The media--yes, it's still shilling

I'm sure everyone out there has heard that Tom Daschle, nominated head of the Department of Health and Human Services, messed up on his tax returns to the tune of $100K+. I'm neither apologizing for him, nor giving him a pass--he screwed up. If you listen to or read the traditional media, however, you would think that Daschle had been convicted of boiling puppies while sodomizing 12-year old girls, calling into question both his, and more importantly, President Obama's characters for even presuming Daschle should hold office in the new Administration. But people, he paid his back taxes already, with penalties and interest. It's over. His offense hurt no one and wasn't even a misdemeanor, let alone a felony, but the right wing is outraged that such a person could conceivably still serve the public.
Do you see how this works now? For those of you not paying attention the last time there was a Democratic President, the media will blow any possible misstep by any Democrat anywhere into the worst scandal ever, providing cover for when a Republican is caught by making it seem like "business as usual". The public is then treated to the line that "both sides do it", leading to the question of why bother caring about who is in power, finally resulting in decreasing voter turnout and increasing apathy and cynicism toward government. This plays directly into Republican strategies designed to fool the public into thinking they even care about people, allowing them to loot the public treasury and rule without regard to oversight, as we have seen over the last 8 years baldly.
For the record, who can even name Bush's Director of Health and Human Services? Off the top of my head I sure can't*, but I can say that the former President himself skipped out on Vietnam and then didn't even bother to fulfill his minimal National Air Guard duty that was his alternative service. Isn't that just a wee bit more dishonest than what Daschle did? Or how about the Vice President, who retained millions of dollars of stock options in a company that would then receive billions of dollars of no-bid government contracts while he was in office? That suggests a tad more corruption than Daschle's misinterpretation of the tax code, even if it was willful, which has not been (and probably can not be) proven.
So let's try and think about/remember how these stories have been/were covered by the press. In Smirky's case, there were "smoking guns" of his disregard for duty all over the place--there is literally no evidence whatsoever of his presence on duty for the last 2 years of his Vietnam-avoiding military "career", other than the half-baked refreshed memory of one of Bush's friends. The NYTimes sat on the story for an entire freaking year, waiting until after the 2004 election to publish it, and even then nobody followed up on this court-martial level offense committed by the future Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. You'd have to hunt far and wide to find any coverage of Cheney's malfeasance--which is hundreds of times more venal, just going by the sheer numbers of dollars alone--in the traditional media, let alone the wall-to-wall 24/7 blitz Daschle is facing, and I don't recall anyone outside of those of us paying attention on the left calling for his censure, let alone his resignation.
I am absolutely talking apples to oranges here by comparing Daschle, who is a nominee for a fairly low-level Cabinet post, and his non-crime that he has already fixed, to a President and Vice President who committed far greater criminal and civil infractions, if not outright felonies, but this is what we're seeing: the press ignored, for the most part, those crimes committed by the highest Republicans in the land, but are exploding in outrage over Tom Daschle's tax returns. This is how right wing control of the media works, folks, and it's not going away unless we step in and regain legal mastery over the ownership of these licensees. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine for broadcast media, reestablish regulatory oversight of print, radio, and television outlets via a properly funded and supported FCC, and reinstitute and enforce the laws restricting monopolistic ownership of any kind, but most importantly the broadcast media. The airwaves are ours as a whole public; they do not belong to any one faction, corporation, company, or individual. It is time we took back control of our public assets to make sure this kind of slanted coverage is eradicated in favor of actual reportage of the truths we so desperately need to hear in order to function as a democracy.
* Bush had 2 HHS heads: 1) Tommy Thompson, former governor of Wisconsin and failed Presidential candidate; and 2) Michael Leavitt, former governor of Utah and head of the EPA. Non-cheeseheads and non-Mormons will be forgiven for not knowing who these men are, I would think . . .

Olympics, kind of

I like the Olympics. I like seeing people striving to better themselves, and I love watching unknowns or underdogs do well and occasionally even surprise with a victory. I loved the opening ceremonies--I thought it was the best I've ever seen, to be honest (although the Barcelona arrow shot to light the flame surpassed this one). I like the concept of having some arena, somewhere, where at least on the field, the geopolitical world takes a backseat to something else. Something close (or closer, at any rate) to pure.
Naturally, Smirky (with Doll's Eyes) has come along to ruin some of the Olympics games for me. Every event he attends, the director is compelled (ordered?) to show him grinning idiotically and waving to somebody, clearly oblivious to the pain and deaths he has caused so many people. It offends me to see him so happy, so carefree, and so relaxed. The announcers must acknowledge his presence in reverential tones, athletes are summoned for a jocular affixing of nicknames or an attaboy, and we have even been subjected to an in-studio interview with Bob Costas. Even at the Olympics, NBC seems to be in the tank for its Republican masters, regardless of approval ratings (Smirky has been sub-30% for months, marking an unprecedented tenure of dissatisfaction from the country).
To top it all off, if watching live, we are forced to watch the abomination of John McCain's misleading and completely negative ads slurring Barack Obama. I wonder how much of a deal Ol' Wrinkly got from NBC, because his $6 million ad buy is stretching a heck of lot further than Obama's $5 mill, even though Obama bought earlier. For those who are unfamiliar with the process of ad buying, usually the early money gets more bang for the buck, as the growing scarcity of available time causes the rates per minute to rise even though the choice time slots are often taken. From what I've seen, though, McCain's ads have been running at least twice as often as Obama's so far, and I saw only McCain ads during the opening ceremonies, which are the most universally watched part of the Games. (Granted, I missed about 45 minutes, so maybe all of Obama's ads ran from 9:45-10:30. Uh huh.)
Luckily, most of the time the other NBC channels are running events concurrently, so I can switch back and forth to avoid Smirky and Ol' Wrinkly as much as possible. But TBO is not a fan of boxing (which has taken up a lot of MSNBC's airtime in the evenings) or my relentless channel surfing during unpleasantness, so I risk alienating the mother of my child as well.
Grrr.

The self-reflexivity is mind-boggling

In Denver, a 61-year old librarian was cited for trespassing the "open to the public" McCain town hall meeting. Confused? Why should you be? See, she was holding a sign that read, and I quote in full, "McCain=Bush". That's it. McCain's security forces called in the Denver PD to escort Carol Kreck off the premises, and thereby cemented his equivalence to Smirky, or at least his lack of tolerance for dissent.
Irony? Self-fulfilling idiocy? You make the call . . .

FISA capitulation in the House

By a ridiculous margin of 293-129 (which still means a majority of House Democrats voted against it, but not by as much as one might hope), the House passed Steny Hoyer's "compromise" (read: caving in to Smirky and the rest of the Republican scum) FISA bill, which allows for the telecom companies to skate for their part in stripping your 4th Amendment rights from you. Whenever the President, or any of his Executive Branch minions, (such as the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.) decides to invade your privacy without probable cause or a warrant, he will now have the authority to do so granted by Congress, if the Senate concurs. The fact that that august body had already passed a bill even more craven pretty much seals this deal.
Gee, do you think the Republicans would have ever passed any bills whatsoever that its majority disagreed with when they were in control? Newsflash: they wouldn't, they didn't.
Congratulations to the President, as we prepare to give in to his demands to destroy the country yet again.
If you're not pissed, you're not paying attention. That clicking sound you hear is simply the government tapping your phone line; don't pay it any mind.
"Save me [Senate], you're my only hope!"
Right--this is me holding my breath . . .
Unf&*^ing believable. Land of the Free, my ass.

Not breaking news: Smirky doesn't believe in the Constitution

Obviously, this would never happen here: a reporter schooled Smirky on what the Supreme Court's job is, as reported on Monday. At the same time, Smirky throws the lowly Abu Ghraib prison guards under the bus, as if nobody gave those orders to torture. The interview, which was filled with the usual crud from Smirky and his doll's eyes wife, had one remarkable exchange that shows what a total--yet 100% scary--tool we have in the White House.

BOULTON: I mean, you've talked a lot about freedom. I've heard you talk about freedom -- I think every time I've seen you.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

BOULTON: And yet there are those who would say, look, let's take Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and rendition and all those things, and to them that is the, you know, the complete opposite of freedom.

THE PRESIDENT: Of course if you want to slander America, you can look at it one way. But you go down -- what you need to do -- I think I suggested you do this at a press conference -- if you go down to Guantanamo and take a look at how these prisoners are treated -- and they're working it through our court systems. We are a land of law.

BOULTON: But the Supreme Court have just said that -- you know, ruled against what you've been doing down there.

THE PRESIDENT: But the district court didn't. And the appellate court didn't.

BOULTON: The Supreme Court is supreme, isn't it?

THE PRESIDENT: It is, and I accept their verdict. I don't agree with their verdict. And it's not what I was doing down there. This was a law passed by our United States Congress that I worked with the Congress to get passed and sign into law.

BOULTON: But it looked like an attempt to bypass the Constitution, to a certain extent.

THE PRESIDENT: This was a law passed, Adam. We passed a law. Bypassing the Constitution means that we did something outside the bounds of the Constitution. We went to the Congress and got a piece of legislation passed.

BOULTON: Which is now being struck down, I think.

THE PRESIDENT: It is, and I accept what the Supreme Court did, and I necessarily don't have to agree with it.

My only point to you is, is that yes, I mean, we certainly wish Abu Ghraib hadn't happened, but that should not reflect America. This was the actions of some soldiers.

I especially like the part where Smirky tries to show how our government works to someone who clearly knows far more about the inner workings of the American system than he does: "This was a law passed, Adam. We passed a law." Clown.
The last bit about Abu Ghraib is grossly offensive in its disingenuousness.

Book review: The Bush Tragedy

In what might have come off as a stretch of literary hyperbole, Jacob Weisberg has written a comparison of Smirky's life (both personal and political) to Shakespearean tragedy in The Bush Tragedy. Absurd? Perhaps, but Weisberg makes the reader see the sinister and sickening Bush regime as pathetic (in the Greek dramatic sense of pathos) instead of merely disgusting, and to that extent he has succeeded.
Weisberg asserts from the beginning of the book that Smirky is a failure of monumental proportion--this is not another catalog of lies, felonies, and crimes against humanity that has comprised the last 7+ years--and seeks only to explain how and why Bush failed. His literary model for Smirky is Henry V, which might surprise those only familiar with the historical view of Henry V's grand conquest of France culminated by the overwhelming victory at Agincourt. Shakespeare's Henry, however, was a more complex and nearly perverse figure, especially in his younger, pre-King life.
In the Shakespeare plays "Henry IV, part 1" & ". . . part 2", young Hal comes across as a callow wastrel interested only in drinking, wenching, and simply having a good time, all the time. He is shown to consort with low-bred layabouts (the most famous to us and closest to him being Falstaff), and is a constant source of disappointment to his father, King Henry IV, a rather sober and serious monarch. Hal's misbehavior is especially pronounced by comparison to his rival Henry Hotspur, who evinces all the princely qualities King Henry is looking for in an heir, but the accidents of birth leave that possibility open only through civil war. Hal eventually vanquishes Hotspur in battle as he turns away from the friends and path of his youth to claim his rightful place on the throne.
Put GHWBush in King Henry's place, Jeb in Hotspur's, and Smirky in Hal's, and Weisberg's analogy doesn't sound too crazy anymore, does it? (Except of course, Jeb isn't dead, although his political career most likely is.) Weisberg spends a great deal of time delving into Smirky's psyche--a scary and daunting place, to be sure--attempting to use the trope of the Shakespearean tragedy as a vehicle for understanding what has driven Smirky to be the complete loser that he is. The problem in all this is that for all of Smirky's failures, it is the population of the world that is paying the price, not he, so the classic use of the word "tragedy" doesn't quite work. (Although one could argue that Henry V's triumphal defeat and conquest of France actually doomed England to a generation of internecine warfare and the total loss of France during the Wars of the Roses following a mere 3 decades after Henry's death, so even there some parallels might still apply.)
Weisberg's study is entertaining and insightful; his exploration of how Smirky's past informs the present Administration's conduct is useful to those of us wondering how on earth we got to where we are, and his puncturing of many of Smirky's "tall tales" through strict accounting of timelines and documented actions and statements provides us with a wealth of evidence to condemn Bush as a liar and an ignoramus in his personal life as well. Even the prized story of Smirky's conversion to evangelical Christianity by Billy Graham falls apart under Weisberg's close scrutiny, revealing the cynical political calculation undergirding even Smirky's public persona.
When I read the "Henry IV"'s and "Henry V", I was struck by how melancholic the tale of Hal's rejection of his best friend Falstaff was, even as it showed the necessary maturation of England's
brightest shining monarch. Falstaff's death occurs almost as a footnote in "Henry V", probably meant to show how far the new King Henry had risen above his youthful indiscretions. To my mind, though, it represented only a sad end to what had been a colorful and happy life. I kept thinking how much joy Hal passed up in his life in becoming a proper Prince and King. In Smirky's case, though, that missing joy and happiness is ours alone. He's laughing all the way to Paraguay after this is all over . . .

200!

According to the handy dandy post numberer on Blogger, this is my 200th post on Surly Librarian. I know the odds are against my even reaching 300, given my incredible slowdown over the last year, so I thought I'd give a little extra for this milestone.
The reason for my declining writing pace should have been in exultation (is there another time of year anyone ever uses that word?) after last November's stunning Democratic "takeovers" of the House and Senate, but let's face facts, the massively underwhelming amount of activity in Congress pretty much shoots that theory out of the water, eh? I suppose the truth is that I was hoping that the 2006 election would mean more than it does; my overall feeling of depression for the sake of our country's future has dampened my enthusiasm for pointing out Smirky and the gang's sins. I mean, there are so many of them, right? And nobody in a position of power seems to care. The simple fact is, most Congresspeople are so out of touch with what they've been put there to do, those of us paying attention are losing faith. Are we any closer to getting out of the Middle East? Nope. Are we any closer to getting off our addiction to oil? No. Are we retrieving any of our lost civil liberties? No. Have we even begun any investigations that might lead to impeaching the felonious members of the Administration? Not since Pat Fitzgerald's hollow conviction of Scooter, and that was done before 11/06.
The obvious question in response to all of these is: why? Why haven't the Democrats moved on any of these (or any others even more intrinsic to modern Democracy, such as reauthorizing the Fairness Doctrine for media, reregulating industries to guard against their misbehavior, tossing out restrictions on legal awards for the winners of civil lawsuits, and so many more)? Why are we squandering the good will earned with the public over the last few years by not being incompetent, corrupt, and vindictively screwing over everyone except the super-rich (i.e., by not being Republican)?
The cynical answer is that the majority of Democrats in office are no different than the Republicans; let's call this the "Naderite" position, since this was Ralph Nader's stated raison d'etre for running for President in 2000--thereby helping to saddle the world with Smirky, by the way. Is it true? The more time goes by without any substantive changes being made, the more likely it is, although it is still really hard to argue that we'd even be talking about this kind of stuff if we were in the 6th year of a Gore Administration (even a Gore-Lieberman one!). (In other words, while the parties themselves may be 2 sides of the same coin, I hardly think that President Gore could have been in any conceivable way similar to Smirky the solipsist.)
Those still retaining faith in the Democratic Party as a whole claim that the reason nothing is being done is that their majorities simply aren't big enough to accomplish what needs to be done, but the truth is that nothing should be "getting done" that follows any similar path the previous Congresses were pursuing. If the Democrats do indeed possess an ideology that runs counter to the Republicans, they would be passing bills left and right for the betterment of the country (if not the world at large) regardless of whether they become laws. Taking a stand for something usually means not compromising or "doing the nation's business", at least until enough opponents begin making serious concessions of their own, especially when your stances are supported by big majorities of the public. I have yet to see much evidence of that from this Congress, let alone even a shred of self-respecting insistence on following the laws of the country. (Remember the subpoenas issued to Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten? None of those three are in jail for refusing to respond, and that was over 5 months ago . . .)
For some reason, the Democrats think that they should be doing something, meaning that they should be getting bills passed that will receive Smirky's signature. They think that the public wants "bipartisanship", or "compromise", or new laws to be created regardless of their actual effects. This is nuts, of course, because any bill they pass that Smirky would sign is, ipso facto, not a bill that any Democrat--really, any thinking human being--should want to get signed by that wretched scumbag! How hard is that to understand? Smirky and the rest of the felons with an "R" next to their name do not compromise, they do not barter, they do not behave rationally, and they don't care about you or anyone else but themselves, get it? Stop behaving as if there is going to be some magic enlightenment on the other side of the aisle or at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. at some point if you play nice, ok? Haven't the last 13 years given you enough proof of their character? For chrissakes, all you have to do is pay attention to your own polling; the American public is telling you what we want, and more pillaging by the Republicans ain't it. What part of STOP ROLLING OVER don't you get?
(Clearly, the "STOP" part, but I digress.)
*sigh*

Book review: The Assault on Reason

All of you, I'm sure, are aware of my wholehearted support for a Gore candidacy, so it should be no surprise that I found The Assault on Reason a truly terrific book. I haven't read any of Gore's previous books, however, so I was somewhat hesitant to pick this one up, in case all of my fears would come true and he would come across stiff, pedantic, or far worse, boring.
Fret not, dear readers, Al is definitely not pulling too many punches here. The Bush Administration comes under severe fire for its incredible resistance to good sense, in addition to its relentless disdain for honor, truth, or even its proper role in a democracy. Gore tells a tale fraught with danger--we are in serious peril of losing our nation's reason for existence. The reason for this is that our country's capacity and ability for rational thought are being overwhelmed by the wave of inane blather emanating from our airwaves. Anyone relying on the networks for their news (especially Fox, of course) are treated to never ending crises of meaningless events--witness their wall-to-wall coverage of Paris Hilton's recent lawless escapades--or, worse still, false information provided by a sinister government.
Gore provides many examples of this assault, including his personal experience in regards to his attempts to educate the public and the government about global warming, but he also relies on scholarly research to buttress his assertions. This is not a polemic, but rather a well-reasoned (not so ironically) and -supported treatise on the state of our union.
The one weakness I see in the book lies in Gore's reluctance to call Congress to task for its role in enabling Bush's Administration. It's not all Smirky's doing, Al, and laying the entirety of the blame on him simply allows the Republicans to distance themselves verbally and politically from his epic failures when they have been just as culpable. I can understand why he wouldn't want to alienate any of the current members of Congress--if he intends to run for President next year. That would be a nice way to implement some of the ideas he presents in this book, wouldn't it?

Book review: Commander in Chief

First off, let me just say that Geoffrey Perret is one cranky sumbitch. He has nary a kind word for anyone who has occupied any part of the Executive Branch over the last 60 years of American history, except--maybe--for JFK or, surprisingly, Jimmy Carter. His book, which focuses on Harry Truman, LBJ, and Smirky, and their involvements in disastrous misadventures in Asiatic wars, is actually a capsule history of the US Presidency's long-term power grab via their Constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Each President is dealt with in turn, but the bulk of his analysis is given over to a brutal raking over the coals of Truman and his apparently poorly qualified staff. To be sure, neither LBJ nor Smirky come off any better, but in Perret's eyes, they were simply playing the cards that Truman allowed them to deal themselves as Chief Executive.
None of the Presidents Perret covers were at all adept at understanding foreign policy, it seems, since all of them chose to go to war instead of engaging in any form of mature communication with "the enemy", preferring instead to bluster, posture, and kill. From Truman's ill-timed foray by proxy against Mao's China to Smirky's blatant disregard for any form of truth or good sense, our Presidents have all helped create the complete meltdown in foreign affairs we feel today.
This is a fascinating and bracing account of our history since the end of World War II, driven well by great writing and pacing. Some (many?) may disagree with Perret's negative views of Presidential acumen, regardless of his target, but none will come away bored or understimulated.

Alberto, Alberto, Alberto

Our esteemed, er, embattled, er, real estate lawyer posing as the nation's Attorney General (that's right, he is supposed to represent the citizens of the country, not the White House, or the Administration, or the Republican Party, in case 6 years of evidence has clouded your knowledge of the functions of the office) was forced to testify in front of a Senate committee last week. Gonzales had weeks to prepare for his appearance. You would think that during that time he would have boned up on his past meetings with various members of Congress, his aides, his Smirky, and his Slugboy (that would be KKKarl Rove) to pin down dates, times, and agendas (agendae?) that the Senators might ask him about. Instead, his testimony was riddled with bizarre claims of forgetfulness and ignorance. (By one count, he uttered "I don't recall" or some similar phrase a total of 77 times during the course of his single day.)
Now, I'm hardly one to talk about not remembering conversations, dates, and times, as TBO will happily tell anyone. But I'm not the freaking Attorney General, either, for chrissakes! It is incumbent upon him (and all other members of any government, in this country, at any rate) to keep records of every single bit of correspondence, every phone call, and at least the minutes of every meeting he makes or holds. Under penalty of law, that is, and since he is the "Top Cop" of the entire country, one might be tempted to think he would want to be above reproach in this respect.
One who has been brain dead for the last 6 years, that is. Of course there are no records or remembrances of anything by anyone remotely connected with this Administration, especially one of the central players. The crimes of these men and women will remain untold for years (if they ever see the light of day), simply because nothing has ever been recorded, in direct defiance of Federal law. And guess who has jurisdiction over Federal law? Why, none other than our friend Alberto, natch.
You see, Gonzales did indeed use his time to prepare for his testimony. He found out exactly what he didn't have to tell the Senate committee; he knows what evidence is, or more pertinently, isn't, out there that anyone can use against him or the rest of the felons in office. I'm sure he spent every last minute of every last day before last Thursday digging for proof of the truth--so he could safely avoid testifying about it!
No surprises once again, of course--heck, these clowns are on record (numerous times) as believing that the Executive Branch is above the law, so what does it matter if Gonzales perjures himself, or covers up crimes, or simply refuses to say anything remotely resembling the facts or the truth to anyone? Smirky's got his back. And since he's the President, that's all that matters. Unless more Congressmen and women decide that the nascent Imperial Rome of Caesar and Augustus is not an appropriate model for the nation, that is, and impeach these Shivan bastards ASAP.

What's up with that?

Every now and then I turn to Google News to get a glimpse of what's going on in the world. I will probably have to change that habit, though, because for some reason, they seem to present a fairly slanted picture. This morning, one of their top headlines ("above the fold") reads "Democrats must figure next step on Iraq", as if it has been the Democratic Party that has been controlling the occupation and its consequences. The subheading makes me really question Google's algorithm, though, because it truly betrays the writer's bias: The debate is likely to expose fissures among Democrats, who remain divided on whether to cut off money for the unpopular war and risk leaving troops in the lurch.
2 things about that lede are wrong. 1) The Democrats are "divided" only by comparison to the monolithic, unthinking Republicans; remember, their bills have been passed by a Congress in which their majorities are not overwhelming. The only division, really, is between Democrats who want us out of Iraq immediately and those who want us out of Iraq later. 2) No plans put forward by any Democrat to date "risk leaving troops in the lurch". That Republican talking point is simply absurd and highly ironic, given that it has been the Republican Administration and its Halliburton cronies that have consistently provided the troops with little to no training, rest, safe equipment, or even a plan. The troops aren't going to be left in any "lurch" because they will be coming home, unless President Smirky ignores the wishes of a growing majority of the country and diverts other funds in order to keep them in harm's way.
Clicking through to the article itself is illuminating as well. How exactly, did anything from the "Meadow Free Press" find its way to the top of the pile of Google News articles? Is this rag from eastern Idaho really a representative newspaper of world opinion? The number of glaring technical errors in the article (I hope they are simply electronic glitches rather than typos!) were striking; it was virtually incomprehensible in spots.
I suppose, if Google is randomly selecting the papers they highlight, having the Meadow Free Press pop up might be kind of nice (aside from its obviously damaged perspective), in a folksy kind of way, and if Google is using some sort of proprietary statistical algorithm to divine what articles are the most popular in the country to show on their "front pages", they can be excused from charges of internal right wing bias. If that is the case, however, we are in bigger trouble than I even thought, because I notice this kind of slanting often in Google News. If these are indeed the articles most people are getting from their newspapers, it's no wonder at all that it has taken soooo long to persuade our citizens that the Republicans are destroying this country. It is clearly past the time for progressives, liberals, Democrats, and other sensible people to begin creating their own media outlets, at all levels; objective journalism is dead.

Really, is anyone surprised by now?

I hope all of you have heard that the White House has been letting hundreds of its employees use unofficial email accounts, funded and housed by the Republican National Committee, and that an untold number of the emails sent by these accounts are now "missing". This story actually hits close to my professional home, as it were, because there is a federal law governing the archiving and access of all electronic messages sent by government employees. Even after its neutering by Smirky shortly before records of Reagan-era misdeeds (almost without doubt covering Iran-Contra and Pappy Bush's involvement) were to disclosed to the public, the Records Act still applies to the saving of all emails involving the Executive Branch's employees, up to and including Smirky and his pals (although by all accounts, Bush is incapable of, er, doesn't use email), and down to the lowest page. That any of them have been deleted, for any reason, is a violation of this law, and an affront to transparent and open governance.
Gee, really? This Administration might have destroyed evidence or attempted to cover its illicit tracks by violating the law? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you! Next you'll be telling me that they have perpetrated electoral frauds, too. Or that they took us to war under false pretences. Or that the Vice President shot a man in the face. Or . . .
Um, yeah. Anyone out there who still thinks the Republicans and this Administration aren't the embodiment of evil needs to be slapped. Hard. And then shipped off to Leavenworth, the Hague, or Utah, depending on their level of culpability.
Update: The volume of emails missing could number in the millions. See this.

Proud to be from Glendale

What really got me to write again was a simple (and truly simple-minded) letter to the LA Times dated April 10. Ken Artingstall from Glendale writes, and I quote the letter almost wholly here:

The United Nations now reports that global warming is "irreversible but could be moderated by large-scale societal changes." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), in a position to effect such changes, says "it is not too late to slow it down. We must base our actions on moral imperatives free of political interference." This is the same speaker who triumphantly passed a budget that eliminates all the Bush tax cuts after 2010, setting the stage for a huge tax increase. What will "large-scale societal changes" to attack global warming entail? Command-and-control government regulation of the economy and even more taxes, among other things. To all the fanatical global warming disciples and pro-big government Democrats, be careful what you wish for: A collapsing economy will surely be one of them.

Let's break this letter down, shall we?
1) Mr. Artingstall's comment about the new House budget is comprised of 4 clauses (if my decades-old memory of what constitutes a clause is correct), 2 of which are false. A) The Bush tax cuts were created to end after 2010, in a cynical ploy to both explode in a future Administration's face and grab ignorant Democratic votes in Congress; Pelosi had nothing to do with "eliminating" them; and B) This "sunset clause" was widely publicized at the time of passage, so only ignoramuses or ideologues like Mr. Artingstall could claim that the return to the previous tax levels represents a tax increase perpetrated by Democrats. Given inflation, the amount paid in taxes by those lucky few who have benefited from these lower taxes for 10 years will no doubt be less in real dollars after 201o than they were in 2000 anyway . . .
2) Mr. Artingstall's wholesale and reprehensible denial of global warming notwithstanding, his conclusion about what the UN means by "large-scale societal changes" is wholly unfounded by anything other than his own ridiculous biases against responsible governance. Did Mr. Artingstall quote anyone other than the voices in his head when he decided that the societal changes might entail "more taxes" or "command-and-control" government regulation (whatever that means)? Of course not; people like him are ideologically opposed to using facts, logic, or even simple human kindness when determining what to say or do. It is entirely likely that our government will decide to spur investment in alternative fuels by encouraging businesses through tax breaks or even direct subsidies, but we already do that for the oil companies! It would be a simple matter to redirect those breaks and subsidies elsewhere or for other purposes, with no (gasp!) tax increases.
3) Mr. Artingstall is so out-of-touch with reality that he concludes his letter with one of the oldest canards in politics, in combination with one of the newest. Where in politics, exactly, are these "pro-big government Democrats", Ken? You clearly haven't noticed that it is the Republicans who have grown government since Reagan took office 26 years ago, with the largest growth occurring under Smirky and the rest of the felons currently in power. (See here also.) And how exactly can you define "fanatical global warming disciples" so that it includes the majority of citizens, not just globally, but even in the woefully misinformed US? Wake up, Ken--it is you that is the fanatic. Get a grip.
This is hardly unusual thinking for Glendalians, I'm sorry to report. This city is home to some of the most conservative thinking in all of LA County, it seems, judging by letters to the editor of the local rag. I just thought it was time for someone to point that out, and as someone who lives there, I apologize to the rest of you for it.