It feels strange, at this point in my life, to find myself biting my tongue. And yet there it is. It’s not as if I feel overtly threatened. My e-mail might be screened, and my telephone calls monitored, and my bank transactions scanned, and my medical records accessed, but nobody is likely to come looking for me (since I’m neither Muslim nor of Arab descent). I don’t work in the media (like Bill Maher or Phil Donohue), so I probably won’t be fired. I’m not an entertainer (like the Dixie Chicks), so I probably won’t be boycotted and shunned. I’m not in politics, so I won’t be derided (like Howard Dean) or abused by Ann Coulter and a host of right wing hatemongers.
No, it’s just that I’m aware of a mood, a climate, a state of mind, that labels my contrarian opinions as unpatriotic. Even unspeakable. If I want to remain an ordinary Joe in good standing, I can hide these ideas like Anne Frank’s family in the attic of my mind, but it would be dangerous for them to show themselves on the street.
Grant the Bush administration this: They’ve been great at mind control. If facts and logic indicate the administration has lied about one thing or another—say Iraq, to take an obvious example—, you may, like me, find yourself hesitating to say so at work, or at church, or over the backyard fence.
So, like a patient in group therapy, struggling to make his way to health, I have a need to say the unspeakable, and to say it with the forcefulness I actually feel. Here are seven true things about Iraq it’s not okay to think, let alone speak:
1) The war in Iraq isn’t a noble cause; it’s a naked crime. The war was never about spreading democracy; it has always been about controlling oil supplies—or, more accurately, about ensuring U.S. global dominance by controlling the Persian Gulf. It’s the fulfillment of a plan for imperial expansion originally hatched by Henry Kissinger more than thirty years ago.
Kissinger’s scheme was revived by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992 in a policy proposal titled “Defense Policy Guidance,” and then again by the Project for the New American Century (a right wing think tank which has included Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, and John Bolton, among others) in a 2000 report called “Rebuilding American Defenses.”
With George W. Bush’s rise to the presidency, those men became his military and foreign policy team. When the attack came on September 11, they finally had both the clout and the chance to fulfill their dream.
Connecting the dots is child’s play: The Bush officials I’ve named laid out specific plans for the Persian Gulf—which anyone can read if they wish—and now they are carrying them out. People who can’t see the dots because they are blinded by stars and stripes are the kind of Americans the Bush people count on— good-hearted, God-fearing, and gullible.
The war was illegal and immoral from its conception, the neoconservatives’ bastard baby, birthed with a campaign of lies, swaddled with American flags, and laid in a TV tube. We invaded and occupied a country that had neither the intent nor the means to harm us. The war is hardly a legitimate source of American pride. Guilt, shame, and remorse are more appropriate emotions. But those seem as scarce as Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs).
2) The inspections were working perfectly; that’s why they had to be stopped. U.N. inspectors weren’t finding any WMDs because there were none to be found. There was a danger that they might actually complete their work and conclude that Iraq had no WMDs, blowing the cover for our planned assault. That would never do, so the U.S. gave them a deadline to leave the country.
This whole run-up to the war was marked by clumsy lies and a compliant American media. Administration officials (including Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell in his obscene performance at the U.N.) claimed that we knew what weapons of mass destruction Iraq had, in what amounts, and where they were located. If all of that were true, the simplest course would have been to share some of that “intelligence” with the weapons inspectors. What kind of media fails to ask such an obvious question as “Why don’t you tell the inspectors where they are?”
The media failed to remark on an even bigger lie, this one mouthed by both President Bush and Senator Pat Roberts: that Saddam Hussein wouldn’t let the inspectors in. When the inspectors were in and running all over Iraq! The inspectors weren’t forced out by Saddam Hussein; they were run out by the U.S. so the bombing campaign could begin. What kind of media lets something so big go unremarked, and literally lets the administration get away with murder?
3) Our early whirlwind “victory” was a mirage in the desert. The race to Baghdad encountered minimal opposition. U.S. forces seemed to be a juggernaut as they raced to secure oil fields and the Interior Ministry. The oil was the goal; the Interior Ministry would provide Saddam Hussein’s spy files, which could then be used to manipulate and blackmail figures in the new government. Grabbing those files would also prevent details of U.S. support for Saddam from falling into the wrong hands.
The problem? The token opposition was part of Iraqi strategy. Most Iraqi soldiers simply took off their uniforms, hid their weapons, and melted into the landscape, to begin a well-organized resistance. The resistance was greatly aided by the U.S., which focused on the oil and the spy files, and ignored the rest. “The rest” included schools, museums, businesses, and office buildings, which were left to looters; water, power, and communications installations, which were likewise left to looters; and weapon depots and ammunition dumps, which were quickly emptied and supplied the firepower for the insurgents. Dumb, dumb, and dumb!
4) The war in Iraq is already lost—but not if you judge it by the administration’s real aims rather than the reasons it gives publicly for the war. If the war is to be judged by its success in combating terrorism or installing a model democracy—the current public excuses— then it’s an obvious disaster. The occupation is breeding insurgents faster than mosquitoes spawn in a stagnant pond, and Iraq has devolved into a chaotic, violent, hopelessly-divided state. Those conditions are steadily worsening.
The irony is that while the administration is losing the war in the terms it sold it to the public, it’s doing just fine in terms of its actual goals. No doubt they had hoped to succeed at both.
If you judge the war from the Cheney/Rumsfeld realpolitik, they’re within reach of most of what they aimed for. Our occupation forces, with Halliburton’s help, are racing to complete five mammoth permanent bases, which will allow us to dominate the region militarily for the foreseeable future. There’s no strong central Iraqi government to oppose us; we’ve replaced it with a federation of three weak, largely self-governing regions. The oil-rich territories are in the hands of the Shiites and our clients the Kurds; the minority Sunnis get sand and a dipstick. They’re furious, but who cares?
Mr. Bush asserted once again, in his Fourth of July speech to troops at Fort Bragg, that he’s not leaving Iraq with anything less than victory—this against a background of multiplying murders and massacres in Baghdad, as the situation continues to deteriorate. Mr. Bush isn’t actually anticipating victory; he’s just buying time until the permanent bases are completed and our colonial garrisons are in place, along with a weak and compliant Iraqi government. His refusal to accept anything other than a clear victory is, in fact, a way to set the table for an extended occupation, in the range of fifteen to twenty years.
The only victory here is of greed and arrogance over decency and common sense. This president is too small a man with too big an agenda. Thousands more will die, many thousands more will be crippled, and billions of dollars will be squandered before he struts out of office. Sooner or later, somebody else will have to call it quits and clean up his mess—at which point Mr. Bush’s backers can attack the new leader for having “lost Iraq.”
5) Handwringing over “intelligence failures” leading up to the war is a joke. Are we really supposed to take seriously all of these media pseudo-efforts to explain “how we could get it so wrong”? Do people really believe that intelligence agencies with hundreds of thousands of employees and billions of dollars in their budgets are so totally incompetent that teenage kids surfing the Internet can easily come up with better information than we used to launch the invasion of Iraq?
“We got it so wrong” because the administration demanded that we get it wrong, and intelligence agencies fell into line. It’s almost humorous to read the same explanation being trotted out by each of the countries joining in the invasion—Britain, Italy, Australia… incompetent intelligence agencies everywhere. Really, you might ask, what are we getting for our money? Why don’t we just give a couple of computer-savvy high school kids a part-time after-school job digging up facts, and use the billions of dollars we save to pay for providing health care, or feeding the hungry, or housing the homeless?
6) The “noble men and women of our armed forces” are an ordinary group of people, with the same virtues and vices as people elsewhere. Many are decent, honorable, and well-intentioned —good citizens who willingly risk their lives to defend the rest of us. The trust of those good people has been abused in the most cynical, calculated, and evil way possible.
On the other hand, some of those troops are lazy, incompetent, violent, brutal, or cruel. If you know several soldiers, you know some you would be glad to have as your sons and daughters—and some you wouldn’t trust to shovel out a chicken house if you couldn’t keep them under your eye.
Thomas Ricks, senior Pentagon correspondent for The Washington Post, said in a Fresh Air interview that one of the things he discovered and found most dismaying during hundreds of interviews with military personnel was that Abu Ghraib wasn’t a rare exception—that, in fact, abuse and mistreatment of Iraqis by American troops was widespread. What kind of blinkers do people wear to avoid seeing the atrocities in Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Samarra, Haditha, Ishaqi, Mahmoudia—the list goes on and on—for what they are: the natural corollary of a brutal occupation?
Yet ultimately, the question isn’t “What are the soldiers like?” so much as it is “What are they being used for?” An army is a tool of the state, and can be judged by the purpose for which it’s turned loose. See #1 above.
7) “Support our troops” means “support our policies.” It seems like a nice gesture: Support all those kids you know, the sons and daughters of friends and neighbors. But the unspoken part of the neocon’s message is: “or shut up.” The effect is to transform people’s worry for friends and family who are in the military into support for the invasion and occupation. How do you support troops whose love for their country is being callously exploited? Who are being deceived into dying?
Those aren’t rhetorical questions. The best support is to tell the truth. Yesterday I came across a hopeful sign: The dollar store in town isn’t stocking “Support Our Troops” ribbons anymore. Instead, they have a box of ribbons reading “Bring Our Troops Home Safely.” I’ll gladly slap one of those on my tailgate.
© Tony Russell, 2006
Monday, July 31, 2006
Monday, July 24, 2006
“You’re Not Supposed to Know”
“We’d better stop at the store,” said Patty. “We’re about out of potatoes, and Kevin wanted potato soup for supper.”
“Okay,” I said. “No problem. We’re going right by Wall-Market.”
“Do you have your driver’s license with you?” she worried.
“Sure,” I said. “It’s in my billfold, like it always is.”
“Do you have your official notarized copy of your birth certificate, your social security card, and a utility bill with our current mailing address on it?” she fussed. “You know they won’t let you shop without them.”
“Got it all,” I said. “What about you?”
She was rummaging through her purse. “Darn it, I can’t seem to find my birth certificate,” she said. “I know I had it Friday, because I had to show it when I went for my hair appointment. And I had it when I went to the post office afterwards, because the security guard who checked it when I entered was Rhonda Wilford. You remember Rhonda; she was prom queen the year after I was. We got to talking about how the gowns have changed, and then she picked up a piece of trash and wadded it all up and threw it in a wastebasket, and I remember thinking when she bent over that she sure wouldn’t fit into her gown anymore. Wastebasket! Ohmigosh! I’ll bet she threw my birth certificate away!” She let out a shriek.
“Relax, Patty,” I said. “What’s the big deal? You can just get another one.”
“Oh sure,” she said. “You talk as if it’s nothing. Remember when I lost my social security card, and they wanted to see my driver’s license and my birth certificate and my social security card before they’d issue another one? And I said, ‘If I could show you my social security card, I wouldn’t be asking you for another one.’”
“That was a real headache, wasn’t it?” I said. “You thought they’d laugh and see how absurd it was, but you ended up having to get affidavits from our bank and your boss swearing that you’d actually shown them your social security card when you opened your account and when you were hired.”
“Right,” she said grimly. “Then the bank froze our checking and savings accounts until I could produce my new card.”
“And your company suspended you without pay until your new card came,” I recalled.
“I don’t know what the big deal was about our bank account,” she complained. “It turns out the government has copies of all our transactions anyway.”
“Patty!” I said. “You’re not supposed to know that!”
“Then it took almost six weeks for the new card to come,” she went on, ignoring me. “If my parents hadn’t loaned us enough money to make our house and car payments, I don’t know how we would have made it.”
“Reminds me of when the library said you had an overdue book, and you claimed you’d returned it,” I joked.
“That wasn’t funny, Ace. I was positive I’d returned that copy of American Dynasty. I told them if they’d just check the National Security Agency records, they’d find I’d returned it the day before it was due.”
“Patty,” I said. “You’re not supposed to know the NSA monitors what library materials you check out!”
“Well what’s the difference, Ace?” she snapped. “I already told my cousin Louise in an e-mail that I was reading it, and of course they screen everybody’s e-mail.”
“Patty!” I said, exasperated, “You’re not supposed to know the government reads your e-mail.”
“They already know I know,” she said, “because I mentioned it in a phone call to my brother Dave when he called from Jerusalem.”
“Patty!” I said. “You’re not supposed to know the government is eavesdropping on people’s phone calls!”
“Ace,” she said, “do you ever wonder if all of this is really necessary?”
“Of course it’s necessary,” I said. “Otherwise, terrorists or illegal immigrants might shop at Wall-Market or get their hair done or pay their bills.”
“All the same,” said Patty, “there’s something … I don’t know, something crummy about it. There are all the long lines and the waits and the metal detectors and the security guards. To tell the truth, none of it makes me feel any safer. It just makes me feel anxious. Like I’m being watched all the time. It makes me feel as if somebody has his eye on me, has me under control.”
“Well, isn’t that a good thing?” I asked. “If you feel that way, and you’re innocent, think how terrorists must feel.”
“I was thinking more of how blacks must have felt in South Africa when they had to carry those passbooks with them everywhere. We all thought that was so despicable—what whites were doing to them. And now we’re doing so much worse to ourselves. We’ve become our own second class citizens. Everybody’s a ‘kaffir’ now.”
© Tony Russell, 2006
“Okay,” I said. “No problem. We’re going right by Wall-Market.”
“Do you have your driver’s license with you?” she worried.
“Sure,” I said. “It’s in my billfold, like it always is.”
“Do you have your official notarized copy of your birth certificate, your social security card, and a utility bill with our current mailing address on it?” she fussed. “You know they won’t let you shop without them.”
“Got it all,” I said. “What about you?”
She was rummaging through her purse. “Darn it, I can’t seem to find my birth certificate,” she said. “I know I had it Friday, because I had to show it when I went for my hair appointment. And I had it when I went to the post office afterwards, because the security guard who checked it when I entered was Rhonda Wilford. You remember Rhonda; she was prom queen the year after I was. We got to talking about how the gowns have changed, and then she picked up a piece of trash and wadded it all up and threw it in a wastebasket, and I remember thinking when she bent over that she sure wouldn’t fit into her gown anymore. Wastebasket! Ohmigosh! I’ll bet she threw my birth certificate away!” She let out a shriek.
“Relax, Patty,” I said. “What’s the big deal? You can just get another one.”
“Oh sure,” she said. “You talk as if it’s nothing. Remember when I lost my social security card, and they wanted to see my driver’s license and my birth certificate and my social security card before they’d issue another one? And I said, ‘If I could show you my social security card, I wouldn’t be asking you for another one.’”
“That was a real headache, wasn’t it?” I said. “You thought they’d laugh and see how absurd it was, but you ended up having to get affidavits from our bank and your boss swearing that you’d actually shown them your social security card when you opened your account and when you were hired.”
“Right,” she said grimly. “Then the bank froze our checking and savings accounts until I could produce my new card.”
“And your company suspended you without pay until your new card came,” I recalled.
“I don’t know what the big deal was about our bank account,” she complained. “It turns out the government has copies of all our transactions anyway.”
“Patty!” I said. “You’re not supposed to know that!”
“Then it took almost six weeks for the new card to come,” she went on, ignoring me. “If my parents hadn’t loaned us enough money to make our house and car payments, I don’t know how we would have made it.”
“Reminds me of when the library said you had an overdue book, and you claimed you’d returned it,” I joked.
“That wasn’t funny, Ace. I was positive I’d returned that copy of American Dynasty. I told them if they’d just check the National Security Agency records, they’d find I’d returned it the day before it was due.”
“Patty,” I said. “You’re not supposed to know the NSA monitors what library materials you check out!”
“Well what’s the difference, Ace?” she snapped. “I already told my cousin Louise in an e-mail that I was reading it, and of course they screen everybody’s e-mail.”
“Patty!” I said, exasperated, “You’re not supposed to know the government reads your e-mail.”
“They already know I know,” she said, “because I mentioned it in a phone call to my brother Dave when he called from Jerusalem.”
“Patty!” I said. “You’re not supposed to know the government is eavesdropping on people’s phone calls!”
“Ace,” she said, “do you ever wonder if all of this is really necessary?”
“Of course it’s necessary,” I said. “Otherwise, terrorists or illegal immigrants might shop at Wall-Market or get their hair done or pay their bills.”
“All the same,” said Patty, “there’s something … I don’t know, something crummy about it. There are all the long lines and the waits and the metal detectors and the security guards. To tell the truth, none of it makes me feel any safer. It just makes me feel anxious. Like I’m being watched all the time. It makes me feel as if somebody has his eye on me, has me under control.”
“Well, isn’t that a good thing?” I asked. “If you feel that way, and you’re innocent, think how terrorists must feel.”
“I was thinking more of how blacks must have felt in South Africa when they had to carry those passbooks with them everywhere. We all thought that was so despicable—what whites were doing to them. And now we’re doing so much worse to ourselves. We’ve become our own second class citizens. Everybody’s a ‘kaffir’ now.”
© Tony Russell, 2006
Monday, May 15, 2006
“Bush’s Brain to Be Removed”
WHITE HOUSE: BUSH’S BRAIN TO BE REMOVED
Washington, May 15 -
The White House announced today that President Bush will be undergoing what it terms a “minor surgical procedure” for the removal of Bush’s brain. The surgery is “normal health care maintenance” and “simply a precaution,” said press secretary Tony Snow.
Patrick Fitzgerald, the surgeon heading up the brain removal team, explains that the removal will relieve cranial congestion. “It’s a common mistake,” said Fitzgerald, “to speak of ‘Bush’s brain’ in the singular. The president’s skull actually contains three separate ‘brains’—the brain we will be removing; a second brain, which we call ‘Cheney,’ that exercises enormous control over major presidential functions; and, thirdly, the president’s original or ‘birth brain.’ The second brain will probably expand somewhat as new space becomes available. The original brain is rigid and difficult to penetrate from outside, and we doubt the operation will have much impact on it organically.”
Despite White House descriptions of the procedure as ‘routine,’ Fitzgerald sounds a note of caution about the risks involved.
“The brain we are removing is tricky,” he says. “Surgery will be complicated by the vast number of tentacles the brain has branching throughout the entire system. In addition, the brain has been leaking dirt into the media and infecting the body politic. We have to guard against the possibility that it has undermined not just the president’s political health, but that of our democracy in general.”
Since rumors of the procedure began to circulate, speculation has focused on two questions: Can the president continue to function normally without his brain? and Is it possible for the brain to continue to devise plans for the president and then have them carried out by remote control?
The White House has moved swiftly to address the first question, with his press secretary assuring that the president will be back on the job the day after the removal. “He may feel some minor political discomfort,” said Snow, “but it will not affect his ability to perform his presidential duties.”
Other observers suggest that the president’s brain has long been dysfunctional, and that losing it will result in fewer changes than expected. Charles Liddy, of the Mussolini Society think tank, notes that the brain functioned brilliantly on the political side, seizing control of all the major institutions of government, but was stunningly incompetent when it came to delivering any actual government services.
Liddy goes on to argue that there is, in fact, a direct link between the seizures and the government’s paralysis. “Just look at the way the president has lurched in the polls,” he says. “You can tell a lot from the way a person walks. It’s obvious there’s an issue with his central nervous system. His wiring just hasn’t been working right.”
Opinions are sharply divided as to whether the president’s brain can continue to do his planning from a distance,. Republican senator Trent Lott sees no reason why the brain cannot continue to operate while it roves outside the White House fence. “It’s absurd to think that the brain actually has to be on site. The brain has numerous pathways to transmit its impulses,” he points out.
Post-operation plans for the brain are uncertain, however. No alternative host has stepped forward to request the organ, and it may simply be cooled in a cell until a compatible recipient can be found.
Political hopefuls who are interested in becoming transplant hosts can submit samples of their own brain matter for an issue match.
© Tony Russell, 2006
Washington, May 15 -
The White House announced today that President Bush will be undergoing what it terms a “minor surgical procedure” for the removal of Bush’s brain. The surgery is “normal health care maintenance” and “simply a precaution,” said press secretary Tony Snow.
Patrick Fitzgerald, the surgeon heading up the brain removal team, explains that the removal will relieve cranial congestion. “It’s a common mistake,” said Fitzgerald, “to speak of ‘Bush’s brain’ in the singular. The president’s skull actually contains three separate ‘brains’—the brain we will be removing; a second brain, which we call ‘Cheney,’ that exercises enormous control over major presidential functions; and, thirdly, the president’s original or ‘birth brain.’ The second brain will probably expand somewhat as new space becomes available. The original brain is rigid and difficult to penetrate from outside, and we doubt the operation will have much impact on it organically.”
Despite White House descriptions of the procedure as ‘routine,’ Fitzgerald sounds a note of caution about the risks involved.
“The brain we are removing is tricky,” he says. “Surgery will be complicated by the vast number of tentacles the brain has branching throughout the entire system. In addition, the brain has been leaking dirt into the media and infecting the body politic. We have to guard against the possibility that it has undermined not just the president’s political health, but that of our democracy in general.”
Since rumors of the procedure began to circulate, speculation has focused on two questions: Can the president continue to function normally without his brain? and Is it possible for the brain to continue to devise plans for the president and then have them carried out by remote control?
The White House has moved swiftly to address the first question, with his press secretary assuring that the president will be back on the job the day after the removal. “He may feel some minor political discomfort,” said Snow, “but it will not affect his ability to perform his presidential duties.”
Other observers suggest that the president’s brain has long been dysfunctional, and that losing it will result in fewer changes than expected. Charles Liddy, of the Mussolini Society think tank, notes that the brain functioned brilliantly on the political side, seizing control of all the major institutions of government, but was stunningly incompetent when it came to delivering any actual government services.
Liddy goes on to argue that there is, in fact, a direct link between the seizures and the government’s paralysis. “Just look at the way the president has lurched in the polls,” he says. “You can tell a lot from the way a person walks. It’s obvious there’s an issue with his central nervous system. His wiring just hasn’t been working right.”
Opinions are sharply divided as to whether the president’s brain can continue to do his planning from a distance,. Republican senator Trent Lott sees no reason why the brain cannot continue to operate while it roves outside the White House fence. “It’s absurd to think that the brain actually has to be on site. The brain has numerous pathways to transmit its impulses,” he points out.
Post-operation plans for the brain are uncertain, however. No alternative host has stepped forward to request the organ, and it may simply be cooled in a cell until a compatible recipient can be found.
Political hopefuls who are interested in becoming transplant hosts can submit samples of their own brain matter for an issue match.
© Tony Russell, 2006
Saturday, May 13, 2006
“Talking Iranian War Blues”
I was walking home from work and saw our neighbor, Bobby Barefoot, sitting out on his porch, picking a guitar and singing to himself. “Hey, Bobby,” I yelled, “how’s it going?”
“Okay,” he said, “if I could just get this darned song finished. I’ve been fooling around with it and fooling around with it, and I can’t quite get it where I want it. Say, you being a writer and all, would you mind listening to it and see if you’ve got any suggestions?”
“Well, I don’t know if reporting the garden news makes me a writer,” I said, “but I’d be glad to do what I can.” So I perched on the railing and waited for him to start.
“Huhhmmm,” he cleared his throat. “I call it ‘Talkin’ Iranian War Blues’.” Then he began.
Woke up this mornin’, Iran was on my mind.
Yeah I said woke up this mornin’, and Iran was on my mind.
When I hear those drumbeats rollin’,
I know for sure our leader’s lyin’.
‘We’ll give diplomacy a chance,’ that’s what they say.
‘Oh we’ll give diplomacy a chance,’ yeah, so they say.
But you know the plans are drawn up,
And there’ll be bombs fallin’ any day.
Well, a letter from Iran came in the mail,
Yeah yesterday there was a letter in the mail.
Guess they thought we’d bother to answer,
But we’re hell-bent that peace will fail.
Losin’ two wars at a time, let’s try for three.
Oh why are ‘easy’ wars so hard, let’s try for three,
While rivers of other people’s blood
Change into oil for you and me.
Blood into oil, like water into wine,
Yeah I heard that somewhere, water turnin’ into wine.
I just know that blood a-runnin’
Helps Halliburton’s bottom line.
Oil for you and me, and ready cash,
Yeah it’s oil for you and me, and beaucoup cash.
Keep the oil and profits rollin’,
And we’ll have ourselves a bash.
I wonder what it’s like down on the ground,
Oh yeah sometimes I wonder what it’s like down on the ground.
They say there’s people cryin’,
But I just can’t hear a sound.
He played a final chord and then looked up at me. “Well, what do you think?” he asked.
“Uh, the rhythm’s a little rough,” I said, trying to be polite.
“Nah, nah, talkin’ blues you can fudge the rhythm,” he said. “It’s not like scanning a poem. You can phrase it and make it come out all right.”
“What about the perspective?” I said. “It seems to shift a lot.”
“I take sort of a Picasso approach to perspective,” he said.
Then I cut to what was really bothering me. “Do you actually think the administration is so flat-out nuts as to start another war, when we’re already stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan?” I asked. “I mean, the whole premise of your song is that they’re going to do it, and that the real reason isn’t Iran’s nuclear program, it’s oil. You’re taking a pretty cynical attitude, aren’t you?”
“Ace,” he said, “I’m not cynical. I’m trying to be realistic about the most cynical administration in American history. That makes me sound cynical when I describe them.”
“If I believed they were as reckless and as ruthless as you make them out to be,” I said, “I’d be scared out of my britches.”
He hesitated. “In that case,” he said, “I’m glad I didn’t write about what worries me most.”
“Well don’t stop now,” I said.
[Okay, reader, maybe we WILL stop now. What do YOU think is worrying him most?]
© Tony Russell, 2006
“Okay,” he said, “if I could just get this darned song finished. I’ve been fooling around with it and fooling around with it, and I can’t quite get it where I want it. Say, you being a writer and all, would you mind listening to it and see if you’ve got any suggestions?”
“Well, I don’t know if reporting the garden news makes me a writer,” I said, “but I’d be glad to do what I can.” So I perched on the railing and waited for him to start.
“Huhhmmm,” he cleared his throat. “I call it ‘Talkin’ Iranian War Blues’.” Then he began.
Woke up this mornin’, Iran was on my mind.
Yeah I said woke up this mornin’, and Iran was on my mind.
When I hear those drumbeats rollin’,
I know for sure our leader’s lyin’.
‘We’ll give diplomacy a chance,’ that’s what they say.
‘Oh we’ll give diplomacy a chance,’ yeah, so they say.
But you know the plans are drawn up,
And there’ll be bombs fallin’ any day.
Well, a letter from Iran came in the mail,
Yeah yesterday there was a letter in the mail.
Guess they thought we’d bother to answer,
But we’re hell-bent that peace will fail.
Losin’ two wars at a time, let’s try for three.
Oh why are ‘easy’ wars so hard, let’s try for three,
While rivers of other people’s blood
Change into oil for you and me.
Blood into oil, like water into wine,
Yeah I heard that somewhere, water turnin’ into wine.
I just know that blood a-runnin’
Helps Halliburton’s bottom line.
Oil for you and me, and ready cash,
Yeah it’s oil for you and me, and beaucoup cash.
Keep the oil and profits rollin’,
And we’ll have ourselves a bash.
I wonder what it’s like down on the ground,
Oh yeah sometimes I wonder what it’s like down on the ground.
They say there’s people cryin’,
But I just can’t hear a sound.
He played a final chord and then looked up at me. “Well, what do you think?” he asked.
“Uh, the rhythm’s a little rough,” I said, trying to be polite.
“Nah, nah, talkin’ blues you can fudge the rhythm,” he said. “It’s not like scanning a poem. You can phrase it and make it come out all right.”
“What about the perspective?” I said. “It seems to shift a lot.”
“I take sort of a Picasso approach to perspective,” he said.
Then I cut to what was really bothering me. “Do you actually think the administration is so flat-out nuts as to start another war, when we’re already stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan?” I asked. “I mean, the whole premise of your song is that they’re going to do it, and that the real reason isn’t Iran’s nuclear program, it’s oil. You’re taking a pretty cynical attitude, aren’t you?”
“Ace,” he said, “I’m not cynical. I’m trying to be realistic about the most cynical administration in American history. That makes me sound cynical when I describe them.”
“If I believed they were as reckless and as ruthless as you make them out to be,” I said, “I’d be scared out of my britches.”
He hesitated. “In that case,” he said, “I’m glad I didn’t write about what worries me most.”
“Well don’t stop now,” I said.
[Okay, reader, maybe we WILL stop now. What do YOU think is worrying him most?]
© Tony Russell, 2006
Thursday, April 27, 2006
“I Have a Lighter Side”
RUMSFELD TO DEFEND ROLE IN PRISONER ABUSE SCANDAL
Washington, April 24 -
The White House announced today that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will be a guest on “Meet the Press” this Sunday. Rumsfeld’s appearance is an attempt to counter charges that he was directly involved in supervising the abuse of a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.
According to the announcement, “special staging arrangements” have been made with network staff for the broadcast. Although full details were not disclosed, highly placed sources within the administration, speaking on background, have said that Rumsfeld will reproduce for the studio audience various practices he authorized for the interrogation of prisoners.
Prior to his appearance, Rumsfeld will be forced to kneel for eight hours with his hands behind his back. He will also be inundated for forty-eight hours by high-decibel rap music from three different stations played simultaneously, and will be awakened every 45 minutes if he manages to fall asleep.
Once the program begins, the Secretary will stand naked before a panel of female reporters while they badger him with accusations that he is a homosexual. Then he will don a bra and bikini underpants while guards urinate on the Bible and the panel screams that his mother and sister are whores. Snarling guard dogs will be sicced onto the Secretary to lend authenticity to his performance, but will be kept leashed and muzzled at all times. The release cautions that “anything Secretary Rumsfeld says, under the circumstances, cannot be taken seriously.”
For the grand finale, he will perform a series of dog tricks on the end of a leash. “Fetch! Roll over! Beg! Sit! Speak! Heel! You name it, he can do it,” said one aide who has been present at rehearsals. “He picked it all up in no time. Who says you can’t teach an old dog new tricks?”
The program is expected to attract a record audience. “I’m looking forward to it,” said Rumsfeld. “It will give people a chance to see another part of me. I’m not always the inflexible, arrogant misanthrope the public is accustomed to. I have a lighter side.”
In the past, treatment of the kind described, whether carried out by Nazis or by communists, has been greeted with opprobrium, scorn, and contempt by the American public. Rumsfeld, however, will argue that the events, far from being psychological torture, were simply “an attempt to provide entertainment” for guards and prisoners at Guantanamo. “It’s hot down there, they’re wedged into those tiny cells, they get almost no exercise.… I just felt they needed something to break the monotony,” he said.
The Secretary hopes, with this appearance, to persuade skeptics that he was being truthful in his earlier claim that “…the treatment of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay is proper, it's humane, it's appropriate, and it is fully consistent with international conventions. No detainee has been harmed; no detainee has been mistreated in any way.”
Nonetheless, some observers have had misgivings about the acts portrayed on the show. “I feel so sorry for him, going through all that,” said a network associate who has watched rehearsals. “I don’t know how he can stand it.”
“I feel the same way,” said a technician who has also been present. “And he’s only doing it for one day. A lot of the prisoners have been there for three years. No wonder so many have tried to commit suicide.”
The program will be preceded by the following message:
Warning: Because conduct displayed on this program may violate national and international standards of decency, viewer discretion is advised. Videotaping or audio taping of the program, in whole or in part, is expressly prohibited, and use of any description of the program is forbidden without written consent from the Secretary of Defense.
© Tony Russell, 2006
Washington, April 24 -
The White House announced today that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will be a guest on “Meet the Press” this Sunday. Rumsfeld’s appearance is an attempt to counter charges that he was directly involved in supervising the abuse of a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.
According to the announcement, “special staging arrangements” have been made with network staff for the broadcast. Although full details were not disclosed, highly placed sources within the administration, speaking on background, have said that Rumsfeld will reproduce for the studio audience various practices he authorized for the interrogation of prisoners.
Prior to his appearance, Rumsfeld will be forced to kneel for eight hours with his hands behind his back. He will also be inundated for forty-eight hours by high-decibel rap music from three different stations played simultaneously, and will be awakened every 45 minutes if he manages to fall asleep.
Once the program begins, the Secretary will stand naked before a panel of female reporters while they badger him with accusations that he is a homosexual. Then he will don a bra and bikini underpants while guards urinate on the Bible and the panel screams that his mother and sister are whores. Snarling guard dogs will be sicced onto the Secretary to lend authenticity to his performance, but will be kept leashed and muzzled at all times. The release cautions that “anything Secretary Rumsfeld says, under the circumstances, cannot be taken seriously.”
For the grand finale, he will perform a series of dog tricks on the end of a leash. “Fetch! Roll over! Beg! Sit! Speak! Heel! You name it, he can do it,” said one aide who has been present at rehearsals. “He picked it all up in no time. Who says you can’t teach an old dog new tricks?”
The program is expected to attract a record audience. “I’m looking forward to it,” said Rumsfeld. “It will give people a chance to see another part of me. I’m not always the inflexible, arrogant misanthrope the public is accustomed to. I have a lighter side.”
In the past, treatment of the kind described, whether carried out by Nazis or by communists, has been greeted with opprobrium, scorn, and contempt by the American public. Rumsfeld, however, will argue that the events, far from being psychological torture, were simply “an attempt to provide entertainment” for guards and prisoners at Guantanamo. “It’s hot down there, they’re wedged into those tiny cells, they get almost no exercise.… I just felt they needed something to break the monotony,” he said.
The Secretary hopes, with this appearance, to persuade skeptics that he was being truthful in his earlier claim that “…the treatment of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay is proper, it's humane, it's appropriate, and it is fully consistent with international conventions. No detainee has been harmed; no detainee has been mistreated in any way.”
Nonetheless, some observers have had misgivings about the acts portrayed on the show. “I feel so sorry for him, going through all that,” said a network associate who has watched rehearsals. “I don’t know how he can stand it.”
“I feel the same way,” said a technician who has also been present. “And he’s only doing it for one day. A lot of the prisoners have been there for three years. No wonder so many have tried to commit suicide.”
The program will be preceded by the following message:
Warning: Because conduct displayed on this program may violate national and international standards of decency, viewer discretion is advised. Videotaping or audio taping of the program, in whole or in part, is expressly prohibited, and use of any description of the program is forbidden without written consent from the Secretary of Defense.
© Tony Russell, 2006
Monday, April 24, 2006
“A Mindlessness of Its Own”
Patty looked up from the newspaper with a worried frown on her face. “Did you see this, Ace? President Bush went to California to talk about war with members of the Hoover Institution.”
“So the president went to a meeting. He goes to lots of meetings.”
“But the Hoover Institution has been pushing hard for an attack on Iran. It has a lot of pull on the country’s editorial pages. Guys like Thomas Sowell.”
“Patty, the president’s not crazy enough to attack Iran! We’re stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan without taking on somebody else, for cryin’ out loud. Even I can figure that out. A lot of troops are already going back for their third tour of duty, both countries are trying to stave off chaos, Iraq is sliding into civil war, and some people are projecting now that the war there will cost over a trillion dollars. You’d have to be nuts to start another war when you can’t win two that you’re already in!”
“Ace, remember what you said before we invaded Iraq? ‘The president will give the weapons inspectors a chance to finish the job,’ you said. ‘That only makes sense.’ ‘Diplomacy will be the first option,’ you said. ‘No sane person wants a war,’ you said.
Three billion women in the world, and I had to marry one with a tape recorder in her brain.
“Okay, so no sane person wants war, and these bozos at the Hoover Institution want to start a war with Iran…. I can do the logic on that,” I said. “But why would he go and have a private powwow with them? You don’t suppose he’d take them seriously, do you?”
“Well, they take themselves seriously. And even though they’ve been wrong again and again on Iraq—in fact, they have an unbroken streak of being wrong for the past five years—they’re still the standard talking heads. You claim an attack on Iran is unthinkable, but there are people thinking it, and they have a lot of influence in the media and with this administration.”
“Look, Patty, I know I blew it on Iraq, but there’s no way I could be wrong about Iran. If Bush hit Iran, the Shi’ites in Iraq would go berserk! All the factions in Iraq have had the devil of a time trying to put a government together, and Sunnis and Shi’ites are slaughtering each other in the streets. It’d take an idiot to pull that house of cards down right now.”
“Maybe you’re right,” she said. “I sure hope so.”
“Sure I am,” I said. “Muslims around the world would go bananas. Pakistan would go up in flames. And China just signed a big oil agreement with Iran. If we attack Iran, we’ll be into it with Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan, all at the same time, and who knows what the Russians and Chinese would do with their oil supply threatened?
“Besides, who’s left to support us?” I went on. “Tony Blair is hanging by a thread in England. The Italians just booted out Berlusconi. One after another, everybody’s pulling their troops out of Iraq. If we bomb Iran, the ‘coalition of the willing’ will be Utah, Mississippi, and Alabama.”
“The scary thing for me is, I’m not sure it matters,” said Patty, her voice choking. I looked at her, and tears were welling in her eyes.
“What’s wrong?” I asked in alarm.
“I just feel like such an idiot,” she sniffled. “Growing up, I really did believe all they taught us in school about ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ Now it seems more like ‘government of the people, without the people, despite the people.’ I think the overwhelming majority of people in this country want something saner and more decent than they’re getting from their government —Democrats or Republicans. I’m so frustrated that our political leadership carries us along regardless of what the majority of us think and feel. But more than that, I’m just plain angry. I don’t see many politicians willing to speak truth to power, or to the people either. It feels as if the government has a mind of its own. A mindlessness of its own.”
“Gee, Patty,” I said, “that’s what you’re always saying about me.”
© Tony Russell, 2006
“So the president went to a meeting. He goes to lots of meetings.”
“But the Hoover Institution has been pushing hard for an attack on Iran. It has a lot of pull on the country’s editorial pages. Guys like Thomas Sowell.”
“Patty, the president’s not crazy enough to attack Iran! We’re stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan without taking on somebody else, for cryin’ out loud. Even I can figure that out. A lot of troops are already going back for their third tour of duty, both countries are trying to stave off chaos, Iraq is sliding into civil war, and some people are projecting now that the war there will cost over a trillion dollars. You’d have to be nuts to start another war when you can’t win two that you’re already in!”
“Ace, remember what you said before we invaded Iraq? ‘The president will give the weapons inspectors a chance to finish the job,’ you said. ‘That only makes sense.’ ‘Diplomacy will be the first option,’ you said. ‘No sane person wants a war,’ you said.
Three billion women in the world, and I had to marry one with a tape recorder in her brain.
“Okay, so no sane person wants war, and these bozos at the Hoover Institution want to start a war with Iran…. I can do the logic on that,” I said. “But why would he go and have a private powwow with them? You don’t suppose he’d take them seriously, do you?”
“Well, they take themselves seriously. And even though they’ve been wrong again and again on Iraq—in fact, they have an unbroken streak of being wrong for the past five years—they’re still the standard talking heads. You claim an attack on Iran is unthinkable, but there are people thinking it, and they have a lot of influence in the media and with this administration.”
“Look, Patty, I know I blew it on Iraq, but there’s no way I could be wrong about Iran. If Bush hit Iran, the Shi’ites in Iraq would go berserk! All the factions in Iraq have had the devil of a time trying to put a government together, and Sunnis and Shi’ites are slaughtering each other in the streets. It’d take an idiot to pull that house of cards down right now.”
“Maybe you’re right,” she said. “I sure hope so.”
“Sure I am,” I said. “Muslims around the world would go bananas. Pakistan would go up in flames. And China just signed a big oil agreement with Iran. If we attack Iran, we’ll be into it with Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan, all at the same time, and who knows what the Russians and Chinese would do with their oil supply threatened?
“Besides, who’s left to support us?” I went on. “Tony Blair is hanging by a thread in England. The Italians just booted out Berlusconi. One after another, everybody’s pulling their troops out of Iraq. If we bomb Iran, the ‘coalition of the willing’ will be Utah, Mississippi, and Alabama.”
“The scary thing for me is, I’m not sure it matters,” said Patty, her voice choking. I looked at her, and tears were welling in her eyes.
“What’s wrong?” I asked in alarm.
“I just feel like such an idiot,” she sniffled. “Growing up, I really did believe all they taught us in school about ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ Now it seems more like ‘government of the people, without the people, despite the people.’ I think the overwhelming majority of people in this country want something saner and more decent than they’re getting from their government —Democrats or Republicans. I’m so frustrated that our political leadership carries us along regardless of what the majority of us think and feel. But more than that, I’m just plain angry. I don’t see many politicians willing to speak truth to power, or to the people either. It feels as if the government has a mind of its own. A mindlessness of its own.”
“Gee, Patty,” I said, “that’s what you’re always saying about me.”
© Tony Russell, 2006
Thursday, April 13, 2006
“Miracles on 35th Street”
Neighbors are flocking to the apartment of Mrs. Eleanor Plymale, 429 W. 35th St., to see her newly restored carpet. “It’s a miracle!” enthused Mrs. Plymale. “You can see the lilies and orchids in all their original color and luster! I rented the carpet-cleaning machine and purchased a gallon of the cleanser at Homemaker’s Hardware on W. 19th St., but I didn’t really believe it could restore life to my old carpet.”
Her neighbor, Mrs. Darlene Thomas, 3438 Jefferson Ave., agreed. “It’s nothing short of miraculous,” she said. “When Ellie called me, I was really skeptical. I rushed right over and stuck my fingers in the pile to convince myself that it was real. The carpet was still damp from the cleansing, and it was spotless. It was like her kids had never spilled pop in the living room, and they hadn’t had that unfortunate experience with the miniature schnauzer they never could housebreak. It’s completely without stain!”
Another neighbor, Mrs. Audra Bishop, of 3623 Madison Ave, said, shaking her head, “It just goes to show you. I told her for years, ‘Ellie, why don’t you throw out that old thing and get yourself some wall-to-wall shag carpeting like I have in my living room?’” Mrs. Bishop added, “That carpet was soiled, faded, and had spots all over it—a real eyesore. Then she brings it back to life with the help of modern technology. I’m going to rent that machine myself next weekend.”
Mrs. Bishop may have to wait longer than expected. According to sales personnel at Homemaker’s Hardware, calls have been pouring in since rumors of the miracle began to circulate in the neighborhood. “We only keep three of the machines in the store,” said the assistant manager, Vivian Flores, “and two of them are broken at the minute. The other one is booked up from now through Easter.”
News of the alleged miracle has spread across the west end of the city by word of mouth, e-mail, and telephone. A line of visitors extends down the hallway of Mrs. Plymale’s apartment and halfway around the block. Visitors are asked to remove their shoes before entering the apartment, and may leave an offering in coffee cans placed on stands on either side of the door.
Everyone who tours the apartment is also treated with what Mrs. Plymale describes as an earlier miracle, a square of her fudge brownies. “The company claimed that it was a miracle,” she admits, “but I didn’t believe it until I tried it myself. You just add water and two eggs, stir thoroughly, and pour the batter into a greased 9 by 9 baking pan, then bake at 350 degrees for 30 minutes. The brownies are always rich and moist, with a deep chocolaty taste. It never fails me.”
Additional miracles reported by Mrs. Plymale include her toilet bowl cleaner, which removes even the deepest and most persistent yellowing; her liquid dishwashing detergent, which cuts grease and removes stubborn stains from pots and pans; and her toothpaste, which prevents cavities, freshens her breath, and whitens as it cleans.
© Tony Russell, 2006
Her neighbor, Mrs. Darlene Thomas, 3438 Jefferson Ave., agreed. “It’s nothing short of miraculous,” she said. “When Ellie called me, I was really skeptical. I rushed right over and stuck my fingers in the pile to convince myself that it was real. The carpet was still damp from the cleansing, and it was spotless. It was like her kids had never spilled pop in the living room, and they hadn’t had that unfortunate experience with the miniature schnauzer they never could housebreak. It’s completely without stain!”
Another neighbor, Mrs. Audra Bishop, of 3623 Madison Ave, said, shaking her head, “It just goes to show you. I told her for years, ‘Ellie, why don’t you throw out that old thing and get yourself some wall-to-wall shag carpeting like I have in my living room?’” Mrs. Bishop added, “That carpet was soiled, faded, and had spots all over it—a real eyesore. Then she brings it back to life with the help of modern technology. I’m going to rent that machine myself next weekend.”
Mrs. Bishop may have to wait longer than expected. According to sales personnel at Homemaker’s Hardware, calls have been pouring in since rumors of the miracle began to circulate in the neighborhood. “We only keep three of the machines in the store,” said the assistant manager, Vivian Flores, “and two of them are broken at the minute. The other one is booked up from now through Easter.”
News of the alleged miracle has spread across the west end of the city by word of mouth, e-mail, and telephone. A line of visitors extends down the hallway of Mrs. Plymale’s apartment and halfway around the block. Visitors are asked to remove their shoes before entering the apartment, and may leave an offering in coffee cans placed on stands on either side of the door.
Everyone who tours the apartment is also treated with what Mrs. Plymale describes as an earlier miracle, a square of her fudge brownies. “The company claimed that it was a miracle,” she admits, “but I didn’t believe it until I tried it myself. You just add water and two eggs, stir thoroughly, and pour the batter into a greased 9 by 9 baking pan, then bake at 350 degrees for 30 minutes. The brownies are always rich and moist, with a deep chocolaty taste. It never fails me.”
Additional miracles reported by Mrs. Plymale include her toilet bowl cleaner, which removes even the deepest and most persistent yellowing; her liquid dishwashing detergent, which cuts grease and removes stubborn stains from pots and pans; and her toothpaste, which prevents cavities, freshens her breath, and whitens as it cleans.
© Tony Russell, 2006
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
“From the Mailbag”
Ace’s Wild
Time for another question and answer session with our man Ace, OPP’s version of Dr. Laura. Let’s head right to the mailbag and see what our readers have on their minds.
* * * * * *
Q. Ace, where did your nickname come from? Is it short for “ace reporter,” a reference to your fondness for poker, or a mispronunciation?
Del McDonald ~ Chagrin Falls, Ohio
A. Mispronunciation?
* * * * * *
Q. Hey, Ace! In the run-up to the invasion of Iran, the Bush administration went through the motions of using the UN while constantly issuing threats. They insisted that they were trying to solve the problem diplomatically and that all their preparations for a military attack were just normal contingency planning. Now they’re issuing threats against Iran while using the UN as a forum. They claim that they’re trying to resolve the problem diplomatically, and insist that their preparations for a military attack—including a potential nuclear strike—are just normal contingency planning. Do I see a pattern here?
Whitney McKenzie, Palo Alto, California
A. I’m trying to avoid that mindset, Whitney. Save the patterns for wallpaper, not newspaper.
* * * * * *
Q. Dear Answer Man: According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the president, in his role as commander-in-chief, can do anything he wants in time of war. The president has also said that the war against terrorism will last into the foreseeable future. Putting two and two together, I keep coming up with 666. Is my math correct?
Donna Aprilla ~ Sacramento, California
A. My calculator says “4,” Donna, but I never studied the new math.
* * * * * *
Q. Dear Sir: As a committed Christian, I am having a hard time deciding which is worse—having oral sex with someone who is not your wife and then lying about it, or lying in order to launch an invasion which results in the deaths of over 100,000 people. They both involve lying. Can you help me resolve this moral dilemma?
Ralph Lowbody ~ Ashland, Kentucky
A. When did they have you committed?
* * * * * *
Q. Ace — The president said he would fire anyone in his administration who was involved in leaking the information intended to discredit Joseph Wilson. Now it turns out that Mr. Bush gave Dick Cheney the go-ahead to leak the information. I don’t understand how this would work; can the president fire himself?
Leroy Heim ~ Madison, Wisconsin
A. Leroy, do you remember the myth where the snake opens its mouth and swallows its tail?
* * * * * *
Q. Sir: According to a story in last week’s issue of our local newspaper, the rock strata exposed during highway construction in this area are mostly Devonian and 370 million years old. How can a world that’s only six thousand years old contain rocks that are 370 million years old? Please explain this for my seven-year-old daughter in terms of simple theological geology. Thank you for your assistance.
Wanda Pepper ~ Monroe, Louisiana
A. See previous question and answer.
* * * * * *
Q. Congress seems to be having a tough time putting together an immigration bill that everyone can agree on. As far as I can tell, you have members who variously
· Want to make all the little brown-skinned Spanish-speakers go away
· Want to maintain a steady supply of cheap labor that can be paid under the table
· Want to exploit people’s paranoia about security
· Want to criminalize good deeds
· Want to keep hard-working young people coming to fund their Social Security checks
· Want to lay the foundation for a Latino voting bloc
There may be some idealism tucked away somewhere in there, but basically, it’s a grab bag of ugly motives. What kind of compromise would you suggest?
Dan McLaughlin, Waycross, Georgia
A. Let’s think outside the box, Dan: Would Mexico be willing to annex the U.S.?
* * * * * *
Q. Ace. The administration has promised a shake up of its staff. The obvious first step would be to dump a deeply unpopular vice president whose approval rating has plummeted to 18%. So why is he still around?
Marvin Stern ~ Utica, New York
A. Cheap impeachment insurance.
* * * * * *
No question about it; we’re scraping bottom. Readers, keep your questions coming. Patty, put a cold one in the fridge, I’m heading out the door.
© Tony Russell, 2006
Time for another question and answer session with our man Ace, OPP’s version of Dr. Laura. Let’s head right to the mailbag and see what our readers have on their minds.
* * * * * *
Q. Ace, where did your nickname come from? Is it short for “ace reporter,” a reference to your fondness for poker, or a mispronunciation?
Del McDonald ~ Chagrin Falls, Ohio
A. Mispronunciation?
* * * * * *
Q. Hey, Ace! In the run-up to the invasion of Iran, the Bush administration went through the motions of using the UN while constantly issuing threats. They insisted that they were trying to solve the problem diplomatically and that all their preparations for a military attack were just normal contingency planning. Now they’re issuing threats against Iran while using the UN as a forum. They claim that they’re trying to resolve the problem diplomatically, and insist that their preparations for a military attack—including a potential nuclear strike—are just normal contingency planning. Do I see a pattern here?
Whitney McKenzie, Palo Alto, California
A. I’m trying to avoid that mindset, Whitney. Save the patterns for wallpaper, not newspaper.
* * * * * *
Q. Dear Answer Man: According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the president, in his role as commander-in-chief, can do anything he wants in time of war. The president has also said that the war against terrorism will last into the foreseeable future. Putting two and two together, I keep coming up with 666. Is my math correct?
Donna Aprilla ~ Sacramento, California
A. My calculator says “4,” Donna, but I never studied the new math.
* * * * * *
Q. Dear Sir: As a committed Christian, I am having a hard time deciding which is worse—having oral sex with someone who is not your wife and then lying about it, or lying in order to launch an invasion which results in the deaths of over 100,000 people. They both involve lying. Can you help me resolve this moral dilemma?
Ralph Lowbody ~ Ashland, Kentucky
A. When did they have you committed?
* * * * * *
Q. Ace — The president said he would fire anyone in his administration who was involved in leaking the information intended to discredit Joseph Wilson. Now it turns out that Mr. Bush gave Dick Cheney the go-ahead to leak the information. I don’t understand how this would work; can the president fire himself?
Leroy Heim ~ Madison, Wisconsin
A. Leroy, do you remember the myth where the snake opens its mouth and swallows its tail?
* * * * * *
Q. Sir: According to a story in last week’s issue of our local newspaper, the rock strata exposed during highway construction in this area are mostly Devonian and 370 million years old. How can a world that’s only six thousand years old contain rocks that are 370 million years old? Please explain this for my seven-year-old daughter in terms of simple theological geology. Thank you for your assistance.
Wanda Pepper ~ Monroe, Louisiana
A. See previous question and answer.
* * * * * *
Q. Congress seems to be having a tough time putting together an immigration bill that everyone can agree on. As far as I can tell, you have members who variously
· Want to make all the little brown-skinned Spanish-speakers go away
· Want to maintain a steady supply of cheap labor that can be paid under the table
· Want to exploit people’s paranoia about security
· Want to criminalize good deeds
· Want to keep hard-working young people coming to fund their Social Security checks
· Want to lay the foundation for a Latino voting bloc
There may be some idealism tucked away somewhere in there, but basically, it’s a grab bag of ugly motives. What kind of compromise would you suggest?
Dan McLaughlin, Waycross, Georgia
A. Let’s think outside the box, Dan: Would Mexico be willing to annex the U.S.?
* * * * * *
Q. Ace. The administration has promised a shake up of its staff. The obvious first step would be to dump a deeply unpopular vice president whose approval rating has plummeted to 18%. So why is he still around?
Marvin Stern ~ Utica, New York
A. Cheap impeachment insurance.
* * * * * *
No question about it; we’re scraping bottom. Readers, keep your questions coming. Patty, put a cold one in the fridge, I’m heading out the door.
© Tony Russell, 2006
Monday, April 03, 2006
“A Large Number of Unknowns”
BUSH YIELDS TO DEMAND FOR CONTINUITY IN WAR EFFORT
Washington, April 3 –
The White House announced today that President Bush has decided to extend his term in office until the war on terrorism has been won. The war is currently being waged against an unidentified number of terrorists in an undisclosed number of countries to achieve unspecified goals at an indeterminate time.
The large number of unknowns involved has encouraged Congress to write an endless number of blank checks for hundreds of billions of dollars, since, as Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn) put it, “With that many unknowns, you don’t want to tie the administration’s hands.”
Provisions in the Constitution for periodic elections and term limits are being suspended, said the announcement, until the war on terrorism has been brought to a successful conclusion. “Successful conclusion” was undefined.
The president’s decision, which has long been expected, will not require approval by Congress, said the announcement, since the president’s powers are unlimited when he is acting as Commander-in-Chief in time of war. “God bless America,” the announcement concluded. “Let freedom ring.”
Congressional Republicans hailed the news. “With our alliances in tatters, Iraq going to hell in a handbasket, the Taliban revived in Afghanistan, the entire Middle East threatening to explode in sectarian chaos, and the budget in free fall, we need someone with President Bush’s nerve and experience to see this thing out,” said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA).
When Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc) pointed out that all of these situations were actually created by the current administration, he was roundly denounced not only by Republicans, but by members of his own party, who argue that it is not the role of the opposition to oppose the party in power. “Snakes and worms keep a low profile,” cautioned one party veteran.
© Tony Russell, 2006
Washington, April 3 –
The White House announced today that President Bush has decided to extend his term in office until the war on terrorism has been won. The war is currently being waged against an unidentified number of terrorists in an undisclosed number of countries to achieve unspecified goals at an indeterminate time.
The large number of unknowns involved has encouraged Congress to write an endless number of blank checks for hundreds of billions of dollars, since, as Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn) put it, “With that many unknowns, you don’t want to tie the administration’s hands.”
Provisions in the Constitution for periodic elections and term limits are being suspended, said the announcement, until the war on terrorism has been brought to a successful conclusion. “Successful conclusion” was undefined.
The president’s decision, which has long been expected, will not require approval by Congress, said the announcement, since the president’s powers are unlimited when he is acting as Commander-in-Chief in time of war. “God bless America,” the announcement concluded. “Let freedom ring.”
Congressional Republicans hailed the news. “With our alliances in tatters, Iraq going to hell in a handbasket, the Taliban revived in Afghanistan, the entire Middle East threatening to explode in sectarian chaos, and the budget in free fall, we need someone with President Bush’s nerve and experience to see this thing out,” said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA).
When Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc) pointed out that all of these situations were actually created by the current administration, he was roundly denounced not only by Republicans, but by members of his own party, who argue that it is not the role of the opposition to oppose the party in power. “Snakes and worms keep a low profile,” cautioned one party veteran.
© Tony Russell, 2006
Monday, March 27, 2006
“Behind the Concrete Curtain”
SENATE TO TAKE UP CONSTRUCTION OF “CONCRETE CURTAIN”
Washington, March 27-
Members of the U.S. Senate are scheduled to take up the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control bill this week. The bill, which was approved by the House of Representatives in December, would—among other things—fund the construction of a “Concrete Curtain” to seal off about a third of the border between the U.S. and Mexico “It’s not as much wall as we want,” admitted Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), but you have to start somewhere. We can finish it up later.”
House leaders have been studying security measures employed by the now-defunct Soviet Union, and have drawn upon the communist regime’s stratagems for a variety of techniques. Construction of a huge wall to seal off seven hundred miles of the U.S. border is the latest Soviet-era idea to draw support from House Republicans.
“Leave it to the Russians to screw up a good thing!” joked House leader Dennis Hastert. “We’re going to do it right. Can you imagine having something like the Iron Curtain in place and then letting people tear it down? What were they thinking of? I wish Winston Churchill was still around to officially bestow the ‘Concrete Curtain’ name on our project. He’d appreciate it.”
Republicans, who have long derided their opponents as “out of new ideas,” crowed over their latest triumph. “Gated communities, security compounds, bunker embassies, and now walled-off borders—we have a vision for America’s future!” said Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn).
Frist denied charges that the anti-immigrant measure was driven by racism, xenophobia, and paranoia.
“It’s primarily a security issue,” he said, “but it’s partly an economic issue as well. We have millions of educated white native-born English-speakers who are unable to get jobs as tomato pickers, lawn maintenance workers, hod carriers, sod layers, housekeepers, dishwashers, day laborers, and nannies because illegal immigrants are elbowing them aside.
“Hispanics are getting the opportunity to work in a genuine free market economy, without burdensome labor laws, minimum wage requirements, health and safety regulations, and other government red tape,” said Frist. “Why should they be a privileged class? This wall will give real Americans a chance for a change.”
Frist was forced to admit that not one of the estimated twelve million undocumented Hispanic workers currently in the U.S. has been charged with any connection to terrorist activity, but said, “There’s always a chance. What better way to spend billions of dollars than to guard against the possibility that somebody in the next million or two might want to do us harm?”
The bill has provoked an angry backlash in some portions of the country. Residents of Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, New York, Michigan, and other states along the northern border have demanded that a parallel wall be built to prevent the influx of Canadians. “They talk funny,” said twelve-year-old Caroline Wenstadt. “Instead of saying ‘about’ the way we do, they pronounce it ‘aboat.’ And they’re always going ‘Eh?’”
“It’s only fair,” agreed Larry Marcum, a long distance truck driver. “If you’re going to wall out Hispanics, you ought to wall out Canadians as well. I see all these cars from Ontario clogging the interstates, headed to Florida for vacations. They cause traffic jams, take up motel beds and restaurant seats that U.S. citizens could be filling, and make lines at gas stations even longer. Plus everybody from Quebec speaks French. If they want to come here, make ‘em pass an English test first.”
Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), who says he is concerned about a different kind of inconsistency, is preparing to offer an amendment to the bill, calling for the removal of the Statue of Liberty from New York harbor. The statue is inextricably linked with five lines from Emma Lazarus’s sonnet “The New Colossus”:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore;
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
“Talk about a mixed message!” said Cornyn. “We all need to get on the same page here. The wall or the statue; one of them has to go.”
© Tony Russell, 2006
Washington, March 27-
Members of the U.S. Senate are scheduled to take up the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control bill this week. The bill, which was approved by the House of Representatives in December, would—among other things—fund the construction of a “Concrete Curtain” to seal off about a third of the border between the U.S. and Mexico “It’s not as much wall as we want,” admitted Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), but you have to start somewhere. We can finish it up later.”
House leaders have been studying security measures employed by the now-defunct Soviet Union, and have drawn upon the communist regime’s stratagems for a variety of techniques. Construction of a huge wall to seal off seven hundred miles of the U.S. border is the latest Soviet-era idea to draw support from House Republicans.
“Leave it to the Russians to screw up a good thing!” joked House leader Dennis Hastert. “We’re going to do it right. Can you imagine having something like the Iron Curtain in place and then letting people tear it down? What were they thinking of? I wish Winston Churchill was still around to officially bestow the ‘Concrete Curtain’ name on our project. He’d appreciate it.”
Republicans, who have long derided their opponents as “out of new ideas,” crowed over their latest triumph. “Gated communities, security compounds, bunker embassies, and now walled-off borders—we have a vision for America’s future!” said Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn).
Frist denied charges that the anti-immigrant measure was driven by racism, xenophobia, and paranoia.
“It’s primarily a security issue,” he said, “but it’s partly an economic issue as well. We have millions of educated white native-born English-speakers who are unable to get jobs as tomato pickers, lawn maintenance workers, hod carriers, sod layers, housekeepers, dishwashers, day laborers, and nannies because illegal immigrants are elbowing them aside.
“Hispanics are getting the opportunity to work in a genuine free market economy, without burdensome labor laws, minimum wage requirements, health and safety regulations, and other government red tape,” said Frist. “Why should they be a privileged class? This wall will give real Americans a chance for a change.”
Frist was forced to admit that not one of the estimated twelve million undocumented Hispanic workers currently in the U.S. has been charged with any connection to terrorist activity, but said, “There’s always a chance. What better way to spend billions of dollars than to guard against the possibility that somebody in the next million or two might want to do us harm?”
The bill has provoked an angry backlash in some portions of the country. Residents of Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, New York, Michigan, and other states along the northern border have demanded that a parallel wall be built to prevent the influx of Canadians. “They talk funny,” said twelve-year-old Caroline Wenstadt. “Instead of saying ‘about’ the way we do, they pronounce it ‘aboat.’ And they’re always going ‘Eh?’”
“It’s only fair,” agreed Larry Marcum, a long distance truck driver. “If you’re going to wall out Hispanics, you ought to wall out Canadians as well. I see all these cars from Ontario clogging the interstates, headed to Florida for vacations. They cause traffic jams, take up motel beds and restaurant seats that U.S. citizens could be filling, and make lines at gas stations even longer. Plus everybody from Quebec speaks French. If they want to come here, make ‘em pass an English test first.”
Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), who says he is concerned about a different kind of inconsistency, is preparing to offer an amendment to the bill, calling for the removal of the Statue of Liberty from New York harbor. The statue is inextricably linked with five lines from Emma Lazarus’s sonnet “The New Colossus”:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore;
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
“Talk about a mixed message!” said Cornyn. “We all need to get on the same page here. The wall or the statue; one of them has to go.”
© Tony Russell, 2006
Thursday, March 23, 2006
“High School Civics: First Quiz”
I was sitting in the coffee shop, working on my second cup of starter fluid, when Reg stormed in, red-faced, with steam pouring out of his ears.
“Have you seen this?” he demanded, throwing some sheets of paper down on the table.
“Have a seat, Reg,” I said. “Ask Angie for a couple of ice cubes to cool you down.”
“This is no laughing matter, Ace,” he warned. “Look at this thing. It’s a disgrace!”
“What is it, Reg?” I asked.
“It’s supposed to be the first quiz in my boy’s high school civics class,” he said, “but it’s nothing but a piece of partisan propaganda! Every damned question on there is a deliberate slap at the administration! It’s brainwashing, is what it is! It’s a blatant attempt to portray the president and his administration as undemocratic, and by God I won’t stand for it!”
“My gosh, Reg,” I said. “Let me take a look at the thing. Is it really that bad?”
“It sure as hell is,” he bellowed. “Take a look for yourself.”
* * * *
QUIZ # 1: The Differences Between Democratic and Totalitarian Societies
With the opening chapter of our textbook, we discussed the differences between a democratic society and a totalitarian society. The quiz below contains ten pairs of statements. Write “democratic” in the blank space for the statement in each pair which describes a democratic society, and “totalitarian” in the blank space for the statement in each pair which describes a totalitarian society.
1.A. In a _____________________ society, the free flow of information is essential so people can make informed decisions. Every effort is made to see that the public receives the most complete and most accurate information possible.
1. B. In a ____________________ society, many important decisions are made in secret, and vital information is hidden from the public. The government propagandizes its own citizenry.
2.A. In a _____________________ society, open debate and dissenting views are not only welcome but promoted because everyone is considered valuable, because everyone is entitled to a voice in decisions affecting all, and because testing ideas and opinions ultimately results in wiser decisions.
2.B. In a _____________________ society, people who express views contrary to those held by people in power are attacked as unpatriotic, ridiculed, dismissed from government positions, and effectively denied a voice in the media.
3.A. In a _____________________ society, the right to know the charges against you, to be represented by effective counsel, to be given your day in court in a timely manner, and to have a fair trial before a jury of your peers are all guaranteed to every person accused of a crime.
3.B. In a _____________________ society, certain prisoners can be held indefinitely, imprisoned without being charged with a crime, denied the opportunity to counsel, and denied a chance to defend themselves in an open court.
4.A. In a _____________________ society, prisoners are recognized as human beings, worthy of basic levels of respect and dignity. They are treated humanely and granted fundamental rights, regardless of their crimes.
4.B. In a _____________________ society, certain prisoners are demeaned and degraded. They are treated with contempt, tortured, and brutalized.
5.A. In a _____________________ society, people’s private reading, writing, correspondence, and conversations are their own affair, protected from governmental intrusion except in limited, specified, carefully supervised circumstances.
5.B. In a _____________________ society, people’s private reading, writing, correspondence, and conversations are subject to secret government scrutiny, with little or no control over whose privacy is invaded, or why, or when.
6.A. In a _____________________ society, the right of citizens to assemble and to protest.peacefully is valued and protected.
6.B. In a _____________________ society, citizens are hindered or barred from peaceful protest. Legal obstacles are created to frustrate their protests; they are harassed, intimidated, even arrested when they attempt to make their contrary views known.
7.A. In a _____________________ society, the leader is subject to the rule of law and constrained by the checks and balances of the legislature and judiciary.
7.B. In a _____________________ society, the leader ignores or dismisses inconvenient laws, and is unchecked by the legislature and judiciary.
8.A. In a _____________________ society, every effort is made to extend the right to vote, to remove obstacles to voting, and to ensure that votes are counted accurately.
8.B. In a _____________________ society, the right to vote is curtailed, obstacles are deliberately created to deny certain classes of citizens the right to vote, and voting irregularities may be ignored.
9.A. In a _____________________ society, the state maintains separation of church and state, protecting an individual’s freedom to preach or practice a religion, or to have no religion, while refraining from promoting religion in general or certain religious views in particular.
9.B. In a _____________________ society, the state either suppresses the freedom to worship, or promotes the religious views of those in power.
10.A. In a _____________________ society, decisions on taxation and expenditures are made with the intent of promoting the common good, protecting the weakest citizens, increasing access to opportunity, and rewarding effort and merit rather than birth.
10.B. In a _____________________ society, decisions on taxation and expenditures are made with the intent of promoting the interests of the powerful, protecting their lives of privilege, increasing their share of the nation’s wealth, and passing their wealth and privilege on to their heirs.
FOR EXTRA CREDIT: Based on the distinctions above, the country in which you are
now living would best be characterized as a _____________________ society.
* * * *
“I don’t know, Reg,” I said. “Those look like pretty standard distinctions to me. And I don’t see any reference to political parties, or to specific political decisions there. What makes you think it’s an attack on Mr. Bush and his administration?”
“Because all the ones that are supposed to be identified as ‘totalitarian’ are obvious references to things the president and his people have done to keep us secure, you numbskull!”
“So what are you saying, Reg? That totalitarian societies are safer than democracies? That you’d rather be safe than free? I’m having a hard time following you here.”
“Listen, Ace. The president is just doing his job. And I’m going to see that this loose cannon does his. Or loses it.”
“You could just tell him to switch the definitions in each pair,” I suggested. “Maybe that would give you something you’d be more comfortable with. How did your boy do on the test, by the way?”
His face turned grim. “That’s what really cheeses me off,” he said. “He aced it.”
© Tony Russell, 2006
“Have you seen this?” he demanded, throwing some sheets of paper down on the table.
“Have a seat, Reg,” I said. “Ask Angie for a couple of ice cubes to cool you down.”
“This is no laughing matter, Ace,” he warned. “Look at this thing. It’s a disgrace!”
“What is it, Reg?” I asked.
“It’s supposed to be the first quiz in my boy’s high school civics class,” he said, “but it’s nothing but a piece of partisan propaganda! Every damned question on there is a deliberate slap at the administration! It’s brainwashing, is what it is! It’s a blatant attempt to portray the president and his administration as undemocratic, and by God I won’t stand for it!”
“My gosh, Reg,” I said. “Let me take a look at the thing. Is it really that bad?”
“It sure as hell is,” he bellowed. “Take a look for yourself.”
* * * *
QUIZ # 1: The Differences Between Democratic and Totalitarian Societies
With the opening chapter of our textbook, we discussed the differences between a democratic society and a totalitarian society. The quiz below contains ten pairs of statements. Write “democratic” in the blank space for the statement in each pair which describes a democratic society, and “totalitarian” in the blank space for the statement in each pair which describes a totalitarian society.
1.A. In a _____________________ society, the free flow of information is essential so people can make informed decisions. Every effort is made to see that the public receives the most complete and most accurate information possible.
1. B. In a ____________________ society, many important decisions are made in secret, and vital information is hidden from the public. The government propagandizes its own citizenry.
2.A. In a _____________________ society, open debate and dissenting views are not only welcome but promoted because everyone is considered valuable, because everyone is entitled to a voice in decisions affecting all, and because testing ideas and opinions ultimately results in wiser decisions.
2.B. In a _____________________ society, people who express views contrary to those held by people in power are attacked as unpatriotic, ridiculed, dismissed from government positions, and effectively denied a voice in the media.
3.A. In a _____________________ society, the right to know the charges against you, to be represented by effective counsel, to be given your day in court in a timely manner, and to have a fair trial before a jury of your peers are all guaranteed to every person accused of a crime.
3.B. In a _____________________ society, certain prisoners can be held indefinitely, imprisoned without being charged with a crime, denied the opportunity to counsel, and denied a chance to defend themselves in an open court.
4.A. In a _____________________ society, prisoners are recognized as human beings, worthy of basic levels of respect and dignity. They are treated humanely and granted fundamental rights, regardless of their crimes.
4.B. In a _____________________ society, certain prisoners are demeaned and degraded. They are treated with contempt, tortured, and brutalized.
5.A. In a _____________________ society, people’s private reading, writing, correspondence, and conversations are their own affair, protected from governmental intrusion except in limited, specified, carefully supervised circumstances.
5.B. In a _____________________ society, people’s private reading, writing, correspondence, and conversations are subject to secret government scrutiny, with little or no control over whose privacy is invaded, or why, or when.
6.A. In a _____________________ society, the right of citizens to assemble and to protest.peacefully is valued and protected.
6.B. In a _____________________ society, citizens are hindered or barred from peaceful protest. Legal obstacles are created to frustrate their protests; they are harassed, intimidated, even arrested when they attempt to make their contrary views known.
7.A. In a _____________________ society, the leader is subject to the rule of law and constrained by the checks and balances of the legislature and judiciary.
7.B. In a _____________________ society, the leader ignores or dismisses inconvenient laws, and is unchecked by the legislature and judiciary.
8.A. In a _____________________ society, every effort is made to extend the right to vote, to remove obstacles to voting, and to ensure that votes are counted accurately.
8.B. In a _____________________ society, the right to vote is curtailed, obstacles are deliberately created to deny certain classes of citizens the right to vote, and voting irregularities may be ignored.
9.A. In a _____________________ society, the state maintains separation of church and state, protecting an individual’s freedom to preach or practice a religion, or to have no religion, while refraining from promoting religion in general or certain religious views in particular.
9.B. In a _____________________ society, the state either suppresses the freedom to worship, or promotes the religious views of those in power.
10.A. In a _____________________ society, decisions on taxation and expenditures are made with the intent of promoting the common good, protecting the weakest citizens, increasing access to opportunity, and rewarding effort and merit rather than birth.
10.B. In a _____________________ society, decisions on taxation and expenditures are made with the intent of promoting the interests of the powerful, protecting their lives of privilege, increasing their share of the nation’s wealth, and passing their wealth and privilege on to their heirs.
FOR EXTRA CREDIT: Based on the distinctions above, the country in which you are
now living would best be characterized as a _____________________ society.
* * * *
“I don’t know, Reg,” I said. “Those look like pretty standard distinctions to me. And I don’t see any reference to political parties, or to specific political decisions there. What makes you think it’s an attack on Mr. Bush and his administration?”
“Because all the ones that are supposed to be identified as ‘totalitarian’ are obvious references to things the president and his people have done to keep us secure, you numbskull!”
“So what are you saying, Reg? That totalitarian societies are safer than democracies? That you’d rather be safe than free? I’m having a hard time following you here.”
“Listen, Ace. The president is just doing his job. And I’m going to see that this loose cannon does his. Or loses it.”
“You could just tell him to switch the definitions in each pair,” I suggested. “Maybe that would give you something you’d be more comfortable with. How did your boy do on the test, by the way?”
His face turned grim. “That’s what really cheeses me off,” he said. “He aced it.”
© Tony Russell, 2006
Monday, March 20, 2006
“The Devil’s Work”
Patty and I were standing outside church after this morning’s service, chatting with the Mitchells. “What have you heard from Sheena?” asked Patty. “Is she doing okay?” (Sheena is the Mitchell’s daughter, a twenty-four year old who is in the Army Reserve and doing her second tour in Iraq.)
“We got a letter from her yesterday,” said Eloise. “She sounded cheerful, but I know she always tries to sound cheerful so we won’t worry. And all that does is make me worry more. I just wish she could come home.”
“The president said yesterday that we have to resist the temptation to pull out of Iraq,” I reminded them. “Have you been tempted?”
She flushed. “The Devil whispered in my ear that we should leave,” she admitted. “But I wouldn’t listen to him.”
“What did he say?” asked Patty.
Eloise looked troubled. “He said that Sheena might … might get killed, and … that it’s all a waste!” she blurted out. “He said that over two thousand of our soldiers have died, and probably a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians, and the situation keeps getting worse and worse, while the president keeps saying it’s getting better and better.”
We all stood awkwardly silent for a minute. “Satan just knows how to worm his way into your heart,” Patty said finally. “He’s getting at you through your love for your daughter and your sympathy for other human beings.”
“I know,” said Eloise unhappily, “but it’s hard. I feel so alone.”
Patty looked uneasy. “The Devil has been tempting me too,” she confessed. “He whispers that we went to war because the president claimed the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction, and because they were linked with al Qaeda’s attack on September 11. The Devil tells me that since there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction, and since there wasn’t any link with al Qaeda, there wasn’t any reason for us to be there in the first place, and so there’s no reason for us to be there now.”
“The devil is tempting you with logic,” Eloise said.
Paul looked at the three of us. “I’ve been tempted too,” he said.
“How does the Devil try to get at you?” I asked.
“He tells me that we’re squandering hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve nothing but death and destruction,” said Paul. “He claims that there are millions of people who will never get the education or the health care or the child care or the housing they could have because we’re just pouring money out like water onto the desert sand.”
“That’s the way the Devil works,” I said. “He knows your weakness. See, he knows you’re vulnerable to being a good steward with money. He plays on that.”
“Well, has he been tempting you?” countered Paul. “Do you have a weakness he’s exploiting?”
I could feel my face turning red. “Okay,” I admitted. “He does come and whisper in my ear once in a while—especially at night, when I’m having trouble sleeping.”
“I didn’t know that,” said Patty, with some surprise. “What does he tell you?”
“I don’t really want to say.”
“Ace, that’s not fair!” said Patty indignantly. “Everybody else admitted they were tempted, and shared what the Devil said to them.”
They all just stared at me. “All right, all right,” I said finally. “But it’s not very nice. He told me that the war was turning us into the very thing we said we were fighting. He said that we not only use brutality and torture, but actually claim that it’s okay. That we’re holding prisoners without charge, even though it’s against the Constitution. That we’re kidnapping people and sending them to secret prisons abroad. That the government is eavesdropping on anyone it wants, even though it’s against the Constitution. That we blow up women and kids and dismiss it as ‘collateral damage.’ That we ignore corruption on a gigantic scale. That we’re betraying everything we ever said we stood for. ”
“Ace!” said Eloise, shocked. “How could you!?”
“It wasn’t me,” I said defensively. “That’s the Devil’s work. I wouldn’t say those things on my own.”
“He just played on your patriotism,” said Paul. “He knew you were vulnerable there.”
“Gosh, the Devil has sure been busy,” said Eloise. “It sounds as if the president spoke out just in time.”
© Tony Russell, 2006
“We got a letter from her yesterday,” said Eloise. “She sounded cheerful, but I know she always tries to sound cheerful so we won’t worry. And all that does is make me worry more. I just wish she could come home.”
“The president said yesterday that we have to resist the temptation to pull out of Iraq,” I reminded them. “Have you been tempted?”
She flushed. “The Devil whispered in my ear that we should leave,” she admitted. “But I wouldn’t listen to him.”
“What did he say?” asked Patty.
Eloise looked troubled. “He said that Sheena might … might get killed, and … that it’s all a waste!” she blurted out. “He said that over two thousand of our soldiers have died, and probably a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians, and the situation keeps getting worse and worse, while the president keeps saying it’s getting better and better.”
We all stood awkwardly silent for a minute. “Satan just knows how to worm his way into your heart,” Patty said finally. “He’s getting at you through your love for your daughter and your sympathy for other human beings.”
“I know,” said Eloise unhappily, “but it’s hard. I feel so alone.”
Patty looked uneasy. “The Devil has been tempting me too,” she confessed. “He whispers that we went to war because the president claimed the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction, and because they were linked with al Qaeda’s attack on September 11. The Devil tells me that since there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction, and since there wasn’t any link with al Qaeda, there wasn’t any reason for us to be there in the first place, and so there’s no reason for us to be there now.”
“The devil is tempting you with logic,” Eloise said.
Paul looked at the three of us. “I’ve been tempted too,” he said.
“How does the Devil try to get at you?” I asked.
“He tells me that we’re squandering hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve nothing but death and destruction,” said Paul. “He claims that there are millions of people who will never get the education or the health care or the child care or the housing they could have because we’re just pouring money out like water onto the desert sand.”
“That’s the way the Devil works,” I said. “He knows your weakness. See, he knows you’re vulnerable to being a good steward with money. He plays on that.”
“Well, has he been tempting you?” countered Paul. “Do you have a weakness he’s exploiting?”
I could feel my face turning red. “Okay,” I admitted. “He does come and whisper in my ear once in a while—especially at night, when I’m having trouble sleeping.”
“I didn’t know that,” said Patty, with some surprise. “What does he tell you?”
“I don’t really want to say.”
“Ace, that’s not fair!” said Patty indignantly. “Everybody else admitted they were tempted, and shared what the Devil said to them.”
They all just stared at me. “All right, all right,” I said finally. “But it’s not very nice. He told me that the war was turning us into the very thing we said we were fighting. He said that we not only use brutality and torture, but actually claim that it’s okay. That we’re holding prisoners without charge, even though it’s against the Constitution. That we’re kidnapping people and sending them to secret prisons abroad. That the government is eavesdropping on anyone it wants, even though it’s against the Constitution. That we blow up women and kids and dismiss it as ‘collateral damage.’ That we ignore corruption on a gigantic scale. That we’re betraying everything we ever said we stood for. ”
“Ace!” said Eloise, shocked. “How could you!?”
“It wasn’t me,” I said defensively. “That’s the Devil’s work. I wouldn’t say those things on my own.”
“He just played on your patriotism,” said Paul. “He knew you were vulnerable there.”
“Gosh, the Devil has sure been busy,” said Eloise. “It sounds as if the president spoke out just in time.”
© Tony Russell, 2006
Thursday, March 16, 2006
"If I Were President"
Of Principalities and Powers ~ "If I Were President"
Today's column is a guest piece, and consists of a note from my son Micah and a brief essay by his daughter (my granddaughter) Maureen.
Dad,
Just thought I'd pass along Maureen's prize-winning essay. Her entire school was asked to write an essay entitled "If I Were President"; Maureen's essay was chosen to represent Confidence Elementary. So here goes Maureen (age 7). I've never been more proud.
Micah
P.S. This was written in class without the influence--or even prior knowledge--of Dad.
If I Were President
If I were the President I would stop wars. If some people wanted war they would have to move where there was a different President. I would also throw a celebration since I ended war, because war is a terrible thing. The reason I would do this is because too many people get hurt or killed in war.
Also as President, I would make rich and poor equal. I would do this by making the rich pay taxes that pay the poor money. The poor would use this money for homes, jobs, college, and much more. I would also make the rich give some of their belongings to the poor. That’s what I’d do if I were President.
© Tony Russell, 2006
Today's column is a guest piece, and consists of a note from my son Micah and a brief essay by his daughter (my granddaughter) Maureen.
Dad,
Just thought I'd pass along Maureen's prize-winning essay. Her entire school was asked to write an essay entitled "If I Were President"; Maureen's essay was chosen to represent Confidence Elementary. So here goes Maureen (age 7). I've never been more proud.
Micah
P.S. This was written in class without the influence--or even prior knowledge--of Dad.
If I Were President
If I were the President I would stop wars. If some people wanted war they would have to move where there was a different President. I would also throw a celebration since I ended war, because war is a terrible thing. The reason I would do this is because too many people get hurt or killed in war.
Also as President, I would make rich and poor equal. I would do this by making the rich pay taxes that pay the poor money. The poor would use this money for homes, jobs, college, and much more. I would also make the rich give some of their belongings to the poor. That’s what I’d do if I were President.
© Tony Russell, 2006
Monday, March 13, 2006
“A Three-Letter Word”
I was watching the game on TV, while Patty was reading the paper.
“There it is again,” she said.
“There’s what again?” I asked.
“’Misled,’” she said. “Here’s another story where someone is charging that the administration ‘misled’ the public. You see them all the time any more.”
“Now that you mention it, I guess you’re right,” I said. “What’s your point?”
“I don’t know,” she said hesitantly. “It just seems as if the reporters are… pussyfooting around something. As if they’re doing anything they can to avoid calling a spade a spade. ”
“You mean like saying that the President’s claim that we had hard proof the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction was … ‘inaccurate’?”
“Um hum,” she nodded. “Or when the administration trumpeted all those feel-good stories about the heroics of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman, and it turned out the stories were just … ‘in error.’”
“Or when they claimed that Bush’s tax cuts were going primarily to the middle class and lower-income people, and they were actually going to the wealthy,” I said. “That was just a… ‘discrepancy’?”
“There has to be a better way of putting it,” she said. “I know there’s a word that captures what I’m trying to say. It’s on the tip of my tongue, but I just can’t think of it.”
“Is it ‘spin’?” I asked. “Like when the President claimed that privatization would save the social security system, and, in fact, it would undermine it?”
“No, that’s not it,” she said, frustrated. “I’m thinking of something like the administration’s claim that they didn’t know the levee in New Orleans had been breached until several days after the fact.”
“Oh, and now Michael Brown is testifying that he notified the President’s staff the very same day, and may even have told the President directly.”
“Right. And the President went on TV and said ‘Nobody could have anticipated’ the damage to New Orleans, and now we have a video of a conference right before the storm where a roomful of experts and government officials is telling him, in detail, how bad it is going to be.”
“So now people are saying the President may have ‘distorted’ what occurred.’”
“Yes,” she said, “that’s the kind of thing I’m talking about. Where the administration says something that’s clearly contrary to the facts. What’s the word I’m looking for?”
“I don’t know,” I said, yawning, as the Mountaineers missed yet another three-point shot. “But I’m a reporter. We write for a mass audience, so there are a lot of fancy words we don’t use.”
“This isn’t some obscure, Latinate word,” she said. “It’s something short and precise and to the point.”
“Let’s see,” I said. “Are you thinking of something like when the administration put out those figures on the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, when they knew going in that the figures were wrong, and they gagged a government worker who wanted to supply accurate numbers to Congress?”
“Right,” she said. “They were saying something they knew wasn’t true.”
“Okay,” I said. “’Made a mistake’ doesn’t get at the actual intention to deceive. How about ‘misrepresented’? Or maybe ‘bore false witness.’ Remember when they circulated stories in the Republican primary that John McCain had fathered a black baby? Or when they assembled those military figures to say things they knew were false about John Kerry’s military record?”
“’Misrepresented’ and ‘bore false witness’ get at the idea,” said Patty, “but they’re still just not quite right. I can almost picture the word I want. It’s short. I think it’s a three-letter word. Darn it,” she said in exasperation, “I must be getting Old-timer’s Disease.”
“Well, what did the papers call it when Dick Cheney went around insisting that there was a link between Saddam and 9-11, long after intelligence had determined that was absurd?”
She thought a minute. “I can’t remember for sure,” she said. “I think they just said he was ‘misguided,’ but they may have said he was ‘overzealous.’”
“Listen, Patty,” I said, “the second half just started. Why don’t you fix me a ham sandwich and bring me a beer, and go on up to bed. I’ll just watch a few more minutes and be right up.”
“Ace,” she said, “that’s a lie and you know it.”
© Tony Russell, 2006
“There it is again,” she said.
“There’s what again?” I asked.
“’Misled,’” she said. “Here’s another story where someone is charging that the administration ‘misled’ the public. You see them all the time any more.”
“Now that you mention it, I guess you’re right,” I said. “What’s your point?”
“I don’t know,” she said hesitantly. “It just seems as if the reporters are… pussyfooting around something. As if they’re doing anything they can to avoid calling a spade a spade. ”
“You mean like saying that the President’s claim that we had hard proof the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction was … ‘inaccurate’?”
“Um hum,” she nodded. “Or when the administration trumpeted all those feel-good stories about the heroics of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman, and it turned out the stories were just … ‘in error.’”
“Or when they claimed that Bush’s tax cuts were going primarily to the middle class and lower-income people, and they were actually going to the wealthy,” I said. “That was just a… ‘discrepancy’?”
“There has to be a better way of putting it,” she said. “I know there’s a word that captures what I’m trying to say. It’s on the tip of my tongue, but I just can’t think of it.”
“Is it ‘spin’?” I asked. “Like when the President claimed that privatization would save the social security system, and, in fact, it would undermine it?”
“No, that’s not it,” she said, frustrated. “I’m thinking of something like the administration’s claim that they didn’t know the levee in New Orleans had been breached until several days after the fact.”
“Oh, and now Michael Brown is testifying that he notified the President’s staff the very same day, and may even have told the President directly.”
“Right. And the President went on TV and said ‘Nobody could have anticipated’ the damage to New Orleans, and now we have a video of a conference right before the storm where a roomful of experts and government officials is telling him, in detail, how bad it is going to be.”
“So now people are saying the President may have ‘distorted’ what occurred.’”
“Yes,” she said, “that’s the kind of thing I’m talking about. Where the administration says something that’s clearly contrary to the facts. What’s the word I’m looking for?”
“I don’t know,” I said, yawning, as the Mountaineers missed yet another three-point shot. “But I’m a reporter. We write for a mass audience, so there are a lot of fancy words we don’t use.”
“This isn’t some obscure, Latinate word,” she said. “It’s something short and precise and to the point.”
“Let’s see,” I said. “Are you thinking of something like when the administration put out those figures on the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, when they knew going in that the figures were wrong, and they gagged a government worker who wanted to supply accurate numbers to Congress?”
“Right,” she said. “They were saying something they knew wasn’t true.”
“Okay,” I said. “’Made a mistake’ doesn’t get at the actual intention to deceive. How about ‘misrepresented’? Or maybe ‘bore false witness.’ Remember when they circulated stories in the Republican primary that John McCain had fathered a black baby? Or when they assembled those military figures to say things they knew were false about John Kerry’s military record?”
“’Misrepresented’ and ‘bore false witness’ get at the idea,” said Patty, “but they’re still just not quite right. I can almost picture the word I want. It’s short. I think it’s a three-letter word. Darn it,” she said in exasperation, “I must be getting Old-timer’s Disease.”
“Well, what did the papers call it when Dick Cheney went around insisting that there was a link between Saddam and 9-11, long after intelligence had determined that was absurd?”
She thought a minute. “I can’t remember for sure,” she said. “I think they just said he was ‘misguided,’ but they may have said he was ‘overzealous.’”
“Listen, Patty,” I said, “the second half just started. Why don’t you fix me a ham sandwich and bring me a beer, and go on up to bed. I’ll just watch a few more minutes and be right up.”
“Ace,” she said, “that’s a lie and you know it.”
© Tony Russell, 2006
Thursday, March 09, 2006
“Bush Reports Contacts with Abramoff”
BUSH REPORTS CONTACTS WITH ABRAMOFF
Washington, Feb. 16 -
Celebrity lobbyist Jack Abramoff met President Bush in almost a dozen different settings over the past five years and was invited to the President’s Crawford, Texas, ranch in the summer of 2003, the President told a reporter in an e-mail last month.
Bush’s claim directly contradicts assertions by Abramoff’s aides that the lobbyist doesn’t know the President and has no recollection of ever having met him, assertions made as Abramoff attempts to distance himself from the numerous scandals and controversies surrounding the administration.
In mentioning the invitation to Texas in 2003, Bush was apparently referring to a private barbecue he hosted for his biggest fundraisers at the Broken Spoke Ranch, down the road from the president's rustic compound near Crawford, on Aug. 9 of that year. About 350 Republicans who had raised at least $50,000 each for Bush were invited, including Abramoff.
In the e-mail, Bush says that Abramoff was a Pioneer who gave at least a hundred thousand dollars to his campaign war chest. “Of course we knew each other!” he asserts. “Do you think any politician doesn’t know and cultivate somebody who drops that kind of change on him? Besides, his name begins with an ‘A’ followed by a ‘B.’ Whenever I looked at a list of big donors, they were arranged alphabetically, and he was the first guy on the list.”
“I don’t know why he’s claiming he doesn’t know who I am. Abramoff has one of the best memories of any lobbyist I have ever met," Bush told Ken Eye of Districian magazine. "The guy saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids. We both have twins, and we used to swap stories about crazy things they’d done. My wife Laura has a picture of herself with Jack’s wife. I picked him as a member of the transition team to launch my administration, for crying out loud."
In the e-mail, Bush scoffs at Abramoff's public statements that he does not recall ever meeting the disgraced eavesdropper and former Texas Rangers owner. "He’s known for his remarkable memory!" Bush wrote. Eye, an editor for Districian, said in an interview that the President was the source of his exclusive report last month that at least five photographs of Abramoff with Bush exist. Bush showed him the pictures, Eye said. Bush has told others he will not release them publicly.
Despite the President’s assertions, Abramoff has maintained that he does not recall ever meeting Bush or posing for pictures with the President at official events or parties. Abramoff’s lobbying firm has refused to release the pictures or detail Bush's contacts with top officials of the firm over the past five years.
Abramoff spokesman Steve McCumbers said yesterday that "what Mr. Abramoff said still stands. Mr. Bush is someone who was involved in launching an illegal war, authorizing illegal wiretapping, and countenancing torture. It’s understandable why he would want his name to be connected with someone of Mr. Abramoff’s stature. However, no such connection exists.”
McCumbers said that the photographs of Bush with Abramoff are no different from thousands Abramoff has taken each year with visitors, clients, government officials, Republican politicians, and even reporters, and that it would not be unusual for the lobbyist to not recall meeting Bush.
No evidence has emerged that Abramoff or his top aides are implicated in illegal wiretapping by Bush and his officials, according to people familiar with the ongoing investigation.
Eye said Bush did not grant him permission to release the contents of their e-mail, and Bush is upset that Eye did. Eye said he has known Bush for years and considers the level of vilification "out of proportion." “It’s not as if he killed somebody,” he argued. Eye later backed off this position when told that over 2,300 U.S. troops and 100,000 Iraqis have now died as a consequence of the illegal invasion of Iraq.
© Tony Russell, 2006
Washington, Feb. 16 -
Celebrity lobbyist Jack Abramoff met President Bush in almost a dozen different settings over the past five years and was invited to the President’s Crawford, Texas, ranch in the summer of 2003, the President told a reporter in an e-mail last month.
Bush’s claim directly contradicts assertions by Abramoff’s aides that the lobbyist doesn’t know the President and has no recollection of ever having met him, assertions made as Abramoff attempts to distance himself from the numerous scandals and controversies surrounding the administration.
In mentioning the invitation to Texas in 2003, Bush was apparently referring to a private barbecue he hosted for his biggest fundraisers at the Broken Spoke Ranch, down the road from the president's rustic compound near Crawford, on Aug. 9 of that year. About 350 Republicans who had raised at least $50,000 each for Bush were invited, including Abramoff.
In the e-mail, Bush says that Abramoff was a Pioneer who gave at least a hundred thousand dollars to his campaign war chest. “Of course we knew each other!” he asserts. “Do you think any politician doesn’t know and cultivate somebody who drops that kind of change on him? Besides, his name begins with an ‘A’ followed by a ‘B.’ Whenever I looked at a list of big donors, they were arranged alphabetically, and he was the first guy on the list.”
“I don’t know why he’s claiming he doesn’t know who I am. Abramoff has one of the best memories of any lobbyist I have ever met," Bush told Ken Eye of Districian magazine. "The guy saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids. We both have twins, and we used to swap stories about crazy things they’d done. My wife Laura has a picture of herself with Jack’s wife. I picked him as a member of the transition team to launch my administration, for crying out loud."
In the e-mail, Bush scoffs at Abramoff's public statements that he does not recall ever meeting the disgraced eavesdropper and former Texas Rangers owner. "He’s known for his remarkable memory!" Bush wrote. Eye, an editor for Districian, said in an interview that the President was the source of his exclusive report last month that at least five photographs of Abramoff with Bush exist. Bush showed him the pictures, Eye said. Bush has told others he will not release them publicly.
Despite the President’s assertions, Abramoff has maintained that he does not recall ever meeting Bush or posing for pictures with the President at official events or parties. Abramoff’s lobbying firm has refused to release the pictures or detail Bush's contacts with top officials of the firm over the past five years.
Abramoff spokesman Steve McCumbers said yesterday that "what Mr. Abramoff said still stands. Mr. Bush is someone who was involved in launching an illegal war, authorizing illegal wiretapping, and countenancing torture. It’s understandable why he would want his name to be connected with someone of Mr. Abramoff’s stature. However, no such connection exists.”
McCumbers said that the photographs of Bush with Abramoff are no different from thousands Abramoff has taken each year with visitors, clients, government officials, Republican politicians, and even reporters, and that it would not be unusual for the lobbyist to not recall meeting Bush.
No evidence has emerged that Abramoff or his top aides are implicated in illegal wiretapping by Bush and his officials, according to people familiar with the ongoing investigation.
Eye said Bush did not grant him permission to release the contents of their e-mail, and Bush is upset that Eye did. Eye said he has known Bush for years and considers the level of vilification "out of proportion." “It’s not as if he killed somebody,” he argued. Eye later backed off this position when told that over 2,300 U.S. troops and 100,000 Iraqis have now died as a consequence of the illegal invasion of Iraq.
© Tony Russell, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)