Political Satire/Commentary -- Daily Updates at PoliSat.Com TM © since 1999

·support our troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan, Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com , PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom , FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·

First Things First: Salute America's Heroes · Fallen Heroes Fund · Frequent-Flyer-Miles for Troops · Thanks to Troops · Military News ·· MilBlogs ·

Home · Posts: Current /Recent · Videos/Toons/Songs: Latest · Embed-Codes · Text Index · Images Index · Archives: Old · New · About · Contact · Syndication · Affiliates ·

News Sources/Papers/Magazines Pundits Blogs ThinkTanks What is "property"? Pantheopians Global Climate Asteroids/Comets Hitting Earth--Risks/Predictions Science GlobalWeb

Political Satire /Commentary* Daily Updates .™©·2003 ..··
Where the satire is always commentary but the commentary isn't always satire.
Special Commentary: To Citizen Soldiers a Song to Explain How Proudly We Thank You for Deeds in Our Name.
·Change font/text size·· Recent-Updates Index·· Archives·· Home·· Search PoliSat.Com·· Support PoliSat.Com.

February, 2004 (Daily installments are in reverse chronological order) Latest installment, go here.

··

Feb. 29, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040229-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Viewing "The Passion of the Christ" inspires passions about the paradoxical passions about "The Passion".·

Here's more passion about the escalating passions about "The Passion of the Christ." Last night, my wife and I saw it. At the first theatre where we sought to see it after dinner, all showings were sold out and additional new showings had been scheduled to commence very late in the evening. We managed to find another theatre where we were able to view it during a regularly-scheduled showing in a nearly-sold-out auditorium. Although I'm confident virtually all of my regular readers know I'm a secularist¹ (but not a Secular Fundamentalist²), I've included footnoted explanations to enable new readers to place my opinions in context.

By virtue having become well aware of the intensely passionate criticisms of, and plaudits for, the film, I had already inferred that part of Gibson's motivation for the graphic nature, and duration, of the violence was to magnify what he perceives to be the power of the message of forgiveness at the end. Absent such expectation, I might have experienced a different reaction to the film, but for me, the most gut-wrenching scene was the one depicting the sight of Jesus falling while carrying the cross as having prompted a flashback in Mary's mind a time when she saw him fall as a child and was able to rush to his side to comfort him as a parent. Absent my being a parent, I doubt the scene could have had such a gut-wrenching effect on me. Before becoming a parent, one can imagine how one would feel towards one's child, but even the best possible imagination cannot even remotely come close to invoking the actual feeling of being a parent.

Paradoxical Passions, Part II·

The template that Hollywood sells
to those who aspire to excel
requires the rendition
of views of tradition
as that against which to rebel.

But yet paradoxical Mel
designed a new template that spells
the formula best
for greater success:
Rebel against those who rebel.

Just as my pre-parenthood status prevented me from being able to know the feeling of being a parent, not being a Jew obviously prevents me from being able to know how my reaction might have differed if I were to be a member of an ethnic group targeted for extinction. Not being, and never having been, anti-Semitic, and the absence of such feelings having been at least in part the result of the ecumenical nobility exhibited by my little-league coach (a Jew who also was the father of one of my closest friends), I likewise cannot purport to say how the film is likely to affect people already harboring anti-Semitic feelings. Yet it is rational to assume that the film may fail in its purpose of conveying a message of forgiveness powerful enough to lessen, if not negate, rather than inflaming such feelings among people harboring them before viewing the movie. It is equally rational to assume that the message of forgiveness so powerfully conveyed by the movie may be more likely to lessen, rather than inflame, such prejudices.

Regardless of whether one were to view Jesus as merely human and assume the Biblical record to be otherwise historically accurate or view Jesus as Divine, the movie's overpoweringly positive message of forgiveness and selflessness stands in such stark contrast to the unstated message of so much of what is otherwise produced by the entertainment industry. Even though one could argue that the movie would inflame, rather than diminish, anti-Semitism among those already inclined toward such prejudice, one could not rationally deny that much of the unstated message of cynical, narcissistic self-indulgent hedonism that pervades so much of what the entertainment industry otherwise produces (and we as consumers too often patronize) for the world is far more likely to fan the flames of hatred of the West among fanatical Muslims than The Passion is likely to fan the flames of anti-Semitism among Christians the movie tries to motivate to emulate Christian forgiveness. Nevertheless, few, if any, who are so eager to condemn Gibson's movie as likely to incite anti-Semitism are willing to condemn comparable risks of other entertainment fare fanning the flames of anti-Western hatred among fanatical Muslims.

No one favoring liberty would want the entertainment industry to limit itself to forms of expression incapable of being misconstrued by the worst among us. What's paradoxical, however, is the willingness of such a large part of the entertainment industry to avoid condemnation of latter type of risks while sanctimoniously and hypocritically condemning Gibson for the former.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

P.S. To regulars who wonder, "When are you going to do more satire and less commentary," I say, "Stay tuned."

¹·Rational secularism-- in stark contrast to Secular Fundamentalism (see footnote 2)-- is, in my opinion, ecumenical in attitude towards non-fanatical religious beliefs.

²·To explain what I mean by "Secular Fundamentalism" would be beyond the scope of a footnote. Generally, I use it to describe people suffering self-delusions that their beliefs rest upon logical, secular reasoning rather than upon the same kind of leap of faith (albeit a leap in the opposite direction) they so vitriolically disdain in religious believers that it blinds them to the secular sensibility of many views merely by virtue of such views being advocated by religious believers. Although all Secular Fundamentalists are atheists, not all atheists are Secular Fundamentalists. Although all agnostics are non-believers, all non-believers are not agnostics or atheists. If I don't stop here, this will become a book rather than a footnote.·

...

··

Feb. 28, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040228-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

No update for Saturday, Feb. 28, 2004.

...

··

Feb. 27, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040227-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Howard Stern's vulgarities elicit stern words from Clear Channel Communications, but what about the FCC?·

Those who laud, defend or excuse Howard Stern's juvenile vulgarities on broadcast radio as protected by the free-speech guarantee rather than conceding them to be manifestations of an extremely narrow band of vulgarities constitutionally subject to either per-se proscription or time-of-broadcast limitations should petition the government to abolish the FCC and release broadcast frequencies to an unregulated free market. The ability to broadcast on a particular radio frequency is neither patentable nor copyrightable. Thus, a true free market system would be one under which the government would control only those portions of the broadcast spectrum essential for essential governmental services or functions (e.g., emergency medical services, police, national security, etc.) and everyone one else would have equal right (within each one's means, of course) to broadcast any content on any frequency at any power level not shown to be injurious to the health, safety or property of another. This would be the broadcasting equivalent of free speech in public places in which each speaker is entitled to "peaceably"¹ try to make his own speech heard above, or in addition to, that of another.

Stern Words for Stern Words·

Says Stern there's no freedom of speech
if ten vulgar words are decreed
as not to be heard
'cause I won't be heard
since they're all the words I can speak.

Under such a truly "free-market/free-speech" system, if a person (or group) finding the contents of broadcasts in a particular area on a particular frequency to be offensive or otherwise inferior to whatever such person (or group) were to deem to be suitable or popular, then such person/group would be free to commence broadcasting on the same frequency with an equally-strong, or stronger, signal. The ability of each competing broadcast to continue would be wholly dependent upon the free market, and neither broadcaster would be entitled to demand that the federal government take any civil or criminal action on behalf of either to stop the broadcast by the other. The likely result would be episodic chaos, but there certainly wouldn't be any government "censorship" of any content. It would be absolutely free speech.

Is that what broadcasters want? Of course not. Broadcasters want a system entitling them to have the government institute civil and/or criminal proceedings against anyone broadcasting in a manner to interfere with their own broadcasts.

Since they would want to have the government put me in jail if I were to spend the money to broadcast my content on their frequencies, why wouldn't that be censorship? Wouldn't the government preventing me from using my skill in broadcasting on their frequency to express my free speech be the equivalent of preventing me from appearing in a public place at the same time as someone else for the purpose of expressing my speech more effectively than such other person's speech? Suppose such other person's speech were to constitute "hate" speech and my purpose in appearing at the same time were to be to express anti-hate speech to drown out the hate speech? Could the government constitutionally stop me from peaceably doing so? Would (should?) my right to do this be limited only to times when the speech is "hate" speech or would it be sufficient for me to merely find the opposing speech otherwise offensive? Are there circumstances in which my doing so could constitutionally be deemed an unprotected attempt to interfere with the free speech of others? Of course. Would not governmental interference with my speech designed to prevent someone else from exercising his rights of free speech not constitute a form of time and place "censorship" of my speech by the government?

Back to broadcasting. Broadcasters would respond that I would have an opportunity when their license were to become subject to renewal to object to such renewal and attempt to persuade the government to issue the license to me. Wouldn't that constitute a time and place limitation on the content of my speech unless and until the government were to find my speech more suitable? If I were to deem a broadcast the equivalent of "hate" speech, wouldn't the requirement for me to either await the next licensing anniversary or institute complicated, burdensome administrative law procedures for an opportunity to be heard be the equivalent of the government licensing a part of a public square and denying me permission to go there to speak against hate speech unless and until the license of the speaker of hate were to have expired or have been revoked?

What should be the "test" for the government to apply to determine whose content is more, or less, worthy of licensure? Should it be merely a popularity contest-- i.e., whose broadcast would draw a larger audience? Do not advocates of free speech contend that the purpose of the guarantee of free speech is to protect unpopular speech since popular speech needs no protection? Does that mean that the government should refuse to license popular broadcasting content and instead only license unpopular broadcasting content? (Such approach would, however, guarantee the survival of NPR Radio, which is so unpopular with the public at large that the government must subsidize its broadcasts to the extremely small market it serves by funds the government coercively takes from taxpayers in the public at large.)

Of course, the sensible answers to these questions closely resemble the existing regulatory framework for broadcast licenses. We've sensibly chosen to classify broadcast frequencies as public property. We've established an imperfect system for determining who may, and thereby determining who must not, engage in broadcasting speech on specified frequencies at specified places at specified levels of power during specified time-frames over a specified period of licensure. Other than for an extremely narrow band of words and phrases, we've eliminated content requirements to approximate the free market that allows popular content to flourish without protecting unpopular content.

Broadcasters can't have it both ways. I'm not advocating content-based censorship beyond a spectrum so narrow as to render ludicrous a claim that such "censorship" impairs free speech in any serious or significant way. Somehow, I feel confident the Republic won't fall if Stern's employers (or even the FCC) were to limit his privilege of broadcasting vulgarities. If broadcasters want to assert an absolutist claim of free speech on publicly-licensed frequencies, then they should support abolition of the power of the FCC to license, and enforce the licensure of, frequencies for commercial broadcast.

If, out of the literally countless numbers and types of words and phrases to convey ideas, the FCC were to ban a few dozen of the type most popular among juvenile boys in locker rooms, it hardly seems a significant threat to free speech. If the government were to begin trying to expand such narrow band of proscribed words and phrases into serious limitations on speech, there would be more than ample numbers of people who would use other media to demand remedial action by politicians. Limbaugh fears that a future FCC would reinstate the old "equal time" limitation. By virtue of that standard having previously existed and (as Limbaugh correctly asserts) having then operated to limit speech in a material way, it's certainly not irrational to think that efforts to reinstate such standard would occur again. However, I think a massive percentage of the public would not tolerate such retrogression.

It's true that no one holds a gun on a person to require him to listen to a broadcast he finds offensive, but that's not the issue unless one were to presume abolition of the FCC so that the government would play no role whatsoever in determining who should receive the privilege of broadcasting on a particular frequency and under what circumstances someone else could, or should, become entitled to broadcast on such frequency instead. People certainly have the right not to travel to a public place to hear speech they may find offensive, but even in public places there are "content" limitations despite such freedom of opponents to "stay away" (just like our right to avoid tuning to a broadcast frequency). That some people may view public exhibitionism or engaging in sexual activity in public to be a form of expression or "speech" does not render it unconstitutional to prohibit such forms of expression in public places despite the fact that people offended by such expression would obviously be free to choose not to attend.

Many on the left, and even some on the right (such as Rush Limbaugh, who can't be "right" all the time) contend that to allow the FCC to enforce restrictions even against such a narrow band of speech would be akin to placing a frog in a pan of water and allowing the heat to be turned to a barely-warm degree. They fear this would set in motion a process that would inexorably lead to the temperature being gradually increased until the frog would have boiled to death before recognizing a need to jump from the pan. However, as explained above, absent abolition of FCC powers to license broadcast frequencies, the question is not whether the frog will be in a pot of water but merely on which element of the stove will the pan be placed. Likewise, the question is not whether government's hand will control the temperature at all but rather, how high will we allow the government to increase the temperature before we decide to protect the frog. We don't need to save Stern's vulgarities to in order to save the frog. Live frog legs anyone?

¹·With respect to the public-place context of free speech, the First Amendment guarantees the right to "peaceably" assemble but does not impose any such limitation for one's speech within the confines of one's own property or property of another by consent of such property owner.

...

··

Feb. 26, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040226-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Paradoxical Passions about "The Passion of Christ" by Mel Gibson.·

Not having yet seen "The Passion of Christ," I can't intelligently write about it as a movie. However, having seen "the passions" aroused, pro and con, about "The Passion," I can't help but comment on "the passions." First, to enable you to place my comments in perspective, I reiterate what most of my readers probably already know: I lack belief in a Deity. However, even though my views are secular, I'm not a Secular Fundamentalist.¹ I believe religious beliefs, like secular beliefs, have the capacity to inspire the best (or the worst) in human behavior depending upon whether persons acting upon such beliefs do so in humane (or fanatical) manner.

Paradoxical Passions·

A movie depicting The Passion
of Christ has aroused many passions
of pro and con views
but paradox skews
more strongly the "con" among passions.

Notwithstanding my not having seen "The Passion," commentaries condemning it and praising it, coupled with my general knowledge about New Testament doctrine, are sufficient to enable me to reach significant conclusions about the "passions" aroused by "The Passion." Believing these conclusions may not be self-evident to many on either side of the controversy, I'm expressing them here.

I find the most paradoxical passions to be among the "anti-Passion passions" rather than the "pro-Passion passions." Many (perhaps most, but certainly not all) expressing anti-Passion passions are unable (or merely unwilling) to admit that hostility to religion rather than disdain for graphic depictions of violence and/or artistic editorialization on a subject matter with the historically demonstrated power to arouse passions which, throughout much of the last two millennia, have often led to persecution, counter-persecution and war.

Rudimentary thought experiments can expose the transparent nature of much of the anti-Passion passion professing disdain for graphic violence. If a controversial film producer were to have made a movie graphically depicting persecution and torture of heretics by medieval Christian theocracies and depicting their victims as being nevertheless willing to advocate forgiveness of their tormentors, would not many (if not most) of the most vociferous anti-Passion commentators be lauding such movie and characterizing it as having been "artistically necessary" for it to portray the violence graphically rather than in a sanitized fashion? Does not the nobleness of forgiveness not vary inversely in proportion to the barbarity of the offense? How many among those who advocated our trying to "understand," rather than use military force against, those who directly and indirectly supported 9-11 are now lauding the overriding theme of "The Passion"-- i.e., unbounded forgiveness of unbounded barbarity.

Likewise, rudimentary thought experiments can expose the transparent nature of much of the anti-Passion passion professing disdain for what anti-Passion commentaries characterize as a message of "hate" against Jews. Apart from theological aspects of "The Passion," it depicts the struggle for freedom of conscience against a theocratic hierarchy. Using the same example for the thought experiment about the claimed disdain for depictions of graphic violence, would not many (if not most) of those characterizing The Passion as inspiring hatred against Jews be denying that a movie depicting the barbarity of medieval treatment of heretics would constitute a message of "hate" against Christians? One need not accept the theology of the New Testament to understand "The Passion of Christ" indicts not a people but theocratic intolerance of freedom of conscience-- i.e., compulsory piety. As was well stated by none other than John Ashcroft, embracing theocratic belief in a Divine Creator of free will leads to the conclusion that compulsory piety would offend such Creator.

Of course one can't logically focus on paradoxes in the anti-Passion passions without also doing the same with respect to the pro-Passion passions. The central message of The Passion is that it's morally commendable to die for the sake of the Creator (or for one's fellow man) but not to kill for the sake of the Creator. Those who perceive Jesus as Divine thus perceive the depiction of his admonition to his followers against employing violence to prevent violence against him to be a moral admonition against killing for the sake of the Creator rather than a per se admonition against killing. Although some theologians (and utopian pacifists who perceive Jesus as human rather than Divine) interpret such message as also condemning killing of anyone under any circumstances, the overwhelming majority of theologians sensibly reject such utopian views that would deprive civilization of the means to protect itself from barbarity.

Modern Christians (and modern Muslims and Jews) are, of course, right to morally denounce fanatic Muslim extremists who consider killing non-believers a religious duty; however, in medieval times, theocratic authorities purporting to be "Christian" used the sword as an instrument for compulsory piety rather than the tongue as an instrument of persuasion. However, modern secularists legitimately worry about historical legacies of religious intolerance-- especially those being replicated by fanatical Muslim extremists of today. Modern secularists also legitimately worry when religious "leaders" such as Pat Robertson encourage believers to embrace the notion that society's "permissiveness" (i.e. rejection of compulsory piety) invites the "wrath of God" against the whole of society for permissive toleration of the perceived transgressions of non-believers.

My own secular thinking leads me to admire the nobility of one's willingness to die for another person or beliefs as noble as The Golden Rule or freedom from tyranny. It doesn't lead me to condemn civilization's employment of violence against barbarism or tyranny. It does lead me to condemn compulsory piety for the sake of piety but to also condemn Secular Fundamentalists' narrow-minded condemnation of societal limitations standing on their own merits merely because some who favor compulsory piety would also favor such limitations. (See, for example, my views on marriage: Devolution Versus Evolution and Quantum Marriage.)

A final paradox is the breadth, depth and intensity of the Secular Fundamentalists' vitriolic hatred for Bush, who has comported himself on issues of faith in a more ecumenical fashion than any President in my memory if not in history. The demonstrably ecumenical nature of Bush's espousals of faith makes it self-evident, in my opinion, that the Secular Fundamentalists' condescending disdain for anyone embracing what they perceive to be the illogic of fundamental religious beliefs is what fuels the blindness of their hatred.

¹·To explain what I mean by "Secular Fundamentalism" would be beyond the scope of a footnote. Generally, I use it to describe people suffering self-delusions that their beliefs rest upon logical, secular reasoning rather than upon the same kind of leap of faith (albeit a leap in the opposite direction) they so vitriolically disdain in religious believers that it blinds them to the secular sensibility of many views merely by virtue of such views being advocated by religious believers. Although all Secular Fundamentalists are atheists, not all atheists are Secular Fundamentalists. Although all agnostics are non-believers, all non-believers are not agnostics or atheists. If I don't stop here, this footnote will become a book rather than a footnote. ·

··

Feb. 25, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040225-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Ralph Nader becomes the first Presidential candidate to run as a Vice-Vice-Presidential Candidate or as Darth Nader or Ralph Vader disguised as Obi Wan to battle Yoda Cheney.·

What amazes me is the number of pundits who fail to realize that Nader plans to serve as the VVP Democratic candidate and likewise fail to perceive the crocodile nature of the Democrats tears when Nader announced his decision to run. What do I mean by the VVP candidate? Traditionally, although not always, the task of Vice Presidential candidates has been to "take the low road" (by attacking the opposition more aggressively than would the Presidential candidates) to enable the Presidential candidates to "take the high road." Nader intends (over the feigned objections of the Democratic "leadership") to function as the Vice-Vice-Presidential candidate in Election 2004.

In the Meet the Press interview last Sunday, Nader made one thing clear to even the most casual listener and something quite different equally clear to the most careful listener. To casual listeners, he made it clear that his campaign themes would resonate most strongly with those who despise Bush and want him "impeached." To careful listeners, he made it obvious that shortly before the November 2004 Election, if it were to appear that support for him would likely cause, rather than merely increase the size of, a Democratic defeat, he would withdraw and urge his supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee as the only way to defeat Bush.

This will enable the Democrats to count on Nader to launch attacks against Bush going far beyond the line over which even the Democratic VP nominee would be willing to go. For them, it's the best of both worlds. They expect to benefit from Nader's ad-hominem attacks on Bush while protesting that Nader, not Bush, is saying such awful things. Nader will attract zealous support among a large percentage of those who most zealously approached Dean.

In most elections, the media would tend to marginalize coverage for a fringe candidate. Nader is no Ross Perot, but one can safely predict that his most vociferous attacks on Bush will be most widely reported (with token disdain) by the dominant media (New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN.) In fact, one can safely predict that as the campaign intensifies, reporters from those media will spend as much, if not more, time asking Bush to respond to accusations by Nader than to questions raised by the Democratic nominees (and certainly more time than they'll spend asking the Democratic nominees to respond to questions raised about their professed policies).

Darth Nader aka Ralph Vader, V.V.P.C.·

I'm Nader, intending to run
disguised as the great Obi Wan
obliged to rebuke
the Dubya as Luke
as though to the Dark Side he's gone.

Though Yoda will try to contend
I'm Vader disguised to pretend
to be Obi Wan,
when all's said and done,
it's I whom the press will befriend.

The press will pretend to believe
I'm running again to reprise
Quixotic ambitions
that threaten attrition
of voters the Democrats need.

However, when push comes to shove,
if late in October the doves
are close behind Bush,
reverse I will push
and give my support to the doves.

Hey, Ralph, I'm the Bush you perceive
as dumber than folks can believe,
but unlike the press,
your game I have guessed,
so you I'll send Yoda to beat.

With Yoda exposing your creed
the voters will quickly perceive
your method to carry
the water your carry
unsafe at whatever your speed.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, notwithstanding current polls purporting to show Kerry and/or Edwards would beat Bush among "likely voters" by double-digits, the country has in fact shifted to the right. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Nader will actually reverse course in October to endorse the Democratic nominee because polls at the time will show that if all of Nader's supporters were to vote for the Democratic ticket, it would be insufficient to defeat Bush.

··

Feb. 24, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040224-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

The blame game regarding intelligence failures to connect the dots obscure and impede the process of determining, and fixing, the causes of such failures.·

Today's news is abuzz with reports¹ that in 1999 German Intelligence furnished the CIA the first name ("Marwan") and an unlisted telephone number (in the United Arab Emirates) for a person believed by German Intelligence to be an Islamic fanatic associated with the terror cell being monitored in Hamburg, Germany that included Mohammed Atta. It now appears that such first-name information pertained to "Marwan al-Shehhi," whom we now know to have flown the plane into the South Tower on September 11, 2004.

There can be no doubt that there were thousands upon thousands of needles mingled among millions and millions of tiny straws in the hundreds, if not thousands, of haystacks then being monitored by our intelligence services hamstrung in part by years-long patterns of legislative-branch and executive-branch limitations on, rather than supportive expansions of, intelligence-gathering methods and resources. Under such circumstances, blaming the intelligence services for having failed to penetrate terrorist organizations of Islamic fanatics to become better able to distinguish needles from straws is like a restaurant owner blaming a two-cook kitchen equipped with a new microwave to supplement an out-of-date stove for failing to successfully serve a five-course meal to a 500-person banquet while simultaneously being obliged to be certain that none of the dishes could contain any ingredient that could cause any allergic reaction to anyone consuming the meal despite the owner's failure to provide the cooks with the means to determine the existence, or scope, of any such amenability to allergic reactions or any effective means for testing the ingredients to determine the presence or absence of any allergen.

Determining the causes of failures to "connect the dots" is not the equivalent of fixing "blame" for failures to "connect the dots." The "blame," to the extent there may be any in contrast to the mere "cause," belongs more on the bosses (i.e., the legislative and executive branches owning the "restaurant" intended to serve "intelligence") than on the workers (i.e., the intelligence officers working as "chefs" responsible for creating and following recipes for serving "intelligence" to their patrons).

Blame Game Part 20,040,224·

The concept of "cause" ain't the same
as that we define to be "blame,"
and searches for cause
delayed by a pause
for "blame" are delayed just the same.

The concept of "blame" is like "fault"
for "ought-nots" and also for "oughts."
To focus on "fault"
before finding "cause"
obscures the perception of "oughts."

Attempts to clothe people with "fault"
whose motives comported with "oughts"
but failed to perceive
what hindsight perceives
leaves cause-finding progress at naught.

The "cause" was not lack of desire
to stop the attack that transpired.
For blame to be pushed
on Clinton or Bush
seeks heat 'stead of light from the fire.

What happened? We know the bosses wanted good intelligence. We know the workers wanted to provide good intelligence. What was lacking was the bosses' failures to possess, or use, good sense by choosing to expand rather than to limit and restrict intelligence-gathering services. Following the end of the Cold War, too many bosses failed to perceive that the "dividend" of "peace" is "peace" rather than evisceration of the tools that produced peace. There's enough collective blame for everyone, and the more time we spend trying to fix blame (i.e., on the Clinton Administration and/or on the Bush Administration), the less time we are spending fixing the causes of the problem. Responsibility, rather than blame, is the suitable badge for bad judgment exercised by people with good intentions.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

¹·According to the February 24, 2004, New York Times:

In March 1999, German intelligence officials gave the Central Intelligence Agency the first name and telephone number of Marwan al-Shehhi, and asked the Americans to track him. The name and phone number in the United Arab Emirates had been obtained by the Germans by monitoring the telephone of Mohamed Heidar Zammar, an Islamic militant in Hamburg who was closely linked to the important Qaeda plotters who ultimately mastermin[d]ed the Sept. 11 attacks, German officials said. .... The information concerning Mr. Shehhi, the man who took over the controls of United Airlines Flight 175, which flew into the south tower of the World Trade Center, came months earlier than well-documented tips about other hijackers, including two who were discovered to have attended a meeting of militants in Malaysia in January 2000. .... The independent commission investigating the attacks has received information on the 1999 Shehhi tip, and is actively investigating the issue, said Philip Zelikow, executive director of the commission. .... American intelligence officials and others involved with the matter say they are uncertain whether Mr. Shehhi's phone was ever monitored. .... An American official said: "The Germans did give us the name `Marwan' and a phone number, but we were unable to come up with anything. It was an unlisted phone number in the U.A.E., which he was known to use." (Emphasis added.)

...

··

Feb. 23, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040223-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Ralph Nader's candidacy poses potential help for, not hindrance to, the Democratic nominee in Election 2004 regardless of whether it be John Kerry, John Edwards or Hillary Clinton.·

That Ralph Nader's double game is self evident illustrates the intellectual contempt he holds for those whose interests he most ardently professes to serve-- the ordinary Americans he perceives as "victims" of the "two-party system" corrupted by "corporate" America. Nader, like Hillary, has chosen a strategy to maximize opportunities for snatching eleventh hour victory from the jaws of defeat or victory.

Grossly exaggerating his disdain for the Democratic Party, with whose left wing he shares little significant disagreement, while attempting to also appeal to right-wing isolationists disapproving the War in Iraq and fiscal conservatives feeling contempt for what they see as Bush's attempt to buy support from the left of center with expanded social programs, Nader expects the coming election to make him King Maker in either 2004 or 2008. He knows the history of third-party movements is that real political power for such "movements" lies in strengthening the power of whatever wing of whichever party is politically more in sympathy with the goals of the "movement" and thereby shifting the center of gravity of that party towards the the "movement."

Nader can ride his strategic fence until shortly before the November election, but Hillary must get off the fence one way or the other long enough before the convention to foment a deadlock to enable her to determine whether to run for President in 2004 or, in the absence of a deadlock, to determine whether to make herself available to be "drafted" as the running mate of the nominee. Nader, Hillary, the Deaniacs, George Soros, MoveOn.Org, and the rest of the Entertainment Left have succumbed, as have many pundits, to the delusional belief that the country is still split 50/50 as it appeared to be in the 2000 election. Notwithstanding current polls purporting to show Bush losing to Kerry and/or Edwards, they are all wrong. The political center of gravity of the country has shifted to the right, not the left. What is now keeping Kerry higher in polling among people paying little attention to more than the bare headlines about the campaign is the facile assumption among those unfamiliar with Kerry's legislative record that his military heroism makes him a potentially tougher, or better, Commander in Chief for the war on terror than Bush.

Kerry has achieved short-term success in feigning outrage at, and characterizing as attacks on his "patriotism," accurate descriptions of his record of voting against expansion of, and for limitations on, military and intelligence programs which the political center of gravity wishes had been, and now wants to be, expanded. Such success will be short-lived as the nature of his voting record and political philosophy become more apparent to the center of gravity, which has, thus far, focused almost exclusively on his heroism in combat.

Nader's leap of faith in the belief that the political center of gravity has not shifted to the right is what drives his expectation of being the beneficiary of sufficient support by late October to hand victory to the Democratic nominee by withdrawing from the race and urging his supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee, by which strategy he would gain more effective control of the Left Wing of the Democratic Party and move its center of gravity even further to the Left. If (when) the election disproves his thesis that the country is still split down the middle rather than its political center of gravity having shifted to the right, the Democrats will be unable to malign him because it will be self-evident that his being in, or out, of the race would not have affected the outcome. Thus, for Nader, the strategy is "win/win."

The Nader Nadir.·

I'm Ralph, and I'm running to save you
from Dubya's intent to enslave you
by warfare deportment
and Ashcroft's enforcement
of laws to restrict and degrade you.

By "warfare deportment" I mean
his "war" against terror to wean
our country away
from views that embrace
enforcement of law as the means.

My rant against "Ashcroft's enforcement"
means Patriot Action deployment
for searches by cops
of too many dots
for terror-connection deployments.

While Dems feign the fear that "for Nader
to run would for them spell their nadir,"
they know I've devised
October's Surprise:
Endorsement from theirs truly, Nader.

Nader will perceive the 2004 loss by the Democratic nominee as proof of his thesis that the Democrats should embrace his brand of leftist "progressive" politics. However, political historians are more likely to view the years 2000 and 2004 as Nader's Nadirs.

··

Feb. 22, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040222-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

John Kerry, John Edwards, George Bush, Ralph Nader and most candidates evade issues on same-sex marriage, civil union and traditional marriage leading to the Quantum Theory of Marriage. ·

The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection prohibits arbitrary classification of people¹ as grounds for limiting their liberty or eligibility for privileges. In the abstract, a rational basis for a classification precludes its being deemed "arbitrary." However, the historically demonstrated tendency of majorities wielding power to classify minorities in ways to limit their liberty and/or eligibility for privileges in ways inimical to the principle of equality theocratically asserted in the Declaration of Independence and secularly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution justified, if not required, the U.S. Supreme Court to view as "suspect" otherwise rational classifications readily susceptible to such misuse.

Judicial and political evolution of our perception of classification of people according to sex has rightly led to such classification being presumed to be incompatible with the Equal Protection guarantee and, therefore, unconstitutionally "arbitrary" absent societal and/or governmental interests compatible with, and/or necessary for, promoting, protecting or preserving other Constitutional principles, prerogatives or obligations. Thus, proponents of such "suspect" classifications have the burden to establish a sufficient governmental or societal purpose justifying such classification in a manner not offending the Equal Protection guarantee.

Evolution of differing judicial, legislative and political views on what should be the methodology for interpreting the constitution has produced at least two distinctly different schools of thought. One school of constitutional thought advocates judicial interpretation of the Constitution according to the "original intent" existing at the time of its adoption. An opposing school of thought advocates judicial interpretation of the original intent as having been originally intended to be "elastic" to enable the judiciary to adapt interpretations of abstract intent to conform to evolution of societal understandings and expectations about such intent with respect to new, evolving, or unforeseen circumstances.

Although strict adherence to "original intent" would minimize the risks of the tyranny of an unbridled judiciary, it would nevertheless lead to too many instances in which constitutional amendments would be necessary to specify modern applicability of unforeseen, specific manifestations of rights or duties with reference to which reasonable people could disagree regarding whether they should be deemed within, or without, the abstract concept of original intent. Strict adherence to "elastic intent" maximizes the risks of judicial tyranny but relies upon the assumption that manifestations of such tyranny will foment support for amendments to the Constitution to counter them.

The wisest school of thought advocates adherence to "original intent" unless, and until, compelling reasons exist for following the second school of thought, of which Brown v. Board of Education is an example Construing semi-automatic rifles, but not bazookas, as "arms" (despite the fact that at the time of original intent, "arms" that could be borne by a person had not evolved beyond single-shot flintlocks) is another example of "elastic" intent.

Whether governmental licensing of "marriage" only between a man and a woman should be deemed a denial of "equal protection" to men desiring to marry men, women desiring to marry women, men desiring to have multiple wives, women desiring to have multiple husbands, groups of men and women desiring to collectively marry each other, brothers marrying sisters, sisters marrying brothers, brothers marrying brothers, sisters marrying sisters, parents marrying children, adults marrying minors, minors marrying minors, hermaphrodites marrying hermaphrodites, or hermaphrodites marrying men or women is the kind of decision that ought to be made in accordance with the "original intent" theory rather than the "elastic intent" theory. Such concepts were alien to the Framers. English common law, which the Constitution explicitly preserved, condemned bigamy; therefore, one could not rationally contend the "original intent" of equality (later codified in the Fourteenth Amendment) contemplated "marriage" between two people of the same sex..

Determining what type of family structure is best suited for producing and nurturing future generations and thereby deserves special recognition and/or protection is the kind of broad, fundamental "general welfare" determination society is entitled to make on a rational basis without being held hostage to a slavishly literal interpretation of "equal protection" that would trivialize the evolutionary differences between normal and abnormal.² Therefore, if a state were legislatively to choose to eliminate the man-woman requirement for "marriage" in that state, so be it. However, just as Nevada's power to legalize prostitution does not enable a Nevada prostitute to invoke Full Faith and Credit to bring suit in the home state of a tourist to collect on a bad check tendered in Nevada by the tourist for services of the prostitute if the home state of the tourist is one in which contracts for prostitution are unenforceable as against public policy, one state's having granted a "marriage" license to two people of the same sex, or to a polygamous relationship, should not enable the holders of such license to invoke Full Faith and Credit to demand recognition of such license by another state deeming such arrangements to be against its public policy. This is not rocket science, and these Conflicts of Laws principles are not new to our Republic.

In contrast, if a state were to establish a procedure for licensure of civil unions (i.e., contractual obligations with most, but not necessarily all, the incidents of marriage), then the argument for Full Faith and Credit recognition of such unions would be dramatically enhanced, although not guaranteed, because grounds for distinguishing between civil unions and marriage would be far less likely to be deemed contrary to the public policy of a state not yet formally recognizing civil unions. Thus, this is one of those controversies best suited for legislative evolution rather than judicial revolution.

Quantum Theory of Marriage·

The feminist doctrine on marriage
perceives it a tool to disparage
the value of women
as merely fulfillin'
subservient roles in the marriage.

The masculine doctrine on marriage
perceives it a tool to disparage
disbursement of seeds
at odds with the needs
of offspring produced by the marriage.

Though sanctified doctrines on marriage
have not uniformly disparaged
polygamous unions
homogenous unions
through hist'ry were always disparaged.

Though secular doctrines on marriage
through hist'ry were slightly more varied
than sanctified views
they always eschewed
homogeneous unions as marriage.

The Western tradition of marriage
promoted monogamous marriage
as passing the test
on what would be best
for seeds to posterity carried.

Rejecting statistical rareness
of non-procreational marriage
to bar or revoke
the marital cloak
does not its main purpose disparage.

For laws to confer special status
on man-woman rites that begat us
does not serve to slight
homogenous rites
with less than identical status.

Rejecting such specialized status
on man-woman rites that begat us
ignores the oases
of rational bases
supporting such specialized status.

That most who support special status
for man-woman rites that begat us
are moved to embrace
the status by Faith
does not negate grounds for the status,

'Cause ample and secular grounds
for marriage as special abound
that make it unique
for serving the needs
of seeds for posterity bound.

However, uniqueness of marriage
ought not to be grounds to disparage
the needs of the few
that unions accrued
in love be respected like marriage.

So therefore the proper solution
would license homogenous unions
of mutual vows
for status endowed
to complement marital unions.

To license homogenous unions
as diff'rent from marital unions
concedes we should use
distinctions to choose
the relative states of such unions.

Equality bars the consumption
of difference by sameness presumption
in contexts in which
a diff'rence exists
that warrants a diff'rent assumption.

Adoption's but one such example
where grounds for distinctions are ample
that pref'rence be shown
'cause mom-and-dad homes
for kids provide nurture more ample.

The vast majority of heterosexual parents contemplating their children being orphaned by their own deaths and unavailability of relatives or friends to adopt them would want whoever would assume responsibility for placing their children for adoption to accord preference to heterosexual couples as being in the best interests of the orphaned children. That such preferences ought to be respected (and presumed) demonstrates the folly of the argument that "Equal Protection" prohibits such disparate treatment between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. This legitimate governmental purpose is alone³ sufficiently compelling to overcome any presumption of sexual classification for purposes of marital licensure as being "suspect"; therefore, such classification could not reasonably be deemed violative of the Equal Protection guarantee. Thus, it is sufficient to afford homosexuals the opportunity to enter into "civil unions" but nevertheless decline to classify them as marriages. That homosexuals, like heterosexuals, desire to make mutual, life-long commitments to each other's well-being is admirable and worthy of licensure as "civil unions" but not as "marriages." It's an imperfect solution in an imperfect world. It's time for sensible secular people to wake up from the delusional dream that whatever religious people favor must be wrong.

In case you're wondering why Ralph Nader's name is included in the headline, it's because on Meet the Press today, he, like the others, declined to confront the issues forthrightly.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

¹·Although the Constitution permits classification of people as citizens or non-citizens for purposes of different treatment in a number of contexts, no such context is relevant to determining whether the Constitutional guarantee of Equal Protection prohibits classification of people according to sex in determining their eligibility for marriage. ·

²·I'm using the scientific, rather than a moral, meaning of "normal" and "abnormal." One need not invoke religion to understand the scientific fact that if homosexuality were to have become "normal" and heterosexuality "abnormal," the human race as we know it would not exist. Perhaps self-replicating, sexless beings could have, or would have, evolved, but they didn't. We did by virtue of heterosexuality being "normal" and homosexuality being "abnormal."

³·By characterizing this issue as being sufficient "alone" to negate the argument that Equal Protection requires treatment of civil unions as identical to marriages and prohibits preferences to heterosexual couples over same-sex couples in contexts in which it obviously makes sense to do so, I do not mean to imply that this is the sole basis for negating such Equal Protection argument.

··

Feb. 21, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040221-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Saturday, February 21, 2004-- No Update Today.·

··

Feb. 20, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040220-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

John Edwards challenges John Kerry to a Pre-Super-Tuesday Debate in Georgia to be called "Achilles' Heels versus Tar Heels."·

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that John Edwards is challenging John Kerry to a debate in Georgia before Super Tuesday. Kerry should, but probably won't, accept the challenge. PoliSat.Com hereby offers to sponsor the debate as long as it's properly named "Achilles' Heels versus Tar Heels" and conducted in accordance with PoliSat.Com's rules for Political Fisticuffs.

Rather than having Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich participate in the debate, PoliSat.Com would have each of them serve as punching bags for Edwards and Kerry. Under PoliSat.Com's "punching bag" rules, if either of the debaters were to score a knockdown on the other, the debater knocked down would be given an opportunity to launch a meaningless attack against either Sharpton or Kucinich, after which either Sharpton or Kucinich would be allowed a 30-second reply to make the knocked-down debater look better by comparison and allow the knocked-down debater enough time to regain his composure in order to launch an effective counter-punch against the other debater.

The first five rounds would take place on a Jousting Field. The next five rounds would take place in a squared circle (i.e., a boxing ring or wrestling ring) with Jesse Ventura as the Referee. The final five rounds would take place in a closet with the winner being whoever emerges first. If no one were to emerge, the whole process would be re-started as a debate between Kucinich and Sharpton, but there will be no punching bags because we've been unable to locate any other candidate who would, by comparison, make either Kucinich or Sharpton look better. (Someone suggested Michael Moore and Al Franken but neither of them was willing to make a commitment to counter any punch by Kucinich or Sharpton.)

Proposals for such debate have already produced a heated, off-the-record debate between John Kerry and John Edwards over their relative strengths and weaknesses in running against Bush. PoliSat.Com's high-tech¹ system for covert eavesdropping on political chatter has produced a record of the behind-the-scenes "debate" between Edwards and Kerry over whether there should be a debate between Edwards and Kerry:

Achilles' Heels Versus Tar Heels.·

I'm Kerry-- "Achilles" to you--
I'm stronger and braver than you
and wiser and older
and surely much bolder
than you who are short in the tooth.

I'm Edwards, a Tar Heel to you,
but I'm not at risk, as are you,
for votes that reveal
the spots on your heels
for shafts from opponents of you.

It's errors on hist'ry you've spun.
My heels are irrelevant, son,
'cause Bush, whom I'll face
this Fall in the race
will face my invincible front.

But none who's committed to cheer
for me against Dubya this year
expects me to win
and thus needn't send
a shot at my heels from the rear.

Will Kerry accept Edwards' proposal for a debate? Only if Edwards is able to couch his proposal in such a way as to make its rejection seem cowardly.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

¹·Intoxicated computer-science graduates interpreting quantum fluctuations in the fluctuating quanta of political interests among a wide variety of political operatives.
·

··

Feb. 19, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040219-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Report of John Edwards' proposal for "No-Sex Marriage" as a "One America" solution to the "Two Americas" problem of "Same-Sex Marriage" and "Opposite-Sex Marriage" ignites a political firestorm.·

Publication yesterday of excerpts from an off-the-record interview of John Edwards by PoliSat.Com's Wisconsin Bureau Drawer Chief in the wake of his come-from-behind second-place finish behind John Kerry in the February 17, 2004, Wisconsin Primary lit a political firestorm over statements attributed to Edwards about the raging controversy over same-sex/opposite-sex marriages. Here is an excerpt from yesterday's report by PoliSat.Com about that off-the-record interview:

In an exclusive interview with PoliSat.Com's Wisconsin Bureau-Drawer Chief, Edwards provided insight into his winning strategy. While shaking his head in slow motion to emulate one of those Breck commercials to show the richness and fullness of his hair, Edwards said, "I'm the Sea Biscuit of this race. Just like everyone thought the now-legendary Sea Biscuit was too small to beat larger, stronger horses, all the experts today thought there was no way that a John Edwards Galluping on Tar Heels could possibly overtake a galloping war-hero like John Kerry." Asked to identify what he considers his greatest weakness, Edwards spoke at length:

Being so handsome makes people doubt I'm smart-- sort of like the stereotypical view of "dumb blonds," but I already have plans to counter that when I unveil the legal niceties of my proposal to solve the current controversy about marriage. There are already too many contexts in which there are "two Americas." Believe it or not, some people actually favor a "two Americas' solution to this problem-- in other words, one America of "same-sex marriage" and another America of "opposite-sex marriage," but my proposal is for a One America solution: "No-Sex Marriage." Now I don't advocate such arrangement for myself, but Bill Clinton has already proven the viability of the concept."

Although political guru James Carville recently made comments¹ likening the political skills of John Edwards to those of Bill Clinton, some Edwards supporters construed them as "left handed compliments." Others viewed them as having hit the nail on the head if not the head on the nail. Clinton could not be reached for comment on PoliSat.Com's publication of its satirical interview with Edwards. Nevertheless, the "Same-Sex/Opposite-Sex Marriage" issue seems determined to raise its head in this campaign and force all candidates to define their preferred positions, but none of them seems to want to be first out of the box.

Edwards' "One-America Solution" to the "Two Americas" problem of "Same-Sex Marriage" and "Opposite-Sex Marriage" is the "No-Sex Marriage":

Opponents who wish to disparage
my positive manner of carriage
as candidate for
Election Oh-Four,
distorted my statements on "marriage."

I never said words to disparage
the zealous defenders of marriage.
Instead I have called
for "equal for all"
solutions for all seeking "marriage."

Because "One America's" best,
not "Two," we must therefore divest
homogenous sex
and opposite sex
as tests for which marriage is best.

Instead of the opposite sex
preferred over homo-type sex,
in my "One America,"
we'll redefine "marital"
as meaning the "absence of sex."

We'll moot, not approve, Same-Sex Marriage
and Opposite-Sex tests for marriage--
by mere recognition
of ancient traditions
that wives first devised: No-Sex Marriage.

Though status-quo thinkers maintain
the dangers of radical change,
statistics say most
of husbands would boast
they'd surely not notice the change.

Said Clinton, though favoring Edwards'
proposals for meanings of BedWords,
I'd have to complain
if "wives" are the same
as "interns" for rules under Bedwords.

Almost immediately after publication of the off-the-record interview, PoliSat.Com received a telephone call from John Edwards asking that he be identified only as a "top Edwards campaign official wishing to remain anonymous." Respecting his wishes, PoliSat.Com can now report that it has learned from a "top Edwards campaign official who wishes to remain anonymous" that Edwards views PoliSat.Com as another example of the "Two Americas" problem-- in other words, "One America" of "Satire" and the "Other America" of "Commentary." PoliSat.Com responded to Edwards' criticism by pointing out that "only idiots could have thought yesterday's 'report' that he favored 'No-Sex Marriage' constituted 'real' commentary on 'real' news rather than 'satirical' commentary about 'satirical' news." Edwards, showing the quick-on-his-feet skills that made him such a successful trial lawyer, quickly retorted, "But those are the very people to whom I'm trying to appeal in my campaign." Stung by the harsh reality of Edwards' retort, PoliSat.Com's Washington Bureau Drawer Chief replied, "Touché."

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

¹·(According to the Charlotte Observer, Carville described Edwards as "the best stump speaker [he has] seen, even better than Clinton.")

··

Feb. 18, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040218-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

John Edwards stages a Sea Biscuit Gallup on Tar Heels narrowing the lead of John Kerry galloping on Achilles' Heels in the Wisconsin race as they approach the Super Tuesday final stretch.·

In the wake of the February 17, 2004, Wisconsin Primary, John Edwards' Tar-Heels Galluping so closely behind John Kerry's Achilles' Heels has become the story de jour among political pundits, news junkies and political reporters. To physicists, the sound of galloping tar heels is similar to that of one hand clapping, which explains how Kerry didn't hear John "Sea Biscuit" Edwards Galluping behind him until nearing the finish line.

Wesley Clark, who now stands "beside" Kerry as an unofficial spokesman for the Kerry Campaign, said, "If I were still in the race, no one would catch me by surprise by catching me from behind." A reporter then asked Clark, "If that's true, how did you move from second place in most polls only a few weeks ago to nearly last place before you joined Kerry's campaign?" Flashing that awe-inspiring deer-in-the-headlights expression, Clark smiled and said, "Everyone knows I was a Dark Horse rider, but no one overtook me by galloping faster. Instead, everyone knows that despite my being a 21st Century version of Ike-- i.e., a great general galloping to the rescue of a disabled political party-- I purposely slowed down because as a great military man, I'm trained to leave no one behind."

Howard Dean said, "I wasn't surprised by Edwards having so suddenly narrowed Kerry's lead because by placing my stethoscope to the ground, I heard the squishy sound of those Galluping Tar Heels. Al Sharpton said, "Why does Edwards try to portray himself as the candidate riding the white horse? Shouldn't he be riding a horse of color? At least Wesley Clark had the decency to ride a dark horse."

Galluping Tar Heels·

Says Edwards to Kerry "The sound
behind you are hoofs as they pound
as Tar-Heels in action
with excellent traction
as into the stretch we are bound."

"Though both of us favor the use
of speaking, not whipping, to boost
the speed of the horse,
the sound of your voice
like Mondale's resembles a moose."

"And that's why I'm willing to bet
by me you'll be passed in the stretch
when 'giddyup' sounds
are heard by your mount
as calls by a moose for a mate."

··
In an exclusive interview with PoliSat.Com's Wisconsin Bureau-Drawer Chief, Edwards provided insight into his winning strategy. While shaking his head in slow motion to emulate one of those Breck commercials to show the richness and fullness of his hair, Edwards said, "I'm the Sea Biscuit of this race. Just like everyone thought the now-legendary Sea Biscuit was too small to beat larger, stronger horses, all the experts today thought there was no way that a John Edwards Galluping on Tar Heels could possibly overtake a galloping war-hero like John Kerry." Asked to identify what he considers his greatest weakness, Edwards spoke at length:

Dennis Kucinich, who's had little luck in his nationwide efforts to attract a girlfriend or potential mate, said, "I think there's too much emphasis on sex, so I think Edwards' proposal for 'No Sex' marriage is sound. In fact, many of my ex girl friends who rejected my proposals for marriage had said they would have accepted if I were to have proposed a "No Sex Marriage." This may get me in trouble with the entertainment industry and probably would blow any chance that Madonna might endorse me now that Clark is out of the race, but I firmly believe that once people give up sex, they'll find it easier to give up beefcake and cheesecake in favor of a Veganism. In fact, when I'm elected President, I'll establish a Department of Veganism as part of my larger proposal for a Department of Departments."

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

··

Feb. 17, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040217-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

John Kerry's Achilles' Heel gets stuck in Wisconsin not by an arrow but by tar.·

From the sounds of reports of this evening's results in today's Wisconsin Primary, the galloping sounds of John Kerry's Achilles' Heels may be on the verge of being drowned-out by the squishy sound of Galluping Tar Heels. Does Kerry have more to fear from his Achilles' Heels getting stuck in the tar than being struck by a political arrow? Is John Edwards the political version of Sea Biscuit? Is it now a race between Combat Boots and Sea Biscuit? Will Kerry's Achilles' Heel get stuck not by an arrow but by tar?

Arrows or Tar? Achilles' Heels or Tar Heels?·

Says Kerry, "With Botox I fard¹
for 'hunk-ness" while galloping hard,
but what are the sounds
of squishy-like pounds
behind me so close 'stead of far?

Says Edwards, "I've come from afar
by quietly Galluping hard
producing the sounds
of squishy-like pounds
by Gallups on hoof-heels of tar."

I needn't with Botox to fard
'cause Breck-ness is better by far
for charmin' the fillies,
so Heels of Achilles
get stuck not by arrows but tar.

PoliSat.Com's highly unreliable sources lurking around Kerry's Wisconsin headquarters overheard a panicky discussion of a variety of options for Kerry to resume his gallop with sufficient vigor (a Kennedyesque word) to drown-out the squishy sound of Edwards' Galluping Tar Heels. A former Dean campaign aide, who just joined the Kerry campaign, suggested that Kerry borrow Ben Jones' "General Lee" car with the Confederate Flag on its top, in which Jones (who starred in "The Dukes of Hazard") rode while campaigning as a Democratic candidate for Congress in Virginia in 2002. Chris Lehane, a clairvoyant interloper from the now-defunct Clark campaign, confidently predicted that such radical step wouldn't be necessary because he says he has "solid evidence that the Edwards campaign is on the verge of imploding," but he expressed doubts that he would be able to anonymously feed that type of rumor to Drudge again.

Kerry managed to avoid a flurry of questions from reporters asking whether Kerry will accept Edwards' challenge for a series of one-on-one debates. Soon afterward, PoliSat.Com's covert operatives overheard Kerry began practicing a "surprise" question to propound to Edwards at the end of the debate: "Senator Edwards, "How do you answer allegations -- not by me but by Republicans who play dirty-- that when you were in school while I was braving enemy gunfire to save my Band of Brothers, you played hooky, and when will you release your school attendance records?" Another aide questioned the wisdom of such approach and stressed the greater advantage of exposing Edwards as a member of one of the most hated groups in America-- lawyers.

In a speech gloating over his eleventh-hour surge in Wisconsin, Edwards reiterated one of his favorite campaign themes: "There are two Americas. One is my America, in which candidates for the Democratic nomination for President campaign against their fellow Democrats in a polite, civil, positive manner without slinging mud at Democratic opponents, and the other America in which my opponents sling mud at their opponents. In One America there is running water and toilet paper; in the other America, there are privies and corn cobs. We can do better. With the help of ordinary Americans, I will put a bidet in every privy in America."

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

¹·"Fard" means to apply cosmetics.·

··

Feb. 16, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040216-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

John Kerry Tells Aides to "Remind me to keep Clark beside, not behind, me."·

According to Thomas Oliphant's February 15, 2004, column in the Boston Globe on line, the two "sins" of "omission" and "commission" were the major factors causing Wesley Clark's campaign to collapse. Says Oliphant:

"The sin of commission occurred during an astonishing, even for a rookie, judgment lapse with the gaggle of reporters covering his campaign on its final day last week. Bantering with them at length under supposedly off-the-record ground rules, Clark actually said he was still in the race because he thought Kerry's campaign was going to implode over what he inelegantly called an "intern" scandal."

Oliphant's assertions corroborate part of a February 12, 2004, report by Matt Drudge that Clark had made such prediction to a group of reporters. Other sources (in addition to the Drudge Report) attributed to the Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford the assertion that for several months Chris Lehane, a Clark aide who was Al Gore's press secretary in 2000, had been unsuccessfully "shopping" the rumor to various members of the media.

Pundits who seemed surprised by such amateurishness on the part of Clark must have paid little attention to the plethora of other comparably amateurish examples of Clark's willingness (inability to avoid?) to formulate judgments, and base decisions or take actions, on such thin grounds while castigating Bush for connecting dots on WMD that begged to be connected (and were connected by all but a minority of those who had viewed the dots). Of course, in such judgmental matters, pundits often exhibit the very same kind of amateurishness (to which yours truly with false humility purports to confess) they so readily attribute to Clark.

Some pundits also seemed surprised by Kerry not merely welcoming Clark's offer to "stand behind him" but rather appearing to genuflect to Clark's military rank by patronizingly insisting that Clark will be standing "beside him" in a transparent effort to convey the impression that Kerry perceives Clark to be his equal. However, as usual, PoliSat.Com's highly reliable, covert operatives have uncovered the real reason for Kerry's feigned graciousness. Here is PoliSat.Com's poetic adaptation of the gist of what our operatives discovered in what we named "Operation Stand By Me":

Operation Stand By Me·

To Kerry said Clark, "I've defined you
as best and I proudly remind you
how strongly I'll push
to help you beat Bush
by solidly standing behind you."

Said John, "I'm so proud you'll provide me
your wisdom as General to guide me,
I'd much rather see
your mission to be
to stand, not behind, but beside me."

When Clark left for meetings assigning
his duties, said Kerry, "Remind me
since Wesley's the toad
who said I'd implode,
be sure he's beside, not behind, me."

"Since Wesley throughout his campaign
made statement so plainly inane,
we must watch his mouth
or else he might spout
more rumors he learned from Lehane."

Kerry's operatives will, of course, deny this shocking evidence obtained by PoliSat.Com's covert operatives. Where is Rob Reiner when John Kerry so desperately needs him? Is he still singing the "Stand by Mean" duet with Martin Sheen as the campaign anthem for Howard the Dean of Mean and Doctor of Spleen?

··

Feb. 15, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040215-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Sunday, February 15, 2004-- No Update today.

··

Feb. 14, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040214-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Hillary Clinton sends Valentine's Day cards to John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, and Al Gore.·

PoliSat.Com's highly unreliable sources have intercepted Valentine's Day cards Hillary Clinton sent to John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark and Al Gore. Currently we are seeking legal advice on whether it might violate campaign laws if we were to forward them to the intended recipients, but you know how hard it is to get a straight answer from a lawyer. Meanwhile, to serve the public's "right to know," we're publishing the contents of Hillary's cordial greetings to those with whom she collegially competes in the political arena.

Hillary's Valentine.·

To Kerry, the subject of tattles:
Although I'm not ready to haggle
for bottom or top
just save me a spot
in 2004 on your saddle.

To Edwards, re Kerry, "Don't worry."
A heel of Achilles has Kerry,
and soon as he falls,
my mate would be "Y'all"
if you tell me "yes" in a hurry.

To Wesley, "my horse" that went lame,
it's only yourself you can blame,
so when I'm elected
your name's been ejected
from stalking horse service again.

To Howard, the Doctor bereft
of manners or skills to be deft.
When Kerry has fallen
it's me they'll be calling,
not you for your screams to the deaf.

To Alpha Male Albert F. Gore:
Destroyed is your planning in store
for 2008
by kiss-of-death fate
of whom you endorsed in oh-four.

What will Hillary receive from each of them? Unfortunately, our covert operatives haven't been able to intercept their Valentine gifts to her. We doubt Dean is sending a Vermont Teddy Bear. PoliSat.Com's highly unreliable sources say Kerry is emulating a tactic used by John F. Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis in communicating with Nikita Khrushchev-- i.e., Kerry is sending both a friendly and not-so-friendly Valentine greetings to Hillary to enable her to choose whether they will make peace or war. Our highly reliable sources also claim that John Edwards thought about sending nuts but then decided that doing so wasn't needed. Our most anonymous sources say that Wesley Clark sent her a note stating that if he were to ever become Vice President, there would never be a day on which anyone would fail to receive a Valentine's Day card.

Our most top-secret operatives managed to get a quick peek at the Valentine's Day greeting Al Gore sent to Hillary. He sent her the same one he mass-mailed to everyone he knew proudly touting the well-know historical fact that he had invented the very first Valentine's Day card, which recited the lyrics to a tender lullaby his mother sang to him many years before the lullaby was had been composed.

··

Feb. 13, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040213-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

John Kerry stays in the saddle by galloping past kiss-and-tell tattle. ·

Today, on Imus in the Morning, Kerry bet all his chips on there not arising any credible allegation of infidelity by Kerry. Was he galloping into fire (as he rode his Swift Boat into fire) by scheduling an appearance this morning with Imus to counter the Drudge Report yesterday implying unidentified Democratic operatives were feeding the media allegations that Kerry had engaged in marital infidelity with a political "intern" alleged to have now "fled" the country or was he trotting through what he confidently believed to be safe territory. Only time will tell, but by the time he arrived in the fire-zone on Imus in the Morning, his gallop had slowed to a trot implying either that he was confident of being in safe territory or where hostile forces were without ammunition. Feeling virtually assured of capturing the nomination, Kerry is likely to avoid antagonizing supporters of his fading opponents by casting suspicions on Democratic operatives as the likely sources, and surely wouldn't concede it may have been a "friendly" tactic to confirm whether conclusions of internal vetting were correct. Thus, he has a free hand to indignantly allege, or imply, that Republican operatives were the "sources."

Kiss-and-Tell Tattle and Rides in the Saddle.·

By whom was John Kerry assailed
by claims he's a Clintonesque male?
Though Drudge has been mum
on who beat the drum,
it seems that such beating has failed.

A pundit named Crawford¹ explained
the Drudge-source by him can't be named
but said, not implied,
the rumor described
was recently "shopped"² by Lehane.

At PoliSat.Com we are betting
the timing and place of the setting
for rumors to rise
were really devised
as tests of political vetting.³·

Since Clark has decided to park
the horse that he rode in the dark
in John Kerry's stable,
has Wesley disabled
a "deadlock" for Hillary sparked?

Regardless of whether the source
for Drudge favors Hill'ry or Gore
or merely had hurried
the vetting for Kerry,
what's next for both Hill'ry and Gore?

With Kerry surviving the battle
of rumors of kiss-and-tell tattle,
then Hill'ry may be
content to receive
from Kerry a ride on his saddle.

So, what's been inflicted on Gore?
A wound or just merely a sore?
It's likely to mean
a "Scream of the Dean"
duet with the "Roar of the Gore."

A more interesting question now is whether Hillary will accept what will be an obligatory offer by Kerry for her to be his running mate, but the most interesting question is "What will Al Gore do?" Assuming, arguendo, that Hillary were to decide that being Kerry's running mate is the least-bad option for her long-term goal, how will the Dean/Gore/Kucinich/Nader-Leaning wing of the party react? One could half-facetiously suggest that the strategy most likely to enable Bush to defeat Kerry would be for Bush to portray Kerry as nothing more a Massachusetts Liberal converted by personal ambition for the Presidency into a "Bush-Lite" emigrant from the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts in order to alienate Kerry from the Kool-Aid-Drinking wing of the Democratic Party. This theory is so novel, I should copyright it. --Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com. (Footnotes-- see below)

·¹·Drudge was not the only source asserting that Craig Crawford had previously disseminated an email implying or stating that Chris Lehane, a Clark aide who was Gore's campaign press secretary in 2000, had "shopped" the rumor-- i.e., had attempted to interest the news media in pursuing it.

·²·If you're not a total political-news junkie, see footnote above for an explanation of "shopped."

·³·Political campaigns often set the news media on rumor-chases to determine whether they may safely assume that such rumors would ultimately not be found "credible" or otherwise have an adverse impact on their candidates. Of course, a common tactic of campaigners is to try to eat their cake and have it to by portraying their campaigns as victims of such rumors by their opponents.

··

Feb. 12, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 02·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040212-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Media seeks to learn who's raising questions about whether John Kerry has an heretofore unexposed Achilles Heel.·

Questions emerge about whether John Kerry has a heretofore unexposed Achilles' Heel. Whom do those raising such questions hope to be perceived as the sources for raising them? At present, it's an unraveling mystery, but there are a number of potential suspects as sources for such questions being raised in the wake of Kerry's victories in Virginia and Tennessee.

Political Clues on Who's in the Queues.·

Why did Howard Dean make a sudden about-face in the last several days from his recent statement that if he were to not win in Wisconsin, he would withdraw from the race? Is Dean expecting a sudden turnabout in Kerry's status as frontrunner? According to PoliSat.Com's highly unreliable sources, a Dean spokesman said, "Real Democrats are Real Democrats."

Who was the "anonymous" source quoted earlier today by the Associated Press in reporting that tomorrow (Friday, February 13-- I'm not really superstitious, but it's an odd coincidence) Wesley Clark will "endorse" John Kerry? Does that square with disparaging remarks about Kerry recently attributed to Clark? According to the Associated Press, one of Clark's campaign officials said-- on the record-- that Clark will be campaigning "with" Kerry in Wisconsin. Later in the day, today, Fox News also reported that Fox News "has learned" that Clark will endorse Kerry tomorrow. Thus, if Clark were the source, it would certainly seem contradictory except that Clark made a practice of making contradictions the rule rather than the exceptions in his campaign. According to PoliSat.Com's highly unreliable sources, Clark said, "If I'm chosen to endorse Kerry, I guarantee no one will raise any more questions about Kerry."

Would those most ardently hoping for Hillary to be "drafted" by a "deadlocked" convention be likely sources? However, Hillary's political ambitions certainly are not a "heretofore unexposed" Achilles Heel of Kerry, and surely Kerry would genuflect to Hillary's wing of the party by making her the first person to whom he would offer the spot as his running mate. PoliSat.Com was unable to reach even a "highly unreliable" source, much less any "reliable" source, for anyone in this crowd.

Would ardent supporters of John Edwards be the likely sources? Would Edwards, whose sole asset is campaigning as a "nice guy," risk his only asset by taking such a calculated risk? On the other hand, he's a lawyer, and you know what people think about lawyers-- especially "trial lawyers."

Would ardent supporters of Joe Lieberman be likely sources? No, because Lieberman's most ardent supporters are, as Lieberman is, too genteel.

Would ardent supporters of Dennis Kucinich be likely sources? It's hard to gage the likely motives of such a self-delusional bunch. It's hard to believe they'd stop drinking ideological Kool-Aid long enough to spread rumors. However, according to PoliSat.Com's highly unreliable sources, a Kucinich spokesman said that if Kucinich were elected President, he would establish a Department of Questions.

Would Al Gore lend support to reckless questions about anyone-- especially a fellow Democrat. Do wild bears fertilize the woodlands rather than using the Portable Gorinal? PoliSat.Com was unable to reach Gore for an official comment, but according to our highly unreliable sources, he was too busy trying to find a reliable plumber to fix the still-overflowing toilet of tenants at the Gore Estates.

Who's left? Ardent Bush supporters would be the favorite suspects of the most ardently-anti-Bush Democrats, which is why it's unlikely that ardent Bush supporters are the sources of such questions.

Apparently, as we near the end of the day today, no one in the media has obtained any official, unofficial or even anonymous response from Kerry or anyone in a position of authority in his campaign. However, according to PoliSat.Com's most unreliable sources, John Kerry said "Anyone who raises any question about me is questioning my patriotism, my heroism, my wisdom, my faith, my family, my dog, and my UN."

Says Kerry, "I'm angered and peeved
when questions are raised about me,
a genuine hero
whose flaws equal zero,
by folks less courageous than me."

Since Kerry contends he's abused
by questions implied in the news,
we promptly perused
political queues,
our source for political clues.

We asked the ex-candidate Clark,
who fell 'cause his horse was too dark,
and Wesley replied
the "questions" were lies
to answers I heard in the dark.

With Hillary next on our list,
our call must by her have been missed,
but ardent supporters
are claiming reporters
will soon be reporting the gist.

When Edwards we reached to entice
a comment on questions not nice,
he smiled and replied
while blinking his eyes,
"I'm sure ya'll are sure I'm too nice.

The next likely suspect was Dean,
who graciously stopped amid-scream,
to tell us "Get lost,
or out you'll be tossed,
unless you need treatment for spleen."

But while we're awaiting from Drudge
the name of his source for the sludge,
announcements are warning
on Imus next Morning
that John will give answers to Drudge.

Who is/are the source(s) of such "questions"? Stay tuned to PoliSat.Com, "Where all the news is printed to fit."

··

Feb. 11, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 02·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040211-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).·

John Kerry gallops (and Gallups) ahead of John Edwards and Howard Dean and leaves Dark Horse Clark in the dust.·

John Kerry has galloped (and Galluped) far ahead of John Edwards and Howard Dean and has left Dark Horse Wesley Clark in the dust and thereby avoided becoming a mere spectator in what initially appeared likely to be the Political Smackdown of the Century. Conventional wisdom among pundits is that Edwards and Dean will stay in the race in case Kerry stumbles and/or to maintain visibility as potential nominees for the Vice Presidency. Stumbling isn't the only risk Kerry faces as he gallops toward the nomination and into the election. He has at least two Achilles' Heel vulnerabilities from within his own party: Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

What about Gore? Since Gore's 2008 strategy required what the Draft-Hillary crowd (in ads in Iowa) called "Doctor Assisted Suicide" for the 2004 Democratic ticket, even Gore may be clever enough to learn from his mistake (i.e., giving Dean the kiss of death by endorsing him, a political process now known as "Gore-Assisted Suicide"). Even Gore may now realize that his next-best strategy for 2008 would be to endorse Kerry as soon and as often a possible between now and the November, 2004 Election. Thus, if Kerry were to learn that Gore is planning (threatening?) to endorse him, he should call a press conference and repudiate Gore's support.

What about Hillary? Now that the primary voters have sent her Dark Horse to the political glue factory and thereby forced her convention-deadlock tool out of the race, what will she do? Will she (1) covertly try to create a deadlocked convention to preserve her options of (1a) becoming the compromise candidate (if Bush were to then appear vulnerable) or (1b) endorsing another candidate to break the deadlock (if Bush were to then appear likely to win) and thereby ingratiate herself to the Party to strengthen her position in 2008 or (2) count on the virtual certainty that Kerry would offer her the VP spot before offering it to anyone else, in which case she would (2a) accept it if she were to then perceive Bush as vulnerable or (2b) reject it if she were to perceive Bush as the likely winner.

So what should Kerry do? If he were to look over his shoulder., he'd recognize a need to smoke-out a CDW (Campaign Destruction Weapon) sooner rather than later by not waiting until he gets the nomination to pick Hillary as his running mate. However, protecting that Achilles Heel would expose another one because announcing he would pick Hillary would strengthen Edwards' electability, which is the horse on which Kerry has galloped ahead of the rest by becoming (just in time for Iowa) the UnDean, UnClark, UnGephardt, UnEdwards candidate. Which heel should he protect? He can't protect both.

Through reliable but anonymous sources, PoliSat.Com has obtained the text of Kerry's battle plan for protecting his Achilles' Heel.

They're calling me Galloping Kerry
for stretching my lead in a hurry,
however I fear
a threat from the rear
is one about which I should worry.
I need to avoid being pilloried
by shafts of political missilry,
so sooner than later
for safety I'll cater
to sharing my saddle with Hillary.
The Prince of the two Carolinas,
believes he, not she, would be finer,
but monologue lines
to Cheney we'd find
are best to calm fears of anginas.

Kerry's choice will certainly deal a stunning blow to the ego of John Edwards, the only man to earn the title "Breck Girl" but yet be bested in appealing to women by a woman more highly skilled in the linguistics of monologues calming fears of anginas.

··

Feb. 10, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 02·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040210-02.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).·

Bush's Critics Debate Decision for War: Choice or Necessity? Elective or Necessary? Just or Unjust? Wise or Unwise?·

It appears that John Kerry and one of his most ardent supporters, Max Cleland, have necessarily elected to predicate Kerry's chances for victory in a campaign against George W. Bush upon their contention that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "elective" war rather than a "necessary" war and/or that it was a war "of choice" rather than a war "of necessity." Notwithstanding such argument's attempt to imply to the contrary, the terms "necessary" and "necessity" are relative terms rather than absolute ones. The terms "necessary" and "necessity" are virtually meaningless unless one has first answered the question "necessary or necessity for what?"

Did Saddam Hussein's 1991 invasion of Kuwait pose an "imminent threat" to the United States? Virtually no one suggested that it did. Rather than characterizing Operation Desert Storm as being "necessary" to protect the United States against an "imminent threat," Bush 41 (and the U.N. and the countries that joined, or supported, that war) characterized it as "necessary": (a) to uphold provisions of the U.N. Charter against unprovoked invasion of one country by another; (b) to "prevent" the increasing dangers posed by Saddam Hussein's regime from ultimately maturing into what could, and presumably would, pose an "imminent" threat to other countries in the region; (c) to "deter" Saddam Hussein and other dictators with comparable ambitions from unprovoked attack upon, or invasion of, another country. Bush 41 and a not-overwhelming majority of American political leaders (and some, but not most, of the other countries supporting the war) also characterized that war as being (d) "necessary" to prevent the growing danger embodied in Saddam Hussein's regime from ultimately maturing into dangers that could, and presumably would, pose an "imminent threat" to the United States.

At that time, when history demanded that American political leaders approve, or disapprove, the initiation of that war, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and a substantial number of like-minded Democrats (and a few like-minded Republicans) opposed that war. What would the world resemble today if Bush 41 and a majority of American political leaders were to have agreed with Kerry, Kennedy, et al?

We know, of course, that Kuwait would have become "the nineteenth province of Iraq." Would Iraq now be occupying the United States? Of course not. Would Iraq now be occupying most of Europe? Of course not. Would Iraq now be occupying Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and Iran? Probably not. Would Iraq now be effectively controlling virtually all of the revenue from Middle-East oil? Absolutely! Would control of such massive amounts of revenue (by direct "ownership" or extortion) have enabled Saddam Hussein to build a gold-plated military armed to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons)? Absolutely!

Would such power in the hands of a sociopathic tyrant such as Hussein have posed an "imminent" threat to the United States? Absolutely, just as did the Soviet power during the entirety of the Cold War. Would Saddam Hussein have burdened himself with moral restraints on his power as did many post-Stalinist leaders of the Soviet Union or would he have wielded his power as did his idol, Stalin, with utter ruthlessness unrestrained whatsoever by moral standards embraced by most civilized nations? Would our own military power's deterrent effects, which we now know (after the fact) succeeded in keeping the nearly 40-years of Cold War from becoming World War III, be great enough to deter militaristic adventures by a sociopathic tyrant such as Hussein undisciplined by moral restraints, democratic forces or human-rights values? Probably not. Would there be dramatically less freedom in the world today? Absolutely! Would our national interests, international interest and foreign policy be hostage to the need to avoid confrontations that might prompt the sociopathic Hussein to recklessly follow a path of confrontation likely to result in a mini-World-War-III or even a full-blown one? Somewhere between "possibly" and "probably."

Necessity of Choice or Choice of Necessity? Electively Necessary or Necessarily Elective?·

Was Operation Desert Storm a "necessary" war or was it an "elective" war. It was "elective" if the value chosen is to maximize long-term risks to the national security of the United States. It was "necessary" if the value chosen is to minimize long-term risks to our national security, or, stated conversely, to minimize the dangers that would be maximized absent waging such war. Did the advent of 9-11 make it prudent for us to cease applying a Cold War strategy of "deterrence" to dangers posed by the nexus of interests between terrorists and sociopathic tyrants possessing, or having access to, or having the means to produce tactical quantities of, weapons of mass destruction for mutually beneficial use by such terrorists and sociopathic leaders with otherwise mutually antipathetic interests? Absolutely. Was/is Operation Iraqi Freedom "necessary"? Unequivocally, yes.

··

Feb. 10, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040210-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Al Gore accuses George Bush of "betraying" our country.·

Today, new information from PoliSat.Com's highly reliable sources emerged about Al Gore's speech in Tennessee on Sunday, February 8, 2004. Witnesses say Gore gave a political fire-and-brimstone speech that would have made Cotton Mather turn green with envy. Among his most memorable lines was his statement that George W. Bush "betrayed this country." Most politicians understandably have a hard time resisting the impulse to jump onto a bandwagon. Few have the urge to jump onto one careening over a cliff, except, of course, Al Gore. Fewer still have exhibited Gore's skill in pushing bandwagons over cliffs.

Apparently fearing that Howard Dean's scream may have firmly established him as the "Alpha Male" for the entertainment-industry pack, Gore gave a speech today in which one of his goals was for his carotid arteries to appear much larger than did Dean's during his eloquent "I Have a Scream" speech. Another goal seemed to be to demonstrate that he could scream in a much deeper voice than his protégé, Howard Dean (the Beta Male). A third seemed to be lure some of the intellectual heavyweights currently supportering Wesley Clark (such as Michael Moore, Madonna, Ted Danson, Drew Barrymore, Peter, Paul & Mary, Jimmy Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, etc.) out of Clark's Military Industrial Duplex and into the MoveOn.Org cult running the Doctor of Spleen Machine.

Responses to Gore's speech were overwhelming. He received calls from John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Howard Dean, Lyndon LaRouche, Hillary Clinton and George Bush begging him to endorse John Kerry. McGovern asked him to endorse Nixon. He was also swamped by calls from a number of world leaders. Jacques Chirac asked him to endorse Tony Blair; Tony Blair asked him to endorse Jacques Chirac; and through intermediaries, Saddam Hussein asked him to endorse Bush. The Christian Coalition urged him to endorse MTV. John Kerry called to say he would categorically repudiate any endorsement by Gore.

Offers poured in from the business world as well. Pepsi offered to pay Gore to endorse Coke in the next Super Bowl. Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant and Martha Stewart asked him to endorse their prosecutors. CBS asked him to endorse Michael Powell. Dave Letterman asked him to become a regular guest of Jay Leno.

Was Gore right in saying who stooped to betraying?·

I'm Gore, who believes I'm behooved
by speeches I'm giving to prove
the anger of Dean
is wimpy and lean
compared to the hate I exude.

Attacking George Dubya, I say:
"'Twas not just from wisdom he strayed.
I'm raising my voice
alleging his choice
was he would our country betray."

Hey, Al, as the Joe who was nearer
to you when your thinking was clearer,
I sadly must say
to see who betrays
just look at yourself in the mirror.

Joe Lieberman expressed sadness that Gore had endorsed Dean. According to PoliSat.Com's highly reliable, anonymous sources, Lieberman told his closest aides, "Gore owed it to me to help me win the nomination, so why didn't he endorse all the candidates (other than me, of course)? If he had done so, I'd be soaring to victory by now." Bill Clinton, always eager to express an opinion on issues of great political import, confidentially told the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the National Enquirer and several other papers of record, "Gore's getting a bum rap. He was the key to my success in avoiding impeachment because a majority of Senators was unwilling to take the heat from their constituents for casting a vote that would make Gore the President."

··

Feb. 9, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040209-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

Critics express dissatisfaction with George Bush's answers to Tim Russert on Meet the Press about war in Iraq, intelligence and weapons of mass destruction.·

Many who vehemently disagree with Bush's decision to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom do so not on the merits but on the basis of conspiratorial notions (like those on the Far Right who view the world as putty in the hands of the Trilateral Commission). Such critics, who equate Bush with Hitler and equate Operation Iraqi Freedom with Hitler's invasion of Poland and/or contend Bush launched the invasion to secure profits for his financial supporters and/or contend Bush knew in advance about the terrorists' plans for 9-11 but chose to do nothing in order to galvanize public support for a war on Iraq and/or that Bush's real motive was to "get even" with Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate his father, are too ideologically blind to respond to any form of persuasion or logic. They're too intoxicated by drinking the intellectual kool-aid of the Michael Moore cult.

Should've, Would've, Could've or ShoudaWouldaCoulda.·

In contrast, many who vehemently disagree solely on the merits with Bush's decision to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom without being blinded by ideology and/or loathing for Bush, are guilty of no greater error than having succumbed to the ShouldaWouldaCoulda syndrome. Their narrow focus on flaws, errors, and misjudgments in the implementation of Operation Iraqi Freedom impairs a broader view and leads them to ignore, or repress, the need for critical analysis of what they tacitly assume could have been or would have been the results if Bush were to have declined to topple Saddam Hussein. All of us (including, of course, yours truly) commit this kind of flawed analysis on issues with reference to which our emotions and/or political preferences tend to cloud our judgment.

A number of events since commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom have distorted the thinking of many, if not most, fair-minded critics-- e.g,

    (a) that we are not universally perceived by Iraqis as "liberators" (even though numerous polls and anecdotal evidence from our military personnel and many visitors-- including a number of former skeptics-- have overwhelmingly shown that all but a small minority of Iraqis genuinely appreciate our having toppled Saddam);
    (b) that we have not yet found (and that David Kay predicts we will not find) stockpiles of chemical and/or biological weapons (even though David Kay explicitly and emphatically testified that other evidence we have found made it clear to him that Iraq was "more dangerous" than we had thought);
    (c) that nations with sizeable military capabilities outside our Coalition are still refusing to provide military support for our effort to eliminate the forces of destabilization in Iraq; and
   (d) that many nations outside the Coalition view Operation Iraqi Freedom as illegal aggression.

This is an illustrative, not exhaustive, list. Another factor is the costs. Even though analysis of the costs of maintaining a force sufficient to coerce "compliance" with sanctions and to "deter" aggression has shown that such costs (in dollars) would equal or exceed the short-term and long-term costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom, to focus on the dollar costs alone would be inimical to our values of life and liberty. The only point of raising this is to explain why I'm not bothering to refute the specious claims by critics that the war is costing us more in dollars than would have the alternative.

Much of the fair-minded critics' flawed analysis stems from their comparison of what "is" with what they think "ought" to be the current circumstances. Rarely does a worthy endeavor involving great complexity and high risks for unforeseen, as well as foreseen, dangers attain the degree of success as fully or as quickly as expected, predicted or hoped. Although it is certainly legitimate to compare shortcomings with expected results, such analysis is meaningless (other than as a basis for remediation of such shortcomings) as grounds for critical analysis of the wisdom of the goal itself unless such analysis is coupled with, or at least tempered by, a realistic assessment of what would have, or could have, been the results of having failed to pursue such goal.

Just as wisdom means getting the right answers, the beginning of wisdom requires asking the right questions. This is why many fair-minded critics are failing to reach the right answers-- i.e., they're failing to ask the right questions and instead are merely manifesting what I call the Shoulda/Coulda/Woulda Syndrome. Here are some of the questions unasked (and, hence, unanswered) by the Shouda/Coulda/Woulda critics: Assume, arguendo:

    (i) that the reason our Survey Team hasn't found stockpiles of chemical/biological weapons is that the Iraqis had destroyed them when they claimed to have done so (but without having sought supervision of such process by UN inspectors for purposes of verification and without having otherwise preserved any credible evidence of the date, time, place and process for doing so in order to minimize, rather than maximize, the believability of they claims of having done so);
    (ii) that even though Hussein had preserved the plans, means and resources to resume production to stockpile strategic (or merely tactical) quantities of such weapons, he had in fact refrained from resuming any such production;
    (iii) that Hussein had not tried to reconstitute his nuclear program or acquire weapons-grade radioactive material;
    (iv) that Blix would have been able to detect and destroy all plans, facilities and production activity for missiles with ranges exceeding the limits prescribed by UN resolutions;
    (v) that North Korea would have indefinitely postponed performance of its covert contractual obligation to furnish to Hussein a number of missiles with ranges and payload capabilities far in excess of those found by Blix to have violated UN prohibitions; and
    (vi) that leaving Hussein's police state in power in Iraq certainly would not improve out ability to develop human-intelligence sources in Iraq to keep abreast of his activities.

What, then, should we have done? What could we have done? What would have the critics done? What would likely have been the results? To answer these broad questions requires asking and realistically answering a series of subsidiary questions.

    (1) How long would Hussein have "cooperated" (these quotation marks connote sarcasm) with Blix without the U.S. continuing to maintain the 225,000 military strong force (plus carriers, submarines, destroyers, etc.), deployment of which was the only factor that persuaded him to "comply" with the Fall, 2002, UN resolution demanding that he readmit the inspectors? If your answer is "not long," proceed to the next question. (If your answer is "as long as the UN were to insist," your time might be more productively spent accepting an offer for the sale of the Brooklyn Bridge than in completing this analysis.)
    (2) How long would the UN have permitted Blix to complete his investigation? Since we're assuming Saddam destroyed the stockpiles and had not yet reconstituted his nuclear program, the longer his investigation would have proceeded without bearing the fruit of such discoveries, the greater would have become the pressure for the UN to repeal the sanctions. If your answer is "a few months," then go to question (6A), but if your answer is "a few years," go to question (6B).
    (3) During whatever may have been the duration of such "inspections," would the continuing presence of our massive military deployment in the Gulf region have increased or decreased the resentments and hatreds that substantially motivated the 9-11 terrorists to attack us? (If, like Howard Dean, you don't attribute much significance to what Usama bin Laden and his cohorts have said about what they did on 9-11 and why they did it, don't bother completing these questions-- instead, take two aspirins and resume watching MTV.) If your answer is that continuing such presence would have intensified such hatreds and motivations (as well as further fueling the propaganda that our enforcement of sanctions was killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi babies), go to question (4).
    (4) During such continuing presence, would Saddam Hussein have had incentives to covertly collaborate with terrorist fanatics (even those who were his natural enemies just as Hitler and Stalin collaborated with each other against the West before the outbreak of World War II) sharing Hussein's desire to force us to withdraw our coercive military presence? (If, like Howard Dean, you would not attribute much significance to Usama bin Laden's often stated reliance upon what he perceived as the lesson of Somalia-- i.e., that inflicting horrendous casualties on Americans makes them want to withdraw from places of potential conflict-- why are you still taking this test instead of watching MTV?) If you remember the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the U.S.S. Cole, the U.S. Embassies in Africa, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and Hussein's attempt to assassinate a former President of the United States, go to question (5).
    (5) During such continuing presence of our coercive military force in the Gulf region, would Saddam's police state have attempted to covertly aid terrorist groups desiring to inflict massive casualties on our military forces if he were to delude himself into believing he could keep his fingerprints off the mission?   If you answer is "no," then you must surely be one who would likewise believe that even if we were to have discovered the "dots" on Moussaoui's hard-drive, we shouldn't have made a worst-case assumption about what pictures could be drawn by various ways of connecting them, and, of course, would have objected to the FBI violating pre-Patriot-Act law by "sharing" analysis of those dots with the CIA. If, instead, your answer is "yes," then you have embraced at least one of the principles articulated by Bush-- i.e., to not put our fate in having faith in the good sense and judgment of Saddam Hussein. Also, you have thereby demonstrated a willingness to value the lives of forces at risk by deployment to coerce compliance by Saddam at least as much as the ideologically anti-war critics claim to care about the more than 500 of our military personnel killed since commencement of the war. (A well-placed anti-ship missile or another incident like the U.S.S. Cole or the Marine Barracks in Lebanon could have caused many hundreds, rather than dozens, of casualties.)
    (6A) Upon repeal of sanctions (and the No-Fly Zones) in the Fall of 2003, we would have faced the choices of either reducing our military presence to the comparatively token size pre-dating the Fall, 2002, deployment of a quarter-million military personnel (plus carriers, submarines, destroyers, etc.) or maintaining such presence in hopes of deterring further future aggression by Hussein after repeal of sanctions would leave him free to resume all his weapons programs, fear of which would make it difficult for the Saudis and Kuwaitis to resist extortionate demands for large portions of their revenue to enable Saddam to resume not only his weapons production but also his acquisitions of long-range, heavy-payload rockets from North Korea. What would we have done? What should we have done? What could we have done? At what risks?
    (6B) During continuation of sanctions for several more years, we would face the choices of either reducing our military presence to the comparatively token size pre-dating the Fall, 2002, deployment of a quarter-million military personnel (plus carriers, submarines, destroyers, etc.) or maintaining such presence indefinitely to coerce Hussein into continuing to "cooperate" with Blix. If you think critics would have supported a deployment of that size indefinitely, go back to watching MTV. If you think we would have been politically and/or economically forced to reduce such presence, go to question (6C).
    (6C) If you think Hussein would not have construed such reduction in forces as an opportunity for him to lessen his "cooperation" and/or covertly resume production of some of his weapons programs, then you are determined to ignore what we now know about what he was then doing-- trying to covertly obtain from North Korea the missiles with ranges and payloads dramatically greater than the excessive-range missiles found by Blix. During such years-long continuation of sanctions, would the hatreds and motivations of Islamic fanatics have increased or decreased their desires to seek collaboration with Hussein to attack us here in the U.S. or inflict massive casualties on whatever level of forces we might be maintaining in the Gulf region?
    (7) By the time of (or soon after), expiration of sanctions, what would Hussein have done (or likely do)? If you answer is that he would foreswear his goals of regional domination through terror and WMD blackmail, go back to watching MTV. If your answer is that he would work "pedal to the metal" to reconstitute his WMD programs, go to question (8).
    (8) Assume it's now sometime between 2004 and 2008. We have token military forces in the Gulf region. Our severely limited intelligence on what's really going on inside Iraq have lulled us into the false sense of security in not having uncovered incontrovertible, "smoking gun" evidence of his reconstitution of his chemical, biological and nuclear programs. Expansion of trade by Iraq without sanctions has dramatically decreased our ability to detect transactions for dual-use materials and equipment in a way to incontrovertibly negate non-military intentions for such use. This expansion of trade enables Hussein to mask large sums of Saudi and Kuwaiti oil money paid to him as extortion money and to mask his use of large amounts of such funds to covertly acquire WMB material, technology and equipment. Some unexpected "dots" fall into our lap, connection of which reveals he's ready to test a nuclear weapon (with the cooperation of North Korea) and separately test long-range, heavy-payload rockets adapted from technology obtained from North Korea. What would we do? What should we do? What could we do? What would be the risks?.

What could we do? Very Little. What would we do? We'd curse ourselves for having listened to those who persuaded us to refrain from launching Operation Iraqi Freedom. History would remember Bush as Neville Chamberlain rather than Winston Churchill. --Jim Wrenn.

P.S., For those of you who have already played the animation (or stubbornly refused to do so), here is the text it illustrates:

Said Armey¹, "Those left and right beings
diverge on believing and seeing:
The right has to see
before it believes;
The left thinks believing is seeing."

For that I'm defining a corollary
to add to my word-smith hypothecary²·
explaining how "would've"
begets "should've/could've"
to second-guess choices of adversaries.

A critic equates what he "would've"
as equal to "could've" and "should've"
and views what he "wouldn't"
as "couldn't" and "shouldn't"
in stating political "should'ves."

Confronting the horror of "would'ves"
with wishes they weren't even "could'ves"
their wishes for "should'nts"
accepted as "wouldn'ts"
define what they "would've" as "could've"

Footnotes:

·¹·This is a reprise of part of an October 19, 2003, limerick describing in poetic form one of the "Axioms" in Dick Armey's book, Armey's Axioms-- i.e., that "conservatives believe it when they see it and liberals see it when they believe it." Here's an animated version of that limerick: ArmeyOfAnswers.

·²·Although "apothecary" means "pharmacist" or "pharmacy," ²·"hypothecary" is a term devised to define "half-baked" ideas.

··

Feb. 8, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040208-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).

No Update for Sunday, February 8, 2004.

··

Feb. 7, 2004 (#2): PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 02·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040207-02.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

·
Kofi Annan says Bush's reasons for war in Iraq damaged "credibility" vital for International Law.·

Recent comments by David Kay about his conclusions that he, and other intelligence experts, had been in error in believing Saddam Hussein still maintained large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons ignited a rancorous political debate over the issue of "credibility." Despite the fact that the substance of a subsequent speech by CIA Director George Tenet at Georgetown University made plain why the majority view among intelligence analysts before the war was that there was credible evidence of the continuing existence of such stockpiles and covert work in Iraq for the purposes of advancing Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, Tenet's statement that analysts had not claimed to have found an "imminent threat" led critics to imply that such statement somehow contradicted Bush's pre-war State of the Union speech explicitly stating that we could not wait for a gathering danger from Saddam Hussein remaining in power to mature into an "imminent threat."

Seeing partisan debate in the U.S. becoming increasingly rancorous over Bush's reasons for war in Iraq, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan decided to provide comic relief yesterday by lecturing the United States on the importance of "credibility" in the international arena. Annan later said the thoughts occurred to him spontaneously as he walked toward a joint outdoor press conference with Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell yesterday outside U.N. Headquarters.

In opening the press conference, Annan explained that it offered an excellent opportunity for him to present international-law arguments to buttress his criticism of Bush's reasons for war in Iraq. Resisting impulses to make undiplomatic gestures, Powell and Rice stood by politely while Annan lectured them as surrogates for Bush on the fundamentals of international law.

Poetic Pot-Shots from the Annan Cannon.·

Stressing the importance of the "predictability" element of "international law," Annan positioned himself in the seemingly mystic glow of a beam of light shining through a break in the clouds as he explained how flawed intelligence led the U.S. to damage this important element of international law by undermining the long-held expectations among nations that U.N. resolutions continue to be meaningless. Annan concluded by reminding everyone that if "wiser heads" were to have prevailed to allow Hans Blix to continue inspections rather than launching Operation Iraqi Freedom, the entire world would still be convinced that Saddam Hussein was still hiding massive quantities of chemical and biological weapons and that such perception could have been maintained indefinitely until proof were to appear in the form of chemical or biological weapons being used by terrorists leaving traces of chemical and/or biological agents bearing indisputable signatures of Iraqi laboratories. When puzzled expressions appeared on the faces of Rice and Powell, Annan decided to rephrase his lesson on international law in the more elegant language of Diplomatic Poetry:

Says Annan to Powell, You see,
if Bush had just listened to me,
by letting Hussein
in power remain,
we'd think he has dubya-M-D's.

By launching the war Dubya managed
to cause irreversible damage
to Council's ability
to show credibility
for terms of appeasement we manage.

And therefore, the future would hold
the proof of the risks you foretold
as terror attacks
with weapons you'd track
as bought from Saddam Hussein's holds.

After Annan performed three encores in response to wild applause by reporters from the BBC and other European news media, Rice and Powell responded in their own poetic manner:

Your comments oblige us to say
to claims that we should've delayed
the war 'til Saddam
had readied a bomb
covertly for terror, "No way!"

Quite frankly we lack the agility
to seek absolute credibility
for safety to bet
when imminent threat
matures from a dang'rous ability.

Hearing no applause from the media in response to the Rice/Powell duet, Annan reprised his poetic lesson several more times to thunderous applause. When Annan finally quit from exhaustion, the BBC and European reporters rushed to report to their editors the wisdom, brilliance and insightfulness of Annan's impromptu lesson on International Law.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

··

Feb. 7, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040207-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

·
Bush Robbs Democrats of credibility in calling Bush's bi-partisan Commission to review pre-war intelligence a tool of the White House.·

By naming former-Senator/ex-Virginia-Governor Chuck Robb as one of the two co-chairmen of a Presidential Commission to review pre-war intelligence about Iraq, President Bush "Robbs" the Democrats of credibility in trying to characterize the Commission as a "tool" of the Bush Administration. Robb, like Kerry, served with gallantry in the Vietnam War-- the political crucible upon which the Democratic Party (but not Robb) began cannibalizing traditional bipartisanship in foreign policy by: (a) repudiating (while pretending to embrace) the high-minded, pro-liberty, anti-tyranny foreign policy so eloquently articulated by John Kennedy (JFK) in his inaugural address and (b) politically recasting as a "Republican" war the war begun, but waged unsuccessfully, by a Democratic president before being ended by the Republican president whom John Kerry now tries to demonize as though he were the author of that war.

With respect to foreign policy, Robb, who supported the 1991 resolution for the first Gulf War as a U.S. Senator, generally allied himself with leaders (e.g., Scoop Jackson, Sam Nunn) of the remnants of the rapidly diminishing wing of the Democratic Party still loyal to the pre-cannibalization era of bipartisan foreign policy exemplifying the pro-liberty/anti-tyrany principles in JFK's inaugural address. Although Robb, like most Senators in both parties, often put party interests ahead of national interests on domestic issues, he avoided doing so on foreign policy issues.

The co-chairman, retired Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorney General in the Nixon and Ford administrations, has a reputation as a smart, hard-nosed realist. Other members include Lloyd Cutler, who served as White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton; Judge Patricia Wald, a former chief judge for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia who also served as a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; Yale University President Richard Levin; former Deputy CIA Director Adm. William O. Studeman, and last, but the least-least of them all, John McCain. Washington Post reporter Mike Allen says Bush planned to name nine members but decided to name two more later to serve with the seven already named. (One suspects he's holding two aces in the hole in case criticism of the panel's composition were to appear to be gaining traction.) The New York Times, famed for its recent tour de force in "investigative prowess" and "objective analysis," dismissively characterized these seven people as lacking sufficient "stature" to give their ultimate report "credibility." Perhaps the Times should suggest Howell Raines to fill one of the two remaining slots.

Critics of Bush immediately criticized him not only for failing to allow the Democratic leaders inthe House and Senate to name members to the Commission but also for setting March, 2005, as the deadline rather than a date well before the November 2004 election. Apparently, for an investigation of whether our intelligence community reached conclusions too soon, they would prefer that the Commission render a report too soon.

Although one may conclude that appointment of this Commission was politically necessary, it's difficult to understand how adding another investigation on top of several already in progress can avoid draining resources from, and impair the performance of, the intelligence-analysis now in progress. One also worries that persons and/or officials in other countries who might have been on the verge of cooperating with our intelligence services may now become reluctant to do so out of fear that they may likely become exposed, and devoured, by the political cannibalism running rampant in this election year.

John Kerry and the lesser Democratic candidates react quickly to the appointments.·

Immediately after Bush's announcement of his appointment of seven members to the Presidential Commission on Pre-War Intelligence, reports sought a response from all the Democratic candidates. John Edwards criticized the panel as not representing the "two Americas" because none of the appointees was a "working person" without a "college degree." Wesley Clark said he opposed the creation of the panel but might later decide to support it. Dean said, "Aaarrgghhh!" Dennis Kucinich said, "Rather than appointing a Presidential Commission, I would establish a "Department of Commissions." John Kerry, seeking to at least superficially emulate JFK's Camelot Persona (though not his foreign policy) so fondly associated with JFK's penchant to quote great poets, provided reporters with the following poetic response:

Kerry Sobs about Robb: ·

When Bush named the members, I sobbed,
My Democrat heart doesn't throb
for whom Dubya named
for fixing of blame--
a tactic of which I've been Robbed.

Shortly after making this statement, Kerry expressed relief that he had always described the Vietnam War as "Nixon's War" than as "Johnson's War."

Pot-Shots from the Annan Cannon.·

Seeing such partisan debate in the U.S. becoming increasingly rancorous, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan decided to provide comic relief by lecturing the United States on the importance of "credibility" in the international arena. An outdoor press conference yesterday outside U.N. Headquarters afforded Annan the opportunity to present international-law arguments to buttress his point. More details about this are being transferred to the next installment of our Daily Updates.

--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

··

Feb. 6, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040206-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

News reports mischaracterize "no imminent threat" comments in CIA Director George Tenet's speech yesterday.·

Many, if not most, news reports about George Tenet's speech yesterday conveyed the false impression that Tenet's assertion that the CIA never described Saddam Hussein as an "imminent threat" had somehow contradicted what Bush had said. The opposite is true. In the pre-war State of the Union address, Bush explicitly said the threat was not yet "imminent" but that Saddam remaining in power-- especially without compliance with U.N. weapons sanctions-- constituted a gathering danger that could suddenly become "imminent" in the future. That is the clear gist of what Tenet said yesterday.

So why didn't most reporters correctly construe his speech as unequivocally supporting the standard that Bush had articulated for military action against Iraq? (I listened to the same speech and found what Tenet's speech described has having been the gist of the pre-war majority view in the intelligence community to have comprised compelling support for Operation Iraqi Freedom.) The answer is that most reporters share the same faith in the UN as an instrument of "international law" as is prevalent among so many Ivy League experts who tend to view problems such as enforcement of sanctions against Iraq and broader problems such as combating terror as law-enforcement tasks rather than overt (or covert) military tasks to defend modern civilization from medieval barbarity.

Reports on what Tenet meant on what wasn't "imminent."·

Reports say the CIA's Tenet meant
the "threat from Saddam wasn't imminent"
as though Dubya's words
had somehow diverged
from saying the threat wasn't "imminent."

In pre-war addresses the sentiment
expressed by the Dubya to implement
a war in Iräq
defined it to stop
the threats from maturing to "imminence."

The gist of what Tenet described
did not imply Dubya had lied
but rather supported
his view that abortive
enforcement leaves threats on the rise.

In pre-war addresses the sentiment
expressed by the Dubya was "imminence"
had not yet arrived
but war would comprise
a tool for preventing such imminence.

So why do "reports" convey sentiments
implying that Bush labeled "imminent"
the danger to stop
by war in Iräq
instead of the pathway to "imminence"?

The answer is reas'nably clear
in views such reporters hold dear--
That Dubya eschews
the Ivy League views
to wait 'til the danger is near.

Can anyone seriously doubt that a sociopathic dictator who before 9-11 attempted to assassinate Bush 41 would somehow be less likely after 9-11 to seize opportunities to covertly furnish WMD materials to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda for use against our forces and/or allies in the Middle East and/or targets within the United States? To assume he would foreswear such opportunities would be as naive as to assume that Hitler would have foresworn opportunities to covertly collaborate with enemies sharing his hatred for Jews or for Milosevic to have foresworn opportunities to covertly collaborate with enemies that shared his goals for cleansing.

Not only did Tenet's speech support the standard articulated by Bush (while conceding that some of the conclusions from analysis of twelve years of dots begging to be connected may ultimately be proved incorrect), it made clear that for the intelligence community to have embraced the dismissive views of a minority of analysts would have been to ignore the weight of the available information in favor of allowing more time for Saddam Hussein to make more progress toward becoming able to pose an imminent threat. As Rumsfeld stated so succinctly in pre-war testimony to the Senate, when the risks of underestimating the dangers are so great, and given the intrinsic inability of our intelligence services to be able to predict the precise time beyond it would be unsafe to wait, it's better to act too soon than too late. --Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.
·

··

Feb. 5, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040205-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

George Tenet's Georgetown speech on pre-war and pre-9-11 intelligence exposes contradictory nature of his critics' demands.·

Listening to George Tenet's speech at Georgetown University this morning, once could not avoid hearing the still-reverberating echoes of the post-9-11 critics screaming "why didn't they connect the dots." To anyone with rudimentary common sense, it should be apparent that the dots critics claim to have been "ignored" pre-9-11 required far more luck and educated guessing to "connect" than the twelve years' worth of overwhelmingly obvious "dots" begging for connection into conclusions about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and/or programs and/or intentions.

Tenet's speech presented a compelling argument supporting the decision to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom. As the CIA Director appointed by Clinton, Tenet is surely no partisan hack. He presented a coherent explanation of how the CIA has been spending the last seven years trying to recover from the crippling operational deficits created in part by the "peace dividend" curtailment of operational assets and missions after the end of the "cold war" and in part by political nonsense such as limitations imposed (under the Clinton Administration) at the behest of politically-correct pandering by politicians such as then-Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli of New Jersey-- e.g., barring CIA operatives from dealing with criminal/terrorist elements in their efforts to secure intelligence about criminal/terrorist elements. If this weren't so serious, it would be great material for a farce in three parts-- "Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil" about efforts to penetrate evil organizations. Such contradictions are so self-evident as to render the criticisms so transparently political as to demonstrate the folly of anyone's expectation for this election to comprise a serious examination of the long-term implications of starkly differing foreign policy strategies.

Listening to the same critics who mock the FBI for taking dismissive views of a Michigan field agent's requests to seize and search Zacarias Moussaoui's hard drive and of an Arizona agent's suspicions of young Arab men taking flying lessons now mocking the CIA/DIA/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush/Rice/Powell for not listening to the minority of intelligence analysts with dismissive views of intelligence sources comprising the twelve years of current and historical "dots" about Saddam Hussein's likely capabilities and intentions provokes a strong urge to vomit. Who, after 9-11, would deem it a common-sense view that we must allow gathering dangers to reach the point of "imminent threat" before taking effective military action to prevent the danger from maturing into a state of imminence? To hear the critics, one would think Bush has proposed, and would apply, such preventive action to demonstrably peace loving countries rather than to demonstrably rogue states (or territories not effectively governed by any state at all, such as Afghanistan was and many areas in Africa now are).

The John Kerry Split.·

These are issues on which Kerry must perform some nearly impossible intellectual gymnastics in order to satisfy his nearly-pacifist base without alienating the bulk of likely election voters seeking "gut" level confidence that a presidential candidate would not be dismissive of dots begging to be connected in the future. Can he do it or will the nearly impossible task of straddling this chasm cause a painful split? Can this Achilles Heel evade the slings and arrows of ideological passions of the left without alienating the common-sense likely voters in the middle in November? I think it unlikely barring a disaster in Iraq, against which we all (including Kerry, I'm sure) are hoping. --Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

··

Feb. 4, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040204-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

John Kerry gallops ahead on Achilles' Heels; Joe Lieberman withdraws as right man at wrong time; Clark and Edwards hang on; Dean supporters await shot at Achilles' Heel.·

John Kerry, a war hero who cut his political teeth as an anti-war protestor angering many of his fellow veterans and and spent most of his political career voting for cuts in military and intelligence programs, is galloping ahead of his competitors on Achilles' Heels. Voters (in contrast to political activists) choose for whom they'll vote for President on gut instinct more than wonk-like policy analysis. Most of the political activists participating in the Democratic primaries have made a calculated decision that electablility outweighs ideology in selecting a candidate.

Partly to reassure that group (by underscoring a gut-level appeal to likely general election voters) Kerry seeks to inoculate himself from his long anti-military,¹ anti-intelligence,² anti-Desert-Storm senatorial voting record by ritualistically (but truthfully) describing himself and those who served with him in Vietnam as a "Band of Brothers." It seems self-evident that Kerry has recognized that what propelled him ahead in Iowa was contrasting himself to Dean on the issue of electablility by emphatically and publicly rebuking Dean for saying the capture of Saddam Hussein didn't make us any safer and that Usama bin Laden should be accorded a presumption of innocence as though Dean perceived (a) capturing or killing bin Laden were a law-enforcement mission rather than warfare and (b) bin Laden's having bragged about being the mastermind behind 9-11 shouldn't matter. Those emphatic rebukes of Dean eclipsed the perception of Kerry as a waffler on Operation Iraqi Freedom, and his status as a genuine hero gave the pragmatic activists confidence he would have a strong "gut level" appeal to likely general-election voters.

John "Achilles" Kerry.·

What are the Achilles' Heels on which Kerry is galloping (and Galluping) toward the nomination? One is the left back foot of the Democratic Donkey (i.e., the ideological Left), which may find a Nader candidacy more attractive as an ideological statement rather than a purely pragmatic anti-Bush vote. Another may prove to be an invisible, but equally dangerous, Achilles Heel-- i.e., efforts by Hillary Clinton sympathizers to attempt to sabotage Kerry's chances but without leaving any fingerprints (or trying to create an appearance of pro-Bush fingerprints). It's a Machiavellian theory, but we all know that Machiavelli was "born again" in the late Twentieth Century and inhabits the collective bodies of James Carville, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. A third Achilles Heel is the risk to Kerry (but benefit to the country) if the circumstances in Iraq continue improving or other circumstances demonstrate the wisdom of Operation Iraqi Freedom in a way to prevent Kerry from eating his foreign policy cake and having it too. A fourth Achilles Heel is Kerry's illusion that he can continue having his cake and eating it too regarding the extent to which he would have made French and/or German and/or Russian and/or Chinese support a sine qua non for military action without appearing to contradict the principle upon which he rebuked Dean for implying we should not have initiated military action without the "permission" of the UN and/or the French. It's a tightrope. Will Kerry find himself riding a heel-less Donkey? It's hard to believe the Donkey won't have at least one lame heel.

What about Joe Lieberman, one of the most genuinely decent men in public life? He certainly displayed political courage in continuing to emphatically support Operation Iraqi Freedom despite equivocating at the margins about how Bush implemented the policy Lieberman supported. In light of the overwhelming rebuke Lieberman suffered from Democratic activists, one continues to wonder why he doesn't join Zell Miller and Ed Koch in supporting Bush.

Clark and Edwards continue hanging on to hopes for success while Dean hangs on with the best hope of setting records as a political "energizer bunny" (to use Dean's own terminology). Edwards seems to be counting almost exclusively on his "nice guy" image to offset the perception that there is very little "there" there. However, his likeability, despite status as one untested in executive authority, probability makes him a suitable running mate for Kerry. Clark will still be wandering down the yellow-brick rode. Perhaps in 2008, he'll show up as a third party candidate or maybe try to recast himself as a Republican. --Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.

¹·Although the denotation of "anti-military" is akin to pacificism, the political connotation of "anti-military" describes a political philosophy generally favoring limitations on, and/or reductions of, military capabilities and strongly opposing utilization of military power as an instrument of foreign policy. Kerry is obviously not literally "anti-military," but his voting record over a long period consistently fits the political connotation of being "anti-military."

²·Although the denotation of "anti-intelligence" is (as is "anti-military) akin to pacificism, the political connotation of "anti-intelligence" describes a political philosophy generally favoring limitations on, and/or reductions in, intelligence-gathering capabilities. Kerry is obviously not literally "anti-intelligence," but his voting record over a long period consistently fits the political connotation of being "anti-intelligence."

Editor's Note: For the text only version of the text accompanying the animation "John Achilles Kerry," click here if you've already viewed the animation. If you haven't already viewed the animation, why spoil it by viewing the text first?·

··

I'm Kerry, a Warrior Real.
Except for my Donkey's left heels,
I'm clearly invincible
except to a principal
unless someone's guarding my heels.

They'll think it was Paris or Hector
whose arrow flew straight on the vector
for wounds that will heal
while I stay concealed
to wait 'til oh-eight for my nectar.

My seating has caused liquefaction
of makeup for pigment diffraction,
and though I resemble
the one who dissembled,
I'm Janet, whose last name is Jackson.

Janet Jackson???

··

Feb. 3, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040203-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

Janet Jackson's "apology" for baring breast in Super Bowl Half Time Show exposes inconsistencies.·

According to a February 3, 2004, report by RTE Guide Entertainment, Janet Jackson issued the following statement with the headline "Jackson sorry for Super Bowl stunt":

Singer Janet Jackson has taken responsibility for the breast-baring incident during her performance at the halftime Super Bowl in the US. Jackson was performing a duet with Justin Timberlake when he tore a piece of her costume, revealing her right breast. In a statement Jackson said: "The decision to have a costume reveal at the end of my halftime show performance was made after final rehearsals." "MTV was completely unaware of it. It was not my intention that it go as far as it did. I apologise[sic] to anyone offended — including the audience, MTV, CBS and the NFL."

Sincere apologies merit acceptance, but transparently superficial apologies not only warrant scorn but also magnify the offense. Her "apolog[y]" demonstrates the vacuous value system by which she defines what she thinks was her transgression. She "intend[ed] to "have a costume reveal" (her grammar, not mine) at the end of the "performance" but "[i]t was not [her] intention that it go as far as it did." How shallow and insulting to the "audience" except, perhaps, those who are equally shallow and/or congenitally stupid.

If such explanation were to be true, one wonders why she wore a star-shaped pastie with a hole in the middle to display her nipple surrounded by the small, glittering, star-shaped pastie. Ostensibly, she would have deemed it acceptable if her breast were to have been merely partially exposed by a grand-finale grope by Timberlake as though a sexual grope that only partially exposed her breast would render the act suitable fare for her target audience of youngsters permitted to watch the Super Bowl by parents with such "backward" values as to actually expect the Super Bowl Half Time show to not try to educate their children on the niceties of a man groping a woman's breast.

Janet Jackson now sings, "I'm Sorry, Soooo Sorry"
-- She right-- She's one of the sorriest seen in recent years.·

Says Janet, "I'm sorry my pose
let all of my breast be exposed.
We'd tastefully planned
for Timberlake's hand
to hold it so less of it showed.

If how we'd have ended the show
transpired in the way we had hoped,
by nipple half-seen
the kids would've seen
how breasts by a man should be groped.

You ought to admit, to be fair,
we showed that a girl must take care
when guys are around,
precautions are sound--
so pasties they always should wear.

Not being a terminally stupid parent, I don't buy her transparently superficial "apology." It seems beyond reasonable doubt that the finale went exactly according to her plan. Her, and Timberlake's, behavior as well as her "apology" made it abundantly clear to all but the terminally stupid that she and he were willing to take the heat and issue an "apology" in exchange for what they expect to be astronomical music sales to a target audience including in no small part teens and pre-teens as well as dim-witted adults.

Get ready for the left side of the entire entertainment industry to come to her defense by characterizing her critics as unenlightened, intolerant fanatics who just can't wait to burn every book in sight. The adolescent narcissism of the Entertainment Left is getting harder and harder to take. Where are the voices of modern-day Jimmy Stewarts? If you listen carefully you can hear them-- they're called "The Sounds of Silence."

··

Feb. 2, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040202-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

Janet Jackson's Super Bowl Half-Time breast-exposing exhibitionism earns condemnation.·

Super Bowl XXXVIIIs

I'm Janet, the Jackson, who's straight.
For Super Bowl Game XXXVIII
my Half Time Revue
gave children a view
revealing my bare XXXVIII's.

I must say I'm shocked and surprised
that parents complained to The Eye
to say they detest
my baring my breast
at Half Time for boys' and girls' eyes.

I'm simply an atrist who grooves
on showing your children my boobs
without feeling shame,
and if you complain,
you're Fascist, tyrannical goons.

Entertainment as an art, is in the eye of the beholder, but message is in the mind of the entertainer. Artists, as do most of the rest of us, often want our work to perceived as important to others rather than merely self-serving. Entertainers who aspire to be artists more than entertainers often crave recognition as being societal "educators." Their goal is to ingratiate themselves to a favored audience by shocking and/or offending a larger audience whose values they (and, they hope, their targeted audience) deem pedestrian. When they incur the wrath of the larger audience, they celebrate having ingratiated themselves to the target audience while feigning offense at what they deem the pedestrian values of those offended.

When only adults comprise an entertainer's target audience, our allegiance to free speech motivates those of us comprising the larger audience to expect, and tolerate, a wider scope of expression than when we perceive minors as a significant part of the target audience. Although evolution has produced small percentage of adults who, as statistical deviations from the norm, perceive pedophilia as a "norm," the rest of us perceive such behavior to be socially dangerous, morally repugnant and criminally offensive. Similarly, a vast majority of we who are parents consider premature sexual activity to be morally irresponsible and, in the age of AIDS, STD's, etc., to also be dangerous. Therefore, we, who are parents trying to strongly discourage such moral irresponsibility in our children are rightly offended when entertainers knowingly target our children as part of an audience to convey a message incompatible with the message of moral responsibility we're trying to convey to our children.

We don't expect (and don't want) public discourse on important social, political and moral issues to be limited to topics suitable for children of all ages, but with respect to events promoted as having entertainment value for the entire community (i.e., children as well as adults), we rightly have a different set of expectations. We don't expect such entertainment to demean, trivialize or offend the important moral values we're struggling to instill in our children.

Nudity is not inherently offensive. For example, not even young children are harmed by views of works of sculptors depicting the beauty of the human form. Few, if any, parents would be offended by their children viewing Michelangelo's David or the Spirit of Justice statue at the Department of Justice. In contrast, however, most, if not all parents, would be offended by their children being exposed to a display of such statues in a manner suggesting or promoting sexual activity or foreplay occurring between them because such display would intrude into the moral domain of the parent/child relationship.

The NFL, CBS, and to a lesser degree the morally irresponsible¹ MTV subsidiary of CBS's owner, ViaCom, promoted the Super Bowl (and half-time) as entertainment targeting a broad audience including children. The pre-Super-Bowl decision (in response to public criticisms) to limit to pay-for-view the "lingerie football" feature initially promoted as being planned as part of the half-time broadcast further reinforced expectations that the broadcast version of the half-time show would be suitable for such broad audience.

To have displayed the Spirit of Justice statue in a half-time show in which it would have been relevant to the performance would have been harmless, but just as displaying the same statue in a manner to suggest sexual foreplay between that statue and its male counterpart (also at the Department of Justice) would have irresponsibly intruded into the parent/child moral domains of the broader audience, Janet Jackson's exhibitionist exposure of her breast during a song suggesting sexual foreplay (and more) was both offensive and morally irresponsible in my opinion. With respect to the difficult struggle parents face in trying to provide moral structure for their children, Jackson may be "proud" to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

I, for one, will to my best to henceforth minimize the risk that the fruits of my labor become part of her, or MTV's, assets. Likewise, it would be suitable for adults in the broader to convey to the NFL in unequivocal terms that if such event were to occur in a Super Bowl half-time in the future, such parents would maximize their efforts to minimize the fruits of their labor ending up in the pockets of the NFL and sponsors of such Super Bowl event. It's called free speech and the liberty to expend one's own property in accordance with one's own preferences and to decline to subsidize "entertainment" that irresponsibly intrudes into the moral domain of the parent/child relationship. --Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.

¹·When my children were young, I actually paid the cable company to block the MTV transmission because I perceived that too much of the "entertainment" on MTV irresponsibly intruded into the moral domain the parent/child relationship in our family. It didn't make me popular with my children at the time, but now that they've grown into such superb adults, my wife and I know (and I think our children know) we were right to have done so.

··

Feb. 1, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040201-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

No installment for Feb. 1, 2004 (Super Bowl Sunday).

For the Daily Update immediately preceding the one above, click here.

·

.