John Fogerty sang about George Bush before there was a George Bush. It took me forever to find a decent video version. This does not appear to be lip synced and the sound is decent.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-5XgI244xo[/youtube]
Seems like a fitting song for this 4th of July.
I have posted a page of pictures from the Groton Parade, which you can access at the link on the upper right hand side of the homepage.
Sad to say, good parades are among the many indirect victims of television. Since people do not have to look to other folks in their community for entertainment anymore, institutions like community bands and fife and drum corps are a thing of the past. I’m personally uninspired by a parade consisting mainly of motor vehicles (e.g., modern fire trucks, police cars, ambulances, and even latter day Mustangs), and advertisements for local businesses or religions.
Be that as it may, I was there to show support for our very own Groton Federation of Democratic Women, which personed a float (well, I can’t say “manned”, can I?)trumpeting the achievements of the Democratic Party, as you can see here by clicking on the picture and enlarging it.
That’s it for me for the Fourth. I’m taking the rest of the day off. I was going to complain about the New York Times’ ludicrous story about the legal implications of the crime Bush committed Monday, but I’m not going to ruin the rest of my day by thinking about it.
Keith Olbermann on the Libby pardon:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmrcpDiv_ac[/youtube]
This reads like something out of the early Sixties South. Read it all, it’s chilling:
In a small, still mostly segregated, section of rural Louisiana, an all white jury heard a series of white witnesses called by a white prosecutor testify in a courtroom overseen by a white judge in a trial of a fight at the local high school where a white student who had been making racial taunts was hit by black students. The fight was the culmination of a series of racial incidents starting when whites responded to black students sitting under the “white tree” at their school by hanging three nooses from the tree. The white jury and white prosecutor and all white supporters of the white victim were all on one side of the courtroom. The black defendant, 17-year-old Mychal Bell, and his supporters were on the other. The jury quickly convicted Mychal Bell of two felonies – aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery. Bell, who was a 16-year-old sophomore football star at the time he was arrested, faces up to 22 years in prison. Five other black youths await similar trials on second-degree attempted murder and conspiracy charges.
…
On the morning of the trial, the DA reduced the charges from second-degree attempted murder to second-degree aggravated battery and conspiracy. Aggravated battery in Louisiana law demands the attack be with a dangerous weapon. The dangerous weapon? The prosecutor was allowed to argue to the jury that the tennis shoes worn by Bell could be considered a dangerous weapon used by “the gang of black boys” who beat the white victim.
…
The all-white jury which was finally chosen included two people friendly with the district attorney, a relative of one of the witnesses and several others who were friends of prosecution witnesses.
Bell’s parents, Melissa Bell and Marcus Jones, were not even allowed to attend the trial despite their objections, because they were listed as potential witnesses. The white victim, though a witness, was allowed to stay in the courtroom. The parents, who had been widely quoted in the media as critics of the process, were also told they could no longer speak to the media as long as the trial was in session. Marcus Jones had told the media, “It’s all about those nooses” and declared the charges racially motivated.
In an Editorial today, the New London Day takes Joe Lieberman to task for his support of the Iraq War. It has not yet clued itself in to the fact that Joe now has bigger fish to fry; having destroyed Iraq for no reason, he is now gunning for Iran, spreading disinformation as he goes. But, should we give credit to the Day for printing some of the truth about Joe?
No wonder President George W. Bush has a kind word and a smile every time he runs into Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman. The junior senator from Connecticut is one of the few who has constantly beaten the drums that the invasion of Iraq was a valid event. The deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, the ever-growing danger in the Middle East, the Iraq civil war, the new troubles in Israel — all seem to have no effect on Sen. Lieberman.
Now, Sen. Lieberman has topped his support for the war with the notion that the troop surge is working in Iraq.
He disputes directly the conclusion of Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and instead holds to the same line as President Bush: that patience in staying the course will lead to a successful conclusion. He also seems to ignore the facts.
This is not simply an honest difference of opinion. It is a conclusion one can reach only by ignoring most of the empirical evidence. The situation in Iraq grows worse because there is no solution that does not require a long-term commitment of American forces and a huge presence of troops now. Even the majority in the Congress who advocate a reduction in forces acknowledges that United States troops will be in Iraq for a long time.
Better intelligence has toppled the underlying principle of the Bush explanation about going to war. There was no major weapons production that threatened the United States in the near term. The second Bush justification for this unnecessary and harmful war also sits in ruins: that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. While there’s no denying the dictator’s evil ways, it’s legitimate to ask whether Iraq is better off now than before? Is the Middle East better off for having toppled Saddam Hussein?
Perhaps we should give the Day at least faint praise. But, before we do, here’s the concluding paragraph of the editorial:
Iraq is a catastrophe, a solemn and sad series of violence, death, destruction and religious warfare. Sen. Lieberman is one of the few in Congress who don’t seem to get it.
Pot, meet kettle. This editorial caused me to head into the Day archives (easily done, thanks to the Groton Public Library) to re-read this editorial, titled “Lieberman for U.S. Senate“. It seems like ages ago, doesn’t it? A lot of muck has flowed under the bridge since then. Nonetheless, there were lots of us who “got it”, even back then. But not the Day. Not when it might have counted.
Re-reading the Day’s endorsement makes you wonder what planet they were on. In typical Day fashion it asserts that Ned Lamont is not qualified to be a Senator because he is not a Senator, and that Joe is, because he is. It caricatures Ned’s positions, and implicitly diminishes the importance of the war as an issue. But I urge you to read this in light of Lieberman’s activities in the past few months:
Mr. Lamont and Sen. Lieberman are Democrats. Sending Mr. Lamont to the Senate probably also wouldn’t make much difference in the outcome of the debate over the war, on which both candidates appear to be naïve. Sen. Lieberman clings to the notion that the war can be won, while Mr. Lamont proposes that it will be a simple matter to get out. Neither of these views seems realistic or particularly useful in addressing the present predicament.
Mr. Lamont would dispute the point about Sen. Lieberman’s party loyalty, arguing that Mr. Lamont is a “truer” Democrat than Sen. Lieberman. But other than in the case of the war, that is a phony argument. On matters other than the war (a big issue, to be sure), Sen. Lieberman is as much a Democrat as Mr. Lamont professes to be, voting with his party most of the time. In fact, Sen. Lieberman has become more loyal to his party line in the last several years, since his unsuccessful campaign for the presidency in 2004.
Now, you see, those of us who “got it” were perfectly aware that Lieberman would remain a “Democrat” only so far as it was in his personal interests to do so, and no farther. If we look at matters “other than the war”, over the past seven months, we see, among other signs of Joe’s increased loyalty, that he has reneged on a pledge to investigate the criminal response to Katrina, raised money for Republicans, circulated White House spin points on Iran , voted to filibuster a proposed vote of no confidence of Alberto Gonzalez, minimized the lawlessness at the justice department, recently suggested that the Administration should wiretap more Americans, and taken every opportunity to question the patriotism of Democrats and their supporters. None of these positions is in line with Democratic policy, may the gods be praised.
None of this should come as a surprise to anyone who listened to Joe, or watched what he was doing last year with any discernment. The Day could reasonably have argued that party loyalty is not important, but it didn’t. It argued that Lieberman would be more loyal than Lamont. It could not reasonably argue that there would be no difference in the outcome of the Iraq debate if Lamont were there instead of Lieberman, but it did. (If Joe were not there, there would be no veneer of bipartisanship to this horrible outrage, and the Democrats would not be staring at the possibility of a turncoat Lieberman rendering them a numerical minority) The Day could not reasonably claim that Lamont’s stand on the war was simplistic, but it did because it was the only way it could make its argument look facially valid. The Day could not reasonably claim, as it implicitly did, that the Iraq war was such a trivial issue that the ability of Joe Lieberman to bring home the bacon should overshadow it. The Day could not reasonably buy into Lieberman’s hollow claims to be “angry” at the way the Bush Administration pursued policies that he continuously supported, but it did.
So, we can share the Day’s anger at the fact that Lieberman doesn’t “get it”. But, at some point, the Day itself should come clean about why it didn’t “get it”. We don’t know how much the press’s delegitimization of Ned Lamont (like the Day, most of the media portrayed Ned as a lightweight, which he decidedly was not) cost him at the ballot box, but it couldn’t have helped.
SPEAKING OF THE DAY: The paper has named a new Executive Editor, one Timothy C. Dwyer, who comes to us fresh from the Washington Post, trophy wife in tow. Many people believe that today’s Washington Post is the same paper that brought down Richard Nixon. Sadly, no. It is now the paper that gives aid and comfort to the powerful. Witness its support throughout for Scooter Libby. The paper that brought down one corrupt government is now propping up another.
Of course this doesn’t mean that Mr. Dwyer will take a similar “up with criminals so long as they’re in power” approach to the news business. Who knows, perhaps his departure from that institution is a sign that he doesn’t like where it’s going. We can only hope that his coming will mark an improvement in the paper, which, for all my griping, really is a pretty good rag. Every time I get disgusted with the Day, I think about the Bulletin, which today, the day after the President of the United States obstructed justice in front of 6 billion people, chose to headline a story about the Norwich City Council’s FOIA troubles. Libby didn’t even make it above the fold. Below the fold? I’m not sure. The most I ever read is what’s visible through the window on the dispensing machine.
If I meet my own expectations, I will soon post something about the New London Day. How’s that for a surprise? I stopped off at the Groton Public Library to do a little research, as I expected to have to use a back issue of the Day to make a point, and as you may know, the Day restricts the hoi polloi to no more than two weeks of on-line access.
Well, frabjous day! (no, not The Day-oh never mind), I discovered that the Groton Public Library has lifted all of us Grotonites from the ranks of the hoi polloi, and I felt it my duty to pass this word along to my fellow Grotonites who might still be in darkness. The GLP has paid for all Groton card holders to have access to the Day back to 1999. Instructions as follows:
Go to www.seconnlib.org
Click on the Groton Public Library Homepage link
Click on “Magazines, Newspapers & Databases” on the left side of the page.
Click on “Newspapers”
Click on “The Day”
Enter your GLP or Mystic/Noank Library barcode number (No spaces)
Type keywords in the search boxes according to instructions. Make sure you change the start date if appropriate.
To the casual observer, it may seem like I’m not getting many comments lately. I have of late been berated for my inability to discern the relative merits of music videos, but otherwise my readership has been largely silent-or so it may look.
In fact, I have been fairly inundated with comments from diverse sources, all of which have been blocked by my alert spamcatcher. I can actually view these comments, and, because in this sphere I am as a God, I can inflict them on my helpless readers should I so choose. As I assume that all my readers are satisfied with the sizes and shapes of their bodily parts, I do not so choose.
Today, however, the filters caught a message that I can’t quite figure out. It purportedly comes from this quite respectable left wing blog, called The Politics Blog. Oddly enough, the comment is supposedly affixed to the “Contact Me” page that you can access at the upper right of my home page. The “Contact Me” page doesn’t accept comments, so far as I know. Even more oddly, the comment is in what appears to be Latin:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Integer mollis egestas dolor. Etiam molestie. Morbi.
On the other hand, maybe it’s Romulan, Esperanto, or inspired gibberish. It’s definitely not Church Latin, take my word. There’s not a single “Et cum spiritu tuo” in there.
There are free on-line translators from English to Latin, but I couldn’t find anything that went the other way. I have, therefore, referred this to one of our local Democrats, who is a former Latin teacher. If there’s anyone out there who cares to take a crack at it, I’d love to hear from them. Assuming it’s not obscene, I’ll post the translation as soon as I get it.
Since the subject is Latin, I append hereto the funniest Latin Lesson ever filmed:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8[/youtube]
UPDATE: That was quick. A commenter says that the post is “pseudo Latin…layout for printer’s dummies”. So, nothing clever or funny. Oh well. What’s troubling about this is that whoever was responsible hijacked a real website’s URL.
George Bush has commuted Libby’s prison sentence because two and a half years in prison is excessive for merely perverting the course of justice and committing perjury. This is merely the last in a “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinc[ing] a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism.” . So why do I feel nearly nothing? Why can’t I revive that delicious outrage I felt on the night of the Saturday Night Massacre, or, for that matter, the outrage I felt when Bushco stole the first election? After all, look at just some of the things I’ve got to be outraged about:
First, there’s the very act itself-pardoning (okay, not technically, but that may be coming) an unrepentant criminal who has been convicted by a jury of serious crimes.
Then there’s the given reason for the act:. A president who tortures innocent people, who jokes about people he has put to death, who has shown no evidence of compassion for normal human beings feels that two and a half years for obstruction of justice is “excessive”. And since he commuted the entire sentence, we must conclude that he feels those crimes deserve no jail time at all, which is probably true because everyone in his Administration, including himself, is guilty of the former.
Then there’s the probable press coverage: Pro forma condemnation here in the hinterlands, but can you doubt that at pundit central Bush will be praised for his Solomonic wisdom, for after all he did split the baby. He left the conviction intact, for now, while removing the sting. Scooter won’t be going to jail. He may lose his law license, but he won’t need that anyway, as the cabal that runs this country will make sure he does just fine. After all, Scooter threw himself under the bus for them, and they won’t forget. The Beltway pundits have been almost unanimous in their inability to see that Libby did anything wrong. They will merely nod their collective heads in approval and turn to other things. Funny, does anyone remember how long they obsessed about Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich, which gained Clinton nothing? Bush has put the finishing touches on a massive cover-up and the story will be forgotten in a day.
Then there’s the probable pubic reaction, which can be summed up in a sentence: What else is new, can you hand me the sports page?
Then there’s the probable Democratic Congressional reaction. “Tut, tut, what’s one more impeachable offense?” (A criminal conspiracy can be furthered by acts both legal and illegal.)
And of course, finally (on this list only, I haven’t got all day), there’s the further damage done to our already tattered Constitution. But after the job the Supreme Court did last week, does it really matter?
I would be giddily happy if it turns out that I’m wrong-that this usurpation evokes the kind of reaction Nixon did on that long ago Saturday Night. I can still remember John Chancellor, almost bug-eyed with shock, repeating, over and over, in a stunned voice: “This has never happened before!”. Neither has this-a sitting President pardoning someone in order to further an ongoing coverup. Chancellor and his like are gone. They’ve been replaced with people that will give this act their seal of approval. Within a week of that act the wheels started moving toward impeachment. In less than a year, Nixon was gone. At that point in his presidency, Nixon was higher in the polls than Bush is now, but no matter, Bush, such a petty man (if we must go the way of Rome, can’t it at least be at the hands of a man like Caesar?), continues to “bestride the narrow world Like a Colossus“, proving how much more petty we have become.
It’s OUTRAGEOUS!
Ahh, that’s better, I’ve worked myself up. I know it won’t do me much good, but it’s all I can do, so I might as well do it. Outrage alone may not save us, but we won’t be saved without it.
In case you had trouble trying to access this site, the problem is now cleared up. At least it is to be hoped that it is. Recently my hosting company announced a new feature, which it suggested I enable. I dutifully did, with no ill effects, until today, when it caused a problem that made the server unavailable.
The hosting company was great. I got tech support right away, he told me exactly what to do, and I was up and running again in less than a minute from the time I called.
The current edition of the New York Review of Books includes a review of Allan M. Brandt’s The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall and Deadly Persistence of the Product that Defined America. One paragraph jumped out at me (the article is only available to subscribers of the electronic version, and is not even available to us print subscribers-so no link). The reviewer first asks why smoking rates climbed when the truth about smoking’s grave risk to health were beyond question. He immediately answers the question:
In response to the studies of Doll and Hill and Wynder and Graham, the tobacco companies issued in 1953 a “Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” which was published in newspapers across the country. The statement claimed that cigarettes were not “injurious to health,” but taht more research into the question was needed. At the same time, the industry endowed a new Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) whose purpose was to create the impression that the industry took the health issues seriously. In fact, the TIRC was mainly a public relations outfit. It funded scientists willing to question the evidence linking smoking and cancer and publicized their “findings.” The scientists used their grants to search for causes of cancer other than cigarettes, such as genetics and the environment, and they searched for beneficial effects of smoking. When some industry-funded scientists found evidence that cigarette smoke was loaded with carcinogens, their results were repressed. None of these scientists complained, and it was only in the 1980s that a small number of tobacco industry “whistle-blowers” came forward. Meanwhile, for decades, the TIRC continued to issue such statements as “There is no conclusive scientific proof of a link between smoking and cancer.”
It would be the work of a day (but I don’t have a day, so I’m not going to do it, but take my word) to find parallels with the corporate response to global warming, except, perhaps, for the whistle-blowers, whose time has not yet come. This historical precedent should give us more than pause. For all its evil, the harm that cigarettes did was largely restricted to those that used them. Not so with global warming. The stakes are far higher now, yet it may be that the forces of truth will have a more difficult time now than then. The cigarette industry was largely alone in trying to suppress the truth; not so today. Again, the cigarette industry had to swim against the current of a political system dominated in the legislature by liberal Democrats and courts that were trending left. So far the Democrats have responded to global warming in no more than a halfhearted way, and the Supreme Court is now clearly a tool of the corporate interests. What are the odds that we will do something effective about global warming in time to make a difference, given the institutional barriers we face.