March 30
There is a difference between lying and making a mistake. An error in fact, even a huge one, is not a lie if the person making it believes it. So even if the acting president was horrifically wrong about Iraq, we can't say he's lying without an indication he knew what he was saying wasn't so. That's the nub of the problem for proving Bush lied, and wasn't merely the most incompetent fool ever to claim the title of president. So can we prove it? Well, there is certainly plenty to investigate, which the Republicans won't which is a sign right there, but let's look at a bit of plenty that just came out. Murray Waas has reported in National Journal that Bush was told that Iraq's aluminum tubes, used as proof of nuclear intentions, might not be for building atomic bombs at all, and the intelligence community was quite conflicted. What do you call it when people are told there is great doubt about the accuracy of an assessment, and then tell the public there is no doubt? I wouldn't expect Bush, Cheney, Rice, or anyone else who isn't an engineer knowledgeable about nuclear or rocket technology to know what the tubes were for. I would however hope they would have the decency when told the experts disagree to say so when speaking to the public or Congress on the subject, or at least not include such tubes in the evidence. Such hopes were disappointed. Will more of the press pick this up? What's discouraging on that account is few outlets picked up Waas's story last November on the Presidential Daily Briefing of 9/21/01 which showed Bush was told just ten days after 911 that Saddam wasn't involved.
March 26
It's probably predictable they'd win one, but it's so deserved, that here is a Take the Red Pill Award for the Muslim clerics calling for death to Abdul Rahman, the Afghan man who was arrested for apostasy, which means converting from Islam. It looks like he'll be released, but the clerics threaten to incite Muslims to murder him. It's OK to convert to Islam, but converting from it is a capital crime in Afghanistan in at least a few other Muslim countries. So these clerics and those who listen to them get a Take the Red Pill Award. Some others don't deserve an award of their own, but do deserve to pass one around Stanley Cup style. Those others would be Rahman's family, who didn't turn him in just for apostasy, but complained that his conversion was one of the ways he was shaming the family; and the people in the Afghan government who let the conservatives have their way in making Islamic law superior to civil law. While they pass an award around, I hope Americans may learn the folly of listening to our own fundamentalists who want the bible worked into law.
As long as I'm handing out these awards, I'll give out another obvious one to Isaac Hayes and/or the Church of Scientology for the departure of Hayes from the cast of South Park. I say "and/or" because it's not clear if he said the words attributed to him or the church did it. It is clear though that they had no problem with South park when its targets were other religions. It's also not clear that Tom Cruise got the offending episode pulled off Comedy Central by using his pull with Viacom, the parent of both Comedy Central and Paramount, the studio releasing his next movie. However, we could fill in the blank by recalling that Cruise claimed to know psychiatry was a fraud, a teaching of Scientology, and add let Cruise share the award too. Their beliefs cause no harm to anyone else, until they use their influence to remove from broadcast whatever offends them. Let me get offended by South Park and turn it off myself.
March 25
There was a bill in the Minnesota House to require photo ID to be allowed to vote. This is a classic case of a solution in search of a problem. Republicans are pushing similar bills in other states and passed a photo ID law in Georgia. They claim to have concerns people can vote multiple times, though how this law would stop someone getting photo IDs for multiple addresses if they're inclined to commit such fraud isn't plain. More important though is that they haven't shown anything to indicate either that multiple voting is a problem or that this would fix it. There's plenty of indications of fraud to investigate, like the touchscreens that change votes, or the multiple hour waits to vote in Democratic leaning precincts, all of which benefit Republicans and never get investigated by anyone with subpoena power -- who happen to be, in the areas with these problems (including Georgia), Republicans. Having subpoena power, you'd think Republicans could look into this, but they don't.
So what do they gain? The disenfranchisement of low income voters. Such voters have a tendency to vote Democratic. While the wealthier base of the Republican party might just assume everyone has a driver's license, that isn't the case. People who don't drive usually don't get licenses. Many don't drive for economic reasons. Low income people tend not to engage in other activities that require a photo ID, like boarding an airplane or traveling overseas. Requiring an ID requires the expense of the ID in order to vote, making it in effect a poll tax, which has been illegal since the Voting Rights Act.
Seeing that the case against photo IDs is an economic one, I'll pretend the the Republicans really think there's a problem and not just a chance to deny the right to vote, and offer a compromise. Require the ID, but IDs must be free. Drivers licenses and passports will be acceptable ID too, but a voting ID for anyone who doesn't have one of those must be free. Moreover, since these IDs will be required, people who are unlikely to have an ID due to infirmity or disability must have the photos taken at home, which means Republicans will have to agree to use public funds to send government employees to nursing homes and the homes of shut-ins to make the ID on the spot. At the same time the IDs are made, the individual will be registered to vote. To make election day registration viable, the IDs must be made at the polls, with the requirements for getting one the same as for getting one anywhere else. That would cause election day registration to entail an extra step, but more low income people would be pre-registered and thereby encouraged to vote -- not that I expect the Republican party to consider that side effect to be beneficial. I'm sure many Republicans will chafe at the idea of the public expense of doing this without charging the individual getting the ID, but voting is a right, and any fee effectively becomes a charge to vote. So there you go GOP. If you want IDs to vote, that's what it will take.
March 23
I suppose it says something about how tired I was went I wrote last night's entry (I do this in my spare time, though if anyone wants to pay me to maintain this blog...) that I neglected to menton my direct experience with what the blogosphere oftern calls "mainstream media", though I'm not sure conservatives always look at public radio as mainstream, and that's where I was. I was interviewed Tuesday night by a reporter for Minnesota Public Radio. The story was about a photography exhibit on how Americans portray their history, and the exhibit includes some historical reenactors. The reporter, Marianne Colmes, interviewed the photographer, and historian Howard Zinn who is somehat hostile to the hobby and doesn't get it, and she interviewed me for a reenactor's perspective. She found a page on my personal site about Twin Cities reenactment groups.
My part of the story was one sentence, but that's about what I expected. She picked a good sentence. The interview was about a half hour so I of course hoped for more, but I knew how little time there was and I wasn't the thrust of the story. I thought I got treated fairly, by the reporter anyway. I respect Howard Zinn, but he has a limited undersanding of what living history does.
March 22
I don't normally see Fox News during the day since I work normal hours, but I saw a few minutes this morning and got an insight into why conservatives still believe Iraq was part of 911 and the acting president's invasion was part of the war on Al Qaida. Around 9:30 Central time this morning, the anchor read a story about Iraq. While she read it, there was a graphic on the screen saying "War on Terror". No, she didn't say during the story that Iraq had WMDs, or that Saddam was working with Al Qaida, or that the Iraqi insurgents were the same people who attacked us. Nonetheless the message was clear, and for regular Fox News viewers I'm sure it gets repeated with nary a contrary word. That's why still a quarter or third roughly of Americans still think Bush's justifications for the invasion were accurate.
Tonight I was at a candidate forum for DFL candidates for the open state senate seat in this district. I'm pleased to report that most candidates seemed to realize we can't keep opposing Republican wedge issues by denying their importance and trying to move on to other issues. Instead, the candidates and, it appeared, the grassroots (and really at this level, their isn't much difference) are ready to oppose the amendment to ban gay marriage and fight for the principle of equality under the law. What I would have added is essentially to repeat an argument I've made on this site before, that if an issue is important to many people then we have to take that issue seriously, and not say it isn't important. You don't change people's minds by telling them their concerns aren't important.
March 21
Isn't jumping to conclusion to say Dean Johnson lied about his conversation with an unnamed state supreme court justice? The Chief Justice says all justices denied the conversation, but that doesn't mean it's Johnson's word against all the justices. It's his word against just one, and even that assumes the unnamed justice lied. A forgotten remark in a casual conversation is hardly a lie, so it's premature to make the accusation either way. My guess is Johnson embellished like he said when he apologized, and he was right to apologize because he shouldn't have had a conversation with a justice about an issue that could come before the court, and he shouldn't have talked about it. However, it makes no sense that out of nowhere he suddenly makes up this conversation. I don't buy that his remarks were planned when they had the sloppiness of coming off the top of his head. The really weird thing about this is that the gay marriage ban advocates are the ones getting worked up. They just heard the court won't rule against the statutory ban, so they win even if the amendment doesn't pass. It's those of us who aren't bigoted who should be bothered.
Now I expect some of you supporting the ban resent being called bigots. Well good, that's a first step that you know bigotry is bad. Now ask yourself this: what do you call it when people enjoy rights they choose to deny to others, just because those others are different in a way that can't be helped? Isn't that the definition of bigotry? Denial of minority rights on the grounds of majority rule is what the founding fathers meant by "tyranny of the majority". Our republic doesn't rely only on majority rule, but equally on the belief in minority rights. That means the best argument I know of not to put the gay marriage ban to the voters is that the majority shouldn't get to decide if the minority has rights.
March 20
Today is the third anniversary of the acting president's invasion of Iraq. Technically it was still March 19th US time, in case there's confusion about the date. A distressing story appeared on the front page of the print Pioneer Press this morning. Knight-Ridder, the Pioneer Press's parent company, reported that Iraqi police claim US troops executed 11 people in a house which contained a suspected member of Al Qaida in Iraq. The dead include old men, women, and children. It's one of those stories you don't want to believe. I take comfort in following the story only so far as it goes, that it's true Iraqi police make the claim, but the claim itself is unproven and on some level I'd rather not know. To be honest though, I do find it believable. It's not just the proven mistreatment of prisoners, but when we remember My Lai, Wounded Knee, or Sand Creek, we are confronted with the uncomfortable truth that Americans are as capable of such acts as anyone else. If the latest massacre story is accurate, it was probably not done by some direct order, but soldiers who are regular guys when in regular circumstances, just like the soldiers in those other massacres. Something happens however in these certain irregular circumstances. People who pull the triggers can't escape the blame, nor can those in immediate command of them. Neither however should those in unimmediate command, those who send others to an unnecessary war, who sanction war crimes, who encourage the dehumanization of the people at the wrong end of the gun barrel, escape the blame. To George Bush and those of you who serve him high up and far from the bloody floors, you started this optional war. Killings like this are, if not inevitable, close to it during three years of fighting. You are to blame too.
I mentioned in the paragraph above that the story was published by Knight-Ridder. Knight-Ridder just sold itself to McClatchy Company. A family member who has me manage their stocks owns a wee bit of Knight-Ridder and while I don't want to go into a financial analysis, I will say a reason for buying the stock was Knight-Ridder's quality journalism. They've published other stories on Iraq that required some digging, and that was true before the invasion too. In fact, Knight-Ridder is about the only mainstream news organization did not have to apologize for its coverage before the invasion and early in, as other organizations either did or should have. I opposed the sale because I feared losing their reporting. You may not have heard of Knight-Ridder before or often because they don't own broadcast outlets, and none of their newspapers are in Washington, New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, and that might be why the story about alleged massacre wasn't widely picked up today. I've also heard that as a theory of how they avoided the herd mentality of most Washington reporting which carried government nonsense like it was proven fact and dared not interview an opposing voice.
However, three big shareholders wanted a pop in the stock price and thought a sale could do it. I wrote to investor relations expressing opposition, and received a thoughtful response, which surprised me from someone so busy as Polk Lafoon, vp for corporate relations, was at that time. He explained they thought a fight for control of the company would be costly and distracting, and probably still end with a sale. Well, the big shareholders got their sale, and they'll get the breakup of a journalistically strong organization, but they didn't get their pop in stock price. The price has been dropping since the sale was announced, due to declines in McClatchy's stock which is part of how McClatchy is paying.
McClatchy is the parent company of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which was its biggest paper, and is the rival to the St. Paul Pioneer Press. I wondered if the sale would mean losing one daily, but at least they were the one bidder likely to keep the company together and take the journalism seriously. However, if you looked at the story linked two paragraphs above, Knight-Ridder management was surprised to find McClatchy plan to break it up after all. They don't want the slower growing markets and or the lower margin dailies. Maybe they'll keep profit margins up for a bit, but it seems tragic to break up such good reporting, and it seems self-defeating too. All those papers produce some of their own content, and I wondered that Knight-Ridder papers didn't carry more of the other papers' content. What a cheap way to bulk up content. The Pioneer Press could have as much content as the Star Tribune, which would have made it more competitive. McClatchy seems to make even less use of its own content, almost none in fact, even though they have their own strong journalistic reputation, which made them the hoped for buyer.
So I may sell the stock, and I'll vote no on the sale if I'm still holding the stock by then, but I'll be a news consumer and I hope they change their mind. The individual papers aside, I dread the loss of Knight-Ridder's Washington and Baghdad bureaus. Oh well, at least I finally wrote about a topic I've been meaning to address ever since Knight-Ridder first went up for sale.
March 19
Yesterday the acting president said, "For some, the temptation to retreat and abandon our commitments is strong. Yet there is no peace, there's no honor and there's no security in retreat. So America will not abandon Iraq to the terrorists who want to attack us again." Sounds good, right? There's the "some" who Bush so frequently argues against, and words of defiance to terrorists.
Think though. What are our commitments? Isn't the case of the people who urge withdrawal from Iraq that our troops' presence makes things worse? I don't recall making a commitment to make things worse. If our commitment is to make things better, shouldn't we do what will make things better, Bush's dream world aside? Perhaps he doesn't know what our commitments are, or he thinks the commitment is to make him look like he was right to launch an optional war.
And those terrorists, bear in mind, aren't the terrorists who attacked us. They're new terrorists, almost all people resisting our occupation who weren't terrorists before Bush invaded. I'm sure they want to kill Americans now, but they didn't before. Never forget that when Bush tried to tie Iraq to 911, and never forget that they have plenty of Americans running around Iraq for them to attack. Remember that when you hear there have been no attacks on the US. They don't need to come here to find plenty of Americans.
March 16
I was thinking after my entry on the 14th I was a bit harsh, because other senators have had their moments of courage. I will always credit Barbara Boxer for being willing to take up the challenge to Ohio's electoral votes. Tom Harkin has signed on to Feingold's resolution as a cosponsor. Mark Dayton was willing to denounce Condoleeza Rice as a liar from the senate floor. So I should have said Feingold is one of the bravest senators, since it can be hard to compare. And yes, I'm in a quandary over Dayton's remarks attacking Feingold in harsh terms. Dayton has nothing to gain electorally since he isn't running again. He is regarded by me as an honest, upstanding man. I would have expected him to be among the first to support Feingold. So I assume he meant what he said. But was it just strategy, or could the right thing be good strategy? Maybe Feingold was just trying to win the bloggers away from his rivals for the presidency, or maybe someone had to do something, and maybe we should reward someone who'll act on principle and take political risks. That's the sort of person I want as president. I think I speak for much of the base, the sort who make the donations and volunteer for campaigns.
As a spinoff, allow me to make a prediction. Even though the right wing hates Dayton, and has never stopped ridiculing him for sending his staff out of Washington during a recess when there was a terror alert (they call him a coward, even though he would have been back in Minnesota anyway, but his staff was in DC), they will nonetheless use his remarks as a bludgeon to attack Feingold.
Though Senator, when you said Bush had a "plausible case", what on Earth were you thinking about?
