Year: 2005

In an administration full of Teflon-coated liars – President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Rice come to mind – Ken Tomlinson, the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), stands out as perhaps the lying-est liar of them all.

Recently, however, Tomlinson has made a series of public statements that are demonstrably false. Media Matters has compiled a list of the chairman’s provable lies that is so spectacular that it would shock a used car salesman.

The charter of the CBP explicitly states that its role is to protect public broadcasting from political interference. As with the Bushes’ “Clear Skies” initiative that allows for increased air pollution and the myriad other “through the looking glass” policies of this Administration, they have put a political hack into the job of protecting an invaluable cultural resource from political hackery.

You won’t hear about the serial lying of the chairman of the CPB in the mainstream media, so please visit Media Matters for the full descriptions. Meanwhile, here are justa few of his lies from their list:

– In a letter to a U.S. senator, Tomlinson said CPB Kathleen Cox president approved and signed the contract to hire a rightwing media consultant to monitor the Bill Moyers show in order to catch Moyers criticizing President Bush when, in fact, Tomlinson signed the contract himself five months prior to hiring Cox.

–Tomlinson denied that Mary Catherine Andrews had done work for CPB while she was still employed at the White House as director of global communications. A broad inquiry by the CPB inspector general has uncovered a series of emails proving Tomlinson’s above statements false – that Andrews did extensive work for the CPB while on the White House payroll.

–Tomlinson claimed that he had had no communications with Bush White House regarding public broadcasting, but leaked emails show that he regularly took instruction from the White House on arcane matters like appointments to high-ranking positions in the CPB and even the wording of the job title for an appointee.

–Tomlinson said he publicly released polls showing the public did not find liberal bias in reporting on NPR and PBS when, in fact, the polls have yet to be fully released.

–Tomlinson said he hired both a conservative and a liberal omsbudman, but the “liberal” is Ken Bode, a journalist who has publicly supported Republican candidates like Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, who once headed the budget office for Bush II.

These lies by the head of the CPB come to light at the same time that the conservatives who control Congress are passing legislation to de-fund public broadcasting. It is obvious that Tomlinson’s role is to work inside the institution to help the Rightwing tear it down.

You have to wonder if there is anyone who can stop them, or even if anyone cares enough to try.

There’s no question that, thanks to George W. Bush, the religous Right has taken over the U.S. government in Washington, DC. Because of this, as a casual consumer of news you might get the impression that America is the midst of a religious revival – that you and your friends are among a handful of people who do not spend every Saturday night in a revival tent at the edge of town, and every Sunday morning in a pew awaiting the Rapture.

But what about the statistics? Are we becoming a country dominated by religous fervor – and its bastard cousins, Intolerance and Hypocrisy? According to Pascal Riche at TPM Cafe, the answer is no.

First, America is not becoming more religious. The number of noisy evangelist Christians is indeed increasing, but the traditional churches are declining. According to an ARIS Study (see this PDF file), the segment of the population experiencing the greatest growth is the “no-religion” group. The number of declared Christians went from 86.2% in 1990 to 76.5 % in 2001; during the same period, the number of people placing themselves in the “no-religion” camp rose from 8% to 14.1%.

According to a 2002 USA-Today poll, 50% of Americans regard themselves as “religious” (against 54% in 1999), 33 % as “spiritual, but not religious” (30% in 1999) and 10% as “neither religious nor spiritual”.

And fewer and fewer Americans attend church on Sunday. Of course, this country remains deeply religious, because of his origins, but like others countries in the industrialized word, it is secularizing slowly…

It’s interesting that these declines are inversely proportionate to the public’s exposure to the leaders of the American talibani movement – interesting, and just the tiniest bit reassuring.

David Horowitz, the former left-wing nutjob turned right-wing nutjob, is crusading for a movement to, in his words, “increase academic freedom” on college and university campuses. Unfortunately for academia, Horowitz’ inversion of “freedom” means that professors would be forced to teach “serious alternative theories” (read: creationism) that might conflict with their own beliefs.

It’s worth noting that Jeb Bush has endorsed Horowitz, calling him a “fighter for freedom.” That should give you some idea of where Horowitz is on the wingnut spectrum.

As always, Florida is the incubator for new political movements, and is right in the vanguard of the “academic freedom” movement:

Horowitz recently lent his support to Florida State Representative Dennis Baxley’s (R-Ocala) Academic Freedom Bill of Rights. Rep. Baxley’s legislation, which in late-March passed out of the House Choice and Innovation Committee by an 8-to-2 vote (the only two Democrats on the committee voted against it) was a broad assault on academic freedom. Allegedly aimed at leveling the playing field for so-called beleaguered conservatives on the state’s campuses, the devil was clearly in the details.

“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,'” Rep. Baxley maintained.

A Florida university professor countered Baxley’s claims:

“For a biologist for whom evolution is no more a theory than is the law of gravity, to have to present ‘alternative’ religiously-oriented or inspired views would be contrary to his very understanding of the scientific method. That would be comparable to Galileo being forced to recant his scientific observations that the earth revolved around the sun, and not the opposite as ordained by the Church.”

According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, students who felt their views were disrespected in the classroom or thought they were singled out for “public ridicule” by their professors would have the right to sue them and the university.

During the debate over the Baxley bill, opponents argued that allowing students to sue their professors would create chaos in the classroom and force judges to determine what might or might not be academically appropriate.

According to the St. Petersburg Times, Rep. Baxley decided to join Horowitz’s crusade after he “attended a conservative conference in St. Louis last summer where Horowitz spoke about academic freedom. The message struck a chord [and] … after talking to Horowitz,” he introduced his bill in the Florida Legislature.

While Rep. Baxley’s bill ultimately failed to garner enough support this legislative session, its introduction signaled the beginning of a battle in Florida that could go on for a number of years and eventually result in a future law.

Besides Florida, 13 other states have introduced some type of “academic freedom” legislation, including California, Maine, Colorado and Minnesota.

Tompaine.com has an article up by Russ Baker titled Why George Went to War. The question comes as a result of glimpses behind the scenes during the run-up to war in early 2002 offered by the Downing Street documents.

Baker describes how a combination of events and atmospherics came together to enable President Bush to enact a plan to go to war in Iraq that he had been talking about since at least 1999. This plan would have been nearly impossible to pursue had it not been for two factors – a public still fearful and a bit blood thirsty in the wake of the 2001 attacks, and a completely cowed news corps who accepted without question or reservation every single lie the president told.

So we understand a bit of why President Bush wanted to go to war with Saddam, but another question remains: “Why then?” Why did the invasion have to happen so soon? There was no intrinsic, compelling reason to rush into war with Saddam Hussein in 2002. He hadn’t made any overtly threatening moves in a decade or more.

So why did Bush rush the process? Why was it so important to get the public prepared for war in the fall of 2002?

One answer, of course, is politics. You may recall that that the top story of first eight months of 2002 was one that made the Bush team nervous. Corporate corruption, especially the Enron scandal, had the full attention of the media and the public.

In January 2002, Ken Lay resigned as CEO of Enron. Two days later, Enron Vice President John C. Baxter committed suicide. The White House was sued because it refused to give over documents that almost certainly showed that Ken Lay had dictated the Administration’s energy policy. In June, Arthur Andersen, one of the nation’s oldest accounting firms, was found guilty on charges it helped Enron executives cook the books. In July, nine of the biggest banks were implicated in the scandal, including Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase.

Polls showed that the public was outraged over Enron’s excesses, and Enron had close ties to the Republican Party, all the way up to the President himself. If this story stayed on the front burner, the Republicans might fail to take back the Senate and might even lose control of the House in the November congressionals.

Bush and his political adviser Karl Rove knew had to change the subject. And nothing changes the subject like announcing the imminent and unprovoked invasion of another country.

In September 2002, the White House started marketing the war. By election day, the topic of war had divided the country, enflaming and radicalizing both the Left and the Right. The Right won hands down, of course – taking back the Senate and holding the House.

The invasion appeared to be an across-the-board winning move for President Bush. But he had to go into Iraq in early 2003 to reap the benefits. The Bush team assumed the war would be a cakewalk, so that most of the soldiers would be home by Christmas 2003 – or at least before the November 2004 presidential elections. If so, Bush would be a hero.

But in the unlikely event that the war would continue through presidential campaign, Bush could turn it into a political benefit. He would be a “war time president.” Statistics show that war time presidents are rarely defeated at the polls.

After dividing the country, President Bush took us to war. Who knew that wouldn’t work out so well?

The events of 2002 were brought back to me in stunning detail when I saw the documentary Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, at the Fairfax Theatre in Hollywood. It is a gripping, masterful retelling of the rise and fall of Enron, directed by Alex Gibney, based on the book, The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron, by Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind.

In his review, Roger Ebert said,”This is not a political documentary. It is a crime story. No matter what your politics, ‘Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room’ will make you mad. It tells the story of how Enron rose to become the seventh largest corporation in America with what was essentially a Ponzi scheme, and in its last days looted the retirement funds of its employees to buy a little more time.”

There are many shots from 2002 of Ken Lay making sincere, declarative statements about his innocence that we know now to be lies. You can compare and contrast his style to that of his friend, George W. Bush. But now we know, in 2002, there was a whole lot of lying going on.

There’s a new Field Poll out that has bad news for Governor Schwarzenegger.

There has been a steep drop in the regard that Californians have of the job that Arnold Schwarzenegger is doing as their governor. In a statewide survey completed last week following Mr. Schwarzenegger’s call for a special election this November, the nonpartisan Field Poll finds the governor’s approval rating sliding to 37 percent among registered voters statewide, while 53 percent disapprove of how he’s handling his job.

As recently as last September 65 percent of voters approved and 22 percent disapproved of Mr. Schwarzenegger, while in February 55 percent approved and 35 percent disapproved…

The drop in the governor’s job rating is most pronounced among registered Democrats and non-partisans, according to the Field Poll. Throughout all of 2004, a plurality of Democrats, as well as a majority of nonpartisans, approved of the job he was doing. Now, just 16 percent of Democrats approve, while 76 percent disapprove. Among non-partisans 35 percent approve and 54 percent disapprove, a reversal from a 48 percent approve and 38 percent disapprove rating in February.

Can we have another Recall now? Please?

First Fox News assured its brainless accolytes that there was nothing to the contents of the Downing Street minutes and memos, now Rush Limbaugh has come out with a similar message for the intellect-free class he calls his Dittoheads:

I purposely haven’t talked about this Downing Street memo much because, frankly, A, it didn’t interest me. And, you know, if it doesn’t interest me I’m not going to talk about it. And the reason it didn’t interest me is because it was just another one of these ginned up things by the libs, and it looks like it’s got some similarities to Bill Burkett and the forged documents of CBS and Rathergate.

In fact, the Associated Press has a story that the reporter who discovered the memos destroyed the originals and retyped them himself. There was some dispute over whether or not the original memos were destroyed. The original memos don’t say anything. They don’t prove anything, other than the Brits were concerned about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq themselves. Also, what’s this reporter’s name? British reporter Michael Smith, who broke the memo story in the London Times on May the 1st, revealed to the AP over the weekend that he protected the identity of the source that he’d obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals. His admission means there’s now no independent way to determine the accuracy of the Downing Street memo, i.e., whether he made any typos or transcription errors that could have changed the memo’s meaning.

Methinks he doth demur too much.

The problem with the tactic of alleging that the documents are fake is that no one in authority in either the British or American governments has denied their authenticity.

Prediction: Another set of documents will be released soon, perhaps by a U.S. source, that appears to prove the Bushes’ malfeasance in setting up the war. As the brouhaha is building, these new documents will proved to be forgeries, thus casting aspersions on the genuine minutes and memos.