|
"Operation Iraqi Freedom?"
by the Copy Boy
 A great chance for the
United States to prove the doubters wrong.
March 18 - The United States is now engaged in a
fight on two fronts: A battle to beat Saddam, and a war to win back its
credibility. It will win the battle. Can it win the war?
"The Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human
liberty." That's how U.S. President George Bush concluded his March
17th speech on the eve of attacking Iraq, promising that after Saddam
is gone, "The United States with other countries will work to advance
liberty and peace in that region." Liberty rings so loud in the president's
justification for invading Iraq, that the administration is naming the
attack "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
 Few doubt the United States can quickly crush Saddam. And few will be
sad to see Saddam and his medieval band of psychopath sycophants go. But
even fewer believe President Bush's post-war democratic goal. Why? Because,
the United States usually sides with dictators over democrats. The exceptions
shine - Western Europe and Japan following WWII, Grenada in 1983. But
the exceptions are few. U.S. history is overwhelmingly punctuated with
support for local gagsters of convenience with names like Mobutu and Marcos
and Pinochet and Pahlavi and Somosa and Suharto - and Saddam.
The Christian Science Monitor reports that of 18 regime changes driven
by the United States in the 20th Century, only 5 resulted in governments
that could be called democratic. Numbers like those are debatable but
the pattern is not - from Colonel Castillo Armas to General Pervez Musharraf
the guiding rule of U.S. diplomacy is as consistent as it is simple: do
business with us and we'll do business with you.
Supporters of U.S. dictator-diplomacy explain past alliances with despots
as the unfortunate Cold-War cost of keeping Communists at bay. What's
changed? These days Washington cuts new deals with old despots to keep
Islamic terrorists at bay. Central Asia is a logical locus to do just
that. So last April U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sat down
to see what he could do for Saparmurat Niyazov, the dictator ruling Turkmenistan.
The U.S. is providing military and economic aide to Islam Karminov, the
overseer of Uzbekistan who despite his name is bent on violently suppressing
the country's Muslim population. Uzbekistan, and the Caspian's oil rich
dictatorship of Azerbaijan under Heydar Aliyev are among the countries
agreeing to support the Iraq invasion.
The Bush administration has boosted U.S. support for Kazakh dictator
Nursultan Nazarbayev, helping him tighten his hold on a nation where firebombs
greet editorial dissent and where his family already controls economic
lynchpins from the national television network to Almaty's biggest hotel.
Malaysian dictator for decades Mahathir Mohamad opposes the U.S. war
against Iraq despite the Bush administration's best efforts to pursued
him. To help check Islamic militants in South East Asia, Bush put aside
objections to Malaysian dictator Mahathir Mohamad, calling him "a
force for regional stability." After his White House meeting with
the president last year, Mahathir told reporters that Bush "did not
raise anything about democracy or human rights in Malaysia," adding
that now "The U.S. government understands the way we deal with our
problems in Malaysia."
While repression within Mid-East allied regimes like Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait never troubled the United States, President Bush says he now wants
to free the people of Iraq. And neo-conservatives at the Pentagon like
Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz are among those arguing
this will be different. They promise that a post-war U.S. organized
democratic government in Iraq will serve as a springboard for region wide
political renewal.
The post-war plan? The Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian
Assistance is currently developing the mechanics of using Iraqi oil revenues
to help pay for transforming Iraq's dictatorship into democratic government.
According to that blueprint, about two years under U.S. military government
led by Central Command General Tommy Franks will give way to a new era
in Iraqi democracy. On track to become de facto governor of 23 million
Iraqis after the war is 64-year old retired U.S. Army General Jay Garner.
Before becoming a corporate executive with high-tech maker L3, Garner
organized food and shelter for displaced Kurds in 1991, arguing that the
U.S. military should be a "merciful instrument in shaping future
humanitarian operations."
That's the pledge. Few believe it. The long history of allegience to
dictators willing to do U.S. bidding has ruined U.S. credibility. More
than anthrax or weapons of mass destruction this is where the country
has become most vulnrable. Most believe Washington will do what it has
usually done, find an ally, turn a blind eye, and call it freedom. But
no one can deny this is a great chance for the United States to prove
the doubters wrong. The watershed the Bush administration promises Iraq
is also a chance for the United States to break from its habit of dictator
diplomacy. It's a chance for the United States to match lofty claims with
honorable deeds and demonstrate respect for individual liberties abroad
the way it respects individual liberties at home. If it can't do that
Washington will win a battle without winning the war.
Point-Counter Point:
Why Attack Iraq?
 The
Real War
Alan N. Moskowitz
This debate over war with Iraq is all just more sleight of hand on the
part of our nation's leaders. More smoke & mirrors to keep our minds
off the real issues - political corruption, economic instability, and
health care reform to name a few.
There's really only one political party, and only a few actual underlying
agendas: Repay those who spent money to put us in power, (eg. special
interests & multinationals) and gain reelection to continue that effort.
If we (the people) benefit from our politicians it's purely incidental.
 If
we (the U.S. Government) really wanted Hussein out of power his assassination
would have happened years ago.
"Give the people bread & circuses." I don't need to be
a conspiracy theorist to understand there are some very basic principles
employed in populace control within the U.S. It's pretty easy. I invite
you to broaden your perspectives beyond current events.
Although I am not entirely in agreement with the following, for the
big picture check … http://www.members.ozemail.com.au/~agourley/livelife1.htm
Vs.
Who Dies Next?
By George Paliatsos
So, how many people attended the (October 26 Washington) anti-war protest?
20,000? Oh boy! Sounds like a ground swell to me! I think most people
think we should kill the bastard (Saddam Hussein). How many people does
Saddam have to kill before you lose you sympathy for him?
Are the thousands Saddam has already killed - mostly in his own country
- not enough? How about the tens of thousands of Iranians he killed in
the 1980's? Still not enough? I guess you will only be happy when thousands
and thousands of Americans die after Saddam decides to sell nuclear weapons
to terrorists. But, alas, I forget, you are more concerned about Saddam's
health than about his victims.
Ya' know, in the 1940's people thought we should ignore Hitler. There
were the same type of anti-war sentiments then you see today, arguing
Hitler was harmless. Liberalism can be so blind.
Paul Wellstone Remembered
By Don Wilson
I first met Paul Wellstone fifteen years ago when he used to camp out
on a former student's couch (journalist Steve Emerson) when making trips
to Washington to organize -- he was a professor then, and involved on
the frontline with an astounding array of difficult causes -- all on behalf
of those normally cut out of any ability to influence power.
 He
was a longhaired, backpack toting, fun and engaging radical, about as
likely to be elected to come to Washington as a Ralph Nader disciple,
which he once was. As a just returned Peace Corps volunteer, I loved the
deep commitments and discussions, the phenomenal energy of this man, so
unlike many I was meeting in official Washington. He was a one-man commitment
charger.
Paul's energy and enthusiasm were infectious, and he was blessed with
the boldness and audacity to believe that organized people of moral courage,
armed with effective ideas, could achieve anything in this country. His
very election --done with engaging humor and tenacity while being outspent
seven to one -- was a beacon of hope to all who hope for a democracy of
real people -- where the precursor to becoming a Senator is not being
born a millionaire, but being a true servant. He was passionate about
the aspirations of people without champions, and for them he himself was
a champion.
My good friend Kai Bird, once a student where Paul taught at Carlton
College, remembers Paul arming young mothers stuck on welfare with video
cameras so they could document their struggle. More than just teach, Paul
joined with students to protest the Vietnam War. Paul and Kai first got
to know each other well in jail, for doing just that. Paul was a one-man
conscience for all of Congress. My former boss, Democratic leader Tom
Daschle calls him "the soul of the Senate."
Years ago, I rode with Paul in the Capitol subway as he traveled between
votes and meetings, and to watch people and Senators react to this whirling
dervish of passion and purpose -- all the energy of Shaquille O'Neal packed
into a 5'5" body in K-Mart short sleeves. When Paul got in an elevator,
Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms just stood and gaped. One group of people
who beamed was the guards and elevator operators, who Paul knew by name
-- first name.
The last time I saw him was a typically Wellstone moment. He and Sheila
had volunteered to help out at an event for the Maya Angelou Charter School,
a high school in DC for young people who have been in serious trouble.
Long after the event was over, Paul and Sheila remained in the parking
lot, talking with young people one-to-one, inspiring them with his energy,
his passion, his purpose -- pure Paul.
The words of Robert Frost, published in his last book -- IN THE CLEARING
- capture what Paul Wellstone's life of deep service leads us to know
and feel about his passion and commitment.
Escapist, Never
He is no fugitive-- escaped, escaping.
No one has seen him stumble looking back.
His fear is not behind him but beside him
On either hand to make his course perhaps
A crooked straightness yet no less a straightness.
He runs face forward. He is a pursuer.
He seeks a seeker who in his turn seeks
Another still, lost far into the distance.
Any who seek him seek in him the seeker.
His life is a pursuit of a pursuit forever.
It is the future that creates his present.
All is an interminable chain of longing.
Let his memory inspire us to do more, to do it better, to make an enduring
difference. He did.
Salute To A Brave and Modest Nation
By Kevin Myers
The Sunday Telegraph
(The story below first appeared in Great Britain’s
Sunday Telegraph)
 LONDON
- Until the deaths of four Canadian soldiers accidentally killed
in April by a U.S. warplane in Afghanistan, probably almost no one outside
their home country had been aware that Canadian troops were deployed in
the region. And as always, Canada will now bury its dead, just as the
rest of the world as always will forget its sacrifice, just as it always
forgets nearly everything Canada ever does.
It seems that Canada's historic mission is to come to the selfless aid
both of its friends and of complete strangers, and then, once the crisis
is over, to be well and truly ignored. Canada is the perpetual wallflower
that stands on the edge of the hall, waiting for someone to come and ask
her for a dance. A fire breaks-out, she risks life and limb to rescue
her fellow dance-goers, and suffers serious injuries. But when the hall
is repaired and the dancing resumes, there is Canada, the wallflower still,
while those she once helped glamorously cavort across the floor, blithely
neglecting her yet again.
That is the price Canada pays for sharing the North American
continent with the United States, and for being a selfless friend of Britain
in two global conflicts. For much of the 20th century, Canada was torn
in two different directions: It seemed to be a part of the old world,
yet had an address in the new one, and that divided identity ensured that
it never fully got the gratitude it deserved.
Yet its purely voluntary contribution to the cause of freedom in two world
wars was perhaps the greatest of any democracy. Almost 10% of Canada's
entire population of seven million people served in the armed forces during
the First World War, and nearly 60,000 died. The great Allied victories
of 1918 were spearheaded by Canadian troops, perhaps the most capable
soldiers in the entire British order of battle.
Canada was repaid for its enormous sacrifice by downright neglect, its
unique contribution to victory being absorbed into the popular memory
as somehow or other the work of the "British." The Second World
War provided a re-run. The Canadian navy began the war with a half dozen
vessels, and ended up policing nearly half of the Atlantic against U-boat
attack.
More than 120 Canadian warships participated in the Normandy landings,
during which 15,000 Canadian soldiers went ashore on D-Day alone. Canada
finished the war with the third-largest navy and the fourth-largest air
force in the world.
The world thanked Canada with the same sublime indifference
as it had the previous time. Canadian participation in the war was acknowledged
in film only if it was necessary to give an American actor a part in a
campaign in which the United States had clearly not participated -- a
touching scrupulousness which, of course, Hollywood has since abandoned,
as it has any notion of a separate Canadian identity.
So it is a general rule that actors and filmmakers arriving in Hollywood
keep their nationality -- unless, that is, they are Canadian. Thus Mary
Pickford, Walter Huston, Donald Sutherland, Michael J. Fox, William Shatner,
Norman Jewison, David Cronenberg and Dan Aykroyd have in the popular perception
become American, and Christopher Plummer, British. It is as if, in the
very act of becoming famous, a Canadian ceases to be Canadian, unless
she is Margaret Atwood, who is as unshakably Canadian as a moose, or Celine
Dion, for whom Canada has proved quite unable to find any takers.
Moreover, Canada is every bit as querulously alert to the achievements
of its sons and daughters as the rest of the world is completely unaware
of them. The Canadians proudly say of themselves -- and are unheard by
anyone else -- that 1% of the world's population has provided 10% of the
world's peacekeeping forces. Canadian soldiers in the past half century
have been the greatest peacekeepers on Earth -- in 39 missions on UN mandates,
and six on non-UN peacekeeping duties, from Vietnam to East Timor, from
Sinai to Bosnia.
Yet the only foreign engagement that has entered the popular non-Canadian
imagination was the sorry affair in Somalia, in which out-of-control paratroopers
murdered two Somali infiltrators. Their regiment was then disbanded in
disgrace -- a uniquely Canadian act of self-abasement for which, naturally,
the Canadians received no international credit.
So who today in the United States knows about the stoic and selfless friendship
its northern neighbour has given it in Afghanistan?
Rather like Cyrano de Bergerac, Canada repeatedly does honourable things
for honourable motives, but instead of being thanked for it, it remains
something of a figure of fun. It is the Canadian way, for which Canadians
should be proud, yet such honour comes at a high cost. This week, four
more grieving Canadian families knew that cost all too tragically well.
Re-Printed From the Sunday Telegraph.
Ideals To Live By
Kellen Simpson
I love The United States and find much to feel proud about in its great
achievements and ideals. As we continue the war on terror we continue
to talk about strategies that will bring peace. But there can never be
peace until there is justice. And no one here can be safe until the poorest
around the world feel nurtured instead of marginalized. We can try to
build a missile shield to protect our skies. We can try to close our borders
to suitcase bombs or plagues in a bottle. We can also try to help feed,
house, and educate the world’s forgotten, and remind them that the
United States never forgot the ideal that made it great: respect for individual
dignity and freedom.
We will be safest when we are most respected and we will earn the most
respect when we live by the principals that built us. Those principals
make our constitution the most imitated in the world. They can still bring
tears to the eyes of anyone read the inscription on the Statue of Liberty.
We will be in the greatest danger when we are most vulnerable to contempt;
when we say one thing but do another; when we preach ideals of fairness,
freedom of opportunity, and a nation of laws, then cut back-room deals
with back-ally dictators that suck global resources dry and cheat the
impoverished workers who draw them.
We have a long to go before achieving the ideals we preach. While we once
fought for Kuwaiti “freedom” it is clear we were fighting for
a dictatorship that pledged U.S. cooperation against a dictator who had
changed sides.
Since then we have supported Arab regimes including Saudi Arabia that
enforce draconian domestic laws and – as it turns out – served
as home to most of the hijackers who attached us on September 11th. We
have also elected a president who owes much to disgraced natural gas giant
Enron and its besmirched CEO Kenneth Lay, who is among the largest Bush
campaign contributors. Enron exported its ideals. Beyond its questionable
domestic record, Enron is complicit in human rights and environmental
violations in India, Nigeria, and Argentina.
Our embarrassing willingness to say one thing and do another extends beyond
the energy industry. When Guatemala enacted legislation last year against
infant formula and baby food ads claiming their products were healthier
than breast milk, the U.S. sided with international baby food giant Gerber
in challenging the law at the WTO. Fearing devastating trade sanctions
in the face of such powerful opposition, Guatemala rescinded its law before
the WTO made its decision. Big money trumped individual rights, and we
were right there cheering Goliath as he stomped David.
Among our New Year’s resolutions, what about a pledge to go beyond
flag waving or anthem singing and pledge to put our money where our rhetoric
is. 2002 is the year to go beyond remembering the ideals that make us
great. 2002 is a year to live them at home and abroad.
Bin Laden’s Pals Have Us Over a Barrel
David M. Stone
We beat al-Qaida. So what’s next in the battle against terror? What
about ridding the country of gas-guzzling SUVs and 50-mile commutes?
Too painful? “Un-American?” Maybe patriotic sacrifice 2002 should
include giving up a couple of cylinders. Is that too much to ask children
and grandchildren of “the Greatest Generation” that faced down
the Depression, Japan and Nazi Germany?
Maybe our “bigger is better” consumer market can – without
government intervention and regulations – place higher value on energy
independence than on personal comfort. That’s one way Americans can
send a real message to Islamic fundamentalists who like to think they’ll
always have us over a barrel – of oil.
Osama Bin Laden and his Saudi supporters derive their wealth from oil
sold primarily to the U.S. Efforts to investigate and pursue terror suspects
and their financing are hamstrung by a Saudi regime we don’t dare
offend because of our dependence on its rich oil fields. Remember that
brutal Iraqi officer character in “Three Kings” who forced crude
oil down Mark Wahlberg’s throat mocking Desert Storm war aims about
Kuwaiti freedom? I hated that guy…but knew he was right. In the decade
since the Persian Gulf War the United States has become even more addicted
to Middle East oil.
While Israelis seem to have built themselves over the years into a militarily
indefensible position with far-flung Jewish settlements in Gaza and the
West Bank, we seem to have spent those years building ourselves into a
strategically indefensible energy dependency. Suburban sprawl is worse,
and commuting times on the road are hitting record levels. Gridlock is
everywhere.
Sitting in the traffic are the biggest, heaviest “family” vehicles
in history. Monster SUVs have caused a domestic arms race in safety, where
anyone left in a smaller, lighter, lower car is at risk. The only way
for parents to feel responsible for keeping their children’s safe
in the back seat is to keep up with their neighbors in the size of their
four-wheel drive.
A few months ago during what turned out to be a pretend energy “crisis”
the Bush administration mocked conservation policies, defended unbridled
energy consumption as a patriotic right, and pumped the bogus idea that
solutions is more drilling in places like the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.
This guy’s turned into a pretty terrific commander-in-chief, but
talk about fuzzy math! Americans control some three percent of known energy
reserves and yet our economy, with only five percent of the global population,
consumes some 25 percent of the world’s daily oil use.
Let’s say we did decide to trade-in the wild caribou for a few years
of new North Slope oil supplies. Did anyone notice while the smoke was
still clearing from the September 11 attacks that some drunk guy with
a gun managed to shut down the Trans-Alaskan oil pipeline and cause a
spill onto the tundra of more than a quarter million barrels of crude?
What would a determined terrorist attack do?
Clearly, the path to energy independence does not run through Alaska.
So what can the government do? How about a new “Manhattan Project”
for safe, renewable energy sources? As the cliché goes, if this
country can crack the atom, or put a man on the moon, then we can certainly
put our best minds to work creating the kind of cutting edge technology
that will once and for all cut the umbilical cord between a thriving economy
and fossil fuels. Indeed, as we learned from the public investment in
the space program, the spin-off impact of such public investment on private
sector innovation can be a huge spur to new efficiency and economic growth.
Second, government can and must finally upend the absurd bias in public
spending that sees nothing wrong with taxpayers footing the bill for new
highway construction that paves the way for more wasteful suburban sprawl
– and simultaneously robs more energy-efficient cities of business
and residential life. As the new Pennsylvania Economy League report illustrates,
the Delaware Valley has suffered deeply from such perverse development
incentives. And western legislators on Capitol Hill have to drop the hypocrisy
of pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into roads and airports while
insisting that Amtrak alone ought to be “self-sufficient.”
In the short-term, Detroit can rethink its product line. We as consumers
can move away from the old paradigm that pits personal freedom and economic
vibrance against energy efficiency and smart conservation. Conservation
and raw materials rationing was part of daily life during the Second World
War. We look back with nostalgia on that era not for its feeling of privation,
but its sense of collective purpose.
As terrorism experts point out, the Islamic fundamentalists believe we
are a society unwilling to sacrifice; unwilling to sacrifice the lives
of its soldiers in a bloody conflict, and unwilling to detach its wasteful
lifestyle from Middle East oil.
We live in a country where there are there are guys willing to run up
the stairwell of a burning 110-story tower to save lives; where there
are guys willing to jump out of a helicopter into the middle of dangerous
enemy territory to pursue a dangerous foe. You’d think the rest of
us might at least be brave enough to make do with front-wheel drive.
True enough, like the popular flag poster says, “these colors don’t
run.” But maybe they could walk and ride the train a little more
often.
Me Too
2001:
Pretzel Terror
In an attempt to come to grips with the recent tragedy at the White House
involving the esophagus of Dubya and some very naughty pretzels, I did
my own "American Football" and pretzel experiment. 
After repeated insertions of the baked dough along with an absurd amount
of some bubbly substance used solely to wash the residual pretzel from
my mouth, it all became as clear as an Iraqi oil well: Obviously a certain
pretzel company (rhymes with bendover's) has been infiltrated by terrorists.
The pretzels are covered in an immense amount of suspiciously sized "sea"
salt, and as hard as a soon-to-be-in-America-covered-in-African-civilian-blood-diamond.
It seems obvious that action needs to be taken or more could suffer from
the catastrophic possibilities unleashed when mass pretzel consumption
occurs in a few Sunday's. Don't you see the conspiracy?
We all know when the most toilets flush at the same time in America. I'm
talking the Superbowl, damn it! Our game and way of life (only 55% of
us are obese, c'mon) is threatened by these crafty creators of a highly
dangerous snack! We need to imprison these supposed capitalist's in a
tropical detention center while depriving them of all sensory data.
This is the only logical explanation for the events that occurred and
so bruised our snuggle-bunny of a president. Unless he's as stupid as
an inbred Georgian fluffer who's been huffing glue since he was five and
burns tires in his wood stove … but that's impossible.
Sincerely,
Ralph Zealemni
All-Negative, All the Time
By Michael Kelly
Wednesday, November 14, 2001: "Good evening, and welcome to 'All
Is Lost,' the nightly public affairs program produced by National Public
Radio and the British Broadcasting Corp. Tonight we discuss what has been
called America's war against terror. I am your host, Perfectly Modulated
Voice of Reason.
"With me, in our Washington studio, are: Fabled Newsman Who Was
There When Saigon Fell . . . Scientifically Trained Impartial Scholar
. . . and Bureau Chief of Second-Rate Regional Monopoly Newspaper Who
Is Desperate to Be Hired by the New York Times. From London, we are joined
by our European affairs analyst, Loathes America and Prays for Its Swift
Destruction.
"First, today's war news. Tens of thousands of Afghans in liberated
Kabul greeted President George W. Bush with wild cheers and much waving
of American flags. The mayor of Kabul, in a traditional gesture of welcome,
presented President Bush with the head of Osama bin Laden on a pike. Accepting
the gaily decorated head, Mr. Bush quipped: 'This shall not stand -- at
least not without this handy pike!'
Meanwhile, across the Middle East, news of the so-called allied victory
in Afghanistan appeared to be producing remarkable changes in the political
dynamic. Radical Islamic fundamentalism, as Western critics perhaps unfairly
call it, seemed under attack. . . .
"In Iran, tens of thousands of men lined up at barber shops for
shaves and Western-style haircuts, with the majority favoring the 'mullet'
look, which is popular, we are informed, with young men in some American
regions where we have actually never been. . . . In Iraq, President Saddam
Hussein remained for the fifth day under siege in his summer palace as
hundreds of thousands of students gathered outside chanted, 'Hey hey,
ho ho, the Great and Maximum Leader for Life has got to go.' . . .
"The governments of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait pledged today to develop
armies sufficient to protect themselves without American assistance, pointing
out that it was wrong to ask the United States to shoulder the burden
of defending their wholly corrupt oligarchies. In Israel, newly appointed
tourism minister Yasser Arafat announced a new policy of 'peace at any
cost.' Saying 'I must have been meshugenah,' Arafat declared: 'Of course,
Jerusalem must be the capital of the Jewish homeland, any fool can see
that.'
"Gentleman, given all this, the question is obvious -- Is there
any reason to even go on?"
Chorus: "No . . . no . . . utterly hopeless . . . doomed . . . repudiation
of entire U.S. strategy. . . . A colossal failure . . . no hope."
Perfectly Modulated: "Scientifically Trained, why doomed?"
Scientifically Trained: "Well, it is important to put all this into
context. In the Islamic world, things are never what they seem. As the
great Hashemite warrior Abdullah the Less Than Brilliant expressed it,
'The victory of my enemy is my victory.' This is how this week's events
will be seen in what I like to call the Arab street -- as a prelude and
a catalyst to a great uprising against American interests, led by an entire
new generation of martyrs inspired to jihad by U.S. belligerence."
Perfectly Modulated: "Fabled Newsman, what says the view from inside
the Beltway?"
Fabled Newsman: "Been there. Best and brightest. Tet. Vietnamization.
No light at the end of the tunnel."
Perfectly Modulated: "And would you go so far as to say . . . "
Fabled Newsman: "Yes. Absolutely: Quagmire. Quagmire. Quagmire.
Quagmire. Waist deep in the Big Muddy. Quagmire."
Perfectly Modulated: "Desperate to be Hired by The Times, what's
your take?"
Desperate to be Hired: "Whatever Fabled Newsman said goes double
for me. With bells on. You bet. Count me in. Ditto."
Perfectly Modulated: "Now let's go to our European analyst, Loathes
America, for the insight from over there. Loathes, what is the mood of
Europe tonight?"
Loathes America: "Bleak, of course. And properly so. I mean, one
does not wish to say that this debacle is what America deserves for its
arrogance, its vulgarity, its bullying ways -- well, actually one does
wish to say it, doesn't one rather? Really, one just hates America. Really,
one always has, ever since one was just a little chap."
Perfectly Modulated: "Thank you, Loathes America. A valuable insight
as always. Gentlemen, last thoughts?"
Scientifically Trained: "Things could hardly be worse."
Loathes America: "Nonsense. That Pollyanna optimism so typical of
you naive colonials. Things could always be worse. And will be. Thank
God."
Fabled Newsman: "Quag . . . "
Desperate: " . . . mire."
Perfectly Modulated: "And that wraps up another edition of 'All
Is Lost.' Good night, and pleasant dreams."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company Reprint
The Copy Boy Responds: Flawed as it is, NPR still provides a far better
news anlaysis than the simpleton spiel flowing from far better financed
private broadcasters.
Land of the Free? Home of the Brave?
by Alexander Kippen
NEW YORK, Oct. 22 – More than a month after the WTC and Pentagon
attacks the battle continues. As U.S. bombs rained on Taliban military
targets, anthrax arrived in the mail. Two postal workers are dead in a
new attack on organizations ranging from NBC News to The White House.
Suspected weapons range from simple envelopes to non-dairy creamers. As
businesses close mailrooms and Hollywood stars rent space in Wyoming bunkers,
debate grows over how best to boost our collective security.
Beyond biological and chemical assault, human bombs and nuclear weapons
lurk among the weapons aimed against us. Unlike previous conflicts, this
battlefield includes the mall down the street and the coffee shop at the
corner. In that way, we are all in the army now. The question then is
how we choose to fight? Will we win awards for valor and bravery or become
cowards, or even war criminals?
More than just defend what we own and whom we love, will we fight for
what we believe? Military soldiers give their life for their country.
As a civilian soldier, are you ready to die for your liberty?
We hear now that we are not safe. Sitting in a crowded restaurant this
week it was easy to see this is true. A human bomb could have walked in
and easily killed us all in the most ghastly way. We could secure that
restaurant. We could require patrons to pass through metal detectors,
show ID, or maybe even subject themselves to searches before sitting down
for a lasagna or a latte.
Civilian soldiers who wanted to eat in comparative safety
could gather at restaurants adopting equivalent measures. Insurance companies
protecting their bottom lines might deny coverage to restaurants failing
to adopt new safety restrictions. We might excuse overly zealous restaurant
security guards who denied access to an Arab, or used physical force against
an Arab enraged by his denied access.
Where will you eat? What will you excuse? Where will you take your mother
when she visits? Where will you forbid you children from visiting? Will
you sit at the safe restaurant, or at the one where a nail bomber or anthrax
duster can walk in and finish you off?
We can improve the safety of many gathering locations. We can screen all
mail, require security checks at the entrance of Grande Central Station,
at movie complexes, at shopping malls, and anywhere else large groups
gather. We can do that and more. We will be safer. But how safe do we
want to be? Land of the free. Home of the brave. Easy words in easy times,
but are they words to live by now when they might carry a cost? One by
one, we’ll decide that as this battle unfolds, day by day.
We are all in the army now. The question then is how we choose to fight?
Will we win awards for valor and bravery or become cowards, or even war
criminals? Soldiers give their life for their country. Are you ready to
die for your liberty?
Silent Reason...
By David Ekbladh
What gets to me is the silence. New York is quiet now.
If you've ever been here for a snowstorm, it's much like that, much everything
has stopped but there is still a sort of muffled growl. Even in its most
hushed state the background noise never quite departs.
But this muted city doesn't fit, there isn't the chill of winter and there's
no snow on the ground. New York is almost always boisterous to the point
of annoyance. The attacks have swept the traffic from the streets and
there aren't even that many people on the sidewalks. I don't know if that
is fear or just a symptom of the inaction forced upon us. There's not
much to do. They don't need volunteers downtown, you can't even give blood
as so many people generously crowded the donation centers.
It's impossible to escape. There was almost something fiendish in the
brilliance of the sun today. You couldn't miss the smudge on the horizon
or fail to notice the missing pieces if you got a glimpse of the skyline.
And it all reminded you what a tiny mechanism a human being is. Forces
were on the loose today that chastened those they did not kill. Those
spared the violence could only look on. While stripped of many things
today we were provided one thing to the point of surplus, impotence. More
than no outlet for action, there is no baseline to build understanding.
Who did this? Why? Was their cause so critical that the cold calculation
to kill as many as they could at the height of rush hour and the workday
was a necessity? Are those people I can't find swept up in confusion or
were they cut down?
I want to know this because New York is my home. This city that I love
is where I live and make my life. These were places and people I knew.
Someone took them from me, and changed me, and changed this place. I need
to find a reason.
YOU TALKIN' TO ME MR. PRESIDENT?
by Elisabeth Troni
The Washington Post reports that after the presidential election, Vice
President Gore and President Clinton met one-on-one at the White House
in which, using ‘uncommonly blunt language,' where Gore blamed his
defeat on Clinton's sex scandal. Clinton then faulted Gore for failing
to run on the administration's record. Below is an unconfirmed transcript
of further conversation details ...
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good to see you, Al. Just let me finish signing
these pardons, and I'll be right with you. Let's see: Charles
Manson--check. Timothy McVeigh--check. Puffy Combs--I just can't say no
to J-Lo. Mark Chmura--you bet. Now, what did you want to talk about?
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: I suppose I should begin by thanking you for
giving me the opportunity to be the most influential vice president in
U.S. history.
CLINTON: Isn't that like being the best dancer in Salt Lake City?
GORE: Ha, ha, Mr. President. I see what you mean. Sort of like
the most honest member of the Clinton family.
CLINTON: Chelsea - but give her time. Say, would you like a bag
of White House silverware? There's a couple dozen of knives and forks
in the closet I can’t fit in the U-Haul.
GORE: No, thanks, I won't be needing any silverware.
CLINTON: Really? Hmm. Maybe I can fit a few more forks into the
trunk.
GORE: I’m sure you can. The idea of an incoming senator without
place settings for 300--it's too much to bear. I know there are some people
who say you and Hillary would steal a hot stove if it weren't bolted down,
but not me.
CLINTON: Depends how hot, I guess. Anyway, where were we? Oh, yeah--you
were thanking me. Well, you've been an excellent vice president, and if
I had another eight years, I could teach you how to win an election. Ever
thought of taking up the saxophone? Pardoning some international fugitives?
GORE: It's not easy to get elected when people identify you with a
president held in contempt by millions of Americans.
CLINTON: Oh, I don’t think Tipper’s held in contempt
by millions. The music business maybe.
GORE: Not Tipper, Mr. President, you, and your White House intern.
Do I look like I've lost a lot of weight? Because this is the first time
in the last year that I haven't had to carry Monica Lewinsky on my back.
CLINTON: Gee, the more Ken Starr and Newt Gingrich mentioned Lewinsky,
the higher my approval ratings jumped. Trust me, Americans like a little
entertainment in the White House. Heck, if W's daddy had arranged a little
sex scandal for himself, I’d still be teaching law back in Fayetteville.
Which reminds me: where did I put Gennifer's phone number?
GORE: Note to self - lock up my daughters.
CLINTON: Funny, Al. It's that sharp sense of humor that's always
made you soooo popular. You know, the ones who elected that frat boy –
the guy who’s crowing achievement was kicking booze at 40y –
but still can’t beat Rick Lazio in a game of Scrabble.
GORE: If it weren't for you, I'd have beaten Bush like a rented
mule.
CLINTON: Aren't you the guy who lost three debates to an empty
chair?
GORE: I know I made mistakes, and I have learned a lot from you
– stuff that will come in especially handy if I'm ever investigated
by a special prosecutor.
CLINTON: Don’t mention it, Al. I've enjoyed our association,
and when the next election rolls around, I'll do everything I can to help
you.
GORE: You really mean that, sir?
CLINTON: Absolutely! You're honest, you're experienced, and you've
been a key part of my phenomenally successful administration. Where could
Hillary find a better running mate?
bUSH
INAGURAL ADDRESS - 1ST DRAFt
January
20, 2001 - My Fellow Armenians, as I stand here today, looking out
over this magnificent viagra, I think we can agree that the past is over.
That our country is ready for a fresh, bipolar approach. I want to bring
America together. We are the hill shining on a city, and each of
us can get to the top if we set our feet to it. Americans have made their
decision. They don't need sympathy; they need absolutions. We need to
move beyond the petty armadillos. Politics doesn't have to be the way
it is today. We can make the pie higher. A high pie lets everyone put
food on their family and their family on the table. That's my record:
I side with the people.
A
president has to think not only of himself and his family and hisbaseball
team's families, but of all American families. I don't believe apresident
should be choosing who are the right Americans and who are thewrong Americans.
All of us are together, white or wrong, black or right. Or perversely.
That's why my tax cut is as broad as we are. And it will give our expansion
a timely second dose of wind.
I say
there's a cost to inaction. I haven't done the acrobatics, but it's probably
around a trillion dollars. That's a good round sum to offer to everyone,
especially our seniors, who are the backache of our nation.
On
that note, I would like to take a moment to mention my mother, Barbara
Bush, who taught me to read and write when I was still knee-high to a
lawnmower. We need our seniors to be free to pass on their life's work
to those they love, and especially to pass on. Thanks, Mom and Dad.
We
know that America is the best in the world. We are the great super-premium;
we cannot afford to be unleaded. This is still a world of madmen and mental
losses. And mental loss is easy to underestimate. We need a sharpened
sword to light our way. To quote Ronald Reagan: I do not believe in a
fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. I do believe in a fate that
will fall on us if we do something. And it must never run our lives -I
think.
The
purpose of prosperity is to make sure the American dream touches every
killing heart. Progress can be slow. You measure it in inches and feet,
not by confusion.
My
message is: I will get things done. I will inspire and untie. I
will appeal to people's better angles. I will prove that politics can
be bigger than you ever thought possible. We will trust the people we
serve, and serve the people we trust. Together, we can do what needs to
be done to preserve this great bastard ? of freedom.
Leaked
by an anonymous GOP Screed contributor
tHE
FIVe
or how the court
stopped the election
by
dON WILSOn
12 December, -
They offer a new deadline of midnight, and leave less than two hours to
meet it. They cite equal protection, while votes are counted differently
in every county in this land -- different machines, different ballots,
different technology -- all requiring unique counting and method of recount.
By their logic - no vote counts.
The
five, who speak of respecting states, individual, and laissez fare --shoved
their will down the throats of thousands of voters -- and their votes
will rule: the black robed five. They have decided for us, these
unelected, these bizarre characters of Orwellian logic -- who shall hold
the highest office of the land. Held up for special disparagement
are the four Floridian justices who alone stood for counting all the uncounted.
The Floridians stood for just process, the five stood for foreordained
result.
The
five stand the law on its head, and ask us to join them in admiring the
view. The five. They robbed in the night. By writing unsigned
- they tried to leave no fingerprints. They left from their underground
garage rather than stay and explain. They killed the counting of
votes by a deadline -- then said no more votes could be counted, the deadline
had passed. Their logic is lawless.
They
offer a new deadline of midnight, and leave less than two hours to meet
it. They cite equal protection, while votes are counted differently in
every county in this land -- different machines, different ballots, different
technology -- all requiring unique counting and method of recount.
By their logic - no vote counts.
The
five, who speak of respecting states, individual, and laissez fare --
shoved their will down the throats of thousands of voters -- and their
votes will rule: the black robed five. They have decided for us,
these unelected, these bizarre characters of Orwellian logic -- who shall
hold the highest office of the land. Held up for special disparagement
are the four Floridian justices who alone stood for counting all the uncounted.
The Floridians stood for just process, the five stood for foreordained
result.
The
five stand the law on its head, and ask us to join them in admiring the
view.
Don Wilson is a Washington
D.C. writer, public policy analyst, and screaming liberal to boot
.
MeToo
Greatest Hits 1999-2000:
pROTEST
CHIc
bY CHAD GEORGe
Now, before anyone accuses
me of abandoning my liberal tendencies, let me make one thing clear: I
want 13%! That's right 13% mandatory gratuity for all rickshaw drivers
around the world! A rickshaw in every driveway and 13% gratuity in every
rickshaw driver's pocket! C'mon people - if you'll protest the world bank,
thinking that they suck because they don't have an ATM, then can't you
give some blood and sweat for the rickshaw driver?Now, before anyone accuses
me of abandoning my liberal tendencies, let me make one thing clear: I
want 13%! That's right 13% mandatory gratuity for all rickshaw drivers
around the world! A rickshaw in every driveway and 13% gratuity in every
rickshaw driver's pocket! C'mon people - if you'll protest the world bank,
thinking that they suck because they don't have an ATM, then can't you
give some blood and sweat for the rickshaw driver?on't have an ATM, then
can't you give some blood and sweat for the rickshaw driver?
What confuses me about many protests is
that many of the people protesting don't really know why. In the 1960s,
college students protested because they did not want to go to war, today,
college students protest because they don't want to go to work. I don't
know that much about the World Bank or IMF (for god's sake I thought it
was meant Mission Impossible until a few weeks ago), but I do know
that I am no different from the thousands (excuse me, hundreds)
of wanna-be hippies who flooded downtown DC with crazy puppets and home-made
pepper spray. And lets not forget PETA. They unloaded a dump truck full
of manure in front of the World Bank because - get this - the World Bank
encourages third world countries to use animals for farming. Oh my, an
Ox pulling a plow?
Lets just be glad these people are not
EATING the horses! Remember, the developing world doesn't go home every
night to tony suburbs to discuss radical disobedience in front of the
big screen. Instead of driving to rallies in BWWs - their parents'in many
cases - much of the world would be happy to drink some clean water. But
if the World Bank gives them clean water, well that's just the Corporate-Capitalist
greed taking advantage of these poor people. What might be better, Brita
filters? Nope. That's plastic. Ok, how about straining it through
a sheepskin sieve? Oh, sorry PETA.
And what the hell does convicted cop killer
Mumia (I love that song by Phil Collins by the way) have to do with any
of this? I don't know. And from my investigation, neither did the people
with Free MUMIA stickers on their foreheads.
Some overheard conversational protest
nuggets. (In respect for their real names, which I do not know,
I'll simply use aliases and refer to these two participants as idiot number
one and even bigger idiot. ):
- Idiot number one: "Don't you
see, it's about human rights. I'm talking human and we're all human.
- Even bigger idiot: Where's
my hat? Have you seen my hat?
- Idiot number one: And
what she was saying was as a race, humans can't be stopped!!
- Even bigger idiot: I know I
had it on when I went to the port-a-john. Are you sure you haven't seen
my hat?
- Idiot number one: They serve
meat here!! My God!! Let's go somewhere where we can relax. Can I wear
your hat?
- Even bigger idiot: sure
Most amazing is that this exchange was
in a mainly gay restaurant. Some gay men overhearing the conversation,
taunted the protestors, basically embarrassing them into leaving. How
liberal is too liberal? When Gay men question the validity of your liberal
beliefs it's time to catch the red eye back to San Francisco, put on your
dot.com T and get ready to pay taxes.
The protest had a sad ending. Police clubbing
folks, people hurling rocks and bottles at police, me missing Donnie and
Marie so I could see protest updates. But alas, when watching the footage
where local news celebrity Jim Vance followed around a protestor named
"Yoda," I have to wonder if anyone had any idea why they were there. When
a protestor ran into a motorcycle traveling down a street, I had to wonder
- didn't you see that motorcycle? Do you think this is Tienaman Jr?
Maybe I am becoming a bit more conservative,
because this made me laugh. A lot. Then I paid my taxes, checking off
the little box for donation to starving rickshaw drivers.
fOX NEWS or TOILET
Tv
by
alison schafer
"FECES ON BAR GLASSES!"
"FECES IN YOUR WASHING MACHINE!"
Washington
DC's Fox station warned viewers, "Feces Everywhere. Stay Tuned."
Arrested development or arresting expose? If you tuned in to the Washington
Fox station during this sweeps series, you learned which local bars served
beer in dirty glasses and how bleach gets rid of, er, unwanted elements
in the wash. It was toilet TV, or maybe TV best left for the toilet.
Then
came the big shocker - the poop stories didn't sell. Viewership dropped.
Fox 5's news@ ten dropped 16 percent. Shock often triggers change. Fox
news series during sweeps in Washington this winter featured stories on
veterinarian credentials, self-defense, smart students who cut class to
look cool. Ratings jumped, and station "news" brass took notice. Stay
tuned.
From
management down, current and former staffers fret over the Fox shadow.
Alexander Kippen, who spent five years in the '90s covering politics for
Fox, says the station suffers because it is "part of a wretched little
network that fully believes its viewers are morons and programs news as
if they are."
Fox Washington's current News Director, Katherine Green, goes less far,
"You get lumped in with this idea of tabloidy sensational new,"
complaining about Fox shows like the "Guinness Book of World Records
where somebody's sucking spaghetti through their nose."
Local
Fox affiliates often walk a fine line: The folks who tune Into "COPS"
might be bored by reports on City Council or congressional hearings. News
is rarely as dramatic as the theater of "America's Most Wanted." So how
do you hang on to the Fox network's younger, anything-goes viewers, when
the news comes on at 10pm?
One
Fox answer: Cast news anchors and reporters as cute and young as the cast
of Party of Five. "There's a desire to go with younger reporters,
find quirky, different stories that many of us don't even view as news,"
says David Burnett, a Fox anchor and reporter for 13 years.
Many
old-timers lament the rise of the "news snacks," the veterans'
name for the 20-somethings who now pepper Fox 5's news coverage. They're
new to TV, new to news, and new to the Washington area. "I don't
think Jim Vance, if he ever left Channel 4, would get hired there. He's
a gray-hair," says Lee Thornton, a professor of journalism at theu
Uiversity of Maryland. Thornton says the Washington Fox station, more
than other local Washington stations, hire young faces. "People there
who've earned their journalistic stripes get put on the weekends - it
makes no sense to me."
Hillary Howard, 38, an anchor and reporter at Fox 5 for ten years before
leaving last summer, says the influx of fledgling reporters hurts coverage.
"The old institutional memory disappears, so that long-running stories
aren't put in the proper context, place names are pronounced wrong, cities
get put in the wrong states and some important stories don't get covered
at all."
Dover Air Force Base gets put in Maryland, not Delaware, video of houses
crashing into the sea during a storm is labeled Ocean City, instead of
North Carolina. Some of it is relatively small stuff, but news is, after
all, about getting it right. Now a New York internet entrepreneur and
start-up on-line magazine editor, Alexander Kippen offers a blunter explanation.
"God invented TV news so that kids who struggled for Cs in high school
could still make big money."
Staffers
complain that management doesn't much care what they say on the air, as
long as they look good saying it. Nearly everybody has something snotty
to say about one highly featured youngish reporter. "Which fake eyeglasses
look best- that's his biggest dilemma week after week," snipes one
veteran. "In recent months they've hired so many young people, they
all seem to look the same, all seem to have an upbeat delivery,"
says Maryland's Thornton. "They seem to bethe ones most blatantly
going for the MTV grads."
Drama,
even fake drama, is what sells these days, and not just on Fox. Watch
TV news and you'll see plenty of young reporters walking from nowhere
to nowhere during stand-ups. Watch Fox and you'll see more "walk-shots"
than on other stations. Reporters say Fox management puts a premium on
action. "If you don't walk in your stand-up, you get called in,"
says one Fox reporter. "They don't care what the facts are, they
just want movement."
Still, Washington's Fox station remains at the top of this heap, according
to industry insiders: It is on at 10pm, which attracts harried, overworked
professionals who want to catch the news and get to bed early. But even
with it's time slot edge, Fox is not the city's "most watched" news station
that it claims. "They've got ratings that are pretty good. But if
they were on at 11, they'd be second or third, (in the ratings) never
first," says Gomery. On an average night, Fox's 10 o'clock news pulls
in about 223,000 viewers, WRC's 11pm newscast, by comparison, nets about
282,000.
While jumping your competition by an hour always helps, it's not the secret.
Industry watchers believe the reason behind WRC's years-long local news
dominance is its consistency. WRC management resists re-arranging its
living room any time something goes wrong in the family. WRC has stuck
with essentially the same anchors, reporters, and style for as long as
most can remember. Gary Wordlaw, former New Director at ABC local station
WJLA, says "every time another station changes its anchors, viewers
drift to Channel 4 (WRC)."
Since it bought Washington's Channel 5 from Metromedia in the mid-'80s,
Fox has tired numerous different styles and management philosophies, tried
countless kinds of news - from smart, to not-so-smart, to downright tabloid
in its attempt to catch up to the big boys. The station has long been
the somewhat pathetic hanger-on, trying to catch up to the ratings power
of local stations affiliated with NBC, CBS, and ABC.
The
station has suffered through "a succession of just disastrous news
directors" according to ex-employee Lori Butterfield, who's now a
documentary producer at National Geographic. More specifically, the station
has endured 10 news directors in the past fourteen years ? enough turnover
to make major league sports management look stable. Like those memorable
major league sports blunderers, some Fox news directors were stood out
above run of the mill incompetence.
One routinely asked women to stand on chairs so he could admire their
legs. He lasted a couple of months. Another pledged to purge liberals
from the newsroom. He was quickly sacrificed, not for his policy (Fox
news directors don't have policies, they follow edicts) but for letting
his directive out of the bag.
On
the job now for two years, news director Green also sticks by her news
coverage, including the story on feces and bar glasses, in which 1 glass
tested positive for trace excrement. "That would shock me, as viewer,"
she says. And Brad Dancer, who runs the station's marketing and research,
says "We got a lot of viewer calls on the bar glasses. People were
interested."
TV
critics lament the sameness of local TV news - the same stories on every
station, the same stories in every city. The bar glass story, or this
February's "Perils of Pasta" report on people allergic to gluten,
could run in any city. The dirty washing machine story, for example, came
from a management meeting of Fox-owned affiliate stations. Another, a
survival school story was an entertainment tie-in with America's Most
Wanted.
"Stories
are pedaled from station to station, so that a story that might have meaning
in one place becomes meaningless in another - to the extent that the story
becomes ridiculous," laments former anchor Hillary Howard.
One staffer speculates that last November's ratings drop came after a
series of stories effectively promoted as "Hidden cameras! Confrontation!
Investigations!" She continues, "when they put that word 'investigative'
up on the screen, you just want to laugh out loud - what is that, the
feces on the water glass? That's investigative?"
Even reporter Will Thomas, who did the poop story, admits the station
promotion department went overboard and "did 'fecal matter in your
face!'" The Fox station blames the Fox network for the poor showing,
saying that weak network ratings are hurting local news.
No
one can deny Fox is trying. Since last November's ratings drop, the Washington
station has shifted away from the drama-for-drama's-sake style that appalled
some staffers and apparently turned off many viewers. No more hidden cameras,
menacing leads, and hype. Nowadays, the Fox station is back on more traditional
territory, reporting on flood-damaged cars sold as new and how you can
spot them, and stories on illegal trade in prescription pills.
"I've
been here 3 years," says a reporter, Will Thomas, "and I've
seen a drastic change. There was definitely a Fox style Here - it was
very 'go out and grab ya'- but they've been toning it down the past year.
Management does research and they realize the catchy over-the-top stuff
is not necessarily appealing to the audience.
"The
troubles at the Fox station are not so different from the problems facing
local TV news everywhere. Instead of tuning in for a daily dose of news,
weather and sports, audiences are increasingly slipping off to the Internet
for information, to cable for entertainment.
Conflicting
forces are as hard at work as at Fox as at any other commercial enterprise.
"There is good work being done," says ex-anchor Hillary Howard,
"but it's the exception, not the rule."
In
TV as anywhere else, "good work" is difficult, time consuming, talent
dependant, and often expensive. Then consider the easy reality of scary,
titillating, slap-dash stories on crime, weather, or ? poop, and you won't
need a crystal ball to divine the outcome.
(A former Hartford, Conn. local TV reporter, Alison Schafer is currently
an associate professor of journalism at American University in Washington
DC.)
the
REAL COST OF THE MICROSOFT verdict
bY ELISABETH TRONi
The tech stock flameout
was not just an odd coincidence. Economists Thomas Hazlett of the American
Enterprise Institute and George Bittlingmayer of the University of California
at Davis recently published a study in the Journal of Financial Economics
reporting that whenever the government's antitrust suit scores a victory,
an index of non-Microsoft computer stocks drops. When Microsoft wins a
round, computer stocks rise. This makes no sense if you believe Microsoft
is a pitiless monopolist engaged in systematic assaults on its competition.
In that case, anything weakening Microsoft would benefit Microsoft enemies
and friends alike. Suppliers and business partners would enjoy a stronger
position in negotiating with Microsoft, and everybody would win except
maybe people living on the Death Star.
But, when the industry
as a whole rises and falls with Microsoft, you have to conclude that Bill
Gates does not have the mark of the beast after all. You might also conclude
that the government's punishment damages technological progress and consumer
welfare. As Hazlett and Bittlingmayer put it, Those who invest their
own resources are betting that markets will not be made more efficient,
nor consumers be made better off, by a government success in U.S. vs.
Microsoft."
There are plenty more
reasons to fear the verdict. During Microsoft's reign of terror, computers
have become faster, better and cheaper, more quickly than predictions
from the most starry-eyed technophile. Gadgets that could have handled
moon missions have become the province of preadolescent desktop games.
Even the government's chief expert trial witness, MIT economist Franklin
Fisher, admitted that Microsoft's behavior has not hurt consumers "up
to this point." The damage is all supposed to happen sometime in
the future. In other words, to date pure competition has rarely functioned
better.
The Clinton administration
decided otherwise, and the court agreed. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson,
in his findings issued Monday, said "Microsoft placed an oppressive
thumb on the scale of competitive fortune, thereby effectively guaranteeing
its continued dominance."
"Guaranteeing"
is an imprudent word to apply to an industry perpetually evolving at warp
speed, in directions not even Gates can predict or control. The government
once thought IBM was so dominant in the computer industry that its success
was guaranteed. Who's afraid of IBM today?
The trial made clear
that Gates and Co. use tactics beyond the bounds of good sportsmanship,
and may even have overstepped antitrust laws. But that's like discovering
that offensive linemen sometimes get away with holding. Illicit tactics
can also lead to widespread benefit. In a raucous, testosterone-laden
marketplace, Capitalism is often ugly. The bigger question is whether
Judge Jackson and the Justice Department have the tools to fix the imperfections
of an unshackled market.
If the courts insist
on dictating Microsoft's new terms of competition, Three things can happen,
and - as the late Ohio State football coach Woody Hayes once said of throwing
the football - two of them bad.
1) If the court's
remedy is imperfect, it may achieve nothing: Approached by Microsoft for
advice, Michael Cusumano of MIT's Sloan School of Management, advised
"to settle and agree to almost any conduct remedies the government requested,
because it wouldn't change that much in the industry."
2) The court's solution
may do more harm than good, helping out a few of Microsoft's direct competitors,
at the cost of crippling one of the most able companies in the world,
and injuring all of us who've benefited from it.
3) The remedy, of course,
may strike a perfect balance. We would strip Microsoft of its predatory
excesses while continuing to benefit from its innovative zeal and relentless
pursuit of technological improvement. A happy outcome is possible,
of course. But I wouldn't bet the Nasdaq on it.
tHE BOY
IN THE CLICHe
by
jon eig
sECRETRY of State
Andy Garcia, Attorney General Edward James Olmos, and Secretary of Defense
Gloria Estevan, to name just three new cabinet members, are all on the
case. ABC is considering a made-for-TV movie. Uniting everyone is a simple,
solemn pledge: Do what's in "the best interest of the child."
In this case, Elian Gonzalez, a.k.a. the boy in the cliche.
Excellent. I think we
have the millennium's to go any farther. Stick to that "best
interest" line and you're sure to be a winner. Who's going
to argue? And for those adding that the kid's voice should be heard, let
me tell you, I have a six year old. If I followed his"voice" it
would tell me to spend all of my money on Pokemon cards. "Best
interests of the child" joins an elite list of Grade "A"
OOCPs of the last 20
years:
"Whatever's necessary"
As in, "In order to win the war on drugs, we need to do whatever's
necessary." Suspending the Constitution and imposing Martial
Law would be a good start. Haven't seen that yet. So I guess we're not
really serious about that war on drugs.
"War on (anything)"
As in, "the war on poverty - crime - child pornography" etc. The
only true WAR we are fighting now occurs every Autumn Sunday when the
Washington Redskins take the field and battle for my personal honor and
glory.
"I take full responsibility"
This one is particularly good when making an apology. Accidentally
blow up a hospital or replace the wrong kidney? Just "take full
responsibility." The beauty here is that just by saying it, you've put
the issue to rest. The pedestrian assumption is that taking full
responsibility involves some sort of punishment? Oh lighten up.
I SAID it. I don't have to DO it.
"Poor judgement"
This may be my favorite. Also a staple of apologies, this can cover an
illicit affair or a mass murder. If only the U.S. government had used
better "judgement" at Kent State in 1970.
Wait, then Neil Young
would never have recorded "Four Dead In Ohio." I love that song.
I guess you could say it was in my bestinterests that National Guards
blew away four kids. It's not likeI knew them, and I got to hear a good
song out of it.
Like any clich?, OOCPs
save me the trouble and discomfort of thinking. I feel like the robot
in that Star Trek episode whose brain fired when Harry Mudd told him he
was lying. If you don't understand that reference, don't worry. "I take
full responsibility."
2
cents from the Copy Boy:
My
personal favorite ... "mistakes were made." I've already used it three
times today in my weekend job as an air traffic controller.top
tHE BOOM TO COMe
by
cathy charles
iN
New York you often overhear conversations about
business or the theater. In Washington people talk about public policy
in elevators. In south Florida, where I recently moved, the ambient conversations
are about grocery shopping or health.
I'm sitting in a movie theatre, waiting alone for 5:00pm showing of "The
Talented Mr. Ripley" to begin on a Wednesday night. I am the only young
person in the place. The rest of the folks are retired, mostly in their
70's. Two women sit down across from me:
Woman
A: "You won't believe what Gloria paid for frozen ravioli. $1.79. What,
does she think money grows on trees?"
Woman B: "And she says she doesn't want to mess with cooking. She should
get off
of
her tuchis!"
Two
elderly couples take seats behind me. They start talking about one of
the men's gallbladder problems and the medication he's taking. They keep
gabbing through the trailers and into the start of the film. They are
daring me to ask them to shut up. The commentary continues throughout
the 2-hour plus film.
Don't get me wrong. This is not an elder-bashing screed. People who've
lived a long time deserve respect. My stepfather is a World War II veteran
and an excellent, if somewhat domineering, conversationalist. My in-laws
are near retirement age, but seem far younger. They are wonderful people
whom I not only love, but love spending time with. I'm not trying to indict
an entire generation. I'm just talking about what I've seen and heard
in public, in a place where seniors rule.
Is
this the boom to come? The world as we'll know it when the gigantic baby
boom hits retirement. Every time I visit a certain farm stand in Delray
Beach I feel as if I've been catapulted into a future (my future) where
younger people are a minority and the elderly are everywhere. "The Boys,"
as it's called, doesn't sell organic produce like most of the trendy places
in Manhattan. You won't find $16 long-stemmed strawberries, but you will
find fruits and vegetables that are fresh and affordable. The place is
Mecca for elderly bargain shoppers. Every time I walk in there I need
a good stiff drink.
The parking lot is always a mess, thronged with big cars that won't move,
their drivers wanting a parking space that's five feet away from the entrance.
These are not disabled people. They just don't want to walk very far.
It usually takes ten minutes to park, a span of time during which you've
done very little moving, and a lot of waiting around.
After negotiating the parking lot, you actually have to go into the store
itself. This is when I brace myself, take a deep breath and try not to
grit my teeth. You walk in the door and the place is packed. Every head
is gray. Who else is out running errands during the middle of the day?
Certainly not people with jobs.
The
shoppers at "The Boys" have spent a lifetime learning that if you don't
act aggressive, you get left in the dust. They will step in front of you
at the bread counter, knowing that a young person probably won't say anything
confrontational to a retiree. One shopper told my husband "You nearly
took my toe off!" When he touched her shoe with his foot while reaching
for a loaf of corn rye. If you hang around politely and wait for a senior
to finish bagging her tomatoes, another one will elbow you out of the
way when you're audacious enough to think it's your turn.
Once
you get far enough into "The Boys" to reach a major food intersection,
there's always a logjam. Eight people stand with carts, staring at each
other; some stuck next
to
the corn, trying to get over to the cucumbers, others wanting to push
right through to the whitefish. Logic would say you should follow the
four-way stop sign rule. Forget it. Everyone glares until someone just
barges right through (usually me). Comments are made about rudeness. Once
when I was stuck in such a standoff I spotted the sympathetic face of
another non-senior. We exchanged glances and he said "You gotta have a
lot of patience around here."
I've had similar senior experiences at the $2.00 movie theatre and a place
called the Nail Depot. While I was waiting to pay for a manicure, an elderly
patron cut me off. She insisted she should get a dollar discount even
though she forgot to bring her coupon from the Sun Sentinel. The young
cashier would not relent, saying "Sorry hon. Would you like to make another
appointment for when you have the coupon?" I wanted to applaud her assertiveness.
I've
seen my husband, Steve, stand up to pushy seniors, but it takes a lot
to push his buttons. Recently when we were flying back from New York to
West Palm Beach, he had gotten up to get something out of the overhead
bin during the flight. After we
landed and the fasten seat belt light turned off, the 70-something woman
in front of us stood up and said loudly: "We could have been killed! The
young genius left the bin open."
The woman kept talking about him as if he weren't there, loudly maligning
the "young" person who almost killed her. Steve politely explained that
the latch was broken. She ignored him. Finally, he got her attention and
chastised her, saying: "You have a very bad attitude." She looked shocked.
Her husband gave Steve a grateful look as if to say, "Finally, someone
is brave enough to talk back."
aT THE
VIDEO STORE WITH JOn:
bOYS DON'T CRy - bUT MAYBE THEY SHOULd
Compare and contrast
- would Hollywood make "Boys Don't Cry" if the sex roles had
been reversed - if the lead character was a young man pretending to be
a woman and suffering the ultimate price for it? This question came to
me recently. My initial response was, "Hollywood didn't make 'Boys
Don't Cry,' Christine Vachon did."
Over the
course of twenty films in the '90s, Vachon and her Killer Films company,
have seriously pressed the envelope of American film, becoming in that
time, one of the most important film producers in the world. So,
you complain that Hollywood shows kids having a lot of sex but never seriously
deals with the consequences of such activity? Vachon offers "Kids"
to the world. Pedophilia and incest are taboo in Hollywood?
Vachon gives us "Happiness." Didn't see many lesbians
on screen a few years ago? Vachon made "Go Fish."
These are
not all great movies. And they are not the first ones to deal with
their various subjects. But they were all distributed and they were
all SEEN. That's why Vachon is so important - because she takes
on difficult subjects and not only gets them made, but puts them in front
of the public. So my guess is that Vachon could have made "Boys Don't
Cry" even if it featured a gender-challenged man. But could
such a movie be embraced, promoted, and awarded with an Oscar? That's
a more difficult question.
There are
those who argue that River Phoenix was denied an Oscar nomination for
"My Own Private Idaho" because he played a gay hustler.
The last gay hustler to get a nomination was Jon Voight - and calling
him a "gay hustler" in "Midnight Cowboy" is somewhat
of a stretch given that he murdered his one homosexual client. I
don't agree with the Phoenix slight, because I think that whole movie
was an ambitious failure. But it's hard to imagine Hollywood going head
over heels over an overtly gay male character.
You might
argue that Hollywood has already recognized such a performance by giving
Tom Hanks the Best Actor award for "Philadelphia." The
fact that the movie is over-sanitized and lacking in all nuance doesn't
completely diminish its importance. Hollywood did applaud a gay
man. Of course, the award also came because the movie starred beautiful,
likeable actors and arrived at a moment of public fascination with AIDS.
(Translation - Big Box Office)
A better model
might be Jaye Davison, nominated for his Role in "The Crying Game."
Of course, that was not an American movie. There's little question that
other countries have a more progressive view of homosexuality, at least
in their popular culture. England has seen a number of sophisticated
comedies about gay men in recent years, several of which ("Love and
Death on Long Island" "Get Real" "Beautiful Thing")
have gotten some attention in the US. And it's hard to imagine a
television show like "Queer as Folk" coming on right after "Touched
by an Angel." Canada produced perhaps the closest thing to
a male version of "Boys Don't Cry" back in 1977 - the glorious
"Outrageous."
It's not that
the United States has yet to produce movies with transvestite characters.
It's just that almost all of those movies have been safe. Either
the transvestite was patently heterosexual, as in "Tootsie"
or "Mrs. Doubtfire" (in which they were dressing up to actually
preserve the traditionally defined family unit), or the film itself was
simplified to the point of comedy, as in "To Wong Foo?"
About five
years ago, I met Winnie Holzman, creator of the television show "My
So-Called Life," among others. She said that her network handlers
did not have a problem with the existence of a young gay man in the show.
But they did have a problem with how REAL he was. Ricky Vasquez
(played by Wilson Cruz) terrified the network because he was ffeminate
in a realistic way - not in the swishy, comic caricatures common in most
films that deal with homosexuality (see "To Wong Foo" above.)
Holzman concluded that it was not homosexuality - but femininity - that
frightened producers and directors. I think she may be right.
We're a masculine
country. We love our guns. Our first film stars were the cowboys
who settled life with violence. The feminine idea that we build
community and settle matters with consensus and compromise seems much
harder to sell, especially in a visual, visceral, physical medium like
film. One of the first lessons of film school is "show it,
don't tell it." It is easier to show physical confrontation.
Certainly, there have been successful movies that have rejected physical
confrontation - "Witness" is a great example.
After all
this though, my guess is, that if Brandon Teena had been a young man masquerading
as a woman, his story might have been told, but it would not be readily
embraced or conventionally rewarded. In short, boys don't cry, but maybe
they should. When we get ourselves a female president, maybe our movies
will follow suit.
2 cents
from the Copy Boy:
hollywood
will award an Oscar to a movie where men engage in open corn field sex with
other men the same year it makes an action prequel called: "hegel - the
man, the dialectic, the car chase."
Next
- Debate and Discuss:
In
his new film "Black and White," New York yuppie and hipster
poseur James Toback ridicules New York yuppies and hipster poseurs. Like
disease-spreading Europeans arriving in the Americas, Toback depicts White
New York yuppies spreading mayhem when they interfere in the city's Black
ecosystem.
Is
the movie message that Blacks and Whites are better off apart?
d.c.
dates
D.C.
WOMEN:
1. "Girlie-Gurl"
Name:
Amanda, Jen, Lissa.
Occupation:
Paralegal, Husband Hunter
Meeting
Place: The Guards, The Front Page, "It's just lunch."
Traits:
"I want to be cared for like a potted plant in return for becoming a pain
in your ass." Claimed to be a "Rules Girl" four years ago. Does
not "get" ScreedMe.com. "at all." Appalled and genuinely offended by this
list.
Advantages:
Always made-up, and well-scrubbed.
Disadvantages:
Can't pump own gas. Is trying to lasso your ass to the alter.
Details:
Issues daily tests of loyalty, love, and overall capacity for bullshit.
Decidedly not a giver.
Outcome:
Explode at her in Smithsonian during her parents' visit from Virginia
Beach. Call her dad a "Reactionary Fuck." Dump her for 22 year-old
and live good life.
2. "The 22 Year-Old"
Name
: Lizzy, Lousia, Holly
Occupation: Recent college grad, working at Kramer books 'till
she finds a job and morphs into Nonprofit girl. Meeting Place: She helps
you pick out a book for your sister.
Traits: Cute as a button, perky, easygoing. Green, but a quick
study.
Advantages: Falls head over heels for you because you're five years
older and wear suits. Laughs at your jokes. Mistakes your age lines for
character. Has only been with sensitive college boyfriend, so she actually
thinks you're good in bed.
Disadvantages: Jealous friends call you "child molester."
Plus it's really tough to be seen in public with someone who's a hell
of a lot more interesting and better looking than you.
Details: "Man, I have got this chick wrapped. I'm gonna go
out there and see what else I can find, 'cuz you know, I work for (Insert
Name of a leading Fat-Back Politico), and I can get any girl I want...."
Outcome: She dumps your Fucking Ass, where you belong.
3. "Nonprofit Girl"
Name: Patrice, Lauren, Sarah
Occupation: Researches Montessori effects on four year-olds for
Association of Loving Mothers (ALMs).
Meeting Place: Potluck dinner of token Sensitive-Beard-Guy friend
in Adams Morgan.
Traits: Blonde Hair, glasses, Peace Corp stint.
Advantages: Absolutely beautiful. Obsession with sharing feelings
every hour saves you time/money/leg work as you always know where you
stand.
Disadvantages: Overly sensitive. Minor pc violations (i.e. "chick
flick", "this girl I know", etc.) induces hours of the
silent treatment. Details: Disturbing traditional courtship ensues.
Outcome:
a. Marry her.
b. Grow Beard.
c. Don Apron.
d. Relinquish Testicles.
4. "Ms. Climber"
Name: Melanie, Jennifer, Jill
Occupation: Legislative Coordinator, Senator Borp. (R-MT)
Meeting Place: Drunken stupor, anywhere.
Traits: Sexy in disturbing corporate sort of way. Very Obnoxious.
Prone to loud arguments with service sector Employees, eg: "I said EXTRA
secret sauce, dammit!!!".
Advantages: Surprisingly hot sex. Crystal City apartment with heated
pool and view of city. Killer c.d. collection.
Disadvantages: Meglo-maniacal control freak. Legally insane in
four states. Projects bad relationship with father onto you, insists you
get therapy.
Details: Dates consist of shopping and/or errands in Pentagon City,
as she is perpetually "so busy". Has proclaimed every Saturday
to be "Fun Day" with complete "fun" Itinerary.
Outcome: Ruins your life.
D.C. MEN:
1. "Annoying Foreign Freak"
Name: Serge, Xyryvp, Count du beurre, a la montagne.
Occupation: Scary mystery; his dark suits and furtive demeanor
suggest something considered criminal in the United States but perfectly
normal for a "man" in his country.
Meeting Place: Any Georgetown bar, "SweetheartIloveyoulemmebuyyoudrink,ah?"
Traits: Unconscionable fashion crimes, bizarre accent, state-of-the-art
cell phone.
Advantages: Never discovered, as lewd proposition forces you to
throw a drink in his face within four minutes ?
2. "Alterna-Jerk"
Name: Ty, Xandor
Occupation: Occasional bartender, Chief Ike's. Always working on
a story he claims he's planning to contribute to ScreedMe.com.
Meeting Place: Refuses to serve you "girl drink." Brings
you a trendy dark micro-brew or fixes you gin and tonic instead, making
him instantly seem like a good lay.
Traits: Perpetual 3-day beard, black shoes.
Advantages: Great sex. Isn't clingy. Excellent outlet for final
rebellion against parents.
Drawbacks: Smokes like a fiend. Borrows large amounts of money,
pays you back with herpes. Constantly trying to push you into a threesome.
Details: Only sees you twice a week, as he is secretly banging
your best friend. "Dates" consist of tagging along with him
and his friends to places you wouldn't be caught dead in if you weren't
temporarily insane.
Outcome: Move with him to Belize. Dumps you for skanky barmaid.
Move back to your parents' basement and apply to grad school. Learn a
little bit about life and a little bit about yourself.
3. "Mr. Nice Guy"
Name: Mike, Tom, Joe
Occupation: Assists Arlington start-up with LAN-based programming
for ISP/Wintel compliance issues. (Huh???)
Meeting Place: Through friends - *yawn*.
Traits: Abercrombie wardrobe (must include "casual Friday"
shirt and base ball cap.) Wire rimmed glasses are optional. Owns an SUV.
Air of complete desperation.
Advantages: Spineless, helps you move. Lack of sex has caused semen
to spill into the brain, creating accommodating slave boy.
Disadvantages: Boring as fresh-water trout. Search for post-college
stability Convinces him to believe that every woman he's known for three
minutes is "The One." Threatens to Nice you to death if you
don't run for the hills.
Details: Declares undying love for you on third date, forcing you
to administer Just Friends speech, version 32 "It's just not there
for me right now." Worships you from afar, then becomes your best
female friend.
Outcome: Marry him when you finish with everyone else.
4. "Slimy Politico"
Name: Matt, Eric, Mike
Occupation: Clawing his way through each day as Associate Deputy
Liaison Coordinator for House Oversight Committee for External Infrastructure
and Indian Affairs.
(Read: for $35,000 a year, he writes up reams of pointless documents that
end up in a shredder)
Meeting Place: Anywhere, following major break-up, death of parent,
or similarly desperate time.
Traits: Announces his law-school rank on first date. Secretly brags
to his roommates that he is going to "do" you.
Advantages: Lots of good jobs leads.
Disadvantages: In the interest of brevity, let's just say he is
kind of self-centered.
Outcome: Ditch him after two dates, shattering his glass ego. One
year later, he still calls .
"D.C. Dates," reprinted in part from local Washington D.C.
paper "Partisan Snipe," will ring loudly for any of you
privileged enough ever to swim in the D.C. dating scene. For the rest,
it will serve as valuable guide if life brings you to the U.S. capital.
cONTRIBUTIONs
? 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 ScreedMe.com
all rights reserved
|
The rest of the world says it despises America. That’s wrong. They
despise YOUR America. And so do we. Like those Texans who try to skip paying
taxes every few years by invoking that Lone Star thing then end up as human
target practice for Federal Marshals, we had an idea. Secede. Everybody
wins. Reds hate anyone different from themselves and we find Reds embarrassing
relatives. 
Dallas,
Nov. 22 – Few of us remember where we were when President
Kennedy died. If we were anywhere at all, it was a baby crib. So why do
we remember John Kennedy as anyone more than a bygone face? In part because
JFK’s immortality is branded by a four-decade cavalcade of hagiography
and debunkery in books, Zapruder replays, and conspiracy theories. Also,
the assassination so traumatized the political fabric of the United States
that those who do remember where they were when Kennedy died never managed
to digest the psychological damage. 
Combing
through the words and images of the Kennedy presidency you can see JFK as
a man for our time as much as he was a man for his own. Dust off his suits
and give him 21st century spin-doctors and PR flacks that really do poll
for policy then script-out voter pandering speeches and John Kennedy could
fit right into the current political roster. Other than the black and white
photos or faded color films, it is the people around him that mark Kennedy
in time. Deliver him instead on cleaned up digital video, Photoshopped amid
current faces, and we might search for Kennedy’s name on the 2004
presidential ballot.
If
John Kennedy could run could he win? It’s an impossible question making
it just the sort that might sell a pricey new hardcover on the subject.
Why? Because we still care. Why? Because among all the dead U.S. president’s,
it’s easy to see why someone today might want to be like JFK in a
way no sane man would want to imitate, say, Richard Nixon. 
Dr.
Laura Schlesinger is a U.S. radio personality who dispenses public advice.
Recently, she pointed out that homosexuality is an abomination according
to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. 
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
5.
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2