Remember when the press told us how Howard Dean had squirreled away from public view his Vermont Governor's papers?
It was a pretty big story.
Now remember when you learned that George W. Bush did the same, only he violated Texas law to do it? No? Me neither.
I do now, courtesy of John Dean, who recounts the story in his angry new book, "Worse than Watergate –The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush" (Little, Brown).
Having read a strongly negative review in the New York Times, I suspected the book might not be worth reading. I was wrong.
Dean is a lawyer. A proponent of open government. And he has some experience with the way politics can threaten our democratic Republic.
This gives him perspective on events. Take Vice President Cheney’s refusal to let the GAO know who was in the room when they talked oil policy. (Not what they said, just who was there.)
I assumed it was about politics; that Cheney didn’t want a spotlight on the presence of Enron and umpteen other energy companies and the absence of any environmentalists. Dean thinks not. The former counsel to Richard Nixon believes Cheney’s aim is to accure power to the Executive and take it from the Legislative. The Imperial Presidency is not dead.
I’m not quite halfway through "Worse than Watergate", but it’s already rewarded my attention, so I recommend it to you.
In a radio commercial for Judge Violet Otero, Governor Richardson
says "Otero" with a rolled, Spanish "r."
Then the Judge is heard, saying "I'm Violet Otero." And her "Otero" has no Spanish flavor. It's a pure American "r."
I have no idea what this means or tells us. If anything.
This past week, the New york Times ran a "mea culpa" on its coverage of the crisis in Iraq that led to the US attack on Iraq. Its lead reporter on those stories, Judith Miller, swallowed a lot of what Ahmad Chalabi and his friends said.
Wonderful. Maybe now the Times will turn its attention to its inability to use language correctly.
Today's Times, for example, carries a story headlined "Conservative Allies Take Chalabi Case to White House." In it, Elisabeth Bumiller refers to Raichard Perle as a conservative.
Conservatives, if there are any left, will (or should) protest loudly.
Meanwhile, I will do my duty by pointing out how you can describe Perle and his allies accurately. In traditional "political continuum" terms, they are "neo-conservatives."
In psychiatric terms - nuts. Or if you prefer a religious context - true believer.
But nobody who pushed the US to launch a preemptive war, unilaterally, based on an unproven geo-political thesis and justified by warped intelligence about WMDs and lies about Iraqi ties to al Qaeda cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called "conservative."
PS The Associated Press story in today's Albuquerque Journal on Harlan McKosato's desire to create an Indian-oriented cable channel totally demolishes any distinctions between cable and over-the-air TV, channels and stations. In fairness to AP, the Journal headline writer makes a signifcant contribution to the confusion.
Except by our leading newspaper.
The classic explanation of the Yiddish "chutzpah" goes like this:
The kid murders his mother and father. Once before the judge, he asks for mercy. On what grounds? "Because I am an orphan," he says.
Yesterday George W. Bush campaigned in Tennessee, talking about better health care.
Yes, you read that correctly. President Bush, whose record on health care is unbelievably terrible, campaigned on health care. What chutzpah!
The Democrats' response? A speech on foreign policy.
Now I know Sen. Kerry's strategy is to go to the middle. He's looking for the votes of the "moderates," the "undecideds." He doesn't have to please me or any old-fashiond Democrat. We have no place to go.
But so what? Even if you are going after the middle-of-the-roaders, it makes sense to have a "Truth Squad" following Bush and responding immediately to his fantasies.
I fear the Democratic Party still doesn't understand that the Bush folks are not conventional opponents, that polite discourse alone will not win the White House.
Bush and his political operatives are serial liars.
Item: Their Medicare chief muzzled a Medicare auditor- the muzzler is now raking in big bucks as a lobbyist - and lied about its total cost to members of their own party! (Some old-fashioned Republicans found it pricey even when it carried the phony lower price tag.)
They outed Ambassaor Wilson's wife, telling reporters she is a CIA operative. This is illegal, but more important - indecent. (Karl Rove defended that to Chris Matthews, saying "She's fair game.")
I could list hundreds of lies, but why? It is perfectly clear that gangsters run the White House.
Kerry doesn't have to imitate them. However, he must identify and rebut every lie immediately for a lazy news corps.
Events are educating the electorate, slowly, to the character of this Administration, but the opposition cannot depend on them. Kerry must do his job. That job is, first, to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. Secondly, to tell folks he knows how to dress.
I hate it when somebody else writes what I should have written. Like Paul Krugman of the New York Times. But his column in today's paper is right on.
So I have copied it below.
One caveat - while I agree with Krugman on what he says, I would note that he doesn't deal with what;s fundamental - the economic underpinnings of the news business. Which is kinda ironic; he's an economist, after all.
Here's the column:
To Tell the Truth
May 28, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Some news organizations, including The New York Times, are
currently engaged in self-criticism over the run-up to the
Iraq war. They are asking, as they should, why poorly
documented claims of a dire threat received prominent,
uncritical coverage, while contrary evidence was either
ignored or played down.
But it's not just Iraq, and it's not just The Times. Many
journalists seem to be having regrets about the broader
context in which Iraq coverage was embedded: a climate in
which the press wasn't willing to report negative
information about George Bush.
People who get their news by skimming the front page, or by
watching TV, must be feeling confused by the sudden change
in Mr. Bush's character. For more than two years after
9/11, he was a straight shooter, all moral clarity and
righteousness.
But now those people hear about a president who won't tell
a straight story about why he took us to war in Iraq or how
that war is going, who can't admit to and learn from
mistakes, and who won't hold himself or anyone else
accountable. What happened?
The answer, of course, is that the straight shooter never
existed. He was a fictitious character that the press, for
various reasons, presented as reality.
The truth is that the character flaws that currently have
even conservative pundits fuming have been visible all
along. Mr. Bush's problems with the truth have long been
apparent to anyone willing to check his budget arithmetic.
His inability to admit mistakes has also been obvious for a
long time. I first wrote about Mr. Bush's "infallibility
complex" more than two years ago, and I wasn't being
original.
So why did the press credit Mr. Bush with virtues that
reporters knew he didn't possess? One answer is misplaced
patriotism. After 9/11 much of the press seemed to reach a
collective decision that it was necessary, in the interests
of national unity, to suppress criticism of the commander
in chief.
Another answer is the tyranny of evenhandedness. Moderate
and liberal journalists, both reporters and commentators,
often bend over backward to say nice things about
conservatives. Not long ago, many commentators who are now
caustic Bush critics seemed desperate to differentiate
themselves from "irrational Bush haters" who were neither
haters nor irrational - and whose critiques look pretty
mild in the light of recent revelations.
And some journalists just couldn't bring themselves to
believe that the president of the United States was being
dishonest about such grave matters.
Finally, let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After
9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative
about the president, you had to be prepared for an
avalanche of hate mail. You had to expect right-wing
pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your
reputation, and you had to worry about being denied access
to the sort of insider information that is the basis of
many journalistic careers.
The Bush administration, knowing all this, played the press
like a fiddle. But has that era come to an end?
A new Pew survey finds 55 percent of journalists in the
national media believing that the press has not been
critical enough of Mr. Bush, compared with only 8 percent
who believe that it has been too critical. More important,
journalists seem to be acting on that belief.
Amazing things have been happening lately. The usual
suspects have tried to silence reporting about prison
abuses by accusing critics of undermining the troops - but
the reports keep coming. The attorney general has called
yet another terror alert - but the press raised questions
about why. (At a White House morning briefing, Terry Moran
of ABC News actually said what many thought during other
conveniently timed alerts: "There is a disturbing
possibility that you are manipulating the American public
in order to get a message out.")
It may not last. In July 2002, according to Dana Milbank of
The Washington Post - who has tried, at great risk to his
career, to offer a realistic picture of the Bush presidency
- "the White House press corps showed its teeth" for the
first time since 9/11. It didn't last: the administration
beat the drums of war, and most of the press relapsed into
docility.
But this time may be different. And if it is, Mr. Bush -
who has always depended on that docility - may be in even
more trouble than the latest polls suggest.
Colin Powell talked at length to the Albuquerque Journal and other regional newspapers. At one point, the Secretary of State said he encouraged the President to try the diplomatic route before attacking Iraq, knowing that it might or might not work,.
"It was always my understanding that whichever fork he took," Powell said, "I was going with him all the way..."
There it is - Colin Powell’s view of his role. "...with him all the way." Part of the team. Serving the President.
What a tragedy that this decent, thoughtful guy should limit himself that way.
It’s sad for him and for us that he did not quit the team to serve the country.
But I guess he never saw the distinction between the President and the Republic.
Thousands of years ago, I was a young reporter for the New York World-Telegram & Sun, where they told this possibly true, possibly made up story:
A society page reporter (Charles van Renseleer, I suspect) was fed up. He marched militantly into the editor’s office, and made it quite plain that he thought he deserved a raise.
"We gave it to you, Charlie,:" said the editor. "It was about six, seven months ago."
Nonplussed, Charlie confided that he hadn’t opened his paychecks for a while, then beat his retreat.
That came to mind because of today’s story - Treasury Secretary John Snow, who used to occupy the top spot at CSX, the railroad conglomerate, just discovered he had $10 million worth of debt securities he’d forgotten to get rid of when he took the federal job. He’s sold them now at a big loss.
Not opening a paycheck for six months.
Misplacing a $10 million investment.
I’m jealous.
A guy named Stanley Crosby quit as executive director of the Lea County Economic Development Corp.
Kathi Bearden, chairwoman of the EDC, "said the board did not ask for Crosby’s resignation," the Albuquerque Journal reports. The paper notes that Bearden is publisher of the Hobbs Daily News-Sun.
Why am I telling you all this? Bearden obviously sees no conflict of interest in holding those two positions. And I dare say most Americans would agree with her.
Could you ask for a better demonstration of press bias in favor of business? A better demonstration of how deep, ingrained and fundamental it is?
PS When did your daily’s business section last do anything other than cheer the business community? Remember the last time they broke a business scandal story?
Funny, neither can I.
At today's Senior Hall of Fame luncheon, the invocation - delivered by the Rt. Rev. Richard Trelease, once Episcopal Bishop here, struck me as odd.
I wish I had a transcript, but if memory servies, he didn't ask for God's blessing on our fighting men (as opposed to other fighting men). Nor did he use words like "right" and "Godly." And I did hear him ask for the Lord's blessing on our enemies, too.
Sounded open, generous.
When I complimented Richard later, he said it was designed to be "inclusive."
As an agnostic, I know beans about prayer. But I am very aware that in 2004 humans continue the age-old practiice of killing in the name of their deities. Osama bin Laden is the obvious example, but George W. Bush is absolutely certain that he is doing Christ's will in his Iraq policy, which has snuffed out the lives of about 800 Americlans and thousands of Iraqis thus far. And Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland haven't quite "laid down their swords and shields, down by the riverside" and some of the Jews and Muslims killing each other in Israel and the occupied territories are motivated by religion and...and...well, you get the idea.
Which explains why I perked up my ears at Dick Trelease's invocation.
PS How about a world-wide poll in which we ask believers, "Is it moral to kill for Jesus (or Allah or Jehovah)?
The Justice Department and FBI tell us to be alert. Seven al Qaeda terrorists may be in the US and planning an attack soon.
That may be true. Certainly al Qaeda – bolstered worldwide by our attack on Iraq - is a murderous threat.
But why do we get a warning now? Does the timing have anything to do with President Bush’s shrinking approval ratings?.
Sorry to be skeptical of my government, but I wrote months ago that this Administration will campaign on fear.
In fact, given the serial dishonesty of this White House, I find myself learning toward out-and-out cynicism. That is, I am close to disbelieving anything they say.
For now, though, let’s leave it at this. I have doubts about the timing of this warning.
This Administration’s single-minded devotion to corporate interests and short-term thinking would be funny if it were not so serious.
Commerce Secretary Donald Evans says given the high gas prices we may have to ease environmental rules on how the liquid is blended.
No need, of course, to use existing technology to make autos more gasoline thrifty. No need for research into alternative energy. No need to quit filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
No, what we should do is lift regulations protecting our lungs from dirty air.
As I was saying, it’s almost funny.
PS Bush’s Agriculture Department just gave up its attempt to undermine organic foods. It was going to permit growers who use pesticides and antibiotics to call the crops "organic."
Question: How far between a belly laugh and tears?
Amazing. Here is still another advocate of the war on Iraq scrambling to abandon the cause.
Jim Hoagland, the Washington Post columnist who advocated the now disastous war of choice, complains this morning that:
President Bush failed to establish an Iraqi government a year ago. He’s not telling the truth about the upcoming transfer of power.
He’s pretending that UN negotiator Brahimi is making easy progress on finding Iraqis to play intermim government.
He’s not admitting he won’t get NATO to bail him out because he thumbed his nose at them before.
And he’s not moving away from "the obsession with secrecy that is a cancer at the center of your Administration…"
Like the others, Hoagland is not saying it was wrong to go to war, just that it’s been a comedy of errors.
Yeah, it has.
It was not just ignorant ideologues - Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Libby, Cheney, Rumsfeld and friends - who were wrong on Iraq. Educated folk smoked the neo-conservative hashish, too.
Like Fouad Ajami. I have admired him for years, based on his wise comments as consultant to CBS News. I never realized he favored the war on Iraq, not until today when I read his NY Times Op-Ed piece which says, "Let’s face it: Iraq is not going to be America's showcase in the Arab-Muslim world."
"If some of the war's planners had thought," he writes, "that Iraq would be an ideal base for American primacy in the Persian Gulf, a beacon from which to spread democracy and reason throughout the Arab world, that notion has clearly been set aside."
Ajami, who teaches Middle Eastern studies at Johns Hopkins University, concludes:
"The gains already accomplished in Iraq, and the gains yet to be secured, are increasingly abstract and hard to pin down. The costs are visible to us, and heartbreaking. The subdued, somber tone with which the war is now described is the beginning of wisdom. In its modern history, Iraq has not been kind or gentle to its people. Perhaps it was folly to think that it was under any obligation to be kinder to strangers."
Yeah, it was folly.
In the latest issue of Newsweek, Fareed Zakeria, another advocate of the war, says it was not all for naught. Thanks to "Bush’s efforts," he reports, "Everywhere in the Arab world, people are talking about reform."
Wonderful. But "Bush’s efforts?" It is "thanks to" the sacrifice of some 800 trusting young Americans and thousands of Iraqis, many innocent. Oh, and the cost includes the creation of we-don’t-know-how-many new terrorists and whatever crimes they perpetrate in the future.
Expensive, isn’t it, putting something on the Arab agenda. Of course, the White House doesn’t pick up the tab. Others do. (A book about WWII PT boat crews in the South Pacific comes to mind – "We Were Expendable".)
Zakaria goes on to opine that "Western-style reforms" will eventually come to the Mideast, but "just don’t call them American-style reforms."
He explains:
"Thanks to the bitter cocktail of unilateralism, arrogance and incompetence that has characterized so much of the Bush Administration’s policy, American support could turn into the kiss of death for reformers.:"
Hey, he said it. Not me. And like Ajami, he favored attacking Iraq.
To be fair, these guys and a few others show rationality when they admit it's gone badly and decency when they say they may have been wrong.
Not so, our elected leaders - they continue to stonewall.
The Albuquerque Journal publishes an OP-Ed piece today by one James M. Taylor. Just under the headline and by-line, we read "from the Los Angeles Times." At the bottom, Mr. Taylor is identified as managing editor of "Environment & Climate News" and a fellow at the Heartland Insitute.
The essay condemns an attempted federal "land grab" in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act."
That may well be the case. But don't you think the Journal should alert readers to the fact that "Environment & Climate News" is published by the Heartland Institute, which is praised on its own web site as an effective "Libertarian" organization?
I do. I think that would help readers think about the arguments in the Op-Ed.
I will vote June 1 for Gerald Ortiz Y Pino, who is running for the Democratic nomination for State Senate in District 12.
Jerry comes from a distinguished New Mexico family and might have been excused if he had rested on inherited laurels. Instead, he has been very active in helping kids and families, sometimes as a community activist, sometimes in state and city jobs.
(You may know him through the columns he has contributed to the Santa Fe Reporter for many years and the Alibi for a few.)
On the national level, I will be voting - again - for the lesser evil. So it is a great pleasure to be wholeheartedly behind Jerry, somebody I have known for years and know to be a kindred spirit.
PS The Albuquerque Journal has now joined the Tribune in endorsing Don Letherer for the Democratic nomination for the PRC in District 1. This would rattle me if I didn't know that Don really is honest and public-spirited to a fault.
In any case, I feel confident the Journal will endorse the Republican in the general election.
Michael Coleman, the Albuquerque Journal's Washgton Bureau reporter, writes today that Rep. Heather Wilson is throwing tough questions at the Pentagon on the military's abuses in Iraq, unlike certain other House Republicans.
(I love what passes for journalism these days. Coleman thinks what happened in Abu Ghraib prison, according to sworn testimony and pictures, is properly described as "alleged abuse.")
My point, however, is that Wilson was and remains a supporter of the all-but-unilateral preemptive strike on Iraq. So what did she expect? What did the others expect?
I know she is an Air Force veteran, but she never saw war. Nor did the others - not George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Scotter Libby. The only lead actor who did, Colin Powell, was unenthusiastic. A few generals who doubted the war or Rumsfeld's strategy or his views on post-war Iraq are no longer in the Pentagon. Think Shinseki.
"Experience is the best teacher," according to the old saw.
That's good, but we need a new adage to keep it company. Something like "Certainty leads to disaster." Or, "Doubt is the first sign of rationality."
Your suggestions are welcome.
My friend Steve points out that I wrote about our soldiers dying in "Vietnam" when I should have written "Iraq" in an item called "A Whiff of Something Positive, May 18."
They are not identical situations - Vietnam and Iraq - though they have lots in common; most importantly the murder of innocents courtesy of leaders whose ignorance is matched only by their arrogance.
None of that excuses me, though. I beg your pardon.
The Congress, I read in this morning's newspaper, is considering a bill that would make entertainers, promoters, bartenders and such responsible for the use of marijuana (and other illegal drugs) by individuals attending concerts.
This is not nuts, just inconsistent. I see no reason a society should not discourage the use of drugs. However, it is surely senseless to leave out alcohol. whose dangers far outweigh those of pot, if measured only by the violence it so often provokes.
I am not holding my breath, however, until that happens.
PS The bill also presents Constitutional problems, of course, but the Constitution no longer presents the obstacle it once did to arbitrary government power. Thank the so-called "conservatives" in Washington for that.
Here is my monthly "New Wrinkles in Aging" column from the Albuquerque Tribune, May 20:
Pat Baca Keeps Finding a Way to Serve Us All
By Arthur Alpert
Pat Baca is a retiring type. His first retirement came after 37 years as a teacher and principal. He retired again after four-terms as City Councilman, one on the County Commission and a run for Albuquerque’s top political post. (In our wisdom, we chose the Stealth Mayor.)
Observing him back then, I thought Mr. Baca made politics honorable.
But he waved goodbye to all that years ago; so long to all those eternal meetings on intractable issues. So who’s the Pat Baca currently chairing the Unification Charter Commission? Couldn’t be, could it? At 77?
Suddenly, I knew what I must do.
"Why?," I would ask him. "Masochism? Temporary insanity?" His answers would throw light on the travails of retirement.
That was my agenda.
Pat Baca, it turns out, had his own - to proselytize for unifying the Albuquerque and Bernalillo County governments. We agreed to a showdown and once seated at Barelas Coffee House, a neutral site, whipped out our dueling agendas .
I shot first. "Why this thankless job?" I hoped he would talk about aging. No such luck.
"I always thought," he replied, "there’s got to be a better way." To govern ourselves, that is.
He got a call, agreed to throw a resume into the hopper, and – presto! - City and county representatives wanted him. That simple. The UCC’s job is to put a charter on the November ballot. The panel, Pat Baca stressed, is not advocating metro government. He is.
Back to my agenda - what did you do in retirement?
Some property management, he said, which kept him "fairly busy," and lots of travel with his wife, Marie. "It was a good pace for me, better than I ever had. My garden is better taken care of than it ever was." Tomatoes, that is, and roses, daffodils and tulips. A little work with the Storehouse, too, driving some disabled friends to the doctor, reading when he felt like it. Bull sessions with old friends. The good life.
But he couldn’t resist the job. Pat unholsters his weapons now. He says we need metro government to keep qualified professionals in office. Not long ago, he remembers a County treasurer who told the newspapers, without shame, that he worked 10 hours a week. An assessor guilty of "hanky panky." And clerks, plural, who couldn’t count.
He believes a single government would be more efficient, too, saving money by reducing duplication.
I point out that the voters said a loud "No," last time. That’s because the opposition was organized, Baca says, and proponents weren’t.
And our taxes won’t go up? He figures unification will make them fairer – right now City residents subsidize the County – and down the road, lower.
OK. I try again to reach the human story. Was taking the UCC job – a good decision or a mistake?
"Certainly my life in full retirement was tremendous, something I didn’t imagine life could be," he said. "But everybody has to have a sense of public service. It’s our responsibility to be of help to the community."
Service? Responsibility? Community?
However we vote on unification, we should never let Pat Baca retire again.
Alpert’s column appears the third Thursday of the month. Find him at ArthurAlpert@swcp.com.
The House has voted 271-139 to extend the $1000-per-child tax credit to families with incomes as high as $300,000 a year. Some Democrats noted that would make a lot of Congressional families eligible.
And, of course, the tax cut adds some $228 billion to the already huge deficit.
Wanna bet Heather was in the majority?
Ah, but let’s not be sour. I want to tell you about something sweet.
Yesterday I attended a LWV forum for candidates interested in Herb Hughes’ old District 1 seat on the Public Regulatory Commission.
The three Republicans were Ward Camp, Tina Cummins and Hess Yntema.
Camp is a lawyer-consultant in utility regulation, so his comments demonstrated familiarity with the issues. He has been active with Habitat for Humanity; on the other hand, he emphasizes his service as a member of the Executive Committee of the Bernalillo County Republicans.
Still I liked his familiarity with utilities issues and his ability to speak about them in English.
Tina Cummins, the City Councilor, was personable and intelligent, but she leans on claims of "common sense financial management" and "experience cutting bloated budgets…" And she’s endorsed by Sally Mayer.
I came away liking her, thinking she would be good in a promotional job.
Hess Yntema, the Libertarian lawyer who has served on the City Council twice, impressed me with his earnestness, intelligence and willingness to say "I don’t know." He took credit for his hard-nosed pursuit of Mayor Chavez in the ABQPAC affair, as well he should; Yntema conveys a certain moral strength.
But I wondered why a Libertarian wants to join a regulatory body. A perfect contradiction? And I cannot forget his strong opposition to the City’s role in rebuilding the Sports Stadium and wooing the Isotopes. Not that I was surprised; on principle, Libertarians hate spending public money on public goods.
There are two Democrats in the running, but Steven Marks did not show up. He had previously objected to the forum being held at PNM, since it is regulated by the PRC.
Don Letherer is the other Democrat in the race. Don was in the insurance business for years. Later, he was appointed State Superintendent of Insurance. The Albuquerque Tribune says he lowered rates for consumers. But that job is under the PRC and the political powers that be cashiered Don to replace him with Eric Serna, a political hack from Northern New Mexico.
Because I have known Don or years, I’ve paid attention to his campaign, if we can call it that. He has no mailings, bumper stickers, radio ads, nothing. He told one of the newspapers he saw no point in spending money in the primary, but might if he made it to the general election.
He is not even glad-handing. At two recent political gatherings, including the Romero-Nelson debate, Mr. Marks was a busy bee and Don Letherer was absent.
At the PNM forum, Don astounded me. First, he was unbelievably succcinct. Then, where he knew the issues (like insurance) he was strong and clear. Don said the Insurance Department belongs elsewhere in state government. He also favors the appointment of PRC commissioners rather than their election. (Also, he said he would try to minimize personal and political conflict on the panel and that he would be responsible to the citizenry first.)
Where he was less knowledgeable – in the utility area, for example - Don said just that, adding that he felt capable of learning the material.
He was so simple, straight-forward and unwilling to go beyond what he knows that I was uncomfortable. I never have the courage to admit my limitations, especially in public.
At the conclusion of the forum, I wanted to cheer for my friend Don.
But I was happy, too, with the other presentations, in particular those of Ward Camp and Hess Yntema. Yes, they talked too much about the "free market" but I got the sense that they cared about the issues and were personally dedicated to improving administration of government at the PRC.
For a while, I felt good about democracy itself. Until, outside, I found a parking ticket on my windshield. Oh, well.
Item: Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits expected a light sentence, says the Associated Press story in today’s Albuquerque Tribune, but prosecutors asked for the harshest penalty "…saying Sivits knew abuse was banned by the Geneva Conventions."
Item #2: "…as a means of preempting 9/11, Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods," reports the current Newsweek.
"It was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions…"
"In doing so, they overrode the objections of Secretary of State Colin Powell and America’s top military lawyers…."
So? So the grunt at the bottom of the chain of command gets the book thrown at him for violating the very Geneva Conventions that the guys at the very top of the chain deliberately schemed to evade.
Ah, justice.
This morning, I condemned CBS News here. Their tributes to American soldiers who have fallen in Iraq are appeasement, I said, of the White House. But there is another way to view those inserts in the CBS Evening News.
"That drives the White House crazy," said an old buddy in the news business. His view is that Bush and friends hate it when anybody puts a face on the young men and women losing their lives in Vietnam.
And when the honors for the victims come wrapped in the flag - the way Dan Rather is doing it - that bugs the White House no end, he said.
He may be right. I hope so.
Meanwhile, my friend, who is in a position to know, tells me there is real anger in the Army at George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.
A lot of it, he says, is because DOD sent the troops to Iraq with inadequate equipment.
I don't know how much credence to put in my friend's views. But it was nice to get a whiff of something positive.
i have just finished a complex, not wholly saisfying but educational novel.
"Abandon" (2003) is by Pico Iyer. He’s of Hindu origin, lives in Japan and California and writes about cultural issues for the New York Review of Books and Time, among others.
His story weaves strands of Islamic mysticism, romance and mystery into a brilliant but bewildering tapestry.
The spiritual quest, where I was mostly lost, is – big surprise - about God and the nature of reality. I did follow the love affair between an Englishman studying Sufiism and the poet Rumi) in Santa Barbara and a lovely, enigmatic California woman whose only certainty is that she is worthless. All this as the hero pursued ancient manuscripts that may have emerged from Iran in the wake of the revolution led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. Or not.
I found reading "Abandon" more frustrating than pleasurable. Still, it was satisfying to learn something about Islamic world - thanks to Washington's brilliant neo-conservatives we are, after all, in an epic struggle of civilizations - in non-political terms.
For a couple of weeks now, the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather has featured a daily "CBS News" tribute to a fallen American soldier in Iraq.
The soldiers’ sacrifices are immense. Even Americans who oppose the war should honor them. I see no reason, for example, why CBS News cannot help the soldiers' families financially.
But these tributes do not belong in a news program. They are not news. They are politics.
Their purpose is to tell viewers that CBS News is patriotic. After all, many Americans watching the terrible stories out of Iraq and Washington might well think it's those liberals at CBS at it again. Wasn't CBS's 60 Minutes II the first to air the images of US troops brutalizing Iraqi prisoners? You see?
No, the CBS News tributes have nothing to do with news and everything to do with protecting the network from the Bush White House and the right-wing apparatus it commands.
There is nothing new here. It is what CBS and ABC and NBC have been doing, sometimes subtly and sometimes brazenly, since 9/11.
What shall we call it? Capitulation? Appeasement?. Protecting the franchise?
All of those things, I suppose. And shameful.
A story in today's newspaper says Roman Catholic Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado warned voters against backing politicans who support abortion rights, stem-cell research euthanasis and gay marriage. They should not receive Communion, he said.
Elsewhere, the Journal notes in an editorial that the church's National Review Board, set up in the wake of the sexual abuse scandals, isn't getting cooperation from the bishops. They are "backsliding," according to Anne M. Burke, the board's interim chair, delaying their "audit of compliance" with the church's 2002 charter against abuse. And, says Burke, they didn't mention their desire to delay it. She figures that was "to make sure that they (these matters) did not come up in any discussions with the national media..."
Contradiction? Well, if so, the Roman Catholic Church is not the only religious institution guilty of that. All institutions put their interests before their preachments and their believers.
That is what it means to be an institution.
Craig Unger’s book of that title (Scribner, 2004) does not make a prima facie case that the Bush and Saud dynasties put their dollar interests before the security of the United States.
That said, it does establish to my satisfaction that Saudi Arabia bears more responsibility for 9/11 than any other nation.
It describes a complex, intimate relationship between the two families.
It contains evidence the Saudi royals have made the Bush family, and its friends, very wealthy. Unger estimates that "more than $1.4 billion has made their way from the House of Saud to individuals and entities tied to the House of Bush."
No prima facie case, but several interesting questions:
Did the Saudi royal family know that 9/11 was going to happen?
Did they knowingly finance al Qaeda? (They did finance it.)
Why did the White House expedite the flight from the US days after 9/11 of prominent Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family?
And why didn’t the FBI question them first?
The Saudis did not really cooperate with us in fighting Osama bin Laden before 9/11. Are they cooperating fully now?
Not only did the book raise questions, but it leads me to think that I have mis-understood the rationale for the war on Iraq.
Yes, the neo-conservatives believed we could bomb Iraq toward democracy and that the shock waves would roll through the Mideast, encouraging other Arab states to move in the same direction. Sort of a benign domino effect.
(As I wrote that last sentence, the enormous ignorance and stupidity involved in that "thinking" rose up and almost choked me. Think of the innocent lives.)
And yes, the attack on Iraq may have served Bush’s psychological needs vis-à-vis his father. Oil may have played a big part; we now know the principals looked at maps of Iraq’s oil fields. And presidential politics, too – Bush’s Presidency was foundering until he became a "war president."
But after reading Unger’s book, I wonder now if the war on Iraq was not also a great diversion, taking our eyes off Saudi Arabia’s role in terrorism. I think of the 15 Saudis (out of 19) who executed almost 3,000 New Yorkers. Of the money behind that deed. And I wonder what else there might have been.
You may want to read the book. If you are too busy to read it all, jump to the last four chapters. Please let me know what you think.
It’s perfectly clear now that Karl Rove has chosen the party line.
The abuses committed against Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison were the "actions of a few."
President Bush used those words in West Virginia yesterday. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said the same thing in Washington and Baghdad. Insufficient proof? OK. What about its use in an Albuquerque Joournal column today by an Administration spokesman – syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. He writes:
"But how do the actions of a few depraved soldiers among 135,000 negate the moral purpose of the entire enterprise…" etc., etc.
Closed case.
Reminder. The International Red Cross said the problem was systemic. The Army General who investigated said the problem involved chain of command problems. Both noted it went on for a long time.
It was not a few soldiers. It was systemic.
Having said that, give the White House credit for adopting a strategy that plays into folk wisdom. Everybody knows and almost everybody agrees that you can find a few bad apples in every barrel. Also, we know it doesn’t make sense to say the whole barrel is rotten.
Somewhere in the mists of antiquity, I guess, a ruler invented the "rotten apple" theory to distract attention from himself and his buddies at the top of the ladder and the way they were operating, their system.
It’s worked pretty well ever since, so many Americans may not put the blame where it belongs - on the rulers at the top of our ladder.
Wow! I paid $20 yesterday to almost fill the gas tank. This is getting serious, so let me point out – in case you didn’t know it - that a Roberts Oil Company station at Wyoming and Comanche regularly charges a few pennies fewer per gallon than the rest. Their price was $1.81.9 yesterday.
PS When prices for oil and gas rise, guess who profits? Besides the oil exporters, that is. American (and British and Dutch) oil companies. The industry that gave us a President and Vice-President.
The Iraq cheerleaders continue to make space between themselves and the White House.
o Today George Will, ever so delicately, asks Donald Rumsfeld to resign.
o Today Tom Friedman charges that "There is something even more important to the Bush crowd than getting Iraq right, and that's getting re-elected and staying loyal to the conservative base to do so. It has always been more important for the Bush folks to defeat liberals at home than Baathists abroad."
Friedman continues: "And, of course, why did the president praise Mr. Rumsfeld rather than fire him? Because Karl Rove says to hold the conservative base, you must always appear to be strong, decisive and loyal. It is more important that the president appear to be true to his team than that America appear to be true to its principles."
o In this week’s issue, Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria writes angrily that a handful of officials in the US Defense Department and Vice-President’s office have "commandeered" American foreign and defense policy. And?
"On almost every issue involving postwar Iraq – troop strength, international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali Sistani - Washington’s assumptions and policies have been wrong."
Zakaria concludes: "Whether he wins or loses in November George W. Bush’s legacy is now clear: the creation of a poisonous atmosphere of anti-Americanism around the globe."
That's progress, I suppose, but please note that they are critiquing the execution of the policy, not the policy itself. As if it was valuable.
It was not. Maureen Dowd put it this way today:
"The problem, of course, is that the war in Iraq started with lies — that Saddam's W.M.D. were endangering our security and that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11."
"In a public relations move that cheapens the heroism of soldiers, the Pentagon merged the medals for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, giving the G.W.O.T. medal, for Global War on Terrorism, in both wars to reinforce the idea that we had to invade Iraq to quell terrorism. The truth is that our invasion of Iraq spurred terrorism there and around the world."
Or, as Howard Dean stated so simply, we are not safer with Saddam Hussein gone.
Think Sen. Kerry will ever get around to saying that?
The story in today's Albuquerque Journal was headlined: "Lovelace Buys Cimarron Clients." the sub-head told us "38,000 Customers Involved in Deal."
Right on. That is the truth. In 2004, we no longer are patients to professional doctors and nurses. We arethe "clients" and "customers" of businesses in the health trade.
Funny, though - Lovelace Sandia's advertisement on page 4 of today's Journal says "Accepting New Patients."
About six weeks ago, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke to high school students in Mississippi. Reporters from AP and a local paper attended, recording Scalia's remarks. Federal Marshalls with Scalia forced them to erase what they had recorded.
Later, when the story broke, Scalia apologized.
Now AP is suing the Federal Marshalls Service. Here's what Dave Tomlin, an AP lawyer, said:
"People who enforce the law should know what the law is, and especially the basic law that says citizens can't be shaken down by their own government."
What gall! Yeah, they should. But what about the representatives of the Fourth Estate? Shouldn't reporters know enough to resist Storm Trooper tactics?
The press has no shame. Or, at least AP doesn't.
Just in case you were so focused on Iraq that you missed the news or saw the stories but failed to connect them:
o The US Senate approved $14 billion in tax breaks for oil and natural gas companies to spur energy production, along with a little money to spur conservation. In doing so, it rejected Sen. John McCain’s attempt to kill the subsidies. He said the bill was a "shameless scam," that the industry is profitable enough to do the job on its own.
The vote was 85-13, meaning almost as many Democrats as Republicans liked the idea. And our own Pete Domenici said, "I’m really pleased."
o Medicare officials said managed care companies will get a bump of at least 6.6% in payments in 2005, so they will stay in the business of insuring and caring for Medicare patients. Medicare already pays HMOs 7% more than it costs to treat patients in traditional Medicare.
o By a single vote, the Senate rejected extending unemployment benefits. Sen. Kerry was absent. Pete Domenici voted "No."
Richard Romero and Miles Nelson, who want the Democratic nomination to oppose Rep. Heather Wilson in November, debated at UNM’s Continuing Education Center Monday evening.
It was tempting to see Romero as Kerry, Dr. Nelson as Dean.
Dr. Nelson was strong, ideological and dynamic. Sen. Romero was reasonably strong, but none of the rest. He talked practical politics. However, Romero did not get lost in nuance. Nor did he waffle. So the Kerry comparison doesn’t work.
The debate contained a surprising confusion. On health care, Dr. Nelson said he favored a single-payer system. Sen. Romero said he agreed with the goal, but that it might be impractical. He said that the Clintons’ single-payer proposal boomeranged, leading to the takeover of the House by Republicans of the Gingrich persuasion.
But the Clintons did not propose single-payer. Theirs was a complex scheme that employed private health insurors.
And nobody, not even Dr. Nelson, pointed that out.
David Brooks, the conservative columnist at the New York Times, joined George Will, Fareed Zakaria and Tom Friedman today in admitting the US has reaped the whirlwind in Iraq. Take a look at his column.
His terms suggest that he may be close to admitting the attack on Iraq was a terrible, tragic mistake. If I read them correctly, none of the others is as near.
Does it matter? Maybe. For the lonelier the White House cabal, the more likely some member will break. (Rumsfeld seems to me to be the most tightly wound.)
And the lonelier the cabal, the more likely a patriot in government will leak. This, after all, is what happened in Watergate. We have yet to find the "Deep Throat" of this Administration, no less the John Dean, somebody who will provide information that will cripple this reign of ignorance and incompetence.
We may still get there. Just guessing, I suspect "there" has something to do with Saudi Arabia. Stay tuned.
In the glare of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scanda, the Army will court martial a non-com, a little guy, somebody near the bottom of the ladder.
Why am I not surprised?
Hierarchy is in our genes. We are in its power. Sometimes we are not even conscious of our allegiance to hierarchy, which provides us with authorities, rules of behavior and the definition of success (climbing the ladder).
Other things, like justice, are after-thoughts.
As the price of gas at the pump soars, Saudi Arabia wants OPEC to pump more oil.
Why am I not surprised?
Well, Bob Woodward says the Bush Admninistration and the Saudis made a deal. This, in a book the White House likes, in general.
Beyond that lies the intimate history of the Bush family, the American oil industry and the Saudis. More on that later.
For now, let us think of how hierarchy works in our lives. Oh, and be grateful to the Saudis.
PS On another subject, I am grateful to the reader who recently pointed out that I keep mispelling the Vice President;'s name. It's not Chaney. It's Cheney. Sorry about that.
Do you know Wagner’s Ring Cycle? If so, you will enjoy the silly, funny, irreverent Texafication of it at Albuquerque Little Theater.
I saw "Das Barbecü" last night and because I do not know Wagner I found it only mildly entertaining.
The cast, however, did a fine job. And it’s wonderful that ALT and Larry Parker took a chance, risked something and broke their pattern of doing safe shows.
It’s on at ALT through May 23, by the way.
PS You have to love the umlaut in the title, right?
According to the Roll Call report in today’s newspaper, Sen. Pete Domenici voted to protect a tax code subsidy that corporations enjoy on profits from sales of foreign subsidiaries.
No mastter that they deliberately move operations overseas and sell the exact same product back home - they still get the break.
Of course, when opersations leave, so do jobs.
Pete thinks that's peachy. So did 59 others. Only 39 voted no, Jeff Bingaman among them.
I don’t think the "war on terrorism" was invented to hide the reality of corporate America, but that is precisely what it does.
Sen. Joseph Biden was on Face the Nation this morning. Again. I do not always agree with him, but he thinks brilliantly about foreign policy and speaks English – unlike Senator Kerry.
Biden’s point this morning was that the Iraqi fiasco will make it impossible for future Presidents to intervene where the US should intervene.
It is fascinating to read Tom Friedman, Fareed Zakaria and George Will these days. These three proponents of the war on Iraq are very critical of how it has been pursued. None, I think, has yet admitted it was doomed from the start, a huge, horrendous mistake, the product of ignorant idealism, of extraordinary arrogance.
Paul Greenberg, the conservative columnist, writes today that President Bush needs to be honest, as Churchill was in 1940, if he wants to keep Americans behind their Iraq policy.
After all, he explains later, "We have been attacked not so much by a new nationalism, but by an old fanaticism straight of Churchill’s dark abyss."
Greenberg doesn’t bother to note that Churchill was speaking about a Nazi Germany when Hitler’s ambitions and capabilities were plain.
Nor does he distinguish between al Qaeda, perpetrator of 9/11, and Iraq, which was not the perpetrator.
That, of course, is exactly the White House line; Bush and buddies blurred the differences, used 9/11 to carry out another, pre-existing agenda. And connecting Iraq to Osama bin Laden wasn’t the only tactic they used to get us into a so-called "war on terrorism." Let’s see, off-hand, we can list Iraq’s WMD, its welcoming population, how its oil would pay for the war, how we could do this with a skeleton Army and – the final cover story - how much the Iraqis wanted freedom.
I frequently complain that we are ignorant of history. But ideologues misuse history as often as they don’t know it.
I was listening to an old song on the radio yesterday. "Why did I tell you I was going to Shanghai?," sang Doris Day. "I'm just around the corner in a phone booth and I wanna be with you tonight."
Headline in today's Journal: "Qwest Sells Its Pay Phones." The company said they simply don't fit into a wireless future.
And when was the last time you used a pay phone?
Yeah. Change is the only constant.
But wait. Some things never go away. Like stupidity of the murderous kind. Clifford Holliday, a World War I veteran, died at 105. He fought at Ypres, among other storied battles, says the obituary.
Holliday, born in Canada, once told the Toronto Globe and Mail he was relieved to get out of the fighting when wounded.
"Anybody who wants war is just a few steps our of the caveman age," he said. "Nobody can go through that and wish it on the human race again."
Yeah, it matters that the President, Vice-President, Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor never went to war.
I am going to China in mid-July with a small number of folks who will teach English to young Chinese people and see a bit of the country, too, for a month. The only big cost will be the round-trip from LA to Shanghai. It looks as if it will run $850 to $900. If anybody knows how I can find a cheaper flight, please let me know.
Thanks.
I ask too much. I demand that newspeople break stories. Implore them to think about the meaning of words like "conservative." Beseech them to infuse their work with idealism.
Duh! Why do I not understand this is beyond them. After all, they cannot write English.
From one Leigh Strope of AP on page B7 of today's Albuquerque Tribune:
"But the spate of hiring gains in recent months have shrank those losses [of jobs] to about 1.5 million."
Aaaargh!
I must shrank my expectations.
Tom Friedman, who supported the neo-con pipe dream that led to preemptive war on Iraq, writes today that President Bush should fire Donald Rumsfeld, admit we are losing there and seek other nations' help to save his Mideast policy.
Maureen Dowd, a fierce opponent of the war, chastises Rumsfeld for partying while the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners scandal is on the front page.
I do not think Rumsfeld should be fired.
He is a brilliant guy. As the leaked memo of last year revealed, he is capable of self-doubt. (He wondered, remember, if we were not creating more terrorists than we were killing.)
What we need from Rumsfeld is for him to admit to himself - surely he already is questioning it - that he and the Administration were wrong, profoundly wrong, totally wrong to use 9/11 to pursue that famously stupid idea of changing the Mideast by military force.
And then to persuade Bush and Chaney of the same thing.
Naive of me? No, not unless you belive that Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld and acolytes are evil. I do not. I think they are profoundly igorant, arrogant and ...well, I could empty a dictionary of insults.
But I believe they think they are doing good.
A scary thought, isn't it? Still, it's been my observation that most horrors are perpetrated with good intentions.
So maybe Rumsfeld can reverse course.
I have just emailed the following letter to the Albuquerque Journal:
"Dear Sirs:
Your editorial and Op-Ed pages offer us lots more right-wing opinion than views from the left. Further, your rightists include some gutsy fire-eaters, while the so-called liberals you publish are not only barely left-of-center, but personally mild. It’s your newspaper, however, and that’s your prerogative.
You also provide regular opinions from think tanks, like the recent.article by Heather MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, who channeled the wisdom of Attorney General John Ashcroft on what led to 9/11. And the piece by Neal McCluskey, policy analyst at Cato Institute, critiquing John Kerry’s ideas on helping students pay for college.
I do not expect balance, but why not identify Manhattan and Cato politically, as the right-wing organizations they are? Or, alternatively, tell us who funds them. With that information, readers could better evaluate their arguments. And that would be fair.
Arthur Alpert
Albuquerque
A friend sent this. I think it's wisdom, pure and simple:
"On the first day God created the cow. God said, "You must go to the field
with the farmer all day long and suffer under the sun, have calves and give
milk to support the farmer. I will give you a life span of sixty years."
The cow said, "That's kind of a tough life you want me to live for sixty
years. Let me have twenty and I'll give back the other forty." And God
agreed.
On the second day God created the dog. God said, "Sit all day by the door of
your house and bark at anyone who comes in or walks past. I will give you a
life span of twenty years."
The dog said, "That's too long to be barking. Give me ten years and I'll
give you back the other ten" So God agreed.
On the third day God created the monkey. God said, "Entertain people, do
monkey tricks, make them laugh. I'll give you a twenty-year life span."
The monkey said, "How boring, monkey tricks for twenty years? I don't think
so. Dog gave you back ten, so that's what I'll do too, okay?" And God agreed
again.
On the forth day God created man. God said, "Eat, sleep, play, marry and
enjoy your life. I'll give you twenty years."
Man said, "What? Only twenty years! Tell you what, I'll take my twenty, and
the forty the cow gave back, and the ten the dog gave back and the ten the
monkey gave back, that makes eighty, okay?"
"Okay," said God, "You've got a deal."
So that is why the first twenty years we eat, sleep, play, and enjoy
ourselves; for the next forty years we slave in the sun to support our
family; for the next ten years we do monkey tricks to entertain the
grandchildren; and for the last ten years we sit on the front porch and bark
at everyone.
Life has now been explained. Now you know.
I can remember when radio offered commentary by expert, thoughtful broadcasters dedicated to public education. We all know what has evolved – talk radio, wherein ignorant and/or partisan and/or cynical hosts are dedicated to ratings. Sadly, this has spread to newspapers.
Years ago, most syndicated newspaper columnists brought to bear long experience, a sense of history, commitment to accuracy and fairness and a desire to advance the public dialogue. Think Lippman, Krock, Reston, Wicker.
Many still do. The Albuquerque Tribune, for example, runs Molly Ivins and Paul Krugman on the left and George Will and William Safire, rightists. Each is ideological, but each has professional qualifications and observes some democratic decencies. (We will forgive Will his favors to the Reagan White House.)
Not Linda Chavez, however. She represents the backward evolution in newspapers paralleling what happened in radio.
Take her May 4 column, "Kerry’s Record," in the Tribune. In referring to the "democratically elected government of South Vietnam," she is just plain inaccurate. As if South Vietnam was not itself created un-democratically by the US and France to foil Ho Chi Minh’s Communist-Nationalists. As if we did not impose Roman Catholic rulers on the mostly Buddhist population, followed by several military dictators.
But inaccuracy is too tiny a word for her shameful description of John Kerry, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (and a majority of Americans?) as "apologists" for the Vietnamese communists.
That is not just a huge a misstatement of history. It’s also a smear.
Now it is not news that Chavez is a partisan; her loyalty, you may remember, almost won her a cabinet position when President George W. Bush took office. (Only the revelation that she employed an illegal immigrant kept her from tasting the Secretary of Labor plum.)
But what impresses me is Chavez’s timing and that she is right "on message." The column in question comes as an echo of the RNC’s TV spots and Vice-President Chaney’s recent comments at Westminister College, both aimed at cutting Kerry to ribbons on national defense.
It’s clear the Bush re-election effort wants to bog the campaign down in the Vietnam War, the better to distract voters from the President’s war on Iraq. And to smudge Sen. Kerry’s image as a war hero, so as to make the comparison with the President’s Vietnam-dodging less sharp.
Chavez’s column, then, is a weapon in the arsenal of the Republican National Committee. But the Tribune doesn't seem to care.
Over at the Albuquerque Journal, they run columns by John Dendahl, the former New Mexico State GOP Chairman. In a pro-Bush piece April 30, he makes a passing reference to Howard Dean as an "ultra-liberal," never stopping to explain why. (Dean’s commitment to balanced budgets? His alliance with the Vermont NRA?)
This is the print equivalent of Rush Limbaugh’s name-calling and, of course, Dendahl’s stock in trade. A far cry from Lippman or Krock.
Also, the Albuquerque Journal regularly publishes highly ideological screeds from think-tank experts without identifying the biases of their institutions. Like Heather MacDonald’s article May 2 blaming the intelligence failures of 8/11 on civil libertarians. Her affiliation with the Manhattan Institute is noted, but the Journal didn't think it worthwhile to inform readers of its political bent or funding.
You see my point - we have suffered a degradation of the "marketplace of ideas."
I believe Linda Chavez and John Dendahl should be able to buy space to advertise their views. But newspapers who offer them as part of the democratic discourse seem, well, careless, at best. It’s not as if the papers have no alternative to hiring mercenaries. As Safire and Will prove, there are folks who swing from the right side of the plate who bring expertise and a rudimentary sense of fairness to the job.
Fairness? There's an idea whose time has gone...