop their hugely unpopular military campaign in the restive Pakistani region, in which more than 350 soldiers have died, along with hundreds of militants and scores of civilians.

But the agreement, which one official said offered an "implicit amnesty" to foreign and local militants, highlights the Pakistani military's inability to crush a violent pro-Taliban insurgency on its own soil.

Pakistani forces had no alternative but to reconcile with the militants, whose knowledge of the terrain and determination to protect their region would have forced the conflict to continue, said Rusul Basksh Rais, a Pakistani political analyst.

"The military was not in a position to defeat the tribes," Rais said. "But Pakistan can't afford to - and I believe won't - let this area become a sanctuary for the terrorists."

Meanwhile, just how much control does Pervez Musharraf have over his own military?

Yesterday, a Pakistani military spokesman, Major General Shaukat Sultan, had this exchange with ABC News:

Q. ABC News: If bin Laden or Zawahiri were there, they could stay?

A. Gen. Sultan: No one of that kind can stay. If someone is there he will have to surrender, he will have to live like a good citizen, his whereabouts, exit travel would be known to the authorities.

Q. ABC News: So, he wouldn't be taken into custody? He would stay there?

A. Gen. Sultan: No, as long as one is staying like a peaceful citizen, one would not be taken into custody. One has to stay like a peaceful citizen and not allowed to participate in any kind of terrorist activity.

Obviously Musharraf got a phone call from his good friend George W. Bush, perhaps threatening to expose the dirty pictures, because today the Pakistan government vehemently denies that it would allow Bin Laden to avoid capture:

"If he is in Pakistan, today or any time later, he will be taken into custody and brought to justice," the Pakistani ambassador to the United States, Mahmud Ali Durrani, said in a statement.

The ambassador said a Pakistani military spokesman, Major General Shaukat Sultan, had been "grossly misquoted" when he told ABC News Tuesday that bin Laden would not be taken into custody "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen."

"Grossly misquoted." The ambassador has studied his Tony Snow well.

There is no link to the op-ed I've reprinted below. For some reason, the Bergen Record decided not to make this op-ed available online. But it's worth my time to type, and worth your time to read. This is one family's grief; one military family's experience. There are over 2600 others.

In the four months since the death of my son, Sgt. Matthew J. Fenton, from injuries suffered in Iraq, I h ave stated many times the horror of what I saw in the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda Md.

I believe that the time has arrived to tell the whole story of his death and the carnage that was inflicted on some of his fellow Marines. I do not find this easy to do, but as the Death toll and injured number continues to climb, I cannot sit silently.

On April 26, Matthew, 24, was the gunner on a Humvee protecting a Marine convoy on the outskirts of Fallujah. A suicide car bomber attempted to ram his Humvee, and he got off a few shots at the vehicle. From what I have been told it is common practice for these bombers to detonate their bomb if they come under fire. Matthew was the only Marine injured in the attack. Later that same day I received a phone call telling me that Matt was seriously wounded and that it was a head injury.

The next day we were informed that Matt had been flown to Germany. Matt's mother, Diane, and I prepared to go to Germany. But in the middle of trying to get a flight, we received another call saying that he had stabilized and they were going to fly him to the United States. We were all lifted by this seemingly good news.

Diane and I flew to Washington the next day and were met by a uniformed Marine and driven to Bethesda. What awaited us there is still shocking to me now. We met with two doctors who laid everything out for us. Matthew's injury was a devastating one. Shrapnel had entered his head just above his left eye and traveled diagonally through his brain and exited the right rear.

'A nightmare'

Surgeons in Baghdad had removed two plates from his skull to help relieve the pressure from the swelling of his brain. The frontal lobe was destroyed, so they had removed it. It was explained that the frontal lobe is the center of personality and the place where someone is aware of themselves. The Matthew that we knew and loved was gone, and would never come back.

As we struggled with that staggering news there was more to come. The shrapnel had done severe damage to both sides of Matt's brain because of the angle that it traveled through. The brain can figure a way to control functions when one side is damaged, like in a stroke. But this was devastating news. The doctors told us that if this had happened in Vietnam, there would have been no surgery. If this happened in front of the best hospital in New York City, there would have been no surgery. His chances of ever having meaningful movement were less than slim.

Why, we asked, was the surgery done in Baghdad? The answer, surgeons do whatever they can to keep a soldier alive. They do not decide life or death.

We were then led down a long hospital corridor toward my son's room. This is the moment that I will never forget until the day I die. Just outside his room we were instructed that we had to don gowns, masks, and gloves every time we entered the room. This was to prevent us from picking up bacteria that Matt may have brought back from Iraq and spreading it to other patients in the ward.

My shock was doubled upon seeing Matthew. He was unrecognizable. His head was completely swollen, like some cartoon character. There were maybe hundreds of metal staples in his head. There were of course tubes coming and going everywhere. There were drains running from the site of the surgery. And there was the ventilator. I immediatelly snapped at the doctors. Somewhere along the line I had been informed that Matt was breathing on his own. Nine years ago I watched my father die after having cancer surgery. He never got off the vendilator and I flashed back to that time.

Matthew was able to breathe on his own, the doctors explained. The ventilator was only assisting. His heart and lungs were perfect. There had been no damage to his brain stem, which controls involuntary actions like breathing and the heart beating. So there we were looking at our son, not recognizing him, not a scratch on him below his eyes. But his face and head mangled and inflated. This must be a nightmare, one that we will never wake up from.

What war leaves behind

For days we made that walk down that long hallway. It took some time but I was finally able to look at some of the other Marines on the ward with Matthew. I wish to this moment that I hadn't. Kids with horrible injuries.

One had bene in the ward for 11 months, after seven different brain surgeries. His wife refused to let him go. She was praying for a miracle. He had parts of his skull removed also, but all the swelling was gone now and his head had sunken in where they had been removed. He did not move at all.

Across the ward another Marine was in his third month, and his head was all sunken in. This is what lay ahead for Matthew also. Also across the ward was another Marine who was there only a few days before Matt. He was lucky, damage to only one side of his brain. I became friendly with his father, Jim, from Tennessee. One day there was an uproar from his son's room and I looked over and made eye contact with Jim. Maybe an hour later we met in the hallway and he apologized to me. His son had opened his eyes for the first time and his family just responded. There was no need for an apology as I would have jumped for joy if Matthew were to open his eyes.

All that was left was to decide when the life support would be removed. That final decision rested in the hands of his mother. There was no disagreement on what course to follow, just when.

On May 3, the Marine Corps commandant presented Matthew with his Purple Heart. On May 4, I noticed that the swelling of Matthew's head was going down. By the end of the day, the indentations where pieces of his skull were missing were becoming noticeable. The next morning I was dreading what he might be looking like. And yes, there was his head becoming very odd shaped.

Letting go

I prayed that Diane would find the strength to let her son go today. I did not want to see him decline another day. . Another day of watching his head sink into his skull. And neither did she.

Sometime around noon on May 5, Matthew was moved from the ward to a private room. Behind some curtains they removed the ventilator and most of the tubes. He was kept on the morphine, and we were assured he would not feel any pain. Now he was breathing all on his own. Diane got into the hospital bed with her son, and I held his hand and we all waited and watched for Matthew to pass.

But he would not go easily. After three hours of labored breathing, I asked the nurse if there was anything that she could do. No. I asked God to take him now. No. His mother told him to go. I asked him to go. Go to some peace. A half-hour later, he finally took his last breath.

This is the real story of the war in Iraq. We all know the numbers, and we all know the reasons that are claimed that we have to be there. But this is the reality: young brave, patriotic men losing their lives for a cause that keeps shifting.

Every politician who supports the war should go to Bethesda or Walter Reed and see what their support is costing in human life and suffering. And to everyone who opposes the war, don't sit back any longer. Someday you may be touched personally by some tragedy from this disastrous war, and it will be too late, like it is for me.

-- Matthew Fenton, Little Ferry, NJ

THIS is why we oppose a war based on lies.

THIS is why we oppose a war without strategy.

THIS is why we oppose an occupation with no plan for when we can leave.

THIS is why we cannot let George W. Bush send any more young Americans to die so he can save face and once AGAIN not have to account for his crimes.

THIS is why we cannot allow George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld call us "appeasers".

THIS is why we cannot "stay the course."

THIS is why every fucking Senator and Congressperson up for election this year who supported this war and who continues to support this war (Mrs. Clinton, I'm talking to you too) must be removed from office in November.

THIS is why we cannot allow the evil men who run this country to frighten us any longer.

Over 2600 families have had to endure what the Fenton family of Little Ferry has endured. Does anyone believe that if 26,000 or 260,000 American families had this story to tell, we would still be in Iraq?

No one who supports this war has been asked to sacrifice. Jonah Goldberg and the other 101st Fighting Keyboarders sit snugly in their nice, warm homes, while young men like Matthew Fenton have their brains blown out -- and they say that what they're doing for the war effort is just as important.

We have an election coming in two months. Between now and then, we are going to hear this president and his henchmen continue to use the rhetoric that has been so successful for them up to this point -- the rhetoric of fear. They will tell us that the boogeyman is coming to get us, assuming that we will not think about the five years during which they have done nothing but make the world a more dangerous place. They will tell you only they can keep you safe, at the same time as you are more vulnerable than ever before as a result of their bungling. And they will continue to feed American kids into a meatgrinder to satisfy their bloodlust. And they will continue to swiftboat men like Jack Murtha, who today threw down the gauntlet and said that "If we are to fight this war with the same sense of dedication and vigor as we did prior wars, we cannot do it without a surge in force" -- a military draft.

Matthew Fenton's father hasn't been on TV. He will never be invited to appear on "Hannity and Colmes." He will never be invited to the White House for a face-to-face with a president who cares so deeply about the sanctity of stem cells and yet feels nothing for the young men and women he is sending to die -- kids lying unseeing and unknowing in hospital beds with their heads caving in around their shattered skulls.

Those in Washington who voted for this war and now regret it have a lifetime of penance in front of them. Those who voted for this war and persist in supporting it deserve their own place in the hell these military families will live in for the rest of their lives -- because a lifelong fuckup of a man stole an election in 2000, ignored threats against this country, and then cynically used the attack that took place ON HIS WATCH to settle a grudge.

Here's the reality of the "Bush economic boom". The numbers represent difference in median income during the Bush years.



(via Kevin Drum)

We know that Republicans have benefitted mightily from vote count shenanigans for the last three elections. After the 2000 Florida debacle, one would think that Democratic leaders would wake up and realize that the voting apparatus has serious problems. Yet not one Democratic leader, other than Rep. Rush Holt of NJ, has even attempted to address the problem on a national level. The Help America Vote Act has served merely to enhance the penetration of easily-rigged DRE voting machines throughout the country. Yes, they may make it easier for the physically-challenged to vote, but if that vote isn't counted the way they cast it, what good does it do?

Even Howard Dean, who actually with his own hands participated in a demonstration of how easily rigged these machines are, has been strangely silent on the issue.

Do the Democrats, who have been repeatedly victimized by voting shenanigans, not understand the gravity of the problem, or is Mr. Brilliant right -- and they and the Republicans are really on the same team?

We are about to have a vitally important election in this country, one which will determine whether this Administration is going to be at the very least held in check, and hopefully held accountable for the way it has systematically ruined this country over the last six years. And we are no closer to having a fair election than we were in 2000. In fact, the entire nation is likely to experience this November the kind of results experienced in Georgia's 2002 beta test of Diebold DRE voting machines -- when Sen. Max Cleland and Gov. Roy Barnes went into the election with comfortable leads and each ended up losing by six points. In fact, the 2002 election results were SO far out of whack that the organization conducting exit polls, Voter News Service, was disbanded. Instead of questioning how an entire nation's election could have been rigged, the networks which collaborated on VNS, decided it was the exit poll apparatus, which had always been a reliable barometer of the eventual result, which was at fault.

When the voting apparatus is controlled by corporations led by vocal and documented supporters of one party over another, it is not possible to have any confidence in the voting machines they install in your precinct. Stuart Rothenberg and Charles Cook can talk all they want to about a Democratic takeover of the house based on current polling, but mark my words, and you heard it here first:

You are going to wake up the morning after the 2006 midterm election and find Republicans still controlling both the House AND the Senate. And again, we'll be scratching our heads and wondering why. The Republican corporatist news media, owned by GE and Disney and Viacom and Time-Warner, will once again talk about a last-minute surge of values voters, or they'll point to whatever October Surprise the Administration cooks up, or they'll say that Americans decided at the last minute that they didn't want the deaths in the Iraq war to be "meaningless". But the real reason is going to be voting machines rigged to produce a continued Republican majority. Not "hacked", but "rigged."

It's high time to stop talking about DRE voting machines as being "vulnerable to hacking." Hacking sounds to most people like a bored fifteen-year-old with a Darth Vader poster on his wall who's finished updating his MySpace profile, finds no one around on Instant Messenger, and decides to hack a voting machine. What's happening to the voting apparatus in this country has nothing to do with bored fifteen-year-olds, or hacker-geek culture. It has to do with voting machines in which a simple flip of a switch allows them to be booted from an external device as innocuous-looking as a flash stick. That is not "hacking", that is "rigging." So let's call the problem what it is -- the systematic disenfranchisement of millions of Americans who think their vote counts.

The New York Times weighs in today:

It’s hard to believe that nearly six years after the disasters of Florida in 2000, states still haven’t mastered the art of counting votes accurately. Yet there are growing signs that the country is moving into another presidential election cycle in disarray.

The most troubling evidence comes from Ohio, a key swing state, whose electoral votes decided the 2004 presidential election. A recent government report details enormous flaws in the election system in Ohio’s biggest county, problems that may not be fixable before the 2008 election.

Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, hired a consulting firm to review its election system. The county recently adopted Diebold electronic voting machines that produce a voter-verified paper record of every vote cast. The investigators compared the vote totals recorded on the machines after this year’s primary with the paper records produced by the machines. The numbers should have been the same, but often there were large and unexplained discrepancies. The report also found that nearly 10 percent of the paper records were destroyed, blank, illegible, or otherwise compromised.

This is seriously bad news even if, as Diebold insists, the report overstates the problem. Under Ohio law, the voter-verified paper record, not the voting machine total, is the official ballot for purposes of a recount. The error rates the report identified are an invitation to a meltdown in a close election.

The report also found an array of other problems. The county does not have a standardized method for conducting a manual recount. That is an invitation, as Florida 2000 showed, to chaos and litigation. And there is a serious need for better training of poll workers, and for more uniform voter ID policies. Disturbingly, the report found that 31 percent of blacks were asked for ID, while just 18 percent of others were.

Some of these problems may be explored further in a federal lawsuit challenging Ohio’s administration of its 2004 election. Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who has been criticized for many decisions he made on election matters that year, recently agreed to help preserve the 2004 paper ballots for review in the lawsuit.

Ohio is not the only state that may be headed for trouble in 2008. New York’s Legislature was shamefully slow in passing the law needed to start adopting new voting machines statewide. Now localities are just starting to evaluate voting machine companies as they scramble to put machines in place in time for the 2007 election. (Because of a federal lawsuit, New York has to make the switch a year early.) Much can go wrong when new voting machines are used. There has to be extensive testing, and education of poll workers and voters. New York’s timetable needlessly risks an Election Day disaster.

Cuyahoga County deserves credit for commissioning an investigation that raised uncomfortable but important questions. Its report should be a wake-up call to states and counties nationwide. Every jurisdiction in the country that runs elections should question itself just as rigorously, and start fixing any problems without delay.

Six years after the 2000 election, the lack of action on the voting problem, combined with the attempt to address them by GREATER utilization of untrackable DRE voting machines, is the price we pay for willful ignorance of technology. People who are technically literate aren't "computer weirdos", as my neighbor calls us. Computers aren't magic. What you get out of a computer is dependent on what goes in. You don't have to be able to read programming language code to understand that "If vote = Candidate A and count = 20 then vote = Candidate B" means a vote is being switched. The language in which that logic is written is immaterial.

Illiteracy about the implications of computerization is about more than parents not understanding the implications of their kids' social networking pages and their use of instant messaging. And while we may laugh at Sen. Ted Stevens and his "series of tubes" rant, his ignorance, and that of the Senators who are about to hand over the internet to the telecommunications companies are going to affect how we use the internet in perpetuity. But perhaps most importantly, willful ignorance about technology has destroyed our democracy, turning us into a banana republic -- and Americans went along with it.

I guess there are only so many times you can tempt death before death gets pissed off:

Steve Irwin, the hugely popular Australian television personality and conservationist known as the "Crocodile Hunter," was killed Monday by a stingray while filming off the Great Barrier Reef. He was 44.

Irwin was at Batt Reef, off the remote coast of northeastern Queensland state, shooting a segment for a series called "Ocean's Deadliest" when he swam too close to one of the animals, which have a poisonous bard on their tails, his friend and colleague John Stainton said.

"He came on top of the stingray and the stingray's barb went up and into his chest and put a hole into his heart," said Stainton, who was on board Irwin's boat at the time.

Crew members aboard the boat, Croc One, called emergency services in the nearest city, Cairns, and administered CPR as they rushed the boat to nearby Low Isle to meet a rescue helicopter. Medical staff pronounced Irwin dead when they arrived a short time later, Stainton said.

Irwin was famous for his enthusiasm for wildlife and his catchword "Crikey!" in his television program "Crocodile Hunter." First broadcast in Australia in 1992, the program was picked up by the Discovery network, catapulting Irwin to international celebrity.

He rode his image into a feature film, 2002's "The Crocodile Hunters: Collision Course" and developed the wildlife park that his parents opened, Australia Zoo, into a major tourist attraction.

"The world has lost a great wildlife icon, a passionate conservationist and one of the proudest dads on the planet," Stainton told reporters in Cairns. "He died doing what he loved best and left this world in a happy and peaceful state of mind. He would have said, 'Crocs Rule!'"

Prime Minister John Howard, who hand-picked Irwin to attend a gala barbecue to honor President Bush when he visited in 2003, said he was "shocked and distressed at Steve Irwin's sudden, untimely and freakish death."

"It's a huge loss to Australia," Howard told reporters. "He was a wonderful character. He was a passionate environmentalist. He brought joy and entertainment and excitement to millions of people."

Irwin was one of those colorful characters who start out being fresh and entertaining and then, through exposure, devolve into self-parody. But think back to the first time you saw him, with his wrestlers build and his unfortunate facial resemblance to Kato Kaelin and his manic Ozzie speech. He was like a force of nature, though I always had the sense that no one does what he does without a bit of a death wish.

Those looking for proof of an ordered universe, instead of one where Shit Happens, would do well to take heed: Irwin wasn't even killed by a crocodile -- he was killed by a stingray -- something that very rarely occurs. There's some kind of message here, I'm just not sure what it is.

Cesar Millan, take note.

Hey, assholes, it's "Democratic Party", not "Democrat Party".

Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.

Democrat (adj., n.), Democratic (adj.)

The proper noun is the name of a member of a major American political party; the adjective Democratic is used in its official name, the Democratic party. Democrat as an adjective is still sometimes used by some twentieth-century Republicans as a campaign tool but was used with particular virulence by the late senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, a Republican who sought by repeatedly calling it the Democrat party to deny it any possible benefit of the suggestion that it might also be democratic. Other nations also have political parties with the words Democrat and Democratic in their names. The uncapitalized words democrat and democratic have to do with believers in and supporters of government based on majority rule, the principles of equal rights, and the representative procedures developed to permit these principles to operate. Capitalize only the proper noun and the adjective when it refers to the Democratic party.

Read more....

For the benefit of those who have forgotten.

God, they're so predictable.

Another "Al Qaeda #2" has been captured:

Iraqi and coalition forces have arrested the second most senior figure in al-Qaida in Iraq, Iraq’s national security adviser announced on Sunday, saying the group now suffered from a “serious leadership crisis.”

Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana, was captured north of Baghdad a few days ago “along with another group of his aides and followers,” Mouwafak al-Rubaie said.

He was the second most important al-Qaida in Iraq leader after Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who took over the group after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. air strike north of Baghdad on June 7, al-Rubaie said.

“We believe that al-Qaida in Iraq suffers from a serious leadership crisis. Our troops have dealt fatal and painful blows to this organization,” the security adviser said.

Al-Saeedi was “directly responsible” for Haitham Sabah Shaker Mohammed al-Badri, the alleged mastermind of the February bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, al-Rubaie added without elaborating.

How many #2s are there? I guess as many as it takes to get people to vote Republican. Isn't it funny how these things ONLY happen when the Bush Administration is on the ropes?

Hmmmm...what else? Ah, yes: cue the Al Qaeda video:

An American thought to be an al-Qaida activist appeared in a videotape with the terror group’s deputy leader Saturday and called on his countrymen to convert to Islam and for U.S. soldiers to switch sides in the Iraq and Afghan wars.

The 48-minute video, posted on an Islamic militant Web site, had footage of al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, and of Adam Yehiye Gadahn, a 28-year-old American who the FBI believes attended al-Qaida training camps in Pakistan and served as an al-Qaida translator.

This reminds me mostly of the Reagan years, when one Columbian after another was said by the media to be "responsible for 80% of the cocaine entering this country", while the country remained awash in cocaine during the Reaganaut Central American wars.

But still -- wouldn't it be nice if one could actually believe that progress was being made? I might be willing to give the Administration some credit if it weren't the same damn announcements being made only when they are in political trouble.

Fear fear fear war war war. That's all they've got. Hey, Americans: Are you going to dance to their fiddle this time?

Nothing has changed -- we're still coddling dictators -- if they have oil and haven't tried to kill Bush's daddy:

President Bush launched an initiative this month to combat international kleptocracy, the sort of high-level corruption by foreign officials that he called "a grave and corrosive abuse of power" that "threatens our national interest and violates our values." The plan, he said, would be "a critical component of our freedom agenda."

Three weeks later, the White House is making arrangements to host the leader of Kazakhstan, an autocrat who runs a nation that is anything but free and who has been accused by U.S. prosecutors of pocketing the bulk of $78 million in bribes from an American businessman. Not only will President Nursultan Nazarbayev visit the White House, people involved say, but he also will travel to the Bush family compound in Maine.

Nazarbayev's upcoming visit, according to analysts and officials, offers a case study in the competing priorities of the Bush administration at a time when the president has vowed to fight for democracy and against corruption around the globe. Nazarbayev has banned opposition parties, intimidated the press and profited from his post, according to the U.S. government. But he also sits atop massive oil reserves that have helped open doors in Washington.

Nazarbayev is hardly the only controversial figure received at the top levels of the Bush administration. In April, the president welcomed to the Oval Office the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, who has been accused of rigging elections. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hosted Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the president of Equatorial Guinea, who has been found to have millions of dollars stashed in overseas bank accounts.

But the Kazakh leader has received especially warm treatment, given that the same government that will host him next month plans to go to trial in federal court in January to prove that he was paid off in the 1990s by a U.S. banker seeking to influence oil rights. Although the banker faces prison time, Nazarbayev has not been charged and has called the allegations illegitimate.

In addition to Nazarbayev's upcoming visit, Vice President Cheney went to the former Soviet republic in May to praise him as a friend, a trip that drew criticism because it came the day after Cheney criticized Russia for retreating from democracy. The latest invitation has sparked outrage among Kazakh opposition.

"It raises the question of how serious is the determination to fight kleptocracy," said Rinat Akhmetshin, director of the International Eurasian Institute, who works for Kazakh opposition. "Nazarbayev is a symbol of kleptocracy . . . and yet they are bringing him in. That sends a very clear signal to people inside Kazakhstan who are very well aware that he stole money from them."

And they wonder why no one takes this talk of freedom and democracy seriously?

You know, for a country full of people who continue to decry the ever-shrinking pool of welfare recipients for wanting "something for nothing", this country has its share of people who still want that free lunch for themselves.

What on earth were these people thinking?

Gordon Burger is among the first wave of option ARM casualties. The 42-year-old police officer from a suburb of Sacramento, Calif., is stuck in a new mortgage that's making him poorer by the month. Burger, a solid earner with clean credit, has bought and sold several houses in the past. In February he got a flyer from a broker advertising an interest rate of 2.2%. It was an unbeatable opportunity, he thought. If he refinanced the mortgage on his $500,000 home into an option ARM, he could save $14,000 in interest payments over three years. Burger quickly pulled the trigger, switching out of his 5.1% fixed-rate loan. "The payment schedule looked like what we talked about, so I just started signing away," says Burger. He didn't read the fine print.

After two months Burger noticed that the minimum payment of $1,697 was actually adding $1,000 to his balance every month. "I'm not making any ground on this house; it's a loss every month," he says. He says he was told by his lender, Minneapolis-based Homecoming Financial, a unit of Residential Capital, the nation's fifth-largest mortgage shop, that he'd have to pay more than $10,000 in prepayment penalties to refinance out of the loan. If he's unhappy, he should take it up with his broker, the bank said. "They know they're selling crap, and they're doing it in a way that's very deceiving," he says. "Unfortunately, I got sucked into it."

There's no way to camouflage what Harold, a former computer technician who asked BusinessWeek not to publish his last name, is about to face. He's disabled and has one source of income: the $1,600 per month he receives in Social Security disability payments. In September, 2005, Harold refinanced out of a fixed-rate mortgage and into an option ARM for his $150,000 home in Chicago. The minimum monthly payment for the first year is $899, which he can afford. The interest-only payment is $1,329, which he can't. The fully amortized payment is $1,454, which his lender, Washington Mutual (WM ), gets to count on its books.

Jennifer and Eric Hinz of Somerset, Wis., are feeling the squeeze. They refinanced out of a 5.25% fixed-rate, 30-year loan in June, 2005, and into an option ARM with a 1% teaser rate from Indymac Bank. The $1,483 payment for their original mortgage dropped to as low as $747 with the new option ARM. They say they had no idea when they signed up, however, that the low payment adds $600 in deferred interest to their balance every month. Worse, they thought the 1% would last three years, but they're already paying 7.68%. "What reasonable human being would ever knowingly give up a 5.25% fixed-rate for what we're getting now?" says Eric, 36, who works in commercial construction. Refinancing is out because they can't afford the $15,000 or so in fees. "I'm paying more, and the interest is just going up and up and up," says Jennifer, 34, a stay-at-home mom. "I feel like we got totally screwed."

What kind of moron refinances out of a fixed-rate loan of around five percent to take a low teaser rate offered by some company that bought their name off a mailing list?

I get these all the time -- letters from Joe's Mortgage offering a 1.99% rate. "Reduce your mortgage payment!" they scream. With our third refinancing since buying our house in 1996, we lowered our rate from the 8.5% fixed rate 30-year mortgage we started out with to a 15-year fixed rate 4.75% mortgage in 2004.

Some might say it's easy for people like me, sitting in houses we bought at the bottom of the market, to talk. But we lived through the housing boom of the 1980's, living in rental apartments because prices were just too high for what we could afford and we weren't willing to be "house poor" and take that risk. So we waited till we had a down payment (though we still paid PMI till appreciation brought our equity up), and we kept an eye on mortgage rates, refinancing to other FIXED RATE instruments when it was appropriate.

Don't these people ever wonder why that 1.99% rate exists? Don't they realize it's to suck them in? Haven't they learned from credit card teaser rates what happens? You rack up a ton of debt at the teaser rate, then have to pay off the balance at the higher post-teaser rate. Of course, these are probably the same people who just transfer their balances from one teaser rate to another, never paying off their debts.

I'm not defending the mortgage industry. Predatory lending practices are a very real problem. But ultimately, the law of the marketplace is still caveat emptor. Mr. Brilliant and I are sitting where we are because we did our homework. We resisted the siren song of overpriced houses in the 1980's. We bought when the time was right for us, when we could afford it. We learned what drives mortgage rates, paid our bills on time, so that in 2004, our existing mortgage company was willing to refinance us down a point simply by writing a $350 check, filling out some paperwork and having it notarized.

If Americans can't afford to own homes today because American jobs offer insufficient pay and insufficient security, then THAT'S the problem to confront. Hiding from financial adversity and declining future prospects by taking out mortgages based on illusion is just plain dumb.

Newtown, CT First Selectman Herb Rosenthal:

If US Senator Joseph Lieberman chooses to march in this year's Newtown Labor Day parade, he will likely do so as a true independent. Local members of the Democratic Town Committee, including First Selectman Herb Rosenthal and former staunch Lieberman supporter Jim Juliano, agree that the Senator has no reason to believe he is welcome to march beside other endorsed party candidates.

"By marching with members of the DTC and invited Democratic candidates and state leaders, it would give the impression that we support his candidacy," said Mr Rosenthal when asked about the issue late Wednesday.

"I told him through his office, that as a duly elected Democratic official, he's putting me in an uncomfortable, almost embarrassing position. We have a duly elected candidate, who was endorsed by a historic turnout of state Democrats in the recent primary. I don't have to march with [Sen Lieberman], the DTC doesn't have to march with him, so why would he want to make it look like he's in good graces with the Democratic Party?" Mr Rosenthal continued. "He is not in good graces with state Democrats."

[snip]

"He's only come to the parade once before. He's not coming here this year as the sitting US Senator, he's coming because he's a candidate in the fall election," Mr Rosenthal said.

Mr Rosenthal said he would take issue with any candidate who failed to be endorsed at the statewide convention, who opted to force a primary, and then upon losing, continued to mount a full-scale campaign by petition for the general election.

"He was privately and publicly asked not to run by many state Democrats, and decided to run anyway even after he lost the primary. Philosophically, I have a problem with that," Mr Rosenthal said. "And I'm not going to reward that behavior by marching beside him on Labor Day."

Lieberman wants to have it both ways. He wants to campaign for Republicans, suck up to Republicans, attack Democrats on national television every chance he gets, but still we welcomed as a Democrat, EVEN THOUGH HE LOST HIS PARTY'S PRIMARY.

Forget it Joe. Take your wounded ego and go get yourself a good shrink to deal with it.

(hat tip: Christy Hardin Smith, who has more)

Are you ready? This little gem is from AP:


Rumsfeld reaches out to Democrats


You'd think this meant a little bit of contrition from Rummy, wouldn't you? An attempt at bipartisanship?

Guess again:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reached out to Democrats late Friday, opening up the door for them to retract their stinging indictment of him as Pentagon chief.

In a letter to Congress's top Democrats, Rumsfeld said recent remarks he made during a speech in Salt Lake City were misrepresented by the media, including by the Associated Press. Rumsfeld said he was "concerned" by the reaction of Democrats, many of whom called for his resignation and said he was treading on dangerous territory.

"I know you agree that with America under attack and U.S. troops in the field, our national debate on this should be constructive," Rumsfeld wrote Friday.

Well, guess what, Rummy. YOU'RE the one who called everyone who disagrees appeasers. And now you're "reaching out" to give THEM a chance to retract THEIR remarks?

What arrogance.

And it's a damn good thing he isn't. Murtha isn't going to sit by while the Bush Administration and their lackeys try to swiftboat him. Don't let that "white haired old man" bit fool you. At HuffPo, he comes out swinging:

I find it hypocritical and ironic that Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush, in their latest speeches to spin the war in Iraq, both commented that "many still have not learned history lessons," as they drew inflammatory parallels between Nazism and today's war in Iraq designed only to provoke unreasonable fear in the hearts of Americans.

Clearly it was the ignoring of history that got President Bush and his ideological policymakers into the quagmire that now exists in Iraq. As history dictated, it was absolutely foolish to believe that by occupying Iraq, the United States would transform the country into a beacon of American style democratic ideals. The British failed in its occupation attempts during the early 1900s. You only have to press rewind to hear the now haunting yet familiar words of a British Commander in Baghdad in 1917 say, "Our armies do not come in to your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." After a decade of fighting with the population they had forcibly "liberated," the British were finally expelled from what is today Iraq by a population who resented foreign occupation and control.

President George Herbert Walker Bush was obviously more astute than his son when it came to the learning of History lessons. During the first Gulf War he rejected the urging of many to march into Baghdad, fully understanding the complexities and pitfalls of such an act. President GW Bush should have spent a little more time under the tutelage of his much more insightful father.

...and lands a knockout punch right where it hurts Bush most -- his relationship with his father.

Democratic Party, take note. This is how it's done.

Rummy and Bush may be out there calling this war the moral equivalent of WWII and those who say enough is enough appeasers, but Rummy's own guys paint a picture of a country gone completely FUBAR under the tender mercies of the Bush Administration:

Sectarian violence is spreading in Iraq and the security problems have become more complex than at any time since the U.S. invasion in 2003, a Pentagon report said Friday.

In a notably gloomy report to Congress, the Pentagon reported that illegal militias have become more entrenched, especially in Baghdad neighborhoods where they are seen as providers of both security and basic social services.

The report described a rising tide of sectarian violence, fed in part by interference from neighboring Iran and Syria and driven by a "vocal minority" of religious extremists who oppose the idea of a democratic Iraq.

Death squads targeting mainly Iraqi civilians are a growing problem, heightening the risk of civil war, the report said.

"Death squads and terrorists are locked in mutually reinforcing cycles of sectarian strife," the report said, adding that the Sunni-led insurgency "remains potent and viable" even as it is overshadowed by the sect-on-sect killing.

"Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically in and around Baghdad, and concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population has increased in recent months," the report said. It is the latest in a series of quarterly reports required by Congress to assess economic, political and security progress.

Why are they so reluctant to call what's going on there a civil war? These are not conditions that lead to civil war, this IS civil war. As for sectarian violence fed by Iran and Syria, well, I hate to tell you this, guys, but this is exactly what the presence of Saddam Hussein, as loathsome as he was, prevented.

But because George W. Bush had his little psychodrama with his dad, in which he thought he could simultaneously avenge an alleged plan to assassinate Bush Sr. and thereby win the old man's affection, AND prove that he's a bigger man than daddy, this is the result.

And all BushCo can do is call those of us -- the majority of Americans -- who do NOT live in their little bubble of delusion, appeasers and traitors.

In fact, the real traitors to America are the guys who made these statements:

We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]

“The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish.” -Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, [3/4/03]

“There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” – Colin Powell, 2/5/03

“Saddam has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” - Don Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” - Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02

“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” – President Bush, 9/26/02

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” – President Bush, 1/28/03

“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” -President Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03

“We know where the [WMD] are.” - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

“I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it now.” - Colin Powell, 5/4/03

“Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program…Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.” - President Bush, 10/7/02

“Saddam is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.” - V.P. Cheney, 3/24/02

“We do know that Saddam is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/10/02

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” – President Bush, 1/28/03

“We found the weapons of mass destruction.” – President Bush, 5/29/03

"We know where the WMDs are.” – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.” – President Bush, 3/19/03

There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

“The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.” - President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

“ Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror.” -President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03

“You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.” President Bush, 9/25/02

“There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” – President Bush, 9/17/03

Krugman:

Consider, for example, the results of a new poll of American workers by the Pew Research Center.

The center finds that workers perceive a long-term downward trend in their economic status. A majority say that it’s harder to earn a decent living than it was 20 or 30 years ago, and a plurality say that job benefits are worse too.

Are workers simply viewing the past through rose-colored glasses? The report seems to imply that they are: a section pointing out that workers surveyed in 1997 also said that it had gotten harder to make a decent living is titled, “As usual, people say things were better in the good old days.”

But as we’ve seen, real wages have been declining since the 1970’s, so it makes sense that workers have consistently said that it’s harder to make a living today than it was a generation ago.

On the other side, workers’ concern about worsening benefits is new. In 1997, a plurality of workers said that employment benefits were better than they used to be. That made sense: in 1997, the health care crisis, which had been a big political issue a few years earlier, seemed to have gone into remission. Medical costs were relatively stable, and in a tight labor market, employers were competing to offer improved benefits. Workers felt, rightly, that benefits were pretty good by historical standards.

But now the health care crisis is back, both because medical costs are rising rapidly and because we’re living in an increasingly Wal-Martized economy, in which even big, highly profitable employers offer minimal benefits. Employment-based insurance began a steep decline with the 2001 recession, and the decline has continued in spite of economic recovery.

The latest Census report on incomes, poverty and health insurance, released this week, shows that in 2005, four years into the economic expansion, the percentage of Americans with private insurance of any kind reached its lowest level since 1987. And Americans feel, again correctly, that benefits are worse than they used to be.

Why have workers done so badly in a rich nation that keeps getting richer? That’s a matter of dispute, although I believe there’s a large political component: what we see today is the result of a quarter-century of policies that have systematically reduced workers’ bargaining power.

The important question now, however, is whether we’re finally going to try to do something about the big disconnect. Wages may be difficult to raise, but we won’t know until we try. And as for declining benefits — well, every other advanced country manages to provide everyone with health insurance, while spending less on health care than we do.

Here's what's going on in the "highly paid workers" sector:

Executives from Intel, the largest chip maker, are expected to reveal on Tuesday the results of a sweeping evaluation of the company’s internal operations that could include layoffs of thousands of employees.

The moves would be the culmination of what Paul S. Otellini, Intel’s chief executive, promised in April would be a broad review of operations to reduce costs and increase efficiency, after Intel’s announcement of disappointing financial results.

Mr. Otellini told Intel employees in an e-mail message sent Thursday that he would announce the results of the study to workers via a company Webcast on Tuesday, according to an Intel employee who requested anonymity.

Otellini's basic compensation in 2004, BEFORE succeeding Craig Barrett as CEO, was $9,363,600 -- exclusive of stock options. The total value of his stock options was $18,793,400.

I'm sure the fact that Otellini pulls in a cool $9 million a year WITHOUT stock options will comfort the thousands of tech workers who will now find themselves looking for work in an all-but-dead IT market in this country.

The jobs numbers are still insufficient to even accommodate the on average 150,000 new entrants into the job market every month:

U.S. private employers added 107,000 jobs in August, a survey by a private employment service said on Wednesday.

ADP Employer Services employment report was jointly developed with Macroeconomic Advisers LLC. In July, U.S. private employers added 99,000 jobs by comparison.

Automatic Data Processing, based in Roseland, New Jersey, is the parent of ADP Employer Services and is a large payroll services company. Macroeconomic Advisers LLC is based in St. Louis, Missouri.

The ADP National Employment Report is released each month, two days prior to the government's own non-farm payrolls survey.

According to the latest Reuters poll of economists, the U.S. Labor Department on Friday is expected to show that 120,000 non-farm payroll jobs were created in August, up from 113,000 in July.

But some people ARE doing well, oil and defense company CEOs in particular:

Top U.S. executives in the oil and defense industry have been able to translate war and rising oil prices into bigger paychecks, according to a study released on Wednesday.

Since the war on terror began, CEOs of the top 34 defense contractors have seen pay levels that are double the amounts they received during the four years leading up to the 9/11 attacks, according to the report from the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.

Rising oil prices have translated into a 50 percent increase in pay for chief executive officers at the nation's top 15 oil companies since 2004.

Last year, defense industry CEOs walked off with 44 times more pay than military generals with 20 years experience and 308 times more than Army privates, the study showed.

The report surveyed all publicly held U.S. corporations among the top 100 defense contractors that had at least 10 percent of revenues in defense. These 34 CEOs combined have pocketed almost a billion dollars since 9/11.

Mission accomplished!