Day: October 30, 2006

Must-Read Doonesbury

Jon Ponder

Fantasy Dem Talks Like a Gop

In case you missed the Sunday edition of Doonesbury (if you’re a New York Times subscriber, for example), here it is from Slate:

That’s Michael Doonesbury’s daughter Alex who is watching a congressional debate on her tummy TV in her dorm at M.I.T. The content of the debate, however, is pure fantasy because it is the Democrat who uses President Bush’s undebatable technique of casting his opponent’s position in the most radical terms.

The fantasy Democratic candidate says:

Well, as my Republican friend here well knows, there are some people who accept the brutal torture and execution of 100 Iraqi civilians a day. Well, I don’t. I’m against it. That’s a key difference between me and some people.

Later, he says:

There’s also a view out there that we don’t need a Bill of Rights anymore, that we should just let teh president decide what rights we have. Well, I like our Constitution, even if he hates it. I think its a pretty good document.

Last frame:

KARL ROVE: They’re learning sir.

PRES. BUSH: Too late, though. Right, Karl?

Finally, ‘Winning’ in Iraq, Afghanistan, Defined

Buck Banks

Military intelligence: At a press conference last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Peter Pace said winning the war on terrorism will be determined by conditions, not a signature on a treaty. Well, duh!

‘Winning is having security in the countries we’re trying to help that allows for those governments to function and for their people to function.’

“Winning is having security in the countries we’re trying to help that allows for those governments to function and for their people to function,” he said. “Washington, D.C., has crime, but it has a police force that is able to keep that crime below a level at which the normal citizens can go about their daily jobs and the government can function. That’s what you’re looking for on the war on terrorism, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan or anyplace else.”

So, the goal here, if I understand it correctly General, is to make Baghdad and Kabul as safe as our nation’s capital?

In 1960, there were about 27 crimes per thousand residents in Washington, D.C. In 2005, there were 62 per thousand. Of course, over that period of time, the population of D.C. actually fell from 764,000 to 551,000 — a reduction of 214,000, or 28 percent — while the crime rate increased by 57 percent. So Washington is actually a more dangerous place than it was 45 years ago. And Baghdad and Kabul are both more dangerous now than they were before we started the war on terror.

So maybe Washington is an appropriate benchmark for what constitutes a win in the war on terror, after all.

Wouldn’t It Be Simpler to Drink a Shot?

Trish

Sometimes I see fellow editor Buck’s point about the emails from the Florida Democratic campaigns. This just in from governor’s candidate Jim Davis in regard to his debate tonight with Republican Charlie Crist:

Try playing this game, whether you’re attending a debate watch party, sitting around with your friends and family, or watching the debate by yourself at home. Grab a piece of paper and make a checkmark every time Charlie does one of the following:

* Each time Charlie calls for “more of the same,” “stay the course,” or any other reference to continuing the way things are going now
* Each time Charlie says “double the homestead exemption” – because it means Florida will have to wait four years for tax relief
* Each time Charlie mentions Jeb Bush
* Each time Charlie doesn’t answer the question (double it if Chris Matthews calls him on it)
* Each time Charlie gets visibly flustered or angry
* Each time Charlie expresses his love for Ronald Reagan
* Each time Charlie refers to himself as “the happy warrior”

At the end of the night, count all checkmarks and ask everyone to go online and contribute at least a dollar for each checkmark.

I think the chances of Charlie doing any of these things, now that he’s seen this email, are slim. If Davis really wanted to see Crist get “flustered or angry” he would have Matthews ask him why, as a gay man, he would be a Republican.

Quote du Jour

Buck Banks

…. always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice and corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy for the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.

— Joseph Pulitzer (1847-1911), American newspaper publisher; statement of policy on his retirement, April 10, 1907

Poll: Swedes Say U.S. Greatest Threat to Peace

Buck Banks

How Swede it is: A poll of Swedish citizens released Oct. 29 found that a majority in that Scandinavian country think the United States — not North Korea — is the single greatest threat to world peace:

Some 29 percent of those surveyed said the U.S. posed the biggest danger to peace, compared to 28 percent who considered North Korea the top menace, according to the Temo poll broadcast Sunday by Swedish television station Axess.

Among Swedes aged 16-29, a striking 40 percent believed the U.S. presented the greatest risk.

Iran placed third with 18 percent, followed by Israel (6 per cent), China (4 per cent) and Russia (3 per cent).

Some 1,000 people were surveyed.

The Swedes should know — they bestow the Nobel Peace Prize, after all. Of course, Alfred Nobel made his millions on dynamite ….

Staying the NEW Course — There Was No OLD Course

Buck Banks

Lies to truth: In today’s Miami Herald, Leonard Pitts takes Bushco to task for lying about its lying lies. He draws an eery parallel to George Orwell’s 1949 novel, “1984,” with this quote:

‘The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth. `Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ ” — from 1984 by George Orwell

Pitts then lists five different occasions when George W. Bush used the term, “stay the course,” and then Bush’s latest lie from Oct. 22: “Listen, we’ve never been stay the course . . .”

In the world Orwell invented, words had no objective meaning beyond that assigned to them by the Party, whose slogans, not incidentally, were, ”War is Peace,” ”Freedom is Slavery” and ”Ignorance is Strength.” In that world, there was no past — or rather, the past was what the leaders said it was, and it was a waste of time to check for yourself, because all books, newspapers and other records were constantly being updated to reflect whatever the new reality was.

Thus, ‘Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia.’ Much as we now learn that the Bush administration’s policy toward Iraq has ‘never been stay the course.’

Thus, ”Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia.” Much as we now learn that the Bush administration’s policy toward Iraq has ”never been stay the course.” And never mind that the president and his henchmen have spent three years pounding that phrase like nails into the public consciousness.

”Stay the course” doesn’t work anymore, not with most of the nation united against the war, so the White House announced last week that the phrase would no longer be used. That’s their prerogative. But it’s quite a leap from won’t be used to never has been used.

So did we dream these last three years? Is ”stay the course” just something we mumbled in our collective sleep as we twisted in our collective sheets? Or do we learn something here about the administration’s level of respect for our collective intelligence?

It is not, by now, surprising that the president and his surrogates rewrite the past. We’ve seen that before, after all. Seen it with John Kerry the war hero ”traitor,” with John Murtha the Marine ”coward.” Saw it with WMD, which, it turned out, were not the reason we invaded Iraq. (Where’d we ever get that idea?) What’s painful, though, is that we see it so quietly, see it, as the citizens of 1984 did, with apparent acceptance.