Freedom From Bush

For the third time in two weeks, President Bush interrupted his vacation to speak in defense of his war in Iraq, using increasingly hyperbolic rhetoric to spin and manipulate public opinion in light of his plummeting approval ratings. “If we just scream loud enough and use words like ‘freedom’ and ‘God,’ the American people will change their minds and like us again.”

But it’s too late. The public is fed up with half-truth and outright deception. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, was contained, and had little bearing on our pursuit of Osama and Al Qaeda. Yet just today, in a speech commemorating the end of WWII, the President implied that the war in Iraq had something to do with 9-11. He even compared it to the great war. Yes, both involved people with guns. But that’s where the similarities end.

During the ’04 debates, Bush was asked by an audience member about his track record on the environment. His face reddened and drew into an absurd grin, the kind a teenager sports when caught raiding the cookie jar, and Bush said, almost laughing, that he considered himself a good steward of the environment. Nice words, but a total deception, if not an outright lie. In fact, just this week a secret policy draft by an Interior Department appointee and former Cheney aide demonstrated the Bush environmental hoax perfectly. The policy statement essentially removed protections and redefined the role of the Park Service, allowing an array of destructive, pleasure-based activities previously prohibited. Following the fundamentalist delusion that “God put the Earth here for humans to plunder,” the Bush Administration has presided over wholesale changes to the status of our environmental compact with little explanation and no discussion. He’s been a good steward of the environment like Richard Nixon was good friend of the constitution.

When a jury recently awarded a woman two-hundred-plus million for the Vioxx-related death of her husband, we could almost hear the Bush team howling bloody murder. After all, one of their giant funding sources had been financially hammered. So how long will it take for Republican-sponsored legislation capping or prohibiting lawsuits against big Pharma to surface? They’ve made similar laws before, remember?

When President Bush mentions freedom, what is he really talking about? Freedom to deceive about our rationale for war. Freedom to plunder our national parks. Freedom to commit corporate fraud without consequence. Apparently, that’s what his God wants.

Radical Right Ridiculousness

It was a busy weekend for Christian Fundamentalists.

Lester M. Crawford, commissioner of the F.D.A., postponed approval of the morning after pill, Plan B, for a second time. Almost unheard of, the postponement was deemed necessary by the F.D.A. while it figured out how to keep the drug from minors. What? Practically every drugstore in America has become an outlet for tobacco. I’m sure they can card for Plan B as well as a pack of Camel Lights. But the concern over minors is a dishonest dodge. Crawford and his Radical Right puppeteers don’t want Plan B available to anyone because, in their fantasy, God doesn’t want women to prevent blastocysts from adhering to the walls of their uteruses.

Meanwhile, the Association of Christian Schools International sued the University of California system for not giving credit to certain courses taught in religious high schools, including “science” courses in creationism. Aside from the fact that creationism isn’t science, should the UC system give credit to a course about the trans-dimensional capabilities of the tooth fairy? How about a course entitled “The Earth Really Is The Center of The Universe.” Superstition and magic have no place in higher education, unless teaching about their lamentable place in history.

The most disgusting news came from Tennessee, where a church group protested at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq (Anti-Gay Protesters Descend on Soldiers' Funerals, Beth Rucker, AP).

The Rev. Fred Phelps, founder of Westboro Baptist in Kansas, contends that American soldiers are being killed in Iraq as vengeance from God for protecting a country that harbors gays. The church, which is not affiliated with a larger denomination, is made up mostly of Phelps' children, grandchildren and in-laws.

The church members carried signs and shouted things such as "God hates fags'' and "God hates you.''

About 10 church members protested near Smyrna United Methodist Church and nearly 20 stood outside the National Guard Armory in Ashland City. Members have demonstrated at other soldier funerals across the nation.

Though Westboro Baptist appears to be a small group, they are symptomatic of a larger trend--fundamentalists convinced that they know the mind of the Creator. Aside from the absurdity of the notion that a bearded man on a cloud sits around hating members of his creation, it’s hard to imagine anything more delusional, arrogant, divisive or dangerous. And yet a great many Americans seem to have given up their common sense and bought into this magical superstition. This afternoon, I noticed an ad on a prominent Christian TV channel advertising the latest book about the coming apocalypse. Delusion sells, and as we learned on 9-11, it can get dangerous fast.

I support the right of a religious person to say just about anything. But when their utterances are arrogant, divisive, delusional, nonsensical and based on superstition, I’m compelled to point it out, absent a sugar coating. We’ve ignored their kind of idiocy for too long in America. Look how well ignoring fanatics worked in the Middle East.

Bush Doctrine is a Failure

American Mullah Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez should come as no surprise. Robertson has a long track record of un-Christian, lunatic drivel. Anyone who thinks he's a great guy should get their head examined. In fact, all Fundamentalists should have their "thinking" checked and consider rejoining the real world.

More importantly, judging by the President's emphatic defense in Utah yesterday of the Iraq war, it looks like the wheels are finally flying off the Bush doctrine. He and his team refuse to consider what the majority of Americans have come to understand:

"Killing all the terrorists" is a strategy doomed to fail because each kill produces multiple recruits.

"Bringing the war to them" breeds more hatred and terrorists, making us less safe in the long run.

"Deadlines embolden the enemy" is a false premise. Open-ended occupation emboldens the enemy.

"They hate us for our freedom." Perhaps, but they hate us more for our meddling and our military presence in the Middle East.

In fact, when the Soviet Union left Afghanistan, did the Mujahadeen follow them to Moscow and explode bombs in Red Square? No. They just wanted the Soviets out. And despite their jihad rhetoric, Islamic terrorists want our military out of the Middle East--especially Saudi Arabia, which contains their holiest sites.

The day of the London bombings, Bush, visiting the G8 conference, stated again that America will stay its course, "taking the fight to the enemy to keep us safe at home." The foolishness of this comment was striking since our only meaningful occupation partner, Britain, had been taking the fight to the enemy in Iraq and was clearly paying a huge price at home.

Sadly, due to series of horrible misjudgements and ill-conceived strategies by the Bush Administration, it seems only a matter of time before America pays, too.

Though the Bush Presidency has been a slow-motion disaster, its elements are now quite clear. Here is a partial recap, only relating to Iraq.

Bush and/or his administration...

Failed to commit enough troops to Afghanistan to contain and eliminate Osama and the Taliban.

Failed to establish international consensus or a meaningful coalition to invade Iraq.

Rushed to invade Iraq with an urgency disproportionate to the threat it posed.

Distorted intelligence reports to fit them to a pre-ordained invasion policy.

Invaded Iraq with too few troops and no credible plan to secure the country.

Failed to protect Iraqi weapons stockpiles from looting.

Disbanded the Iraqi Army.

Failed to provide adequate armor to our troops.

Grossly overestimated the Iraqi desire to be occupied.

Grossly oversimplified the vast multi-cultural and religious complexities of Iraq.

Grossly underestimated the costs of the war and occupation.

Failed to finish the job in Afghanistan.

Bush may not be the worst President ever, but he has placed himself squarely on the short list.

Speak Up or Lose

A Cindy Sheehan news item caught my eye today. ABC affiliate KTVX in Utah refused to broadcast her national advertisement and stated their reasons for declining ("TV Station Refuses to Air Anti-War Ad Featuring Sheehan," by Jennifer Dobner, AP).

I decided to send KTVX a note:

'I'm writing regarding your station's recent refusal to accept ads by Gold Star Families for Peace. In an email to media buyers, your station stated, "The viewpoints reflected in the spot are incompatible with our marketplace and will not be well received by our viewers." Since a portion of my tax dollars fund the FCC and enable you to broadcast, I'm compelled to let you know that I find your comment reprehensible. Am I to believe that your station never broadcasts beer commercials nor accepts programming with positive depictions of dancing? How well a commercial may or may not be received by your audience is of little relevance--I'm confident you run ads all the time that your viewers don't like. Thus, your decision smacks of censorship and partisanry, and is a stain on your broadcasting license. What a shame.'

The important issue is not the content of Sheehan's ad, but the growing ease with which media outlets decide what they want the public to hear. The fact is, ideas can be powerful. And the powerful understand this, including broadcasters.

In an era of rising fundamentalism, both here and abroad, I can imagine no better antidote than a free exchange of ideas assisted by a fearless and relatively objective media. But many so-called journalists and the broadcasters they work for are neither fearless nor objective. And the lame FCC can't be counted on to care. Until the tax-paying public raises a collective stink and holds the media accountable, broadcasters will have no incentive to straighten up. So take a moment and write a note to KTVX or any other organization whose censorship you find objectionable, and let them know you care. Believe it or not, they notice.

Santorum or Sanity

Promoting his recent book on a CN8 broadcast, Senator Rick Santorum shared his thoughts on the topic of contraception:

"I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of human life. But I'm not a believer in birth control, artificial birth control. Again, I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that...I don't think it works, I think it's harmful to women, I think it's harmful to our society, uh, to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or, or, or, or tolerated, particularly among the young. And uh, we've seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to our society. So birth control to me enables that and I don't think it's a healthy thing for our country."

Isn't it wonderful when a holier-than-thou blabbermouth allows such irrational nonsense to roll off his lips in a public forum? No wonder President Bush and his handlers do everything in their power to keep Dubya from anything resembling a spontaneous exchange with a citizen not vetted and given the Radical Right seal of approval. He's likely to say something downright idiotic, irrational, meanspirited or dishonest. Which brings me to my question: What the hell is Radical Rick talking about? What responsibility? He sounds serious and important until you realize he makes no sense.

Let's see.

Intentionally recreational sex using contraception (vs. intentionally procreative sex) allows the participants to avoid responsibility...for not having children?? No, that's inconsistent and nonsensical.

...avoid responsibility...to God, who scowls in pain when two people enjoy the pleasures of corrupt, sinful flesh? Nope, that's just superstitious, magical nonsense having no place in our laws. (And besides, my God doesn't think our bodies, desires and pleasures are anything but wonderful, which makes Rick's God look like a grouchy, whiny, impotent loser.)

...avoid responsibility...to a sexual partner? Not if that person is a consenting adult who presumably has similar motivations and desires.

And what harmful consequences? Fewer unwanted pregnancies! Decreased STD's?

Oh well. Despite the absence of reason, clarity or both, Santorum and his Radical Right God Squad seem intent upon foisting their beliefs on the rest of us. They have recently come to believe that God calls them to inject their "faith" into the public square. But despite the fact that history has shown attraction to be more powerful and lasting than promotion, they've become promotion machines after decades of failing to attract. If they get their way, we will probably see the end of contraception, sex outside of marriage, profanity, foreplay, dancing...anything remotely pleasurable.

These aren't the married conservatives I used to work with on Wall Street, whose free time was spent in strip clubs boozing, drugging and trying to convince dancers to “party” with them at nearby hotels. These are Big Government Conservatives. Unlike Big Government Liberals, who try to enforce expanded liberties, this crew hopes to broaden restrictions. They love to claim that non-conservatives embrace the likes of France, Holland and Sweden--the dirty Godless heathen of the socialist empire of Europe (apparently, no greater insult could be hurled by a BGC). Yet the Radical Right seems eager to transform America into its own version of North Korea or Afghanistan under the Taliban. Their political desires have nothing to do with liberty or democracy, but with the tyranny of their fundamentalist "faith". To them, government has nothing to do with sense, science or logic. Government should be based on their interpretation of Christian Scripture.

When Santorum talks about women staying home to tend the children, his notions come from his (or his minister's) Biblical imagining. Sure, it's a fascinating book filled with parable and paradox, and it asks important questions, but when people believe that the Bible is The Word Of God against which all others are false, they become dangerous and scary. And when I listen to Rick Santorum, he scares me. I don't want to live in his Theocracy, which bears little resemblance to the America I know and love. Fortunately, I suspect the citizens of Pennsylvania will come to the same conclusion in 2006, voting for common sense instead of Radical Rick.

Civil Rights and Abortion

In a recent New York Times editorial ("Pro-Choice But Anti-Naral," 8-13-05), Op-Ed columnist John Tierney rightly criticizes Naral Pro Choice America for its anti-Roberts ad campaign, but incorrectly characterizes the abortion debate. According to Tierney, the debate should not be framed in terms of civil rights because the rights of pregnant women are cancelled out by the rights of fetuses. He goes on to say that the abortion debate "...can't be resolved by appealing to any widely held moral or legal principles." Oh really??

What he fails to consider, and what the abortion debate often fails to highlight is the concept of personhood, most aptly defined in Websters as, "...characterized by conscious apprehension, rationality, and a moral sense." Granted, there may be a few adults who don't fit this definition--several members of the Bush administration come to mind--but more importantly, not a single fetus qualifies for personhood status. A fetus only has the potential, and God/Mother Nature/The Universe/Fate sees fit to abort the fetus and end its potential in a quarter of all pregnancies.

When we talk about civil rights, we talk about the rights of persons, not potential persons. This is not an arbitrary distinction, but rather a principle that finds its expression in myriad laws and standards. We treat minors differently because they are often neither rational nor operating with a fully formed moral sense. We don't put animals on trial for killing people because animals don't qualify for personhood. Indeed, late term abortions are mostly prohibited because we suspect that the increasingly viable fetus is approaching the gray area between potential and actual personhood. With this in mind, abortion should remain legal for at least the first two trimesters because the right of a woman to control her own body and destiny clearly supercedes the imagined desire of a potential person to fulfill that potential. After all, I'm not sure what I will desire tomorrow, but I'm quite sure that when I was a fetus I had no conscious desires at all.

Tierney goes on to imply that overturning Roe v. Wade would be a good thing because when each state is given the chance to outlaw abortion, the public will rise up and vote to keep it legal. Is he kidding? What country has he been living in for the last five years? Fundamentalist, evangelical, born-again fanatics have been bullying, shaming and brainwashing their communities with missionary zeal for years now, and have armies of voters ready to outlaw abortion at first opportunity in more than a few states. When that happens, a woman living under their superstitious, theocratic dominion will have her rights supplanted by the rights of a microscopic bundle of cells in her womb. Without Federal protection, the rights of persons will surely be undermined by the imagined rights of potential persons. It is about rights. Tierney got it wrong.

Richard Nixon, Crook

Yesterday marked the 31st Anniversary of the resignation of President Richard Nixon, and true to form, MSNBC's conservative lapdog Monica Crowley did her best to re-write history, describing his presidency in rosy and sentimental terms. What a great, misunderstood guy! Apparently so-called journalist Crowley never read the Nixon tape transcripts, nor the growing library of books detailing his nefarious tenure in the White House.

Richard Nixon was a flat-out crook, a paranoid, scheming dirt-bag who spent his time ordering his staff to break any number of laws to intimidate, violate or dig up dirt on his opponents. One of those opponents was my Grandmother, Petey Cerf, who had the audacity to denounce Nixon and give money to the McGovern campaign, a patriotic act if ever there was one. But for her efforts, Nixon added her to his infamous "enemies list," entitling her to be audited by the IRS and put under scrutiny by the FBI. These egregious violations of her civil rights, illegal and unconstitutional, are often overlooked, indeed forgotten, by commentators reviewing the Nixon years. But they were every bit as corrupt and un-American as the Watergate break-in and its cover-up.

To experience just how scummy, scheming, foul-mouthed, bigoted, paranoid and criminal Richard Nixon was, just read some of the transcripts of his conversations.* They are beyond appalling, and expose him for what many, like my Grandmother, knew he was. A filthy crook, absolutely unfit for the presidency.

Vividly, I remember returning from a kayak trip with my father in the summer of 1974, several days after my 12th birthday, turning on the radio, and hearing Nixon's resignation. We were overjoyed and celebrated, relieved that the disgraceful era of Tricky Dick was over.

Shame on you, Monica Crowley. If you hope to give the impression of intelligence, get the facts straight before you carry water for Nixon again.

* A good place to start would be "All The President's Men," by Woodward and Bernstein, and "The Secret Man" by Woodward. Also, selected tape transcripts are available through the National Archive and its website, www.archive.gov.

Peter Jennings, First Rate

The death of Peter Jennings last night was the sad end of an era. In forty three years of life there have only been four men I looked to for the news of the day. Not entertainment, mind you, but news.

Chet Huntley and David Brinkley opened a fascinating window onto the world from my childhood dinner table, always ending a broadcast with their signature sign-off…
“Good night, Chet.”
“Good night, David. And good night from NBC news.”

Later, not surprisingly, Walter Cronkite became my standard bearer, his tone and confidence so reassuring in times of national crisis, which were many.

And then came Peter Jennings. Unlike his predecessors, who were fatherly, and later grand-fatherly, the authoritative Jennings was less a person I looked up to than a person I wanted to be. He was sophisticated yet unpretentious, and had an extraordinary grasp of his subject matter (despite never graduating from high school!). His demeanor was always calm and collected, and he spoke with a soothing yet expressive voice. He was also a master of the insightful ad-lib.

Most of all, he seemed to care deeply about what he was doing and directed his passion to serve the viewing public. He tried to get to the heart of things, to inform. The rare occasions when his broadcast included a fluff story, so much a part of other “news” shows, he couldn’t hide his discomfort and disdain. And unlike the angry, trash-mouthed neo-news reporters on tabloid channels like Fox, I rarely new where he stood on an issue, even when covering politics. (As the story of his death broke and was immediately covered by the networks and CNN, Fox stuck to its relentless coverage of the Natalie Holloway story from Aruba.) Peter Jennings was a real journalist, and he towered over his peers.

Yes, his competitors were excellent and accomplished. Guys like Brokaw and Rather deserve a lot of respect. But when tragedy struck, I always turned to Jennings first. I could count on him to tell me what was going on, emphasizing the important aspects of an issue. Nowadays, among shouting matches, celebrity breakups and missing white women (no offense to the Holloway or Peterson families, only the networks who ignore war and famine to cover them 24/7), it’s too much to expect a reporter to stop sucking up to the White House or Senate Leadership long enough to ask a challenging question, much less calling untruth a lie.

I used to see Peter Jennings walking around the Upper West Side, once buying a hot dog for a young man I presumed to be his son. As in his professional life, he stood out, smiling warmly and exuding dignity and confidence. He was a first-rate newsman, and his death leaves a void that will never be filled.

Shame On You, Pat

Is any other TV pundit more intellectually bankrupt and backward-thinking than Pat Buchanan? Since only a handful of morons take Ann Coulter seriously, the answer seems to be “No.” Sure, he is chosen to represent the Radical Right thanks to his incendiary extremism, and heaven forbid a media outlet ever jeopardize its ability to entertain by offering moderate views. But at least he should make sense, and he doesn’t.

Interviewed on MSNBC this Friday about the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts, Buchanan spewed his thoughts with angry force, a style apparently calculated to disguise the fact that his ideas are deeply flawed.

When asked about the proper role of a Supreme Court Justice, he insisted that it is not for a Justice (in his example, Justice Kennedy) to decide on whether citizens, their legislators or their legislation are biased. If people want to pass laws that exclude or marginalize others, so be it. The judges should merely enforce those laws. In his world, apparently, states would be allowed to prohibit mixed race marriages, or contraception, or what...pre-marital sex? Nonsense.

I’ve got news for Mr. Buchanan. Our nation was founded by religious and political minorities who suffered oppression at the tyrannical hands of majorities. It seems he has forgotten or decided to ignore the historic core of our Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These sentiments are then echoed in the first paragraph of the Constitution:

“…in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

In both cases, the core principle seems to be Liberty.

Liberty is freedom from the tyranny of the majority. The only liberty we don’t have is the liberty to take away the liberties of others. And the job of the Supreme Court is to judge whether Federal or State legislation goes against these Constitutional protections. Until we pass a Constitutional Amendment specifically denying our otherwise inalienable rights, it is essential that justices determine whether new laws are biased against these and other protections.

When Buchanan decries judges for “writing gays into civil rights laws,” he turns the truth on its head. Gays shouldn't need to be written into laws because they are already shielded by and included in the Constitution, just as women and African Americans were and are. When bigots and radicals want to exclude women from voting, or exclude blacks and whites from intermarrying, or exclude gays from, well…everything, they are prevented by the Constitution. Furthermore, Civil Rights laws don’t create new liberties. They only clarify and affirm pre-existing liberties. The Emancipation Proclamation says nothing that doesn’t already rest safely beneath the towering phrase, “all men are created equal.”

Until the Radical Right finds some way to change the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, Justices are obligated to strike down bigoted laws. This isn’t activism, as intellectually dishonest spin-meisters tirelessly try to get us to believe. It is the proper role of the Supreme Court. Shame on you, Pat.

Starved for Substance

In its continuing quest to uphold virtue and promote values, Rupert Murdoch's FX network is rolling out a new sit-com tonight, Starved, set in the sad underworld of eating disorders and addiction. I have only seen previews, which were neither funny nor wildly offensive, but the subject matter is extremely sensitive and demands careful scripting, and has naturally prompted a wave of pre-premiere outrage among certain addiction specialists. Eric Schaeffer, the writer, director and star, has been defending his show on cable news segments, absent the absurd, oversized Elmer Fudd hunting cap, his perennial about-town trademark in cooler weather. He claims that Starved will paint a sensitive portrait of complex characters, mouthing all the other platitudes expected from a marketing pitch. But after a string of failed films and television series, I suspect that Starved is a desperate attempt by a fading quasi-celebrity to play the last, splashy, shock-value card in his hand--his personal experiences with eating disorders and addiction. "Write what you know," as some editors advise. But given his track record and the sensitive material, Starved is likely to step over the line and turn viewers off, or simply bore them into changing channels. Either way, it's all about the money for Schaeffer and FX. Done right, shock sells.

FOLLOW UP:
After watching the premiere of Starved, I have to give FX credit for producing the smuttiest non-cartoon show on basic cable, propelling parent FOX/Murdoch's virtue-speak to a new zenith of hypocrisy. "Your values are bad...except when we can exploit them to make money for our network!" It's going to be fun to watch the culture police at FOX try to rationalize their affiliation with FX and Starved. The show had a few funny moments--uniformly dark and perverse--and some downright soft-porn scenes, but it was uneven and forced, and Schaeffer wasn't the comedian he needed to be to pull it off. The numerous inside jokes that only New Yorkers will get could generate a local following, but if the show lasts, it will likely be a function of its novelty value. But hey, no risk, no reward.

Lame Duck Dubya

Regarding the recess appointment of John Bolton, I've noticed that Republican politicians have been saying "the President has his man," or the "this is the man the President wanted." I haven't heard any of them frame the appointment in supportive terms, nothing along the lines of "this is the man WE wanted," or "this is a victory for conservatives." Because of course, it isn't. It is yet another stain on the Bush Presidency. And as Bush forges ahead with his Radical Right agenda, members of his party have been working hard to distance themselves from his malignant decisions and poor judgement without appearing mutinous. It's an increasingly difficult task, particularly when a randomly selected person-on-the-street can't point to a single, unabashedly good thing the President has done, other than "being strong" on 911 and bombing Afghanistan. As if Al Gore would have broken down, wept and handed the country over to terrorists. Please. When the Dubya era ends, a large number of Republican politicians will be privately relieved, and with good reason.

The Tyrant Appoints

It's hard to imagine a better way for President Bush to say "f-you" to his critics (now upwards of 65% of the American public, depending on the poll) and show contempt for the political process than by his recess appointment of John Bolton to the UN. Not only is Bolton the first US Ambassador to the UN never voted on and ratified by the Senate, but he is also one of the most controversial. In fact, just last week it came to light that he had not answered certain confirmation questions accurately (which is to say, honestly). The arrogance and hubris of the Bush Administration knows no bounds. He spews volumes about the importance of the democratic process when it suits his ends, and discards the process when it doesn't. But this is nothing new. Bush has always talked a big talk, but his rhetoric and his actions rarely correspond. The foundation of his presidency is apparently so brittle and insecure that he feels it essential to employ, promote and reward people who lack sound judgement but display unfailing loyalty (Rice, Gonzalez, Tenet, Bolton). Indeed, when queried during the last campaign, Bush could not think of a single mistake he had made. Because admitting even the smallest mistake might shatter the fragile illusion of competence that keeps the President and his clown-posse of an administration in power. No wonder our so-called leader is the laughing stock of the rest of the world. Democracy for the Middle East, tyranny for America.