Sadly, No!

Someone asked me if my handle was a nod to Jimmy “Peanut” Carter. Much as I admire that excellent gentleman, there’s a another delicious example of the legume — we’re not nuts, honest — that I think of annually on baseball’s opening day.

Meet Mamie “Peanut” Johnson, righthanded pitcher extraordinaire, pictured here at age seventeen. Having what it takes for a girl to make her mark in the world — some heat and a curveball — she looked to the Women’s Professional Baseball League to ply her craft, but the all-white organization “… didn’t let us try out … They just looked at us like we were crazy as if to say, ‘What do you want?'” (NPR interview, 02/18/04)

Undaunted, Peanut Johnson successfully tried out for the men’s Negro Leagues and “got to meet and be with some of the best baseball players that ever picked up a bat, so I’m very proud about that.” She played alongside legends like Hank Aaron and the great Satchel Paige, who helped her refine her curve. She played three seasons of pro ball (1953 to 1955) with the Indianapolis Clowns.

While pitching her first game with the Clowns, a batter on the opposing team yelled to her, “What makes you think you can strike a batter out? Why, you aren’t any larger than a peanut!” Mamie never said a word, but the batter soon found out what she could do! 1 – 2 – 3 – OUT! From that day, the 100 pound baseball player had the nickname, “Peanut.” (SC African American History Online)

She had a few problems initially with men who thought she should be “in a kitchen” or off “having somebody’s baby.” In her NPR interview, Peanut Johnson said simply, “That wasn’t my shot.”

I wish I could have seen Peanut Johnson in action, but if the separating forces of time and space wouldn’t allow that, sharing a particular bliss — love for the craft of pitching — transcends those limitations. I don’t have much of an arm (though I did learn to throw a knuckleball), but my fellow Peanut’s as much an inspiration as if I’d seen her amass her winning record of 33-8, and hold her own at the other end with a batting average ranging from .264-.283.

Bliss is like that. Any craft, calling or even pastime that’s invigorating, often frustrating and perplexing, but always inspiring in some way connects you with others in magical and unpredictable ways. You see those affirming currents of connection when enthusiastic professionals talk shop or among parents watching their kids splash around the wading pool, or in yourself when a kindred spirit in history touches you through time. Whether it’s making your mark professionally, dedicating yourself to family, or honing a talent, the pursuit of happiness was a concept important enough to place alongside life and liberty in the Constitution. The founders wisely realized that to leave it out would be to give people life, but without the juice of living.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the Bush administration in action is their systematic erosion of people’s right to pursue happiness. There’s an insidious attack on people’s joys as well as freedoms being waged by Bush’s most ardent supporters; it’s the unreported War on Bliss. Corporate extremists, who’d gut the economy long term for immediate profit, and religious fanatics, whose apparent ecstasy comes from stifling everyone else, are the biggest offenders, but his apologists and enablers are on the front lines of this unnecessary war of choice. Who in their right minds would go so far out of their way to prevent others from finding the best in themselves and sharing it with others?

Is dedicating yourself to the well-being of your family your particular bliss? If you’re gay, ooh, sorry, BushCo will throw more energy to making you miserable than helping you pursue this happiness. Regardless of your partner’s chromosomal makeup, you’ll have considerable anxiety over the fate awaiting your children. They’ll have the burden of paying off an obscene deficit — much of it racked up to line already bulging pockets — but a reduced access to the decent education and training that will give them fighting chance to thrive while doing so.

Did you strive to learn and hone a profession or trade that would support you through life? If you’re one of the millions of longterm unemployed, you may suddenly find yourself juggling several menial part-time jobs just to stay afloat and facing the prospect of starting at the bottom again. Not all of us have the Preznit’s luxury of half-assedly coasting through new ventures, screwing up miserably, and then starting at the top again thanks to Poppy and his friends.

Did you work hard all your life to be able to enjoy a healthy and happy retirement? Sorry, seniors, BushCo promised his big pharmaceutical donors a winning lottery ticket, and his pal Ken Lay the opportunity to raze your nest eggs like a wildfire.

Is love of your country something that gives you bliss? Patriotism is now the official property of the Republican party. Big party donors who outsource and don’t pay taxes and religious extremists who want to impose the Christian version of Sharia law are the official patriots now. People who continue to uphold principles like freedom of speech and assembly, representative government and truth in media are terror-loving traitors, relegated to the margins by outright persecution, media blackouts or being moved bodily to “free speech zones”.

Even the art and craft of baseball has been co-opted as the sole property of the Republican party. When the Baseball Hall of Fame wanted to honor Bull Durham, Republican Dale Petroskey decided to stomp on that particular bliss, as he explained in his letter to Tim Robbins.

Dear Mr. Robbins:

[…]
We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important–and sensitive–time in our nation’s history helps undermine the US position, which ultimately could put our troops in even more danger. As an institution, we stand behind our President and our troops in this conflict. As a result, we have decided to cancel the April 26-27 programs in Cooperstown commemorating the 15th anniversary of Bull Durham.

Sincerely,

Dale Petroskey
President

Who the hell are Dale Petroskey or the doofus who traded Sammy Sosa from the Texas Rangers for three magic beans and a cow to artificially revise baseball’s history?

Crash Davis: Time out. Why do you get to choose?
Annie Savoy: What?
Crash Davis: Why do you get to choose? I mean, why don’t I get to choose, why doesn’t he get to choose?

Petroskey’s ludicrous rationalization was that Robbins would “politicize” the event. (Yup, it’s the other party politicizing things.) Petroskey didn’t seem to have that concern when co-opting the Hall of Fame for partisan events like fund-raising or letting Ari Fleischer drop by to sing his boss’s praises. Robbins brushed Petroskey back with some loud chin music worthy of Ebby Calvin “Nuke” LaLouche:

I had been unaware that baseball was a Republican sport. I was looking forward to a weekend away from politics and war to celebrate the fifteenth anniversary of Bull Durham. I am sorry that you have chosen to use baseball and your position at the Hall of Fame to make a political statement. I know there are many baseball fans that disagree with you and even more that will react with disgust to realize baseball is being politicized.

And so they did, from both parties, because bliss is a uniter. Take it from Peanut Johnson. When you have the stuff and the opportunity to bring it, even your adversaries come around. The teammates who objected to her signing were soon glad to have her when they saw her stuff. “I had 26 brothers,” she said. Even her opponents had to revise their initial impression, possibly while watching one of her bat-freezing pitches sail past them. “After you strike three or four of them out, you know, it’s alright.”

(The Other Other Peanut, Jimmy Carter, will be throwing the first pitch on the Padres opening night at San Diego, April 8th.)

Well, I got an email from Seb a few days ago — it seems that S,N!’s bestest friend, Amber Pawlik, has been complaining that we’ve been ignoring her in Seb’s absence. So, even though she just doesn’t have the flair for metaphor of a Doug Giles, I decided to check out her new website.

The first thing I went to was the section for publishers and agents.

I am seeking to find an agent or publisher to help me publish a book I have written, which is a book on sexuality from an Objectivist viewpoint.

Since this would fill a real niche in the sexuality market, I wish Amber the best of luck with this. I even read the first chapter, An Introduction to Objectivist Sexuality, and will summarize it here, in case any of you are agents or publishers:

Objectvism says that things are what they are. Water isn’t acid. Men aren’t women. But feminism tries to make you believe differently. Feminists say that men and women are the same (and that acid is water). Men, of course, don’t believe them, and just go off and have some beers at Hooters. But women do fall under the sway of feminism, and eschew makeup, get jobs, and have lots of meaningless sex — which goes against their feminine natures, and causes them to be unhappy, or become lesbians or something. And that’s why feminists are evil.

Some have scratched their head that not only socialist women but many libertarian women still cling to the label ?feminist.? Given their politics range so drastically, some wonder what could unite them. But the one uniting theme is that they all reject their nature as women. Among self-identified feminists, you will always find women who deny gender differences; who believe women can or should be masculine; who are lesbians; who want to keep their maiden name; etc.

And so, you should reject feminism, communism, and all other-isms, and embrace traditional sex roles, the way nature and Ayn Rand, intended.

And that’s the first chapter of Amber’s book. Okay, that was kind of short. So, let’s look at Amber’s latest column, which I was going to skip, out of concern for Amber. Considering all the trouble Kos got into for not caring about the deaths of his fellow human beings in Fallujah, I didn’t really want to expose Amber to public outrage by highlighting her piece, which advocates the death of all Muslims. But what the heck.

Atrocity in Fallujah: Time to Take Off The Gloves

Fallujah is known for being a hot spot for violent anti-Americanism. What were the civilians there to do? Help deliver food to the people.

Well, that’s one story.

We were commanded by leftists to worry about the ?innocent? civilians in Iraq when going to war. In fact, any time the US considers military action, various socialist groups always cry at us about the civilians ? as if this is reason enough that we should never engage in war.

Yeah, damned leftists, always worrying about civilians, women, children, etc. Can’t we just once have a war where we just kill then all, and let God sort them out? No, wait, Amber’s an atheist, like Ayn. Okay, why can’t we just kill them all, leave them unsorted, and then go home and revel in our moral superiority?

In the recent Fallujah attacks, it was not organized terrorists that hung Americans off of a bridge as if they were animals and dragged their corpses through streets with glee. It was a ?jubilant crowd? filled with civilians.

As far as I?m concerned, these civilians are the enemy too. A population has a responsibility for the government in place and also a responsibility, obviously, for how it behaves itself. When we are at war with a tyrannical government, if the population works to overthrow that government and does not wish death and destruction on us solely for being us (please note the Americans killed in Fallujah recently were civilians), such as the Iranian civilians, then the civilians are not our enemy ? in fact, they are an asset. But civilians who erupt in mass joyful glee at seeing dead Americans being abused and humiliated are.

Damned straight! Anybody who erupted in glee should be nuked, for having a bad attitude towards us, their American benefactors. And of course, a population has a responsibility for its government, and anybody who lives in a place where vile acts have been committed, and who hasn’t risen up against that government, deserves to die. I’m talking about YOU, Washingtonians!

But back to Fallujah — a handful of its residents killed our ex-SEAL, highly-paid, soldier-surogate civilians, the monsters! And since killing civilians is the height of barbarism (unless we decide to do it, of course), the Fallujahites don’t deserve to live — unlike the Iranians, who assure Amber that they love Americans, and would always be our friends, if only we would kill all the evil Muslims for them.

Probably the most self-destructive, altruistic position of the United States, however, is our unwillingness to do the simplest, least bloody thing we can do to fight this war on terror: fight ideologically by condemning Islam as being the violent religion it is, responsible for producing terrorists.

The fact is Islam creates exactly the kind of brutality seen in Fallujah. Islam is an ideology that hates, above all things, man. In Islamic art, they are forbidden to draw the human form for the ?work of man will never equal that of God?s,? which is why much of Islamic art is of flowers. If you have watched the Muslim men beat themselves or parents cut their little children on purpose, this evidence is enough to prove Islam hates man and worships death.

Okay, so we fight terrorism by denouncing Islam, because it draws flowers instead of people. And that denunication helps fight terrorism . . .how?

(Regarding Amber’s evidence other than the flowers: apparently the Shiites have a ritual which involves making light cuts on the head of an infant, and then having the child blessed — something comparable to circumcism in Judaism, I’m told via the net. However, this is a cultural thing, and isn’t actually mandated by Islam. I think the “men beating themselves” is something similiar to the medieval Christian practice of self-flagellation — I belive it’s cultural too, but I haven’t researched it. In any case, based just on the evidence of circumcism and “mortification of the flesh,” I wouldn’t call Judaism or Christianity “dealth worship” religions. But that’s just me.)

The reason why Americans are so benevolant and unwilling to see evil is because we are na?ve. We really are like babies with a lollipop …
That, however, changed slightly on 9-11. Unlike our response when a US soldier?s corpse was dragged in a similar fashion through the streets in Somalia, the overwhelming sentiment from Americans in response to Fallujah is that we must not let these attacks scare us or back down. This is a good thing, but we still are not willing to commit ourselves fully to this war, most evidenced by the fact that we keep apologizing for Islam. It?s time to stop it. Pure, raw evil does exist and we must treat it as such.

And again, while Amber doesn’t tell us exactly what we do once we admit that Islam is evil, I assume “treat it as such” means taking some pretty drastic action. Based on her eagerness to do away with the distinctions between civilians and armed combatants, and her willingness to consider everybody who felt “glee” at the death of Americans as our enemies, I can only conclude she means razing Fallujah and putting all its residents to the sword. However, maybe she means we should wipe out all Muslims — maybe we are to give them the Ann Coulter/Torquemada option of converting to Christianity first, but it would be hard to know if they were sincere about it, so this probably wouldn’t work. There’s no compromising with evil, after all. So, I guess we just nuke the entire country, and some of its neighbors (not Iran, though). Per Amber.

However, I’m hoping that Kathleen Parker can talk Amber out of this blood-thirsty plan and get her to just watch a Rambo movie instead.

Rich Bond, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, discussing Condoleezza Rice’s upcoming testimony before the 9/11 Commission in an article in today’s Newsday:

“The woman oozes expertise and sincerity,” said former Republican National chairman Rich Bond. “I’m glad the White House came around to allow her to say publicly what she’s already told the commission privately. The old adage is, ‘Get it out, get it out, get it out.’ If the Democrats want to slap around an African American woman, let them try.”

And, on recent polls showing that Bush’s approval ratings on handling terrorism have slipped and that more people now doubt what the administration is saying about its responses to pre-9/11 terrorist threats:

Bond attributes these polls to a number of factors, including Clarke’s charges and the continuing violence in Iraq. He expects Rice’s testimony to begin the process of reversing the trend, and the overall reality of Bush’s record to complete it.

“I think Condi Rice on her worst day is worth ten of Richard Clarke on his best day,” Bond said. “The imagery of George Bush standing on the rubble of 9/11 overrides anything Clarke can say.”

Simply incredible.

It’s Sunday, the day when we put on our best clothes, get ourself in a spiritual frame of mind, and then enjoy another episode of Everybody Loves Doug Giles.

This week, did Doug give us another “luscious tree” or “crack night in the ferret hut”? Sadly, no! And there aren’t any tortured similes or stupendously stupid off-the-wall pop culture references either. So, apparently Doug got self-conscious about stealing Dennis Miller’s shtick (we hope we didn’t contribute to that), and decided to give it a rest. Which is a real shame, because I heard that MSNBC was ready to give Dennis’s time period to Doug, because Dennis’s ratings have been lower than Free ‘Ludes Night in the Angleworm Tank.

Anyway, without the Bornean sailors and hip lingo, Doug’s column is pretty boring. And it doesn’t help that the theme is old hat too (9/11 changed everything, and George Bush, who was presented by the lying press as an ineffectual child of privilege, was shown to actually be a bold and manly leader; however, John Kerry is a nothing but a flip-flopping hippie).

So, as a public service to you, the Doug Giles fan with more things to do than Madonna at a Styx concert held at the Sodom and Gomorra stadium, here are just the good parts of Doug’s latest column: the analogies, metaphors, pop culture references, and the ClashPoint.

Heck, before he was elected President, people were saying that choosing between Bush and Gore was like choosing between listening to your sister?s first clarinet recital or watching Janet Reno floss.

And then we have John F. Kerry. . . .This guy must spend hours removing the splinters from his seat, from straddling the fence so much.

Kerry flip-flops on issues like a beached grouper groping for water.

Kerry wouldn?t know a lie unless it flew out of his own mouth, did a U-turn and bit him on his backside.

Meanwhile, the supposed Mr. Shamma-Shamma-Ding-Dong from the great state of Texas has held steady in his strategy.

Put that in your bong and smoke it, John Fluctuating Kerry!

My ClashPoint is this: George W. Bush has proven Kerry and his cabal woefully wrong. The supposed ?chump? has been revealed as a ?Churchill? and our nation couldn?t have asked for a better president or cabinet, when placed in such a daunting crucible. Too bad Kerry and his ilk are not patriotic enough to admit it.

Okay, that wasn’t all that entertaining (although I do like the image of a chimp in a crucible), and it wasn’t long enough to meet my required word count. So, let’s explore the ClashRadio.com site, and see if we can find anything interesting.

Well, here’s where you can buy a Clash Camisole — just the thing for you righteous young handmaids of the Lord to wear, um, on your honeymoon, in the privacy of your own home and for only the eyes of your legally married spouse.

And here’s where you can buy original art work done by Doug. While they’re all every bit as good as those original oils you can buy at TV-advertised hotel sales, I think my favorite is “The Porno of the Christ” (AKA “The Wrath of God”).

And there’s a page where you can become a Clash Point Warrior:

Warriors Wanted

Are you tired of seeing Wackos trample your neighborhood, city and nation? Well good! So are we. That?s why we created The Clash in it?s daily, 3-minute, high voltage dose & its one-hour ?live talk? format to be hemorrhoidal pains in the backsides of all the imbeciles. And man — have we been successful!

Our focus is Windex-like in its clarity: To equip you to infiltrate the public square with God?s goods; without looking like the public square. By becoming part of The Clash Nation, you join with us to communicate timeless truth in a timely fashion and, together, we have the time of our lives.

It?s easy: For $25 a month?that?s just 83 cents a day?we can intellectually kick the Wackos back to where they came from. So what are you waiting for, my friend? Fill out the form entirely and click submit.

Well, I guess being Windex-like would be okay, but I don’t particularly want to be a hemorrhoid, even if that would kick the Wackos back to where them came from. (Wackovania?) Besides, for 53 cents a day, I could sponsor a Wackovanian child, and that’s probably a better use for my money.

And there’s the Clash Point page, which lets you sign up for the weekly ClashPoint (in case you don’t have access to Townhall):

Sign up for a weekly dose of wit, wisdom, satire and righteous outrage. Doug sets his sights high and wide as he unleashes his unique pen on the absurdities within the Church and the inequities in the world. This weekly adrenaline jolt is a must for those who want to see righteousness exalt our nation.

Um, I’m not much of a marksman, but I’m pretty sure that if you set your sights “wide,” you’re not only going to miss the target, but you’ll probably also end up killing half of the other shooters.

And I wouldn’t call Doug’s columns “adrenaline jolts” so much as “ooey, gooey, Peeps? Bunnies sugar rushes.”

But that page does feature an archive of old columns, which is a tasty find indeed.

So, with no further ado, here’s a piece from last May:
Read the rest of this entry »

A comment left by a Sadly, No! reader in response to one of Peanut‘s recent and typically fabulous posts:

I think I speak for many SN regulars in saying that s.-‘World O’Crap’-z. and Peanut have stolen our hearts away with their recent work, resulting in general approbation, kudos, and several proposals of marriage…

But as for your contributions, Blair… um, “underachiever” or, dare I say it, “slacker”, might be words that spring to mind….

So it’s about time to stop sandbagging and pull out your “A” game, fella, because the little ladies are putting you right in the shade…

‘Nuff said.

Angry reactions have already begun to pour in from Blair supporters and senior members of the Blair entourage, including Blair’s father, Blair, Sr.

From an earlier wire service report:

Emotional Elder Blair Attacks Son’s Critics

Sat Apr 03, 2004 05:20 AM ET

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Wire service) – An emotional former guest blogger Blair, Sr. on Saturday defended his son’s guest blogging and lashed out at his critics.

It is “deeply offensive and contemptible” to hear “elites and intellectuals in the blog world” dismiss progress at Sadly, No! since last month’s overthrow of Sadly, No! leader Seb, the elder Blair said in a speech to the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association annual convention.

“There is something ignorant in the way they dismiss the overthrow of a brutal dictator and the sowing of the seeds of basic human freedom and comedy in that troubled part of the web,” he said.

The former guest blogger appeared to fight back tears as he complained about readers’ coverage of the younger Blair that he called “something short of fair and balanced.”

“It hurts an awful lot more when it’s your son that is being criticized than when they used to get all over my case,” said Blair, who has often complained about readers’ coverage of both Blair guest blogging reigns.

And, when asked for comments about the other Sadly, No! guest bloggers, Blair’s mother, Barb, offered these remarks:

“I can’t say it, but it rhymes with rich,” adding “so far, they are a pretty sorry group if you want to know my opinion.”

Via The Note for 04/02/04:

According to ABC News’ Ramona Schindelheim’s tally, that’s 513,000 new jobs since the beginning of the year. 759,000 since last August. Seven consecutive months of job growth, following seven months of job losses. The manufacturing sector did not lose jobs for the first time in 43 months. (More …)

Happy dance! Ow, charlie horse …

The Bush Administration called the tax cut package, which was passed in May 2003 and took effect in July 2003, its “Jobs and Growth Plan.” The president’s economics staff, the Council of Economic Advisers (see background documents), projected that the plan would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004?306,000 new jobs each month, starting in July 2003. After eight months of falling considerably short of that projection, job gains for the month of March finally hit that level. For the nine months as a whole, however, the administration projected that a total of 2,754,000 jobs would be created after the tax cuts took effect. In fact, only 689,000 jobs were created over that period for a cumulative shortfall of 2,065,000 jobs. [Graphs and background documents at link. Scroll down to “Bush Administration’s tax cuts falling short in job creation”]

I’d love to be wrong on my suspicion that this, like all the other “we’re turning the corner” happy dances won’t be revised late tonight with a terse AP article that begins, “Um … *cough* …”

Update: I thought I’d do a late night check for revisions and this is what the picture looks like without cosmetics.

March’s overall payroll increase of 308,000 was the highest since a match in April 2000. The last time more jobs were added was in March 2000, with an increase of 493,000.

But economists remained cautious. “It is too early to celebrate,” said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo in Minneapolis. He noted that most of the increase was because of part-time workers. The number of people who worked part time for economic reasons rose to 4.7 million in March, up from 4.4 million the previous month.

“The average duration of unemployment has been lengthening, persuading unemployed workers to accept part-time jobs,” Sohn said. In March, there were 8.35 million people unemployed, compared with 8.17 million the previous month. The average duration of unemployment has been more than 20 weeks, a 20-year high.

Technical factors also contributed to the overall hiring increase, Sohn said. Good weather helped boost employment in construction, which rose by 71,000 last month. The end of a strike by California grocery workers was a big factor in the increase in retailers’ payrolls, which were up by 47,000.

The average monthly gain in jobs in the past eight months has been about 95,000 ? far below the 150,000 to 200,000 jobs needed to absorb new entrants into the labor force, Sohn said. Like last month, the unemployment rate could rise in coming months as workers decide to resume their job searches. (04/02/04 AP/Strope)

I accept the BushCo explanation that these problems are due to my lack of optimism, and not, I repeat, not the Frat Boy in Chief’s ruinous economic policies.

Senator Geary: Mr. Cicci, was there always a buffer involved?
Willi Cicci: A what?
Senator Geary: A buffer. Someone in between you and your possible superiors who passed on to you the actual order to kill someone.
Willi Cicci: Oh yeah, a buffer. The family had a lot of buffers. [laughter]

After a month of downtime, the Plame investigation is not only up and running again, but expanding what they consider worthy of closer scrutiny:

Prosecutors investigating whether someone in the Bush administration improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer have expanded their inquiry to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case, lawyers involved in the case and government officials say. … [P]rosecutors have widened the range of conduct under scrutiny and for the first time raised the possibility of bringing charges peripheral to the leak itself. […] The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, has repeatedly said no one wants to get to the bottom of the case more than Mr. Bush. […]

Several lawyers said Mr. Fitzgerald could ask a judge to allow him to issue a report. Or, they said, he could seek to employ a rarely used provision of the Justice Department’s guidelines for prosecutors allowing grand juries to issue reports. But those sections of the prosecutor’s manual appear to relate to public officials in organized crime cases. (04/02/04 NYT/Johnston)

Some of the conduct that deserves particular scrutiny is the Preznit’s. A real wartime leader would be more personally engaged — aggressively so — in discovering who in his inside circle endangered a valuable expert in his mission to find illicit WMDs in the Middle East. Why wasn’t he more curious to discover the identity of the senior administration official who fed Plame’s name to administration megaphone Novak, and later confirmed and/or stoked this classified information? The Republican Palace has no compunction about dispensing with ethics to threaten or smear a critic, as when they revealed Dick Clarke’s identity as a White House source for a background briefing.

Throughout the long day that ended with the president’s WMD joke, the White House directed strikes on Clarke’s integrity. It declassified an off-the-record background briefing given by Clarke in 2002, when he had been ordered to put a “positive spin”, as he put it, on Bush’s pre-September 11 terrorism record in response to a critical report in Time magazine. The White House press secretary read out portions of the briefing out of context. Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser whose neglect of terrorism was among Clarke’s revelations, summoned reporters to her office to point to the background briefing and call his story “scurrilous”.

While she was putting a stiletto into Clarke, the background briefing paper was shuffled by her press office to Fox News to broadcast as Clarke testified. Republican members of the 9/11 commission waved the paper at him, and much time was taken up by his explanation of how, as a staffer, he had been acting properly, like a lawyer representing a client, and why his briefing was not at odds with his information now.

This selective declassification signalled to professionals in government that anything they said to reporters could be held against them if they ever in the future contradicted the Bush line. Yet not one news organisation tried to uphold the old rule by threatening to reveal sources of off-the-record briefings unless the White House reverted to the accepted convention that makes informed journalism possible. (04/01/04 Guardian/Blumenthal)

Your hard-working SCLM wasn’t terribly unsettled; later they were roaring at the Prez of Comedy’s WMD routine. (He, like, started a war over WMDs he can’t find … stop, you’re killing us! ) Perhaps the Plame investigation will demand a full accounting of the background briefings and drive-by smears fed to the Kool Aid Kids by this asshole

Bush spoke on “deep background,” meaning that the information can be used but not attributed to anyone. The session was rare for a president, though not unprecedented. Bush has occasionally spoken to network anchors and conservative columnists as a “senior administration official”” (WP 03/02/04/Allen)

(Read the truly weird WP article for insight into media docility in the face of presidential cynicism. Supposedly a background briefing where the source isn’t named, it’s also clear that the Emperor wants to be spotlighted.) So if Clarke’s background briefings can be declassified to destroy him, let’s strip the curtain off any anonymous “background” the Preznit personally gave to conservative megaphones to smear his critics. After this administration’s history of going after people simply for presenting disagreeable work product, I’m not entirely sure the Don and his wartime consiglieri didn’t as a rule abuse classified information for petty, partisan reasons. The following AP item provides a roundup.

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush is playing supercharged hardball in going after his own former anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke. It’s a risky strategy that shows the single-mindedness of Bush and his re-election team in trying to deflect politically damaging criticism. Loyalty is a hallmark of Bush’s administration, with the president and his top lieutenants quick to turn on those who stray from the fold. (03/27/2004 AP/Raum)

Talking Points Memo analyzes the NYT piece and thickens the plot with an intriguing memo archived at the site.

Unfortunately, the [NYT] piece doesn’t make clear whether these might be indictments in addition to ones tied to underlying crime or whether the prosecutors are going for this because they can’t make a case on that underlying bad act. […]

A couple weeks back a legal memo fell into my hands from the sky. And it suggests that even the facts Rove has apparently admitted to put him in clear legal jeopardy.

First, a brief note about the memo: this is not a memo that is in any way a product of the investigation itself. […]

The essential argument is that the law, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, does more than simply prohibit a governmental official with access to classified information from divulging the identities of covert operatives. The interpretation of the law contained in the memo holds that a government insider, with access to classified information, such as Rove is also prohibited from confirming or further disseminating the identity of a covert agent even after someone else has leaked it. (Italics Marshall’s)

At the outset of the War on Clarke, several media reports included the detail that the Preznit was personally directing the assault. (I guess that slams the lid shut on the lame attempt to portray him as an optimistic pussycat fending off awful awful rudeness from nasty libruls!) What did he know about Plame and when did he know it? I just don’t buy that all that scurrying about Executive Privilege was only to keep Condi Rice from lying under oath for the 9-11 commission, or negotiated for principles. Maybe it was a way of pre-empting the Plame invetigation from writing subpoenas for Bush/Dick.

Yeah, he used a lot of buffers.

(Tip: Josh Marshall of the invaluable Talking Points Memo will be on Air America’s Unfiltered between 9:00am and noon today [04/02/04]. I’m listening to a great interview with Gloria Steinem right now. Jump to the web stream off the link, or find a station in your area. The program is replayed later.)

Update: corrected some bad linkage and shortened some of the excerpts for scrollability. Apologies if you experienced any stalls while surfing.

David E. alerted us to this exciting news in publishing: Time, Inc. is coming out with a a Wal-Mart Magazine for the “value-conscious” woman with “realistic expectations” who doesn’t want to hear she can “do better.”

Here’s some info from the press release:

ALL YOU will be a newsstand publication initially distributed in Wal-Mart stores, and available nationally, via other retail channels, in the near future. Debuting in September 2004, with a rate base of 500,000 — ALL YOU is looking to reach value-conscious American women. The magazine will cover a range of topics from interpersonal relationships to home repair, while providing real-life, practical solutions and encouragement in a high-quality editorial environment.

“I’m so pleased to launch a magazine that speaks directly to this reader. She’s self-reliant and down-to-earth with realistic expectations,” said [Time CEO Ann] Moore. “This is a genuine growth opportunity for Time Inc.’s group of women’s magazines, which collectively reaches over 45 million women in the U.S. with such titles as PEOPLE, In Style, Real Simple, Parenting and Health.”

[snip]

“ALL YOU will talk to women as they really are — recognizing all they accomplish every single day — instead of telling them they could do better,” said Price. “We want to inspire, not patronize, our readers with affordable, down-to-earth ideas tested by real women just like them.”

So, ALL YOU magazine. Like David said, “I guess ‘White Trash Weekly’ was out for having a polysyllabic word in the title.”

Other rejected titles: Real Cheap, Minimal Parenting, You Don’t Deserve Any Better, Hidebound, Adequate Housekeeping, Crushed Dreams, and Poor But Clean.

The premiere issue includes the following articles:

Anyway, if you have any ideas for the mag, post them here. I’m sure the editors will appreciate your input.

Mr. Programmer, I got my hammer
Gonna smash my smash my radio!

9 to 5 and 5 to 9
Ain’t gonna take it, it’s our time
We want the world and we want it now
We’re gonna take it anyhow
We want the airwaves
(The Ramones)

Bad enough having a White House Republican Palace that takes criticism more pettily and personally than the Dukes of Burgundy. It’s been chilling watching the SCLM report stories proceeding on the given that opposition to the Republican line is illicit. One example that immediately comes to mind is stories about Joseph Wilson including, as a routine “gotcha”, the fact that he donated a fraction of his political donations to Democrats.

Got that? He donated mostly to Republicans, but that little bit that went to Democrats was conveyed as expos?. Personal political donations from career government professionals are irrelevant, as most have worked for various administrations. A partisan relationship would be more along the lines of Ashcroft paying Karl Rove six figures to run his election campaign, and heading the “investigation” into Rove’s alleged outing of Wilson’s wife to punish him for doing his job. This far more serious Ashcroft/Rove detail got virtually no mention in SCLM coverage.

When simply being a Democrat (never mind an actual liberal) is treated as seditious, it’s clear that what we currently have is a distinctly conservative media being suffocated by an extremist right wing juggernaut, with leftist voices on the fringe. Here’s how one of our “liberal” media sources treated Air America’s opening day:

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: It’s a red-letter day here in America. Air America, that communist radio network, starts broadcasting in a little while.

O’BRIEN: It’s not communist. […]

CAFFERTY: Well. Aren’t they synonymous? We’ll talk about what that means, and whether we really need another liberal media outlet. I mean, if you don’t like “The New York Times” or CBS News, or Peter Jennings, this might be just the ticket for you.
[…]
HEMMER: [Referring to angry email] Stirred the hornets?

CAFFERTY: Yes, it’s like hitting the beehive with a stick. If “The New York Times” and Peter Jennings and perhaps CBS News aren’t enough for you, then you’re going to love this. “The New York Observer” reports former vice-president Al Gore is close to the sealing the deal to buy a cable TV channel. Gore’s team says they will make the station a, quote, “youth oriented public affairs channel.” Yes, that should sell pretty well. Can you say liberal? And the liberal talk radio station Air America debuts today. They kick things off at noon; I guess they don’t like to get up early over there. Comedian Al Franken is the lead off hitter and he’s calling his show the O’Franken Factor. Clever, no? His guests today will include filmmaker Michael Moore, never been interviewed I guess before, that’s not exactly a big gamble.
[…]
HEMMER: Why hasn’t a liberal radio station or TV network never taken off before?

CAFFERTY: We have them. Are you — did you just get off a vegetable truck from the South Bronx? They’re everywhere.

Yep, you know liberal radio is a desperately needed medium when the likes of Jack Cafferty considers himself an “alternative” to Fox News. After all, CNN is the same network that presented, without healthy skepticism or fact-checking, the Republican Palace’s outright lie that some funny Letterman footage of a GWB campaign speech had been faked. (Follow the narrative of the Letterman kerfuffle foofaraw — that one’s for you, s.z. — in the extension.)

The day before, Wolf Blitzer was happy to pass along — again, without skepticism or an ethics check in this case — a knee-jerk Republican Palace smear to discredit Dick Clarke. This is a news network that routinely features political analyst Bill Schneider, a member of the right wing American Enterprise Institute, without mentioning that connection or balancing his often fawning view the administration with a reality check from the center or left. And where’s the liberal version of The Novak Zone or all the conservative oriented biz/money programming?

I tried to catch a bit of each Air America show throughout the day. It was like finally getting to exhale. I liked their variety of interviews — missed the Grey Turtleneck, unfortunately — and was shocked by the difference in factual content transmitted over a short period to what’s available on alleged news networks like Chimp-NN.

Oh yeah, Bush is toast.
Read the rest of this entry »

OPEC turns down the spigots and Scott “Estragon” McClellan at the Department of Hooey complains about Senate Democrats three years ago. He also does some “wacky gas tax” karaoke from the Bush/Halliburton campaign ads. Is this an April Fool’s day joke? Sadly, No!

Q When he was running for President, the President said that President Clinton should get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say, we expect you to open up your spigots. But it doesn’t appear that he’s doing that —
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that’s wrong. No, this — go ahead.
Q Well, excuse me, I was just going to ask, could you tell us what calls the President has made?
MR. McCLELLAN: This administration remains actively engaged with our friends in OPEC, as well as non-OPEC producers from around the world. Secretary Abraham, Secretary Powell, the White House, we are in constant discussions with producers from around the world. Condi Rice has certainly been in touch with individuals in OPEC, and we will continue working for America’s consumers to make our views known to our friends in OPEC, as well as other producers around the world.
Q But he’s not making calls, himself?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?
Q He’s not making calls, himself?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President makes his views known on a regular basis to leaders, and this administration remains actively engaged in discussions — over the last few days, today, we remain actively engaged in discussions with our friends in OPEC, as well as others.
Q Scott, our friends in OPEC don’t seem to be paying any attention. It seems as if the President has been unpersuasive with our friends in OPEC. Is it fair to conclude that —
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I disagree with your characterization.
Q Well, they’re jacking the price on us. Is it fair to conclude that he’s not — what he’s doing isn’t working?
…
Q You just said, we would not be in this situation if Senate Democrats had not blocked the energy policy in May, 2001. Prove that.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Senate Democrats are the ones that had been holding up, through their procedural moves, holding up the Senate moving forward. The House moved forward, and they moved forward quickly —
Q But how would that —
MR. McCLELLAN: [repeats complaint about Senate Democrats]
Q But how would passing the President’s energy bill in May of 2001, have changed OPEC’s mind in March of 2004?
MR. McCLELLAN: It would of — what it would have done, it would have helped reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy; it would have increased domestic exploration and production; it would have expanded conservation; it would have increased energy efficiency. We need to take all those steps. That’s why I said, we need a comprehensive plan. It would have also provided us a modern electric grid, as well, to address the electricity crisis that we faced last year.
Q You said earlier that market conditions set the price. Does that still hold? And is OPEC abiding by market conditions?
MR. McCLELLAN: That’s very much our view, and that’s very much what we continue to emphasize to our friends in OPEC, as well as other non-OPEC producers.
Q Scott, just to follow up on what Terry was saying. Given the fact that these discussions, quiet diplomacies, as it’s been called, is not working, and it’s different from — you trying to approach this in a different way than, for example, you said the Clinton administration approached it, what else can you do? I mean, is it your message that’s not getting across? Is it the tactics that aren’t working? Why do think —
MR. McCLELLAN: [repeats complaint about Senate Democrats]
Q I’m talking about the way you’re dealing with OPEC.
MR. McCLELLAN: [repeats complaints about Senate Democrats, adds in Bush/Dick campaign karaoke] If some had their way, the gas prices would be much higher right now.
Q How about my question about OPEC?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?
Q How about my question about OPEC?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we remain in close discussion with our friends in OPEC and others around the world, and we will continue to stay in close contact with them. We have been in contact with some of our friends in OPEC as recently as today.
Q From the White House perspective, why haven’t — I mean, in assessing the situation, why haven’t your discussions been productive?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we are going to continue to [repeats earlier soundbite]
Q … But over the short-term, how much control does any White House, does any administration have over the price of gasoline?
MR. McCLELLAN: [repeats complaint about Senate Democrats]
Q Do you mean because the supply —
MR. McCLELLAN: [repeats complaint about Senate Democrats]
Q … but as you’ve acknowledged, the prices are set by the market, and unless you were able to overwhelm the supply reduction by OPEC, it wouldn’t have any impact on the price of gasoline.
MR. McCLELLAN: You’re right, we need adequate and affordable supplies of energy, and that’s why we need to act at home to reduce our dependency.
Q But over the short-term, I’m asking you how much control does any administration have over the price of gasoline?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are steps we can take to address this issue. I just mentioned several of them —
Q Two or three years down the road.
MR. McCLELLAN: [repeats complaint about Senate Democrats, Bush/Dick campaign karoke] And there are some that would advocate even higher gas taxes. The President will remain firmly opposed to that.
Q I think we’ve all gotten that message.