·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, ·
Archives-- Installments for
January 1, 2005, through January 10, 2005, starting below in reverse chronological order.
Jan.
10, 2005 #01.
For
CBS News, Les Moonves says Thornburg report is "No White-Wash" for Dan Rather's
Memogate-RatherGate; Eye-Wash removes Mary Mapes and three other blemishes from SeeBS Eye.
Today, CBS News released the much-awaited "report" on the broadcast of forged documents by
CBS News, 60 Minutes II, and Dan Rather alleging a number of instances of serious misconduct
by, and on behalf of, George W. Bush in the course of his service in the Air National Guard.
As expected, neither the Report nor CBS makes any attempt to explain why CBS News, 60 Minutes
and Dan Rather utterly lacked interest in the widely-known, undisputed fact that John Kerry had
refused to sign the same kind of authorization signed by Bush to permit and require the military to
release all of his medical records. Can you say "partisanship"? How many times
did CBS describe an un-named critic of Kerry associated with organizations that preferred Bush over
Kerry as an "unimpeachable [but anonymous] source" in "reporting" assertions of
self-evident flaws or contradictions in Kerry's record? Can you say "never"?
How many pro-Bush sources did they discount or ignore as "partisan" in proceeding
full-steam ahead with the 60-Minutes hatchet job claiming Bush was AWOL from his Air National Guard
duties and received unwarranted and unusual "favorable" treatment? Can you say
"every time"? Was this the first time that Rather presented his partisan views
and/or suspicions as "news"? Of course not-- Just
ask Judge Cudahy.
CBS fired Mary Mapes, producer of the report aired Sept. 8 on "60 Minutes Wednesday"; Josh Howard, executive producer of the show; his top deputy Mary Murphy; and senior vice president Betsy West.
Moonves had appointed former Republican Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and Louis D. Boccardi, retired president and chief executive officer of The Associated Press, to investigate what went wrong. The panel said Mapes had misled her superiors about the documents and the background of her source, retired Texas National Guard Lt. Col. Bill
Burkett, who furnished fraudulent documents purporting to be those of the
late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian purporting to accuse Bush of disobeying orders and being AWOL in the
final year of his Air National Guard service. In firing Mapes, Howard, Murphy, and West, they
washed four specks from the SeeBS Eye leaving a Rather large beam still in the Eye.
How many times did the dominant media express outrage at what they described as the
"partisanship" of Sinclair Broadcasting's proposal to present an film critical of John
Kerry to be followed by equal time for John Kerry? How many times did the dominant media even
bother to characterize as "partisanship" the dogged efforts by Dan Rather and CBS News to
cling to claims of "truth" in its hatchet-job on Bush long after everyone else on the
planet had recognized the story to have been fraudulent? Can you say "none"?
Remember how often and stridently the dominant-media
pot called the Sinclair kettle "black"?
How many times did the dominant media attempt to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans opposed to
Kerry? Can you say "at least dozens"? How many times did the dominant media
conduct a 60-Minutes-like "exposé" of why and how Kerry was able to successfully
repress dissemination of his own 70's-era, anti-military book? Can you say
"none"? How many times did the dominant media publish show pictures of Bush in the
Air National Guard while reporting "questions" about his service? Can you say
"dozens"? How many times did the dominant media show pictures of the front-cover of
Kerry's 1970's book with hippies raising the American flag upside-down in a manner to mock the Iwo
Jima Memorial? Can you say "none"? How many times did the media suggest that
Bush and/or an underling at the Pentagon wasn't really trying to release "all" the
documents pertaining to his Air National Guard Service? Can you say "at least
dozens"? How many times did the media suggest that the reason John Kerry had failed to
sign the same kind of records-release authorization signed by Bush was because Kerry had
"something to hide"? Can you say "none"?
How many times did Nightline attempt to set-up John Kerry or Douglas Brinkley to appear on Nightline
following interviews with Viet Cong survivors contradicting key elements of Kerry's version of the
incident according to Kerry's official biographer, Douglas Brinkley? Can you say
"none"? How many times did Nightline attempt to set-up John O'Neill to appear
on Nightline following interviews with Viet Cong survivors purporting to
"contradict" John O'Neill's accurate quotation of Kerry's version of the disputed incident
according to Kerry's official biographer, Douglas Brinkley? Can you say, "Nightline
did that on October 15, 2004"?
Tsunami Theology as Wrath of God-- Fundamentalist Clerics Ride Tsunami Wave onto Shoals of Medievalism.
Given the abundant evidence of the medieval mentality of so many fanatically fundamentalist Muslim
clerics, it's certainly not a shock that many of them have crafted "wrath of God"
explanations for the December 26, 2004, earthquake that caused the Tsunami, which, if there were to
have been in place a Tsunami warning system comparable to the one in the Pacific, would have caused
a tiny fraction of the casualties (although just as much damage to property and ecology).
However, it is a shock when ostensibly modern thinkers such as Joe Scarborough give a
platform to ostensibly modern Christians expressing comparable "wrath of God" explanations
for a disaster so easily understood (though certainly not easily predictable) by anyone with a
modicum of scientific knowledge.
At a time when modernity is engaged in mortal combat with medievalism, backsliding into pre-modern
thinking is both foolish and dangerous. Each group begins competing for the prize in devising
the most "plausible" theory about what group of people's behavior was so offensive that a
Creator would manipulate a natural disaster to slaughter the innocent in order to punish the
guilty. One would expect the Creator would have "smarter" smart-bombs than modern
technology has developed and thus have not only the power, but also the moral inclination, to do a
better job at distinguishing between the "sinner" and the "righteous" than
smart-bombs distinguish between military targets and innocent civilians.
I'm confident that the vast majority of modern Christians (and probably a majority of Muslims) don't
subscribe to such medievalist "theology," which is why I found it so bewildering that
Scarborough has twice devoted part of his program to serious consideration of such
"theology." One can understand how pre-modern people struggling to interpret aspects
of phenomena beyond their comprehension tended to construct theological explanations. One can
also understand how modern people embrace theological explanations for the Cosmos as a whole given
the fact that science cannot yet (and may never) provide a definitive explanation. However,
one has difficulty understanding why modern people would continue attempting to construct
theological explanations for phenomena that science does understand.
It reminds me of the off-hand comments about 9-11 initially made by Jerry Falwell implying a
"wrath of God" theory. Not only has Pat Robertson has made comparable comments, but
several years ago he credited "prayer" for sparing Virginia Beach the effects of a
devastating hurricane-- ostensibly, the Creator is a Virginian but wasn't too fond of New Jersey,
where the hurricane wreaked havoc after turning away from Virginia Beach. I'm all for
religious tolerance but not for equating medieval theology with modern theology. Such
"wrath of God" explanations for natural disasters are as offensive as the Secular
Fundamentalists' intolerance towards modern theology. Although I'm a non-theist, I've often
defended the exercise and expression of religious faith against intolerant, bigoted attacks by
Secular Fundamentalists. However, in a society that values freedom of expression and religion,
for adherents to modern theology (as well as ecumenically-minded non-theists) to remain silent in
the face of such medieval theology would be to act as enablers.
Jan.
07, 2005: Special Commentary: Exit Poll Fiascos in Election 2000 & 2004-- Part I of
an VIII Part Series.
by
Col. John H. Wambough, Jr., USAF (Ret.). Go
here.
Jan.
06, 2005 #01-- No update today-- Editor working on special project unrelated to political
satire/commentary.
Jan. 05,
2005 #01-- No updat today-- Editor working on special project unrelated to political
satire/commentary.
Jan.
04, 2005 #01:
Political
Pedagogy: Christine Todd Whitman slams George W. Bush; Coalition of the Charitable for Tsunami Aid
eclipses U.N.; Political Balance: George Bush 41, Bill Clinton 42 and George Bush 43.
Most, if not all, of those who are farthest to the right of center would abolish the Department of
Education, repeal Medicare (rather than merely refuse to expand it to include prescriptions), ban
civil unions (rather than merely preserving constitutionally legitimate distinctions between such
unions and marriage), ban abortion even in cases of rape, incest or serious risk to the health of
the mother, and seek overt governmental support, rather than constitutionally legitimate respect,
for their religious doctrines. George W. Bush has expanded the Department of Education,
increased its funding, expanded Medicare to include prescriptions, expressed tacit support for civil unions while
advocating preservation of constitutionally legitimate distinctions between them and marriage,
recognized that serious, moral people perceive absolutist positions on abortion to be not only
constitutionally unsound but also morally offensive, and recognized that most religious
Americans want the government to respect, but not embrace, their religious doctrines.
So why would Christine Todd Whitman author and
publish (on the eve of Bush's second inauguration) a book tacitly, if not overtly, attempting to
classify Bush as an extremist rather than as a common-sense centrist? Can you say
"2008"? On Sunday's Meet the Press, William Safire predicted a
"McCain/Rice" Republican ticket in 2008, but Whitman ostensibly would prefer at least
"McCain/Whitman" if not "Whitman/McCain." Whitman's strategy, ostensibly designed to attract "centrists" from the Democratic Party,
is likely to offend more Republican centrists than the number of Democratic and independent
centrists it's likely to attract. The way to attract centrists is to repudiate extremists
rather than trying to mischaracterize centrists as though they are extremists. Whitman's effort to portray right-centrists
views as "extreme" will redound to her detriment rather than benefit. Even though
she is, without doubt, a decent and honorable person, her ostensible strategy smacks of the same
kind of self-congratulatory conceit that changed the JFK/Scoop-Jackson Democratic Party into the
Incredible Shrinking Democratic Party.
Whitman's
Political Pedagogy.
I'm
Christie Todd Whitman to push
my book which I wrote to bash Bush
for causing me fright
with shifts to the right,
against which I'll pull 'stead of push.
Dubya's
Political Pedagogy.
Christine,
you're a well-meaning lady,
however, your theories are shaky.
With feet right and left
my balance is deft
for centrist positions I'm taking.
Pat
Robertson's Prayer.
I'm
praying and pulling for Bush
to shift further rightward and push
a doctrine that's pure
enough that it cures
what ails "ecumenical" Bush.
Dubya's
Answer to Prayer.
Though
often on Faith I opine,
my views aren't doctrinally blind
because I beware
the people who dare
to "speak for" the God of Mankind.
Annan's
Canons as Cannon.
I'm
Annan, whose name rhymes with "canons,"
but please don't confuse them with "cannon."
I'm trying to pull
the Dubya t'ward full
reliance on canons of Annan.
Dubya's
Cannon for Canons.
I
say to my friend, Kofi Annan,
you're right to contend without canons
that might isn't "right,"
but right requires might
of cannon to canonize canons.
Remind
you, I must, Kofi Annan
how empty to be proved your canons
when oil sold for food
was used to extrude
the funds for Saddam Hussein's cannon.
Indeed,
since extremes I eschew
I'm able to balance anew
from opposite pasts
a team that I've cast
and dubbed "41, 42."
My
team, "41, 42"
will serve my endeavor to prove
disaster relief
is best when bequeathed
without Kofi Annan's review.
The sensible centers of both parties want their parties
to eschew political extremes. But Bush does not represent the extreme wing of the Republican
Party. By deeds rather than merely words, he has already rejected political extremes. In
contrast, the national Democratic Party embraced, rather than repudiating, its Michael Moore wing,
fuselage, tail assembly, and landing gear. Meanwhile, the far right is trying to portray
Bush as a closet leftist while the far left tries to portray him as a closet fascist. In the
strange-bedfellows department, both the internationalist left and paleo-conservatives portray him as
an imperialist. More strange bedfellows: Some
neo-cons are going wobbly in the knees by joining the chorus of the left in demanding Rumsfeld's
resignation.
The end of the 2004 Election marked the beginning of the battles for the hearts and souls of both
the Republican and Democratic parties. Both parties will split between now and 2008, which
will feature at least twosizeable "third party" movements-- the far
left and the far right. Bush cannot and will not satisfy the far right, and the centrist
fragments of the Democratic party will not and cannot satisfy the far left. The far left and
far right can never join "for" anything but will present a powerful force
"against" the center. "Moderate" may be a "dirty word," but any party or movement that perceives
"centrist" (i.e., non-extremist) to be a "dirty word" is doomed to
minority-party (if not fringe-party) status. Centrism-- i.e., left-of-center centrism
("left-centrism") and right-of-center centrism ("right-centrism")-- can, and
should, dominate the American political landscape. The country may flirt with multi-party
coalitionism but will ultimately re-embrace bi-polar political competition between left-centrists
and right-centrists.
Yesterday, President Bush yet again demonstrated his ecumenical centrism by appointing his father,
George Herbert Walker Bush, and Bill Clinton as a team, whom he dubbed "Bush 41 and Clinton
42," to join him on the national and international stage in marshalling and inspiring suitable charitable
responses and disaster relief for the victims of Tsunami Catastrophe on December 26, 2004. Yet
again Bush's visionary centrism casts light revealing the smallness of the shadows cast by
ideologically petty efforts to mischaracterize his centrism as extremism. The pro-U.N. crowd
is frustrated that Bush is arranging a Coalition of the Charitable (rather than genuflecting to the
U.N.) to provide relief to victims of the Tsunami Catastrophe. How ironic that he persuaded
Bubba to join in such effort.
Political
Pedagogy: Christine Todd Whitman slams George W. Bush; Coalition of the Charitable for Tsunami Aid
eclipses U.N.; Political Balance: George Bush 41, Bill Clinton 42 and George Bush 43.
