At approximately 3:00 this morning, someone set fire to the yard sign Christine Johnson placed in front of my house. Christine is the Democratic candidate for Utah House of Representatives, District 25 (east-central Salt Lake City and Park City).
I don't know whether this was a random act by some idiot who just happened to be staggering by, or if something more dispicable lurks behind this act. What I do know is the sign stood immediately adjacent to a large tree that overhangs my house. Had my neighbor not noticed the fire and rushed over to extinguish it, this foolish act might have turned deadly.
There are a lot of reasons to love Christine Johnson and support her candidacy. Unfortunately, some of these reasons tend to aggravate the social Neanderthals living in our midst. If the police catch this vandal, and his motivation proves more than random, I'll add reckless endangerment to the list of charges faster than he can flick his homophobic little Bic!
Even if you don't live in District 25, check out Christine's web site. And leave a small donation, if you can. She might need to purchase more yard signs.
The REAL Video of the Day - President William J. Clinton SMACKDOWN
You know, I was nervous to watch these videos. In recent days, I've felt disillusioned by the effective spinning and political maneuvering of the Rove-fueled Neoconservative noise machine. But I finally sucked it up and watched this interview between Fox-News Bozo Extraordinaire Chris Wallace, and former President Bill Clinton. Conservatives are trying to spin the conflict with tags like "Bill Clinton gone mad!!", hoping to employ the same ridiculous smear job they effectively hung Howard Dean with. When you watch the video, you might say as I did, "You're damn right he's mad, and so am I!"
The political climate in this country has taken on an almost surreal air. Republicans make outrageous claims, blithely dismiss facts, and lie on national TV without fear or hesitation because they know that no one will ever call them on it. If the people they are attacking do respond, they do so in a painful, plodding manner, failing to muster even half of the passion or indignation their accusers did.
Republicans are singularly obsessed with maintaining power. They have abandoned all pretense of decency, honor, or truth, because they are convinced that they alone are right, and that the ends justify the means. They have abandoned any sense of humility or the notion of revealing their true agendas to the public, having simply concluded that the public is either too stupid or too vulnerable to the influence of the opposition to understand what they're trying to do. And I say that with the most generous benefit of the doubt.
The President and the Republicans are as unpopular as they are because they have burned our house to the ground. They have proven so incompetent, so unreliable, that people are desperate to find something else to believe in. But none of that matters in an election if the Democrats cannot figure out how to stand up, show some backbone, and match those big brains of theirs with the courage and resolve to stand up to a deplorable little weasel like Chris Wallace and say "No, not this time."
But they don't.
The Democrats follow the Republicans wherever they lead, in an awkward, embarrassing game of catch up. They stumble to respond to neoconservative attacks and misinformation as if they just can't believe their opposition could be that dishonest or hypocritical. The Jury is out, people! They can be, and they don't lose sleep over it!
Clearly the old playbook isn't working. Clearly we can't presume truth or decency, or even the mixed antics and rhetoric that used to pass as such in pre-9/11 America.
If Karl Rove and his army of vapid, morally-bankrupt political operatives can emote passion and sincerity when selling their lies and misdirection, then surely there are men of strength and character who can stand up to these pathetic little agents of spin and remind the American that conviction can be found in the truth.
When most people make mistakes or behave dishonestly, they are at least morally burdened. Neoconservatives are not. While we can't allow ourselves to be crippled by indecision or self-doubt, we must retain the humility necessary to balance our power with the realization that we are, however well intentioned, fallible. The neoconservatives do not, and will not, admit such things.
Make no mistake - there is no bargaining; there is no reasoning; there is no genuine discussion or presumption of decency with them. We must strip them of their power, restore the integrity of our nation, and ensure the security and prosperity of this great nation. We need men and women who will stand up for such a cause.
And with that, I give you former President William Jefferson Clinton:
I've never been a huge fan of Chris Matthews from "Hardball", but I think he is one of the few people around that genuinely tries to make sense of what's going on, and doesn't have any obligatory partisan motives to filter things through. This segment seemed very honest and compelling.
From last Sunday's Deseret Morning News Readers' Forum:
Al-Qaida follows evil force The question of what caused 9/11 was chronicled thoroughly in Sunday's (Sept. 10) paper. I would like to suggest another reason for the attack that was not touched upon. That is, bin Laden and his followers listen to a dark, evil, unseen force that teaches them that murder, mayhem and destruction are good things and that they will be rewarded for them. All other explanations lend support or may provide rationalization to al-Qaida. David A. Jensen Alpine
The terrorists follow the dictates of "a dark, evil, unseen force" that preaches murder, mayhem and destruction ...
Is Dick Cheney a double agent?
Okay, perhaps he's only rarerly seen. But who else could Mr. Jensen possibly mean?
Oh, wait! I get it! Congrats, David A. Jensen, you have earned the title: Hyper-Religious Whacko of the Week!
DS
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
According to Guido Racheile, in his letter published in Saturday's Salt Lake Tribune, mining and extractions companies seeking to do their dirty business in Carbon and Emery counties will not destroy any of the land they burrow into. It must go without saying that the substances they extract will also not polute the air or contribute to global warming.
Great argument, Guido. I'm convinced! How did you ever come up with all of those facts to support your iron-clad proof?
Guido Racheile: this week's Ostrich Farmer of the Week.
Note: links to letters and articles published in the Salt Lake Tribune are generally only active during the first two weeks following publication, after which the referenced articles are locked away in their pay-per-view archive.
This week's PCC award goes to Joe Miller of West Jordan, who freely admits the following beliefs in his letter published in last Sunday's Salt Lake Tribune:
He does not pay attention to Bush's critics, but nevertheless believes he knows what they are saying.
Prayers of gratitude render voting unnecessary.
Iraqis and Afghanis are unanimous in their appreciation for Bush's actions in their countries.
Death resulting from Bush's folly is preferable to death resulting from Saddam's frivolity.
Amid the fear and "patriotic" fervor of wartime, such quaint peacetime ideals as the Bill of Rights and Constitutional checks and balances are rendered completely trivial.
Although you doubtlessly got a good night's sleep, feel free to rest on your laurels, Joe Miller. You are this week's Padded Cell Conservative of the Week!
Note: links to letters and articles published in the Salt Lake Tribune are generally only active during the first two weeks following publication, after which the referenced articles are locked away in their pay-per-view archive.
That's right, death and mayhem are coming to our local high schools and college campuses! And we can't do thing one about it! It is only a matter of time, so we'd better start arming our teachers, professors, and even our children right now!
What have we to fear from "law-abiding, responsible citizens carrying a concealed weapon on campus?" I'll just add this to the admittedly anecdotal, but entirely true story related in today's SK Redneck post: if gunfire breaks out, and dozens of concealed permit holders begin shooting from all directions, how has a few hours of training prepared you to know whom to aim your beloved proxy penis at?
It was a close race, but Jeremy Roberts gets the final nod for this week's Wild-Eyed Fear Monger of the Week.
Note: links to letters and articles published in the Salt Lake Tribune are generally only active during the first two weeks following publication, after which the referenced articles are locked away in their pay-per-view archive.
Following a full week of redneck-free news and opinion in Salt Lake's two major dailies, it is with some sadness that we must resurrect this award. Indeed, the competition proved tight this week, with two letters vying for the title.
Despite his repeated use of the word "fear" in this letter from Tuesday's Deseret Morning News, West Jordan's Vardell Taylor will have to settle for honorable mention for this week's Wild-Eyed Fear Monger award. Instead, Mr. Taylor is recognized for the glowing shade of crimson radiating from beneath his hairline:
Concealed guns on campus? University of Utah President Michael Young says students have the right to learn without fear. He says the right to carry concealed weapons on campus would cause fear. Two days later I open the paper to see a large photo of fearful students running for their lives. My first thought is, "Are these U. students? Are they running in fear from the dreaded concealed weapon?" As I read further, my fears are relieved; these are Canadian students who have nothing to fear, because they have no concealed weapons on their campuses. Silly Canadian students. Then why are they running in fear? Vardell Taylor West Jordan
There are so many valid arguments to be made against Mr. Taylor's position. The most important, in my view, concerns the uncritical presumption that a few hours of classroom and hands-on training can prepare one to act appropriately, should the preceived need for a firearm actually present itself.
Twenty years ago, I went through Marine Corps boot camp and infantry training school with a young man from Ronert Park, CA. He was tough as nails and as dedicated to fulfilling his duty as a U.S. Marine as anyone I have ever known. Together, as recruits and machinegunner trainees, we logged hundreds of hours in training on weapons ranging from a 9mm sidearm to a crew-served 50-caliber machinegun. Following this training, he was assigned to sea duty (essentially, military police aboard a navy vessel), which entailed still more instruction and hands-on experience. He seemed to be on the right track to achieving his goal of returning home to become a police officer in his hometown one day.
Years later, I caught up with my old friend on-line. This tough, dedicated young marine was now a mild-mannered family man, driving a delivery truck and coaching little league football. What happened to his dream?
Following his stint, he actually did land a job in his hometown as an armored truck crewmember. But a pivotal experience caused him to abandon his years of training and experience entirely.
He related the story of one fateful morning, when two gunmen approached his truck as he prepared a delivery. Seeing that these men meant business, he drew his sidearm and gunfire ensued. Overcome by adrenaline, my highly-trained friend succeeded only in shooting up the windows and walls of the shopping center across the street. Fortunately, this event took place before business hours and no innocent bystanders were killed or injured. Neither, he added, were the armed robbers, who got away clean. Worse, in the heat of the moment, consideration for time of day never entered his mind.
I'll say it one more time: my friend had years of experience with some of the best firearms and combat training in the world. What might we expect from someone whose qualifications amount to a few hours of dubious classwork, a receipt for 60 buck, and the ability to recite a dozen or so lines from the Dirty Harry movies?
Congratulations Vardell Taylor, you are this week's Sofa King Redneck of the Week.
DS
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
The Salt Lake Tribune regularly prints the commentaries of Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. This week, Mr. Pitts does a fine job of welcoming the awakening many former supporters of the Bush Administration's foreign policies seem to be experiencing, while also recounting precisely where, when and why America actually lost its moral standing in the world.
While it seems likely this essay was sent to print before news broke of the compromise between Bush and the four leading Senate Republicans who opposed the president's attempts to retroactively legalize torture of suspected terrorists and their affiliates, Pitts' optimistic reference to a "line in the sand" nevertheless rings somewhat hollow today. And he might have found a better way to express his love for true Americanism than "Kill me before you kill my country."
But these lapses should not detract from the greater brilliance of this piece, which effectively finds words the the thoughts and feelings many of us have clung to for years -- and a growing number of our fellow citizens are finally beginning to share.
Welcome back to the real world, Colin Powell, the piece is aptly titled. Yes, and to everyone else presently finding the light at the end of that long tunnel of fear into which, in the aftermath of 9-11, the current administration disingenuously lured so many well-intentioned Americans.
Leonard Pitts Jr. is our Genuine American Patriot of the Week!
Note: links to letters and articles published in the Salt Lake Tribune are generally only active during the first two weeks following publication, after which the referenced articles are locked away in their pay-per-view archive.
I first saw this on Newsmax, a far-right conservative something or other. They're all giddy about it.
There is a quick piece over at the Moderate Voice. Somebody over at the Miami Herald tersely wondered if the "October Surprise" may be the "timely capture of Osama Bin Laden." I have to admit, this was my first thought. James Mooretalks about Karl Rove over at Buzz Flash. Evil Genius? Or Evil Genius? Wonkette has a poll going to "Guess the October Surprise!" So far, "Iran totally had it coming" is in a strong lead, trailed by "Mexico totally had it coming" and "Precision hurricanes take out all battleground states; FEMA cancels elections." Ahh, that Wonkette. Think she'd dig me? "Up and Coming" magazine, care of Zwire, has a piece which talks about this. And finally, La Crosse Tribune has a spirited comment section going on the matter.
Anybody around here have any theories as to what the "Big Surprise" may be? Is it just me, or does Karl Rove seem more and more evil every day.
From the Newsmax article:
Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, ... When he was with Bush recently, the president asked him, "What do you have to say, Pence?" "Thanks for being more determined than our enemy," Pence said. "I like the way you put that," Bush quickly replied.
Pence then struggled to free his head from the Presidents ass.
I was really hoping the following opinions over at the Deseret Morning News would have some meat to respond to, but alas, they were pretty bland. In any event, here are some headlines you don't often see:
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
Appraise Iraq war fairly, too Hooray! We're finally going to get to the bottom of the Utah war. As historian David L. Bigler noted in the Deseret Morning News article of Sept. 16, we must have "a faithful account of its causes and outcomes, not an illusory rendering that encourages complacency and false pride. ... It must be as fair and balanced and, above all, as honest as admittedly flawed historians can make it." How long will be have to wait to apply the same standards to the Iraq war?
Kenneth Payne Spanish Fork
I think it's going to be a while, Mr. Payne. Don't hold your breath.
DS Salt lake city, Utah
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
Opinion - Deanne Francis, RN - Bleach your food, savages!
Protect yourself from bad food I would like to ask a question to the consumers who are suing over contaminated spinach: What did you do to protect yourselves? While I believe everything possible should be done to prevent food-borne and water-borne diseases, it does not make sense to rely totally on someone else for disease prevention. From the field, to the packagers, to the distributors to the sellers to the consumers, there are multiple possibilities for contamination to occur and bacteria proliferate. Furthermore, food may be packaged in the United States but grown in another country where there are fewer controls on animal and human waste. Labels do not necessarily tell you where the food was grown. Soaking raw fruits and vegetables for 30 seconds in a bleach solution (2 teaspoon of 4 percent — 6 percent chlorine bleach in a liter of water) and then rinsing, would go a long way to reducing cases of illness in the home and legal cases in the courts. Be proactive! Protect yourself!
Deanne Francis, RN Provo
I'm not a particularly litigious person, but... bleach my vegetables? Really? Do you do that? If I have to bleach my food to make sure I don't die from e coli, maybe we need a lawsuit or two.
DS Salt lake city, Utah
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.
O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .
That's great, President Bush. That's just great.
On the lighter side of our fearless leaders expert prosecution of the war on terror:
Well, it's been five days since I sent Lt. Gov. Herbert an e-mail outlining a few of the problems Part of the Plan and The Deseret Spectacle found on his website. No response. Strangely, a couple of days ago I checked it and found one of the problems fixed! "Hooray!" I thought. A little slow, but at least they're getting around to it.
The resource they had linking to their "Z:" drive (and completely inaccessible from the web) had been changed to a legitimate URL! Strangely, I went over there again today, and it has reverted to the inaccessible Z: drive. I am baffled.
Opinion - Robert Hildebrand - Sen. Hatch Doesn't Care About Utah People
Hatch beholden to outsiders According to opensecrets.org, a nonpartisan watchdog group, roughly 80 percent of campaign contributions to Sen. Orrin Hatch come from outside the state of Utah — places like Palm Beach, Fla., and Houston. No wonder Hatch is spending most of his time working for everyone but Utahns. In the long term we desperately need 100 percent public financing of campaigns so that these sharp-talking politicians aren't beholden to others, but in the short term, we need new blood in Congress. That's why I support Pete Ashdown for U.S. senator.
Robert Hildebrand Salt Lake City
This doesn't really require a reply, but.... of course Sen. Hatch doesn't work for Utah. He does the bare minimum to appease us, because he knows that he will never lose office. In almost every area of Utah, if you are a Republican, trade on your religious affiliation (read:LDS), bash homosexuality, rail against abortion and propose the occasional flag burning amendment, you can do whatever else you want and still win.
Here, to be ousted or kept from office, a politician with the above credentials has to be caught on video selling gay porn to school children while smoking crack pipe lit from a burning flag.
DS Salt lake city, Utah
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
Opinion - Robert Taylor - Want Healthcare? Sell your House
No right to health care Jennifer Delker (Readers' Forum, Sept. 16) believes all American citizens have a basic right to health care. She belongs to a growing group of entitlement-minded people, who take an ever-growing portion of our gross national product and believe they deserve it. This contributes greatly to our growing national debt. I do not believe that free health care is granted by our Constitution. There are many ways for people to obtain insurance: move into a cheaper home, get rid of one of your cars or find some other cost-cutting measure.
Robert Taylor Salt Lake City
Entitlement programs are dangerous, and I quickly lose my tolerance for those who act entitled. There is legitimate concern that entitlement programs not only cost too much, but are sometimes counter-productive and destructive. That being said, the problem with healthcare isn't with entitlement, it is in the regulation and cost.
Between the pharmaceuticals, the lawyers and the insurance industry, average citizens are being priced out of the market. We aren't talking about yachts or summer homes, we're talking about healthcare - your life, especially as you grow older, depends on it.
Mr. Taylor suggests getting a smaller house or getting rid of a car, painting a picture of wealthy suburbanites complaining about healthcare costs while driving utility vehicles between homes. The people I know who don't have health insurance don't have a car, and they're lucky if they're renting an affordable apartment.
The government provides incredibly strong intellectual property protection and strictly controls medication and healthcare. In fact, we outlaw cheap medications we consider to have too high a potential for abuse while blithely turning an eye to the easily, frequently abused pharmaceutical counterparts. Finally, we give business the ability to fix their own price, despite the regulatory protections and the consequent profits they enjoy.
I'm not saying regulation is a bad thing - developing procedures and standards helps eliminate quacks and dangerous compounds from legitimate medicine. But if we are going to lock up the market, deny self-medication and fail to monitor and check the prices these industries demand, we have a duty to assist the less fortunate.
I am very sensitive to entitlements, and would love to see them done away with eventually, but in the meantime, people need help - and we need to help them.
DS Salt lake city, Utah
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
Boost skills, not wage base As I was reading about Utah's minimum wage on Sept. 16, several things went through my mind. First, why stop at $8 an hour? Why not $50 or higher? Where does this money come from? Companies have to pass this on to the consumers in the form of higher prices. When this happens does that mean that minimum has to go up again? To what? $100 an hour? Second, I know of no one who stays at minimum wage. Isn't it the responsibility of the person to improve his or her skills in order to make a better living? I know of people who have limitations, who have gone out and improved their skills so that they can make more than minimum wage. It comes down a state of mind. Anyone can do better if they really want to.
Logan David Barnes
This is a brilliant display of logic. So the argument goes that if we raise the minimum wage, vendors will have to charge more for their products, so we'll all have to pay the increased prices, including the minimum wage earners, which in turn will increase what they need, which will... eventually result in the destruction of capitalism and a $100-an-hour minimum wage.
If that's the case, then why did this disastrous cycle not take place the last time the minimum wage was increased? Weird. And actually, let's take this the other direction: Let's lower the minimum wage to 50 cents an hour. Since all commerce is contingent upon the mighty minimum wage earner, and vendors peg their prices exclusively to what they make, prices should plummet across the board!
It makes much more sense that when the lowest wage earners make more money, the economy grows because they are spenders.
DS Salt lake city, Utah
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
"...prices haven't fallen because stations are still using up gasoline purchased weeks ago at higher prices — appeared to be greeted with some skepticism by a state official investigating Utah's pump prices."
To make this claim, after a series of ridiculous contentions, takes nerves of steel and an incredibly blithe and pompous disregard of the public.
A few key points:
Utah and a handful of other states just happen to be the only states that "bought their gas when the prices were still high?"
When oil prices go up, prices at the pump go up instantly. As one writer at the Deseret News put it a while back, "It's hard to believe that the cost of gas in the tanks went up 20 cents while it was still in the ground."
We've received excuse after excuse since the issue was publicized. Are those excuses true, or have they been swept aside because no one was buying them?
Are you friggin' kidding me??
That second point is important, because it illustrates just how brazen these people are. Gas prices go up instantly when anything happens, but if prices are falling, there's a lag at the pump? what else have you got, Mr. Hill? We're not buying that one.
"I wish there were a great explanation," Peacock said. "The issue is timing. It's just the way Utah's marketplace works. We're slow to go up, and the consumers benefitted. We're slow to come down, and right now the consumers are concerned about that."
Does anybody have any statistics to back this up? Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but the only time I can remember there being a lag at all in Utah was after Katrina, where pumps around the damage areas went up instantly and severely, but it took a day or so to reach us. Additionally, when Utah gas prices have been better than most other places around the country, it seems the margin has been much smaller, beating other states by a dime or so. There are places beating us by nearly a dollar.
Hill said it is not government's role to decide what a particular retailer should charge for a gallon of gasoline. "That's what makes America great," Hill said. "People can make or sell something and then reap the benefits."
I love listening to Oil Barrons pontificate on the beauty of the free market, but in this case, we need regulation. Society needs consistent electricity, safe roads, good education and reasonably priced gasoline. They don't even pretend to be concerned and have no problems lying to our faces.
DS Salt lake city, Utah
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
Apparently, in the late 90's, language was removed from oil leasing agreements that required Oil Companies to pay royalties if the price of gas reached a certain threshold.
Muslims react to suggestion they're violent with threats, violence.
"Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate."
"Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends."
Fight against those who are not of the true faith "until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued".
Quotes from the Koran. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
I was working on the deck this afternoon listening to NPR. They had a couple of people on with the host, taking calls and debating issues on such tops as Islam, Christianity, the Pope, etc. The Muslim scholar who was asked by a caller why Islamic militants reacted with violence to any perceived insult - why they were so sensitive. As loaded and assuming as the question may have been, the guy's answer blew me away a little: He said something to the effect that Muslims were very passionate about their religion, and that Christians had become apathetic. There was more to it, but the undeniable point was that he thought it was plenty okay.
My first thought was "Is that really how it's going to be?" All of us walking on eggshells, scared to death of insulting delicate Islamic sensibilities? It reminds me of the freak-out-session over the Islamic Cartoons which stirred world-wide protests and violence.
It's this kind of crap which alienates would-be allies.
A few different stories based entirely on which headline I like:
Blah Utah - Thai Tanks, Bush Mirages, Girls in Trunks, Stupid Pollen
Blah. Slow news day. Or maybe I'm just blah.
In any event, a few items of disinterest:
------------ "Mystery" object is floating by the space shuttle. Google >>
I was all excited, hoping it was an alien or something to get the day going, but I'll be damned if I can tell what the hell is is. Looks like a dot to me. ------------ President Bush says that stable mideast was a mirage - he's helped reveal it for what it is - chaos. Thanks Mr. President. Google >> ------------ Tooele man stuffs his girlfriend in trunk - she's out/he's arrested KSL >>
What the hell is going on out in Tooele? Is it the radiation? The Meth? ------------ Utah GOP chairmen Evans is saying that Anderson and Matheson are colluding. No evidence or reason for theory, but he just thought he'd throw it out there. New West >> ------------ All hell is breaking loose in Thailand. Google >> ------------ The pollen is friggin' killing me. Stupid pollen counts. Here, Here, Here ------------
Our legislature isn't even pretending to listen to the public anymore. They do participate in a minimal level of spin, but if it doesn't work, they go right ahead with whatever the hell they feel like doing. This time, they see that the people don't want another tax cut - they want education and roads.
Here's an imaginary conversation:
"We're going to give out some more tax cuts!" "To who?" "Well, the rich, mainly, but don't worry - it will get back to you." "Based on what evidence?" "Our gut feel." "Okay. Well, we'd rather the money go into education and roads and stuff." "But it's a really good idea! Tax cuts!" "No, thanks. Education." "Hmm.. You want tax cuts? Okay, you have spoken and we, your humble servants will obey!" "Wait! No! We said NO to the tax cuts - YES to education!" "Seriously?" "Yes, seriously." "Alright then. We're going to go ahead and do the tax cuts, since clearly you're confused and stupid." "Wait! You work for us!" "Ho ho ho. You're so cute. No run along." "We are not your children, sirs! We are your constituents! You are supposed to represent us!" "Hahahahaha.. Hey Joe - the constituents are saying we are supposed to represent them again.." "The rich ones?" "No! That's what's funny. It's the general public - the poor ones." "Hahahaha.. That's precious." "I know, totally." "Hey!!!"
A fewpeople at Deseret Morning News are talking about this as well. One says he wants more tax cuts, but I'm not sure that he really gets that he's not going to be the big winner.
You know, why would they listen to the people? They do what they want, and when elections roll around they say "My homosexual opponent wants to kill babies while drinking and doing drugs with terrorists that want to burn your flag and outlaw your religion." And we say "Well! I certainly don't like THAT..." and vote them in for another round.
On Wednesday we did a live demo ... Afterward, Chris Tengi, a technical staff member, asked to look at the key that came with the voting machine. He noticed an alphanumeric code printed on the key, and remarked that he had a key at home with the same code on it. The next day he brought in his key and sure enough it opened the voting machine.
This seemed like a freakish coincidence — until we learned how common these keys are.
Chris’s key was left over from a previous job, maybe fifteen years ago. He said the key had opened either a file cabinet or the access panel on an old VAX computer. A little research revealed that the exact same key is used widely in office furniture, electronic equipment, jukeboxes, and hotel minibars. It’s a standard part, and like most standard parts it’s easily purchased on the Internet. We bought several keys from an office furniture key shop — they open the voting machine too. We ordered another key on eBay from a jukebox supply shop. The keys can be purchased from many online merchants.
Is it just me, or does the government not really take our elections that seriously? They should be doing backflips to ensure the integrity of our election system - more often than not, they seem to put more effort into trying to snow us all into thinking they're on the job, than actually be on the job.
Here's our standard e-voting boilerplate:
Unless you have a transparent voting process, a paper trail with random, independent audits, and automatic recounts in close races or when exit polls differ from the official tally outside their margin of error, the integrity of our elections is suspect.
If you can't Microwave American Citizens, You can't Microwave Foreigners
Last week, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne contended that new, experimental microwave weapons should be tested on Americans before we use them in the battlefield. Here's how he put it:
"If we're not willing to use it (the weaponry) here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation. (Because) if we hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."
Well, as much as I'm willing to be microwaved if it will keep Wynne from being vilified, it's a little disturbing that American citizens are held in this regard by our "leaders." It seems more and more like we are just another enemy that needs to be handled, as opposed to the public that they serve.
Perhaps we could get a group of rabid President Bush supporters, you know, the ones that think surrending our freedoms is patriotic, to volunteer for some microwave crowd-control experiments.
Opinion - Zachary Jacob - Some People Just Don't Respect Anything American
Deseret Morning News Readers' Forum:
Don't write on our flag For the past few years, my family and I have enjoyed the "Healing Field" — approximately 3,000 American flags set up on the "mall" in front of Sandy City Hall to honor those who lost their lives in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. This year, however, I was somewhat shocked to see "Flags of Honor" — representations of the American flag with the names of the deceased on the stripes. Section 176 of The United States Flag Code — the section titled "Respect for the Flag" — states that "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture or drawing of any nature." While I can appreciate the sentiment the Healing Field organizers are trying to portray, I feel it is doing an injustice to the flag by having alterations done to it. Zachary Jacob Sandy
Someone should tell the president:
DS Salt Lake City, Utah
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
Opinion - Scott Standage - Another Amused Utah Conservative (wee...)
Demos' agenda isn't patriotic It is downright amusing that Democrats are complaining that President Bush used the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, to further his agenda in Iraq. I do not recall a Democratic National Convention being scheduled in Detroit in November 2005. Oh, that's right, it was Rosa Parks' funeral where all the Democratic propaganda speeches came forth. How comforting to her family that those who spoke turned it into their own political stumping ground. Please put aside all the pompous diatribes and start getting back to the business of the United States of America. Now that would be a positive change.
Scott Standage Draper
Ho ho ho. Aren't those Democrats amusing. I'm tickled pink by their silliness. It makes me laugh uproariously to see their comical, if misguided, antics. Hilarious, really. They don't bother me, as they are like children, unaware of the truth as we conservatives are, and ergo, funny.
Seriously, though - is Mr. Standage kidding? First of all, Rosa Parks Funeral was last year. Second, does Mr. Standage heap equal scorn on the politicization of President Reagan's funeral? Third, I don't remember any protests from the Parks family. In fact, I would wager they had something to do with the people spoke.
Finally, it is only with the boldest of hypocrisy that a conservative can point the finger at others for "pompous diatribes" and urge them to get "back in the business of the United States of America." After a sickening round of flag-burning amendments, gay-marriage amendments, school prayer amendments, congressional hearings on steroids, emergency Terry Schiavo interventions and an obscene and divisive politicization of the tragedy of 9/11, it turns the stomach.
DS Salt Lake City, Utah
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
After taking a week off from our Weekly Awards of Dubious Distinction, we’re back … and we’re better than ever, baby!
This week, we add a new and decidedly non-dubious accolade to our portfolio: Genuine American Patriot of the Week. This award recognizes individuals whose actions and opinions provide a clear example of what it means to be a truly patriotic American.
Without further ado, our first Genuine American Patriot of the Week …
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann ends each episode of Countdown in homage to the first and greatest American television journalist, Edward R. Murrow by quoting the pioneering journalist’s signature sign-off phrase, “Goodnight, and good luck.” As a referential tribute, it is an admirable gesture. Any suggestion of comparison to Murrow, however, might have seemed vainly presumptuous.
Until two weeks ago, that is, when Olbermann aired this Special Comment on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s speech before the American Legion Convention in Salt Lake City. With this remarkable commentary, Olbermann earned the right to move beyond the confines of merely paying tribute to Murrow.
Monday of this week, Olbermann did it again with this stunning Special Comment given before the backdrop of the empty hole that yet remains where the World Trade Center towers once stood.
Below are just a few quote-worthy passages from Olbermann’s latest display of courage, intellect, and genuine patriotism. It truly is worth giving 8-9 minutes of your day to view Olbermann's commentary for yourself.
Anyone who claims that I and others like me are soft, or have forgotten the lessons of what happened here is at best, a grasping, opportunistic dilettante and at worst, an idiot, whether he is a commentator, or a vice president, or a president.
Five years later, this country’s wound is still open. Five years later, this country’s mass grave is still unmarked. Five years later, this is still just a background for a photo op. It is beyond shameful.
Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir: on these sixteen empty acres, the terrorists are clearly still winning. And in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed, but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.
Terrorists did not come and steal our newly regained sense of being American first and political fiftieth, nor did the Democrats, nor did the Media, nor did the people. The president and those around him did that.
How dare you, Mr. President. After taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting both in to fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion, and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of free elections. How dare you or those around you ever spin 9-11.
Look into this empty space behind me, and the bipartisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me this: Who has left this hole in the ground? We have not forgotten, Mr. President. You have. May this country forgive you.
Keith Olbermann: our first Genuine American Patriot of the Week.
We must clarify our detainee interrogations law (read: render torture retroactively legal), because the terrorists are coming again!
That’s the message an inpatient George W. Bush hammered angrily at during yesterday’s Rose Garden press conference.
Even the Deseret Morning News saw fit to run a McClatchy Newspaper’s article citing “the president’s use of fear to pressure lawmakers.”
Of course, the president’s rhetoric was riddled with fallacious argumentation.
On former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s recent observation, in a letter to Senator John McCain, that “the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” Bush responded:
That's flawed — flawed logic. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."
Take it easy on that straw man, Mr. President. He ain’t done nothin’ to you!
This is a typical right wing-nut tactic: revise a valid criticism of your position into an extreme interpretation no sane person would adopt, and argue against that, instead. Did Powell say we’re becoming just like the terrorists?
On what will happen if Congress fails to cave into his demands:
The president said he would shut down the CIA interrogation program permanently if Congress didn't pass legislation that gave the agency latitude in dealing with suspects and protected its interrogators from possible prosecution for war crimes.
Here again is yet another familiar wing-nut tactic: use the extremes to create a false dichotomy. Might the CIA simply modify their program to conform to whatever new law Congress produces, or the long-standing Geneva Conventions, rather than shutting down entirely? Might we not be capable of fighting terrorism while maintaining some small shred of dignity and moral standing in the world?
Not with this black-and-white thinker. With him, it’s all or nothing, with us or against us. As we have learned the hard way with this president, these false dichotomies might best be expressed as my way or the high road.
The only president we have: this week’s Wild-Eyed Fear Monger of the Week!
Having searched the past week’s local press exhaustively, no clear candidate has emerged for this award. Maybe that’s a good sign. Perhaps we should start a clock:
Salt Lake City news and opinion: Redneck free for 07days!
In the absence of a pre-selected recipient, we invite our readers to offer their own nominees in the comments section of this post.
Wednesday's Deseret Morning News included an editorial that, even by the standards comes to expect from these timorous wing-nuts, seems to defy easy description. Rather than employing a string of adjectives in hopes of getting close, I decided to invent a new word: fearspin.
Earlier this week, in a fit of outraged befuddlement, I tried to address some of the more absurd assertions expressed in this unconscionable attempt to gloss over the abject failures of the current administration with appeals to cowardice and false implications concerning the desires of those who oppose the president's policies. Read the editorial yourself, and you'll know exactly what fearspin means.
The Deseret Morning News Editorial Staff: Padded Cell Conservatives of the Week!
In Friday's Salt Lake Tribune, H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the arch-conservative, free-market “think tank,” National Center for Policy Analysis voiced the following opinions concerning California’s initiative to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by the year 2020:
1. It doesn’t meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocols, so why bother? 2. What difference can one little state have in a great big polluting world? 3. Carbon-based industries will flee the state for pollution friendly locations! 4. Higher prices on everything, fewer jobs, more blackouts, an economy in shambles!
Oh, the humanity!
Fortunately, the Tribune also published a counter argument from Wayne Madsen of the progressive Online Journal.
Of course, Mr. Burnett’s old economy line of thinking is wrong on every count.
1. Any effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, even those that fall short of specific goals, is better than no effort at all. 2. California command enough of the national economic picture to influence future decisions across the country. 3.Old economy industries can run from California, but they cannot long hide from the future. 4. Prudent investment in and incentives for development of greener technologies will establish California as a leader in the new economy, ready to export their products and expertise to the rest of the nation and the world.
H. Sterling Burnett (H. Sterling, for crying out loud!!!): Ostrich Farmer of the Week!
I’ve always been amazed at what a rabid sports fan the Christian god turned out to be. How many times have we heard athletes thank Him for helping their team win and augmenting their personal performance on the field of competition? And, you will notice, He is always with the winners!
But God seems now to have transitioned beyond merely fixing the outcomes of particular games. According to BYU freshman defensive lineman Matangi Tonga, quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune earlier this week, the Almighty is now insinuating His considerable influence into the highly competitive world or college recruiting:
“I missed my planes to Oregon, but I think it was for the main reason God wanted me to come here.”
And later,
“I just felt the spirit to come here.”
I could say more, but I need to keep this brief and get on the road. With God recruiting for BYU, I’m off to Wendover to bet my life’s savings on the Cougars to win this year’s national championship.
Matangi Tonga: Hyper-Religious Whacko of the Week.
A few of us local bloggers have discovered and pointed out some problems with Utah voter websites. If you have a few minutes, please look over the information contained here and here for a limited review of the issues. (These are not exhaustive lists. There are other problems as well)
One other thing: "gherbert@.utah.gov" printed on this page (the one with an "Untitled Document" title) is an invalid e-mail address. If it was intended to keep you from getting spam, you should know it won't, since spiders will look at the link (which is accurate) and not necessarily the linked text. If it wasn't intended as an anti-spam measure, it's misspelled.
Cheers, --------------------------------- The Deseret Spectacle ---------------------------------
Gary Herbert and the Utah Voter Link Website Fiasco
Part of the Plan (a blog I'm liking more and more) turned me on to a quirky little descrepancy on the "Award Winning" Utah Voter Link for the 2006 elections.
First, I was very impressed by the broken link banner:
The next thing that inspired confidence in me is that we are voting for exactly the same things as we were in 2004. Either that, or they just kept the old Voters Guide pamphlet up.
Hey guys? We've got less than 60 days before the election. Think we could get the new info up? Or at least, could we take down the old info?
Anyway, somehow, I got onto the "State of Utah Elections Office" page, and was more impressed still. First, it had some scrolling text:
Sweet. At least the pamphlet here is labeled as the 2004 Voter Information Pamphlet. Completely useless, but at least I know what I'm getting into.
Then I noticed the sidebar: Maybe I'll get the information I need there. 2006 Candidates. Yes, that's what I want. So I clicked. And I clicked. Didn't work. What the hell is going on? So I hover the mouse pointer over the "2006 Candidates" link and look below at where it's linking to:
file:///Z:/htdocs/Elections/2006candidates.htm
Uh. That doesn't work. Bang up job on the website, though. Okay.. Oh! Wait, there is on-line voter registration? Sweet!
In other news, President Bush warns that "time is running out" and needs his laws passed. I don't know exactly what that means, but it sounds ominous. Actually, it sounds like a threat.
Congressional Republicans are trying to take a stand on something. Apparently secret prisons and torture makes them a little sketchy so close to election day.
Q And you think that he would write a letter like this without an understanding --
MR. SNOW: I don't know -- it's interesting -- we didn't hear from him, so I don't know.
Q So you think that John McCain and Senator Warner and Lindsey Graham are confused about what you're trying to do?
MR. SNOW: I think what's -- no, but there's a difference here, because what -- there's a difference and there's an opportunity. The assertion that we are trying to amend or change Common Article III is wrong.......
I guess Colin Powell is just an old and decrepid retired four-star general and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Tony Snow, with his extensive experience as a musician, talk show host and speechwriter, clearly has a better idea of what the military/foreign policy implications of redefining the Geneva Convention is.
In other news, Sen. John McCain raised the stakes by proclaiming he'd risk the presidency over CIA prisons. I guess since he's actually seen battle, and been tortured, he doesn't think much of a bunch of wingnuts who fled service changing decades old rules of war.
Deseret News has some interesting spin - apparently now Steven Jones is a bigot. When contemplating who might be behind the attacks, he used the words "international banking cartel." Apparently, that is code for "Jews" to the Anti-Defamation League.
"Wow, I don't know if he could be any clearer," said Jonathan Bernstein, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League for California, Utah and Hawaii. "This is the language we hear from David Duke and other hatemongers who want to scapegoat Jews."
Wow? Uh.. He could have said "Jews" instead of "international banking cartel." That would have been clearer, wouldn't it?
Jones was flummoxed by the accusation, saying he was "startled" when told the phrase carried anti-Semitic overtones.
I didn't know it carried anti-Semitic overtones either. Learn something new every day.
Republicans are noting with some satisfaction that gas prices are falling. The specter of gas costing significantly more than $3 a gallon this fall had worried Republicans who feared that voters would take it out on their party in November...
Even so, because of the suspicions that attach to the oil industry and its ties to the Bush administration and GOP-led Congress, there are some conspiracy theories that dropping gas prices have more to do with politics than markets.
...
But if an axis of the White House, Congress and oil industry had so much control over gas prices, why would they have allowed the run up in prices to occur in the first place with all the political risks that would entail? For instance, inflationary pressures from higher oil prices could threaten the very economic growth Republicans are boasting about.
If you starve someone, and then offer them a cookie, they are going to be incredibly grateful for that cookie - that will be their focus. As far as worrying that "inflationary pressures" threatening growth that Republicans are "boasting about", if they have to choose between oil company profits and a hypothetical they know they could spin, they're going to take the oil company profits.
Read the article - it contains two press releases trumpeting the falling oil prices from the GOP.
To the delight of the GOP in Ohio, Missouri and Tennessee, where Republicans are defending vulnerable Senate seats, gas is selling up to 30 cents below the national average.
The Deseret News - High Utah gas prices blamed on refineries John Hill, executive director of the Utah Petroleum Marketers and Retailers Association, had this to say:
Hill said five refineries provide a majority of the gasoline purchased by Utahns. Three of those refineries, he added, have been "down" recently for maintenance.
Ah, of course.
"We should see in the next couple of weeks our prices coming down," he said. "I'm hoping we'll see $2.19 (per gallon) by Thanksgiving," if there is no major crisis in the international oil market. "I don't have a crystal ball — it's just wishful thinking," Hill added. He said he based his wish on trends and what national analysts are predicting, which is a drop in gas prices across the nation.
Well I don't have a crystal ball either, but I suspect there will continue to be crises in the middle east and that gas prices, if they hit $2.19 per gallon, will shoot up as soon as the elections are over, but I bet they don't go below $2.50.
KSL has another reason from Lee Peacock, Utah Petroleum Association President:
"Right now, for whatever reason, and I couldn't tell you why, the demand has stayed high when much of the rest of the country has eased a little bit."
Oops. Apparently they didn't get their stories straight. Well, which is it, Peacock and Hill? Is it because the refineries are "down for maintenance" or because of Utah's "mysteriously consistent gas consumption"?
Military lawyers also have raised concerns about the administration bill's restrictions on due-process rights for defendants. Prosecutors would be able to present evidence to the tribunal that would be kept secret from the defense and use hearsay and coerced confessions against defendants. Human rights groups have objected to those provisions as well.
And of course, if you object to this, you must care more about protecting the rights of terrorists than protecting the American people, right?
Bush's announcement was the government's first admission that captives had been held by the CIA in secret facilities overseas and subjected to "alternative" interrogation techniques. He insisted that the United States does not torture prisoners, but White House spokesman Tony Snow would not disclose what the "alternative" techniques were.
*shakes head* Our government is so dirty.
"The proposed rewriting of the Geneva Conventions would make the United States the first country in the world to attempt formally to limit this minimum standard of humane treatment, and would provide an example that other countries would be all too willing to mimic," the group said.
So much for being the beacon of morality and freedom in the world, eh?
With prodding from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 along party lines to approve a bill negotiated with the White House to allow — but not require — Bush to submit the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program to a secret court for constitutional review.
Seriously, Congress? So Bush doesn't even have to do this, but if he decides his illegal, secret programs require more oversight, he can elect to take it to a secret wiretapping court that he's installed.
We've got some brave, patriotic men on the hill, my friends. Well, maybe a couple:
"Every senator and congressman should understand this is not about November 2006. This is not about your re-election," Graham said. "This is about those who take risks to defend America."
Blair, accused by critics of being Bush's poodle who slavishly follows Washington's line, sought to stifle a revolt in his ruling Labour Party last week by promising to quit within a year after almost 10 years in office.
This is one of the most deplorable editorials to appear in this paper in quite some time. Let's look at a few particularly ludicrous exerpts.
President Bush has been accused of politicizing the fifth anniversary of 9/11 in his speech to the nation Monday night. That's an odd accusation, considering virtually everyone else in the political world has no qualms using that date, and the president's policies in its wake, to their advantage.
When did demanding the truth behind actions supposedly taken on our behalf become politicization? And how is using that tragic date in history as a focal point for fear-inducing rhetoric just before an important election not politicization?
The administration deserves criticism for the way it has gone about securing Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Yes it does, among other many things …
It is unfortunate that Bush hammered the "weapons of mass destruction" pretext so hard before the invasion of Iraq in 2002.
Unfortunate? Unfortunate!!! Falling off a Segway Scooter within camera range is unfortunate. What Bush did leading up to the invasion of Iraq was unconscionable, unforgivable, and downright un-American!
On Monday, Bush said, "Saddam was a clear threat" and a "risk that the world could not afford to take."
Oh, well now! That certainly does clarify things!
Any serious review of his regime bears this out. Saddam may not have had direct connections to the 9/11 attacks, but he was a destabilizing force in the region, and he was harboring terrorists. Remember, U.S. forces found the notorious Mohammed Abul Abbas, mastermind of the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985, cowering in Iraq shortly after the war began.
Moreover, just who was it that gave Saddam his initial stockpile of missiles and WMD, as well as the technology to produce more? Stumped? Check out this photo from a previous post – and I am not talking about the one of Chamberlain shaking Hitler’s hand!
As far as finding one terrorist in Iraq immediately after the invasion goes, does this prove Iraq was a hotbed of terrorists prior to 2003? Was Saddam “harboring” as many terrorists as Pakistan, Syria or Saudi Arabia, or even Iran? Was he truly “harboring” them at all?
Vice President Dick Cheney made a similarly hollow argument concerning al Zarqawi on NBC’s Meet the Press last Sunday. Ol’ Dead-eye Dick claimed that he knew al Zarqawi “was in Baghdad” prior to the invasion, when in fact he was apparently encamped in northern Iraq, in a region widely acknowledged to be outside Saddam’s control. Does the fact that the 19 men who hijacked planes on September 11, 2001 were in the United States – somewhere -- for months prior to the attacks mean that Bush was “harboring” terrorists?
True, Abbas represented a wing of terrorism different from al-Qaida, but the president draws few distinctions between the causes of terrorists when their aims are to use violence against innocent people and to threaten free societies.
Face it: this president draws few meaningful distinctions, period!
The president reminded Americans again that terrorists will not leave the United States alone if it abandons Iraq and retreats to within its own borders. That's hardly political. It's a fact that bears repeating frequently.
That’s it then, is it? Either black or white? Did the DMN editorial staff write this sycophantic drivel themselves, or did they simply cut-and-paste from the RNC’s latest talking points memo?
And note the recurring out-of-hand dismissals of very real problems:
1. Bush deserves criticism for the aftermath of the invasion, but … 2. Bush probably shouldn’t have made so much of Saddam’s WMD capabilities, but … 3. Saddam was not connected to 9/11, but … 4. Mohammed Abul Abbas was not affiliated with al Qaeda, but …
If Bush’s true motivation was/is to make the United States less vulnerable to terrorism, why did he cut and run from Afghanistan and the pursuit of those terrorists who actually attacked us on 9-11 to invade Iraq, from which none of the 9-11 perpetrators had come? And why has he failed to turn Iraq into anything beyond a breeding ground for more anti-American jihadism?
Perhaps because, like the extremely fortunate fact that the 9-11 anniversary falls just two months prior to Election Day, the very real threat of more terrorism feeds right into the GOP’s biannual Vote with a Trembling HandCampaign. Don’t see the connection? Here’s another reading assignment: George Orwell’s 1984.
With apologies to Ron Suskind, if there is even a one percent chance that this is really what the Bush Administration and GOP are up to, VOTE DEMOCRAT!
Well, perhaps you could answer your own question by looking at your own religion, which as best as we can tell, is some flavor of Christianity. (Mormon, we think) Like here, where you're expecting "the Lord" to secure your property in the case of an earthquake, here where you are railing on about homosexuals, here where you quote scripture while railing on about homosexuals.. oh, and here, where you're proclaiming America a Christian nation. Probably could have cited that last one first, but the other references are just so telling.
Christian scripture has been cited over and over as an excuse for killing people, Christian scripture also illustrates "historical" instances where a seemingly capricious God took some people out as well. I realize that in America, scripture is most often cited for political purposes and non-murderous bigotry, (even though scripture does specifycertainpeople should be killed)
So answer your own question, Mr. Turner: Why do some take Christian literature literally while others don't? I suspect it has to do with secular influences, but who knows.
DS Salt Lake City, Utah
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us. Salt lake city, Utah
Opinion - Eric G. Sorenson - Wrong even when he's right
Feds trying to rewrite history I see that ABC has caved in to pressure from Clinton administration officials and is editing out parts of the miniseries about events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks. Those Clinton administration officials are once again, in my opinion, trying to rewrite history, as did the government in George Orwell's novel "1984." Where is the virtue of truth today? It sounds to me like it is being trampled.
Eric G. Sorenson Murray
First of all, the Feds aren't trying to chang the ABC "docudrama." They couldn't be happier with its skewed, inaccurate propaganda. But I'll let that go because it may well have been a title put in place by the Deseret News.
That aside, Mr. Sorenson doesn't seem to have the foggiest idea of what he's talking about.
ABC didn't "cave" to Clinton administration officials. They made, at best, cosmetic changes to the miniseries shown in America, and aired it unedited in other parts of the world.
As far as your 1984 reference and the question of "Where is the virtue of truth today?"
Good question.
ABC claimed has admitted that several scenes in the movie are inaccurate.
The 9/11 Commission report, which ABC claims the miniseries is based "in part" on, contradicts several key points in the movie. Read it for yourself. (pdf)
Several unusual parties have also criticized the film for its inaccuracies, including über conservative Bill Bennett, the GOP-friendly Chris Wallace, and one of the stars of the show, Harvey Keitel.
Mr. Sorenson is right that the truth is being trampeled, but he's wrong about who's doing it.
For a more detailed history of the issue, check out this post.
DS
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us. Salt lake city, Utah
But Republicans countered that the bill represented the best deal on the matter and should not be amended -- conforming with the White House's condition that Bush would sign it into law if passed unchanged.
Does the Congress serve us or the President? They are a coequal branch of government. If they want to pass legislation, they can do so - with or without the President.
Under firm pressure from the administration, Republicans were expected to advance separate versions of bills to give legal status to Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, but also impose some restrictions not embraced by the White House.
What pressure can they apply? The President does not control Congress. I know this goes without saying, but if President Clinton was in office, not only would they impeach him, they would prosecute him. But since their guy is in office, instead of checking the Executive, they're going to change the law to make the Presidents actions legal? What the hell is going on?
Specter's bill would submit the warrantless wiretapping program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court for a one-time constitutional review and extend from the current three days to seven days the time allowed for emergency surveillance before a warrant application is submitted and approved by that court.
This is a complete and total farce. Sen. Specter has sold out the United States and his constituents by taking a constitutional issue out of the hands of the Judicial branch and placing it in the hands of hand-picked FISA judges for a "one-time" review. This is not a deal - this is bending over for an Adminstration who considers the Constitution an obstacle, not the guiding principles of our great country.
Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten appealed to Senate Republicans during their weekly policy lunch Tuesday to pass legislation that would let the president begin prosecuting terror suspects. The legislation also would limit the circumstances under which a government interrogator could be prosecuted for mistreating a detainee.
Here's that spooky Rove-esque line again. "Pass legislation that would let the president begin prosecuting terror suspects." If he can't prosecute them now, then there is a problem, and it isn't with the Constitution.
I'd ask where Senator Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett are on all of this, but they're going to be with the President, of course. I wonder if they would act differently if they thought there was a snowball's chance in hell of them losing an election. But that's a whole other topic.
"Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten appealed to Senate Republicans during their weekly policy lunch to pass legislation that would let Bush begin prosecuting terror suspects."
Uh.. We need new legislation to do that? That means this is either the pretext of a larger political maneuver or an indication that the administration has been violating the Constitution as it now stands.
As I read on, it reminded me of one of our recent posts describing a leak from "troubled" White House Sources that Rove was about to "line up 9/11 families to accuse McCain, Warner and Graham of delaying justice for the perpetrators of that atrocity, because they want to uphold the ancient judicial traditions of the U.S. military and abide by the Constitution."
Opinion - George E. Rice - Keep your Gayness to Yourself
Gay lifestyle is degrading I have no hatred for those who claim to be gay. We all have appetites, passions and desires. But we need to control those things and not let them control us. Life is too precious to live that way. There is no alternative lifestyle, only that which is good and uplifting and that which is degrading. And when a society degrades itself, it self-destructs.
George E. Rice Monticello
Well, Mr. Rice, I have no hatred for those who claim to be righteous. We all have delusions, hypocricies and condescending tendencies. But we need to have humility and remember our fallibility. Life is too precious to spend it in righteous judgment of others. There are alternative lifestyles, ones that you may be unfamiliar with, religions that aren't "true" like yours, but are alternative just the same. When a society determines it will enforce one set of arbitrary beliefs to the exclusion of all others, it self-destructs.
DS
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us. Salt lake city, Utah
Patriotism misunderstood Your article, "Patriotism surge now is slipping" (Sept. 10), illustrates the extent to which so many of us misunderstand the word "patriotism" as it applies to our country. American patriotism is not synonymous with nationalism, support for a transient office holder, or devotion to a particular political party. Neither the actions of our enemies nor the policies our current leadership ought to shake our appreciation of, and readiness to defend, that which truly defines the United States of America. Support the current president and his confrontational ways or not, the definition of American patriotism both precedes and supersedes his temporary position in the grander scheme.
Robert Hammer Salt Lake City
Couldn't have said it better myself.
DS
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
President Bush addressed the nation last night. He makes me sad. I believe that in essence, President Bush is a good man - but that he is so corrupted by his neoconservative handlers that his perspective has become irreversibly distorted. I wish he had given a different speech. A speech that genuinely admitted failures, acknowledged that he and his staff made mistakes by playing its game polarizing and divisive politics, avoided pandering to the religious right and finally, a straightforward vision for the war on terrorism, free of talking points and emotional manipulation. Alas, that's not what we got. To my great sorrow, we got more of the same. Ever more of the same:
"Today, we are safer, but we are not yet safe."
Yes, we get it, Mr. President. You're doing a great job, but we should all still be afraid.
For many of our citizens, the wounds of that morning are still fresh. I've met firefighters and police officers who choke up at the memory of fallen comrades.
There are also many firefighters still suffering from the fall out of working at ground zero. Where was the EPA, Mr. President? Where are you now? They are not a political play thing to be ignored when not politically beneficial.
He and other suspected terrorists have been questioned by the Central Intelligence Agency, and they provided valuable information that has helped stop attacks in America and across the world. Now these men have been transferred to Guantanamo Bay, so they can be held to account for their actions.
Read: Illegal secret prisons are good for you.
Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding. Our message to them is clear: No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice.
Whoa. Osama is back! No matter how long it takes? You shuttered the one group responsible for his capture. Why? When asked about bin Laden, you've said you don't think about him much. Why? Your words do not match your actions, sir.
We have learned that they form a global network of extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam -- a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent.
Are you kidding me, Mr. President? How many freedoms have you asked us to surrender in the defense of freedom? How many of your political ploys have traded on intolerance and bigotry? How often have we seen your administration and Republican pundits compare criticism of your efforts to treason? You cannot protect freedom by taking it away, Mr. President.
One of the strongest weapons in our arsenal is the power of freedom.
*blank look* Uh.. Okay.
We are now in the early hours of this struggle between tyranny and freedom.
What?? It's been five years! Early hours.. So let's figure that means 1am to 4am or so... 24 hours in a day.. take the max.. 4am.. equals 5 years.. 24 divided by four is 6.. 6 times 5 is.. 30.. minus the 5 years already spent.. TWENTY FIVE YEARS TO GO?!?!
America did not ask for this war, and every American wishes it were over. So do I. But the war is not over -- and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious.
*shakes head* What does that mean, Mr. President? You were supposed to be the straight shooter. What is victory? How do we achieve it? How do we know when we've achieved it? Your perpetual vagueness on this subject forces me to believe that you are less interested in prosecuting the war on terrorism, and more interested in keeping us in a perpetual state of war and fear, where you may consider your powers plenary.
We are fighting to maintain the way of life enjoyed by free nations. And we're fighting for the possibility that good and decent people across the Middle East can raise up societies based on freedom and tolerance and personal dignity.
Freedom and tolerance. Yeah. Every year you're in office, it seems society gets more tolerant and more free.
Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country, and we must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us.
Mr. President. You once claimed you would be a uniter, not a divider. You then spent the last six years pressing the boundaries of dirty politics. You and those that work for you have demonized sincere objection, refused to compromise on anything, fostered religious hate for political reasons and championed corporate interests over the common citizen. You took astonishing unity and squandered it in a shameless display of partisanship. Don't talk to us about unity, Mr. President. You haven't the right.
Opinion - Don Olson - (property rights - the "liberty amendment")
U.S. needs liberty amendment In his "My View" (Aug. 25), Washington County commissioner, Alan Gardner, made some excellent points about the incorrect notion that the federal government can better control public lands than can the local counties. Also, a Sept. 7 article, "N.Y. Times blasts Bennett, Matheson land-use bill" demonstrates how powerful non-state pressures groups mold public and congressional opinion to fit federal control, rather than state control of state lands. Since the Constitution gives no rights to the federal government to control state lands other than Washington, D.C., and military sites, why do the U.S. citizens continue to allow this unconstitutional behavior? We need to pass a "liberty amendment" and get the federal government to act within the limits of the U.S. Constitution.
Don Olson Bountiful
That's the problem, though. Why do we need a Constitutional Amendment to force the government to obey the Constitution? And if they aren't obeying the Constitution, what makes us think they would acknowledge an amendment?
The way that State and Federal governments are eroding property rights is frightening.
Last year, in the case of Kelo et al v. City of New London, one of the most shameful Supreme Court decisions ever handed down dictated that cities could seize private property for commercial development. (Supreme Court Decisionpdf)
Worse, the majority consisted mainly of the "liberal" Justices, joined by Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy. I'm accustomed to conservatives claiming any decision they aren't happy with to be the work of liberal, activist judges and that if liberals had their way, we'd all live under socialist rule. This was the first time that I really felt like the Justices were ignoring the constitution and ruling from a socialist ideology.
As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (perhaps the best Justice ever to sit on the bench) put it:
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
" The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called "urban renewal" programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful. If ever there were justification for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions that protect "discrete and insular minorities," United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938), surely that principle would apply with great force to the powerless groups and individuals the Public Use Clause protects. The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse. It encourages "those citizens with dis-proportionate influence and power in the political pro-cess, including large corporations and development firms" to victimize the weak. Ante, at 11 (O'Connor, J., dissenting).
Justice Clarence Thomas also wrote a dissenting opinion which can be found here.
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
Obedience not so bad Mayor Rocky Anderson repeatedly derides Utah's "climate of obedience." He ridicules those who obey as "sycophants." I say thank goodness we live in a climate of obedience. Were it a "climate of disobedience," we would have chaos. A wise philosopher stated that "civilization is based on trust." When we drive up to an intersection, we trust that other drivers will"obey"trafficrules. We trust bankers to "obey" the law and keep our deposits safe. We trust pharmacists to "obey" doctors' orders and give us thecorrectprescription. We trust grocers and restaurant owners to "obey" laws of sanitation so we can enjoy healthful food. We live in a well-ordered society, trusting our fellow citizens to obey the rule of law, the laws of the land and laws of God. I'm glad we live where there is a climate of obedience, not disobedience.
Helen Bay Gibbons Salt Lake City
We trust our President to obey the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the land.... er.. Scratch that one.
DS
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
The idea is called "incestuous amplification" -- it's apparently a military term that refers to a situation when people talk only to those who agree with them, reinforcing their set beliefs.
"Sunday's average for unleaded regular in Utah was $2.95, according to the AAA Utah Web site. That reflects only a one-cent drop from the statewide average on Aug. 10. Nationally, gas prices peaked Aug. 11 at $3.02 and have fallen nearly 37 cents since."
The one thing the Deseret News does not say is why Utah gas prices are so high. This seems strange since we have a refinery in our backyard. Does any one have any information on this?
DS
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
43% of Americans still think Saddam was involved in 9/11
43% of Americans still think Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, despite widespread debunking of that idea, as well as outright denials of that by President Bush.
The difference? Education. The uneducated are far more likely to believe Saddam was involved. Below is a breakdown from the video above:
It would be interesting to see how these statistics would break down when applied to Utahns, who live in the state which, as of now, is the only state which still has a majority of citizens supporting the beleaguered president.
Whatever those figures may be, the Deseret News reports that while we're still an awfully "patriotic" bunch, those numbers are falling. Perhaps because people are becoming disillusioned by the contention that to be patriotic, you must blindly support the President. With that in mind, the poll is really meaningless. I consider myself patriotic because I care enough to question my government and remind them that they work for us. To do otherwise would seem servile, unpatriotic, and cowardly.
DS
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
One More Personal Remembrance of 9/11 - Salt Lake City, Utah
I remember waking up on the morning of 9/11/2001 oblivious to what was going on. I turned on my computer and made myself some coffee while it booted up. I called my Father to check in with him about something I can't remember.
He sounded strange. Finally he said "You haven't heard, have you."
"Haven't heard what?"
"Two planes hit the World Trade Center."
"What?.. On accident?"
Even as I said it, I realized it didn't make sense. It was conceivable one horrible accident could happen, but not two.
"No, it looks like it was deliberate." "Oh my God." We both sat in silence for what seemed like an eternity. "Alright," I said. "I'm going to go check it out on TV." "Okay. Call me later." "I will. Hey Pops?...." "What?" "... I love you. Talk to you later." "Love you too, son."
I tried to check out the news on-line, but the news sites were overwhelmed with people looking for information, and they were unbearably slow. I turned on the television and watched in horror. I knew then, like everyone else, that nothing was going to be the same.
__________________________
9/11 is one of the most politically exploited tragedies in history. In its wake, our country became as polarized as I have ever seen it. However, when I'm feeling jaded and cynical, sometimes I'll stop and remind myself of the incredible camaraderie we all shared immediately after the attacks. Not out of vengeance, although there was certainly plenty of that to go around, but out of a desire to help each other. I'll remember the outpouring of international sympathy and offers of help. I'll remember seeing pictures on the internet of citizens in foreign countries laying rows upon rows of flowers at the gates of our embassies, weeping and holding signs reading "Today we are all Americans." I remember trying not to cry, and ultimately failing.
It gives me hope that someday we'll figure out a way to stop the mad men, the religious zealots, and the power hungry from exploiting our pain and fear, and live with a purpose and meaning not derived from rivalry and hatred.
Impossible? Hey now. Anything's possible. Let's give it a go. What do we have to lose.
Next week, I’m informed via troubled White House sources, will see the full unveiling of Karl Rove’s fall election strategy. He’s intending to line up 9/11 families to accuse McCain, Warner and Graham of delaying justice for the perpetrators of that atrocity, because they want to uphold the ancient judicial traditions of the U.S. military and abide by the Constitution. He will use the families as an argument for legalizing torture, setting up kangaroo courts for military prisoners, and giving war crime impunity for his own aides and cronies. This is his "Hail Mary" move for November; it’s brutally exploitative of 9/11; it’s pure partisanship; and it’s designed to enable an untrammeled executive. Decent Republicans, Independents and Democrats must do all they can to expose and resist this latest descent into political thuggery. If you need proof that this administration’s first priority is not a humane and effective counter-terror strategy, but a brutal, exploitative path to retaining power at any price, you just got it.
It's beyond shame that the Whitehouse exploits our nations greatest domestic tragedy to expand their power. I don't throw the word "evil" around much, but Karl Rove is about as close as it gets.
History will tell the truth If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens in war, how incapable mankind must be in learning from the the past. A local mayor will become a footnote for whom too much local newspaper ink was spilled. The current president of the United States will be distinguished in all dictionaries by the adjective "misunderestimated."
David B. Goates Woodland
I don't know why, but I like this letter. Maybe it's because we all think we're so important, and really, we're all just a footnote to a future that doesn't care.
"History is written by victors, but legends are written by the people."
DS
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
Vilify criminals, not polygamy I am offended by Mark Holt going too far in his support of prosecuting polygamous child molesters (Readers' Forum, Sept. 7). By slandering my righteous polygamous ancestors, he has muddied many waters. My grandparents were polygamous when it was not unlawful. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the practice, the righteous practitioners abandoned polygamy. The criminally-minded continued it. It should not surprise anyone that criminals abuse children and commit welfare fraud.
Byron Snow Gibbs Salt Lake City
My great-great Grandfather also practiced polygamy. Although, as best as I can tell through my genealogical studies, he had at most two wives, (at a time - he lost a wife and his children on the boat ride over here) and they were both adults.
But this really misses the point: Is polygamy wrong just because it is illegal, or is it wrong because it promotes an environment in which pedophilia takes place? It's hard to tell these days. Since it is illegal, practitioners are consequently driven underground, which in and of itself can cause problems.
Of course, even when it wasn't illegal, it raises a few eyebrows today. At a minimum, Prophet Joseph Smith had 33 wives, 11 of which were between the ages of 14 and 20 when Smith married them. It is also contested that Smith engaged in polyandrous marriages, meaning he married women who had already been married to another man. (Good Mormons, from the looks of it)
I don't think that our ancestors should be judged by contemporary values - they lived during different times and faced a world much different than our own. But the fact is that Joseph Smith had dozens of wives, some of them very young. That fact is the same then as it is now.
While I am open to the idea that parallels cannot be drawn because of the differing times, it's not ridiculous to question whether polygamy has a fundamental dynamic which encourages relationships with, what we consider to be, minors.
DS
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
What is Kennedy thinking? Sen. Edward Kennedy says, "By riding roughshod over our laws, the Bush administration has made America less safe and made the war on terror harder to win." How? Does the senator really think putting terrorists in prison and interrogating them to find other terrorists to prevent attacks on our country really makes it harder to win? When I read the senator pontificating on "running roughshod over our laws," I just sigh!
Verna Richardson Bountiful
Do ya, Ms. Richardson? Do ya just "sigh"? Whether you think the President should be breaking the law is completely different than whether or not the President is indeed breaking the law. Through signing statements, unilaterally claiming expansive constitutional powers, and interpreting congressional resolutions to the breaking point, the President has determined it is not necessary for him to obey the law.
As far as the effect that has in the war on terrorism, is it really so hard to see how claiming the moral highroad, and then torturing, not questioning, people could have negative consequences? Radical Islam has never been stronger thanks to Executive tactics like torture and secret, indefinite detentions. If we are fighting for the "Hearts and Minds" of the people, or are engaged in the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century", as President Bush puts it, then breaking the law, detaining people without due process, torturing them, etc very much weakens our ability to successfully prosecute this "war."
Does that answer your question of "How?"
DS
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
This is a lengthy post, but it's important. Please take the time to read it:
In 2003, CBS planned to air a film called "The Reagans" during sweeps week. Although the producers insisted every fact, if not the dialogue, was confirmed by at least two sources, conservative backlash ultimately prompted CBS to cancel the show and relegate the film to a B airing on Showtime later that year.
A few weeks ago, ABC started circulating advance copies of their new miniseries "The Path to 9/11." While that's not unusual, the recipients tended to be, almost universally, conservative bloggers and pundits while reportedly refusing to release copies to progressives and Clinton officials. Rush Limbaugh was one recipient, and had this to say:
"A friend of mine [Cyrus Nowrasteh] out in California has produced and filmed — I think it's a two-part mini-series on 9/11 that ABC is going to run in prime-time over two nights, close to or on 9/11. It's sort of surprising that ABC's picked it up, to me. I've had a lot of people tell me about it, my friends told me about it…And from what I have been told, the film really zeros in on the shortcomings of the Clinton administration in doing anything about militant Islamofascism or terrorism during its administration."
Reviews of the film started to surface from enthusiastic conservatives, revealing scenes that indicted former President Clinton. One "powerful" scene was described as follows by Rush Limbaugh (His site only lets members read this. I don't know if that was changed after people started linking to it or not):
"So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they’re on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.
So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed…Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. “Are you kidding?” He asked Berger over and over, “Is this really what you guys want?”
Berger then doesn’t answer after giving his first admonition, “You guys go in on your own. If you go in we’re not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,” and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions."
Although conservatives were thrilled with the scene, it had one problem: it never happened. From Richard Clarke's office:
1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.
2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.
3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.
On the blog, Director David Cunningham wrote the following:
1) This is not a documentary…
2) This is not a right wing agenda movie…By the way, we are also being accused of being a left wing movie that bashes Bush.
"This is not a documentary" became the standard talking point for criticism leveled against the movie. As far as as being accused of being a left wing movie bashing Bush, nobody believes that, and while it's possible some conservative somewhere grumbled over some point of the movie, I could not find a single case. Partisan conservatives couldn't be happier with this movie.
The few clips they have on the movie are telling reflections of conservative slant. One clip, entitled "How to Create a Riot", ostensibly intended to be a "making of" clip showed a reporter in the midst of a riot reporting:
"The rioting here deflects criticism that President Clinton is getting back home, where he is under fire from Republicans and media pundits accusing him of launching the cruise missile attacks in a vain effort to distract attention from the President's recent confession of his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky."
They also argued that "certain creative license" had been taken, and that it was not a "documentary" but a "docudrama." Apparently this distinction frees them to manufacture scenes outright, or as they put it, make use of "composite and representative characters and time compression." In fact, the scene described above was explained away by Avowed conservative and Path to 9/11 writer Cyrus Nowrasteh this way:
“Sandy Berger did not slam down the phone,” Mr. Nowrasteh said. “That is not in the report. That was not scripted. But you know when you’re making a movie, a lot of things happen on set that are unscripted. Accidents occur, spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place. It’s the job of the filmmaker to say, ‘You know, maybe we can use that.’ ”
“After a thorough review of the original guide that we offered online to about 25,000 high school teachers, we determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues,” said Dick Robinson, Chairman, President and CEO of Scholastic.
Apparently, Scholastic only conducts thorough reviews of materials they're published after they're criticized for bias.
ABC also attempted to have it both ways, claiming that it was a "docudrama" but also claiming it was "based on" the report by the 9/11 commission. They later decided to change this to "based in part."
However, advertisements airing overseas not only claim the "docudrama" as the "Official True Story" and, referring to the controversial scene above, "how they could have wiped Bin Laden out - but didn't - and why" and "how one decision changed the world." If nothing else, this one advertisement makes clear their intention to not only heap blame on President Clinton, but to use the one scene (read:one decision) they admit is completely manufactured.
A review from allyourtv.com - a neutral television review site:
"I've never been one of these people who think that all the media is liberal or evil or incompetent. I don't prescribe an overt political motive to every show and every comment that hits the air. Maybe it's because I've worked in a lot of newsrooms, but I have a lot of respect for journalists and for much of the media in general.
But there are times when I find that there is a legitimate cause for complaint. There are times when a piece of programming is so slanted, so inaccurate, that all I can do is point to the offending material and ask viewers not to watch..."
_______________________
Conservative Bill Bennett Comes Out In Opposition To The Path to 9/11
Chris Wallace slams ABC on 9/11 project: "I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account"
Watch as "Fox and Friends" try to distract from the issue:
One of the main stars, Harvey Keitel, talks about his misgivings:
There are many things I've left out, but the bottom line is this: This is, without a doubt, the single most conservative piece of propaganda ever released over 9/11. The timing, the budget, the sources, the connections, and the outright lies make it an astonishly tragic release.
Despite calls to have the show pulled, I can't imagine it will be. If you elect to watch it, watch knowing what it is, and then hold ABC and Disney to account.
Rob had some personal issues come up and was not able to post this weeks Awards of Dubious Distinction. These awards get some of the highest hits on the blog, so look forward to a new set in the near future.
BYU Looking for Reasons to rid themselves of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" Prof Steven Jones
The Deseret News is reporting that BYU has had enough of Steven Jones.
"BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty," the statement said. "We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones."
The "speculative" and "accusatory" nature of Dr. Jones seem to be that he found evidence of thermite being used to demolish the two WTC towers, which is a compound the military frequently uses in detonations. He also felt "unnamed" government groups may be involved. This was enough to rattle the BYU staff into placing Dr. Jones on paid leave while they try to figure out how they can rid themselves of him. Dr. Jones is a professor with "continuing status" (that's a little like tenure, except it doesn't provide you with any protection.. okay, it's nothing like tenure, but that's the closest BYU gets to tenure), but apparently he's a little too far outside the mainstream for the folks in Provo.
CNN still hosts a story from 1996, when President Clinton was blocked by the GOP from passing important anti-terrorism legislation.
"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.
Huh. And yet Clinton is still blamed when things go wrong.
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.
No need to hurry. Obviously, we didn't have anything pressing to worry about.
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."
So when Sen. Hatch is busy opposing a sitting President from the other party, he's all for flexing Senatorial muscle to prevent the enactment of legislation.
Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."
Phony issue, huh? Orrin Hatch: always late to the game, but never hesitant to stop it while he catches up.
"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.
Because if there's one thing Sen. Hatch cares most about, it's protecting our civil liberties.
Today President Bush addresses the nation about how we're "safer but not yet safe." As we've mentioned before, this sounds a lot like "We're not incompetent, but you'd better still be scared."
They also released a document called "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" which can be found here. You can also download the pdf from msnbc.com.
The amount of political activity going on is astounding, but the recurring theme seems to be that they're stopping a ton of terrorist attacks, but they can't stop them all. I almost get the impression we are being prepped for another attack.
One of the best LTE's -- and analogies -- in recent memory, from today's Deseret Morning News Readers' Forum:
Pouring more gas on flames? In your editorial "Rocky: Still stuck in the '60s" (Sept. 1), you stated: "Mayor Anderson's 40-year-old view of the world makes him sound like someone whining about what started a fire while the structure still burns. Nowhere did he talk about how to solve what Iraq has become today, which is the real issue at hand." I offer a different analogy. The mayor sounds like someone warning the public about a fireman whose hose is attached to a gasoline tank. Andy Leger St. George
DS
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
Utah's Uninsured Population Grew Dramatically in 2005
The Dept. of the Census released their annual report on poverty and the uninsured last week. Looking at the report by state, one might conclude that, while Utah's uninsured percentage grew by 2% in 2005, we remain below the national average.
In fact, the chart displaying data for individual states gives 2 and 3 year averages. Understanding what is really taking place on a year-to-year basis requires querying the background data for this report -- which I have done.
Utah's Uninsured Pct of Total Population, 2004: 14.3% Utah's Uninsured Pct of Total Population, 2005:16.6%
National Uninsured Pct of Total Population, 2005: 15.9%
Utah now exceeds the national average for uninsured percentage of total population!!!
The fastest growing rates occurred among those earning between 100 and 250 percent of the Federal Poverty Threshold. In otherwords, our lower income working neighbors -- that's right, working, but earning under $12/hr.
As a standard living wage assessment of the Wasatch Front indicates an individual must earn around 200% of the Federal Poverty Threshold just to make the most basic ends meet, it is not surprising that a growing number of our lower-earning neighbors find it difficult to keep up with rising healthcare insurance premiums. Additionally, many work for employers who have simply stopped offering healthcare insurance to their employees.
As a financial analyst for a major regional healthcare service provider, I can tell you that I and many others are working hard from within the industry to address this troubling trend. But we cannot possibly keep up with this magnitude of growth, particularly when insurance providers are rapidly increasing patient deductibles and scaling back the percentage of the final bill they actually pay.
At the local, state and national level, GOVERNMENT AND VOTERS MUST START TAKING THIS GROWING CRISIS SERIOUSLY!
This Week in Salt Lake Global Warming News and Opinion: 9-03-06
Deseret Morning News With the Bush Administration’s hot air permeating the local environment, the DMN gave us just six pieces even mentioning the subject of global warming – including one redundancy. They did, however, give us our Ostrich Farmer of the Week.
Salt Lake Tribune The Trib did not fare much better than the DMN amid the atmosphere of noxious gases emanating from the Salt Palace this week. Beyond the troubling (though not terribly surprising) poll on Utah’s perception of global warming science and energy conservation, not much of substance and specificity in their pages this week.
Oddly, no mention whatsoever in the Trib of California's landmark movement toward setting the standard on greenhouse gas emissions. The DMN gets a rare tip of the sunbonnet for outperforming the Trib on this one.
Monday Tribune poll indicates 45% of Utahn’s still on the ostrich farm. The good news: national security concerns may inadvertently aid efforts to address the climate crisis.
Tribune political columnist Paul Rolly reports on Salt Lake attorney Penny Bryman’s symbolic three-count indictment, including the charge of failure to “promote the general welfare” by censoring scientific data on global warming.
Tuesday Washington post writer includes excessive greenhouse gas emissions among undesirable effects of balancing commute time with affordable housing.
Thursday Writing under the assumption that the single issue of Iraq motivates protests against Bush, reporters claim Mayor Anderson’s speech Wednesday “strayed” into topics such as global warming.
Saturday Reprint of Kansas City Star editorial: developing nuclear power without a safe plan for waste merely offsets one dire problem with another.
Sunday Travel article on Montana’s Glacier National Park says go now, before the glaciers are gone.
Bi-partisan Anonymous Senators - Secret Hold Update
So it's official, Sen. Stevens R-Alaska and Sen. Byrd D-West Virginia are the anonymous Senators who placed the secret hold on S.2590, The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Both Stevens and Byrd have given incredibly implausible reasons for placing the hold on the bill, from wanting a cost/benefit analysis which was already done, to "reading carefully" a bill which has been available for quite some time.
This isn't over. When the Senate revists the issue, you can bet there will be amendments meant to shield these two kings of pork from uncomfortable scrutiny.
Or as Sen. Byrd put it, he wants it to be "debated and opened for amendment, and not pushed through without discussion." Unbelievable.
Neville Chamberlain / Donalds Rumsfeld - Appeasers Both
Neville Chamberlain is sometimes referred to as the "great appeaser," a label Donald Rumsfeld has been trying to apply to critics of the Bush administration, because, you know, if you're not with them, you're with the terrorists.
Check out these two photographs:
The first is Chamberlain shaking hands with Hitler, then second is Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein. Well my gosh and a double henny penny. Who is the appeaser, Rummy?
In his speech before the American Legion conventioneers Tuesday in Salt Lake City, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld moved the administration's election season rhetoric fully into the realm of abject desperation by citing a direct connection between today's jihadist terrorist organizations and the Fascists and Nazis of the 20th century. In his speech before the same group the following day, President George W. Bush seconded that motion.
If you cannot see that this amounts to a blatant and desperate attempt to rouse support for the GOP by pressing fear-inducing hot buttons, you are already blinded by fear.
For kicking off their latest Cast Your Ballot with a Trembling Hand tour with the most outrageously unsupportable claims yet, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush are co-recipients of this week's Wild-Eyed Fear Monger of the Week award.
This audio clip, part of a collection in the SL Trib from Wednesday's rallies and demonstrations, literally twangs for this award.
According to Salt Lake resident Ross Andre, George W. Bush is "even greater than Reagan." He also labels Bush's critics as victims of the "liberal media" and "slaves of others' thoughts" -- just seconds before regurgitating such rightwing nuggets as "he's still stayed the course," and "he's not a flip-flop." Nothing intellectually slavish or hypocritical about that!
Has anyone looked into the question of whether Bush wears a bigger belt buckle than Reagan did?
Ross Andre of Salt Lake City: Sofa King Redneck of the Week.
Note: links to letters and articles published in the Salt Lake Tribune are generally only active during the first two weeks following publication, after which the referenced articles are locked away in their pay-per-view archive.
With Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice speaking in town this week, and all of the looney rhetoric spewed by their defenders and Mayor Rocky Anderson's detractors, the list of candidates for this award grew daily. Ultimately, we are happy to acknowledge that infamous local windbag who heads the arch-conservative Sutherland Institute: Paul T. Mero.
Most will recall that Mr. Mero and his insititute were behind Kanab's controversial Natural Family Resolution. Mero managed to gain ink again in last Sunday's Salt Lake Tribune Opinion section with a rambling attempt at redefining protests during Bush's visit to Salt Lake City as somehow being protests against the American Legion and veterans in general.
That Mero's spin job was entirely without foundation is easily demonstrated: Cancel Bush's visit, and the protests don't take place. Cancel the convention, but have Bush visit for any other reason, and the protests take place.
It was a tight race this week, and many contenders to the title remain unrecognized, but Paul T. Mero rose above the pack. After all, he even found a way to mention his organizations "Natural Family" campaign within the context of a debate on national defense and freedom of speech!
Paul T. Mero: Padded Cell Conservative of the Week!
Note: links to letters and articles published in the Salt Lake Tribune are generally only active during the first two weeks following publication, after which the referenced articles are locked away in their pay-per-view archive.
We commented on David Christensen's DMN Readers' Forum letter in a post last Tuesday. Simply stated, Mr. Christensen believes the Democratic Party's politicization of "the junk science of global warming" mirrors the Rovian, fear-based tactics of the Republicans on issues of national security.
We also began a list of events and catch-phrases that would have to emerge for Mr. Christensen's analogy to be true. Here's another item for that list:
We have yet to hear a single Democrat advise citizens to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to secure their homes from rising sea levels.
Congratulations, David Christensen! Ridiculous analogy aside, merely employing the phrase "junk science of global warming" warrants the title, Ostrich Farmer of the Week.
As with our Tuesday post, we encourage you to enter your own global warming twists on notorious Republican actions and catch-phrases in the comments section of this post.
This letter, published in Tuesday’s DMN Readers’ Forum, seems to come out of nowhere:
Nonbelievers get their way I have been told that 86 percent of Americans believe in God. Yet the remaining 14 percent seem to be getting their way. As a citizen of average intelligence, I submit that we don't have to let this happen. If we want the words "in God we trust" to remain on our coins; if we want "under God" to stay in our pledge of allegiance, we should be able to vote on those issues. We should not have to give in to a small minority just because they are the more vocal and demanding. Norval Turner Murray
As no bills on this subject have been introduced in Congress recently, nor cases heard by the Supreme Court, one wonders whether this writer belongs to some “war on Christianity” organization single-mindedly focused upon this issue, or whether he (she?) simply suffers a misfortunate psychological obsession.
“I have been told …”
Not quite on par with “Recent polls reveal,” or “Church membership rolls indicate …” More in line with “My momma taught me to believe …”
“As a citizen of average intelligence …”
Wow! Now there’s a strong premise upon which to found an argument!
“… we should be able to vote on those issues.”
Because the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment is un-American! But wait just a minute here ... is it true, as the headline suggests, that nonbelievers have gotten their way on these issues?
“We should not have to give in to a small minority …”
And you don’t. All you have to do get two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states to support an amendment to rescind the establishment clause of the First Amendment. While you’re at it, you may as well throw in the freedom of speech clause, just to make sure those “vocal and demanding” minorities protected by the Bill of Rights can’t keep bitching about things like this. Alternatively, you could start a revolution, rescind the Constitution entirely, and install the theocracy you crave.
In any case, we should just let Norval Turner and his fellow nonbelievers in the Bill of Rights have their way!
The origin of this letter within the current range of active political debate remains a mystery. There can be no doubt, however, concerning it’s desired destination. Norval Turner is this week’s Hyper-Religious Wacko of the Week.
DS Salt Lake City, Utah
The Deseret Morning News is not responsible for or associated with this blog. The Deseret Morning News has one-time publishing rights to letters-to-the-editor, after which they are published at various locations on-line. If you have any questions, please e-mail us.
The Bush Administration’s new propaganda campaign, unveiled by Rumsfeld and Bush in their speeches to the American Legion conventioneers in Salt Lake City this week, attempts to link today’s “anti-terrorism” efforts with the anti-fascist campaigns of World War II.
Is World War II analogous to the Bush Administration’s current Global War on Terror? This recollection of specific facts and events makes the connection unassailably clear.
On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked the US Naval installation at Pearl Harbor. This was The Greatest Generation’s 9-11. In response, congress authorized President Franklin D. Roosevelt to wage war against Japan (al Qaeda and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime).
Months later, having unseated Japan’s government (the Taliban) and backed their military forces into a corner (al Qaeda at Tora Bora), Roosevelt began speaking on the necessity of regime change in Stalinist Russia (Iraq). Behind the scenes, troops, equipment, and funding were being redirected from Japan in preparation for invasion of Russia.
Although Japan held clear ties to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, Roosevelt insisted the Russians posed the single greatest threat to our freedoms. In a memorable speech, Roosevelt proclaimed, “We have nothing to fear but loss of our freedoms and, should the opposition party win in the coming elections, further attacks on our homeland.”
While many felt that Germany (Iran) demonstrated the greatest lust for regional dominance, and Russia represented a necessary counterforce against Germany’s expansionist policies in Eastern Europe, Roosevelt’s fixation upon Russia grew increasingly resolute. Stalin (Saddam) was, after all, a brutal dictator and mass murderer of his own people.
When asked about the continued threat posed by Japan (al Qaeda), Roosevelt replied, "I don't know what they're up to. To tell you the truth, I just don't give them much thought."
Ultimately, Roosevelt manipulated intelligence to fit his policy (Downing Street Memos) and misconstrued earlier, nonspecific congressional and international resolutions to support invasion of Russia. Stalin was toppled, leaving Germany free to extend its influence into Poland and other countries bordering Russia, unopposed.
Having failed to plan adequately for occupation and insurgency, Roosevelt’s foray into Moscow quickly lost its sheen of “liberation” and devolved into civil war between competing factions among the ethnically and religiously varied Russian population. Meanwhile, Germany (Iran) grew increasingly dismissive of international demands to cease rearmament, and began openly flexing its muscle throughout Europe.
Roosevelt’s insistence on “staying the course” in Russia – combined with his refusal to consider a mandatory draft to bolster military strength, tax increases to fund mounting expenses, or calling upon American citizens to make meaningful sacrifices to genuinely “support our troops” – left US military forces trapped in Russia, depleted, and incapable of responding adequately to Germany’s actions. Moreover, Russia was proving little more than a costly distraction from the real threats to Europe and the U.S., and a breeding ground for Japanese and Nazi sympathizers.
Recalling the history of World War II in this way – and anyone who disagrees with this recollection of historical facts obviously hates America and our troops – the Bush Administration’s analogy to World War II makes perfect sense.
