Tuesday, May 31, 2005
#
...is Texas state Rep., Senfronia Thompson, from Houston. Molly Ivans quotes her comments to the state legislature just prior to their vote on an anti-gay marraige measure.
MOLLY IVINS
RELEASE: TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2005, AND THEREAFTER
AUSTIN -- Here in the National Laboratory for Bad Government, it's Duck and Cover time -- the Legislature is in session. The Can't-Shake-Your-Booty bill passed the House, saving us all from the scourge of sexy cheerleaders. But nothing else is getting done. The state is being run by people who do not know how to govern. Keep in mind that based on past form, whatever lunacy is going on in Texas will eventually sweep the country.
Rarely are the words of one state legislator worth national attention, but when Senfronia Thompson, a black representative from Houston, stalks to the back mike with a certain "get-out-of-my-way" look in her eye, it's, Katie, bar the door. Here is Thompson speaking against the Legislature's recent folly of putting a superfluous anti-gay marriage measure into the state constitution:
"I have been a member of this august body for three decades, and today is one of the all-time low points. We are going in the wrong direction, in the direction of hate and fear and discrimination. Members, we all know what this is about; this is the politics of divisiveness at it's worst, a wedge issue that is meant to divide.
"Members, this is a distraction from the real things we need to be working on. At the end of this session, this Legislature, this leadership will not be able to deliver the people of Texas fundamental and fair answers to the pressing issues of our day.
"Let's look at what this amendment does not do: It does not give one Texas citizen meaningful tax relief. It does not reform or fully fund our education system. It does not restore one child to CHIP [Children's Health Insurance Program] who was cut from health insurance last session. It does not put one dime into raising Texas' Third World access to health care. It does not do one thing to care for or protect one elderly person or one child in this state. In fact, it does not even do anything to protect one marriage.
"Members, this bill is about hate and fear and discrimination. . . . When I was a small girl, white folks used to talk about 'protecting the institution of marriage' as well. What they meant was if people of my color tried to marry people of Mr. Chisum's color, you'd often find the people of my color hanging from a tree. . . . Fifty years ago, white folks thought interracial marriages were 'a threat to the institution of marriage.'
"Members, I'm a Christian and a proud Christian. I read the good book and do my best to live by it. I have never read the verse where it says, 'Gay people can't marry.' I have never read the verse where it says, 'Thou shalt discriminate against those not like me.' I have never read the verse where it says, 'Let's base our public policy on hate and fear and discrimination.' Christianity to me is love and hope and faith and forgiveness -- not hate and discrimination.
"I have served in this body a lot of years, and I have seen a lot of promises broken. . . . So . . . now that blacks and women have equal rights, you turn your hatred to homosexuals, and you still use your misguided reading of the Bible to justify your hatred. You want to pass this ridiculous amendment so you can go home and brag -- brag about what? Declare that you saved the people of Texas from what?
"Persons of the same sex cannot get married in this state now. Texas law does not now recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, religious unions, domestic partnerships, contractual arrangements or Christian blessings entered into in this state -- or anywhere else on this planet Earth.
"If you want to make your hateful political statements then that is one thing -- but the Chisum amendment does real harm. It repeals the contracts that many single people have paid thousands of dollars to purchase to obtain medical powers of attorney, powers of attorney, hospital visitation, joint ownership and support agreements. You have lost your way. This is obscene. . . .
"I thought we would be debating economic development, property tax relief, protecting seniors' pensions and stem cell research to save lives of Texans who are waiting for a more abundant life. Instead we are wasting this body's time with this political stunt that is nothing more than constitutionalizing discrimination. The prejudices exhibited by members of this body disgust me.
"Last week, Republicans used a political wedge issue to pull kids -- sweet little vulnerable kids -- out of the homes of loving parents and put them back in a state orphanage just because those parents are gay. That's disgusting.
"I have listened to the arguments. I have listened to all of the crap. . . . I want you to know that this amendment [is] blowing smoke to fuel the hell-fire flames of bigotry."
Then they passed the amendment.
To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Originally Published on Tuesday May 24, 2005
Monday, May 23, 2005
#
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again.... There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt...a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."----from a letter, Pres. Eisenhower wrote to his brother Edgar on May 2, 1956
Monday, May 16, 2005
#
As many of you know I try to be a consistant proponant, in thought and in all relational endeavors, of reasonable behavior. In fact, one of my "bumper-sticker" style slogans is, "Be Reasonable!". When considering the nomination of John Bolton by Dubya to be our next ambassador to the U.N., I find, once again, that I am in opposition to the Prez. Big surprise, eh? Bolton is, quite simply, a horrible choice for the position. Check out this video and ask yourself if this is a reasonable man.
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/boltonun_300k.mov
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
#
I read this article quite sometime before the election but chose to hold off bringing it up for discussion. Now, though, in light of the escalation of brazen, post election hubris of the Dubya administration, I reprint for examination and, hopefully, discussion of it's points of contention.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm
Fascism Anyone?
Laurence W. Britt
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.
Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.
We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.
Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.
For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.
Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
Note
1. Defined as a “political movement or regime tending toward or imitating Fascism”—Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.
References
Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980.
Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963.
Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001.
Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999.
de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976.
Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995.
Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973.
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999.
Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996.
Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001.
Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999.
Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001.
Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.
Friday, November 05, 2004
#
Now, that we are finally past the election we can now begin to brace ourselves for the real Dubya agenda. The administration believes they received a mandate from the people for their policies of the past four years and for those of the future that we can be assured are set to be jammed down our throats. Since when did a 3% margin become a mandate. I will refrain from going into my long rant that has been brewing inside of me since about 7pm tuesday night, but I can assure you that now the true face and twisted mind of Dubya will be revealed. Some time in the near future, mere days, possibly a week, the real war begins in Iraq with the attack on the so called insurgents in Fallujah. This is the war the military did not want to get into. This is the one they had to wait until after the election to launch. So forget about the hyped up show of military muscle that was bright-lighted to the American public as "Shock and Awe", to, in essence, make us feel better about ourselves, to show that we could kick somebody's ass, anybody's ass, when they couldn't come up with the real menace of 9/11. It's about to get ugly and I'm afraid the young people of our military will be paying the price. Of course, we won't see the flag drapped coffins of the fallen. No, the powers that be won't allow that. But, the coffins and and flags will be returning. For the funerals we'll never see.
Monday, October 18, 2004
#
The Daily Show's(on Comedy Central), Jon Stewert made an appearance on CNN's Crossfire last week. If you missed it you missed some very refreshing television. It was possibly the best thing I've seen on T.V. since the Beatles were on Ed Sullivan. Maybe even better than watching The Three Stooges in the morning before 4th grade class. Yes, it was that good. Basically, Stewert called out the argumentative hosts, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson for being what they are and what the show stoops down to represent; narrow minded, political, one trick, enabling, partisan hack ponies.
To check out the video, click on this link.
http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/jonstewartcrossfire.html
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
#
Here is a thoughtful editorial written by long time republican, John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight Eisenhower, found in The Union Leader, Manchester, N.H.
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657
Columns - September 28, 2004
Another View: Why I will vote for John Kerry for President
By JOHN EISENHOWER
THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.
In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.
Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.
The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.
I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.
John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing “The White House Years,” his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.
Monday, September 27, 2004
#
It is highly ironic that the Dubya re-election campaign has been able to characterize Kerry as the flipflopper of this presidential race. Ironic in that they are able to keep a straight face as they do this. This listing shows that Dubya has "stayed the course" about as steadily as an inebriated pinball
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
#
Recently, the 9/11 Widows came out in support of John Kerry. Perhaps you've heard of them. They all lost their husbands in the World Trade Center attacks. Once they figured out, though, that the Dubya administration's aim was to circle the wagons and keep any meaningful investigation of 9/11 from the American people, they basically became Dubya's worst nightmare. Time and again they resisted every stonewalling attempt by Dubya to shoot down the 9/11 Commission's investigation. But, they repeatedly kept the light shining on the Dubya darkness and for this deserve a lot of credit for the 9/11 Commission's very existence.
I think the story of the 9/11 Widows could be quite beneficial to the Kerry campaign and very damaging to Dubya. Their story is powerfully emotional and factually irrefutable. Rove will surely be playing with fire if he releases the attack machine on these truely patriotic citizens. One of the more impassioned of the 9/11 Widows is Kristen Breitweiser. She was on CNN yesterday for an interview with Judy Woodruff. It is interesting to note that she and her husband both voted for Dubya in 2000. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks she expected Dubya to be an unconditional ally in the search for the truth, but soon came to the opposite conclusion. As she points out, the Dubya administration; fought the creation of the 9/11 Commission, fought the legislative language to make sure the 9/11 Commission was set up in a non partison manner, fought the funding of the 9/11 Commission, fought an extension of the 9/11 Commission, and fought access to individuals and documents that might shed light on the situation. If someone can begin to justify these positions of the Dubya administration and what they have to do with an open government, for the people and by the people, then I've just got to hear that load of spin.
Here's the transcript of Breitweiser's interveiw with CNN's Judy Woodruff.
Hero and Zero
Thomas F. Schaller (10:16PM) link
Kristen Breitweiser and Judy Woodruff. One’s a hero, the other a zero.
One woman lost her husband on 9/11 and pushbacked repeatedly against an Administration prepared to footdrag and stonewall to avoid or thwart the 9/11 Commission’s attempt to investigate the attacks.
The other woman feels a need to help President Bush get off the hook with her pathetic, apologist’s “last analysis” comment below, as if he somehow deserves credit for backing down reluctantly after every one of his stonewalling attempts failed.
But read for yourself from CNN’s Inside Politics with Judy Woodruff today, September 14, 2004 (emphases mine):
WOODRUFF: Here in Washington a short time ago, five women who lost husbands on 9/11 publicly endorsed John Kerry for president. Kristen Breitweiser of New Jersey is leading the charge, and she is with me now here in Washington. Why do this, Ms. Breitweiser?
KRISTEN BREITWEISER, 9/11 WIDOW: I think because I spent, along with the other 9/11 family members, three years trying to get 9/11 issues addressed by this administration. And it's been a long fight, and I use the word fight because that's what it was. And I think it's disappointing to be this far removed from 9/11 and to still not feel as safe as we could be feeling. It's been a long three years, and we tried to get failures addressed. We tried to have accountability assigned, and it's just not happening under this administration. And I have a five-year-old daughter. I want to know that I'm safer than I am right now. And President Bush has not put me in that place, and I believe Senator Kerry will.
WOODRUFF: You said that you voted for George W. Bush in 2000. What has turned you around?
BREITWEISER: I think my own personal experience in the last three years, where I'd hoped that President Bush -- someone that I voted for, that my husband voted for -- would have been my biggest ally in trying to correct the problems that occurred on the morning of September 11th and trying to make this nation safer. And what I found out, for the last three years, is that he was our biggest adversary. And I'm very disappointed...
WOODRUFF: Specifically because he what?
BREITWEISER: With regard to the 9/11 Commission, President Bush: fought the creation of the commission; fought the legislative language to make sure the commission was set up in a bipartisan manner; fought the funding of the commission; fought an extension for the commission; fought access to individuals and documents. This commission was very important because it was going to make sure that we learn from the mistakes that occurred in 9/11 and, in a sense, honor the lost lives by making sure that in the next attack -- which we know is going to happen -- more lives would be saved.
WOODRUFF: But in the last analysis, the president did come around on most of that, didn't he?
BREITWEISER: He came around after he was backed into a corner and after a 90-8 vote in the Senate. And it was a long year. And I wonder, what if the president had started his own commission in the days after 9/11, much like happened in Pearl Harbor. Maybe this wouldn't be a campaign issue this year. Maybe national security would be taken care of. Maybe I would feel safe. Maybe I wouldn't be so scared three years since 9/11. And I think it's terribly sad that it is an issue in this campaign, because it's an issue -- because it hasn't been taken care of.
WOODRUFF: Are you going to get involved in his campaign? Will you campaign for him? You were just telling me that you haven't flown in an airplane since 9/11.
BREITWEISER: I have not flown in an airplane since 9/11. When I see planes in the sky, I have flashbacks of the plane entering my husband's building. I have committed to the campaign that I will travel. I want to get the word out. I want the people in this country to understand that national security must be a priority -- a priority in action, not just in words. And I'm willing to get on a plane. And assuming I can do that, I will do that. And that is how committed I am, and how much I believe in Senator Kerry being our president.
WOODRUFF: Some people are going to ask, were you in any way used by this campaign? Are they in any way taking advantage of your obvious and understandable emotions in order to get you to...
BREITWEISER: And I can tell you from my heart, I reached out to the Kerry campaign. I reached out after the Republican convention that was in New York, and I felt that listening to people talk about 9/11 as incessantly as it was done during the campaign -- or the convention in New York, if you're going to use 9/11, use it to make this nation safer than it was on 9/11. And that's not being done. If you're going to use 9/11, if you're going to be impassioned about the lives lost on 9/11, then do so by making us safer. Don't use 9/11 to go to war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 -- not on my husband's name. The war in Iraq has increased recruitment of al Qaeda. It has increased animosity and hatred toward Americans. I want to know that I'm safer. I lost my husband. I want to know that my daughter and I are safer. And President Bush hasn't one that. As much as we have begged and pleaded and screamed to try to get these problems fixed, to try and become safer living in this country, it just hasn't happened.
WOODRUFF: Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her husband on 9/11, we thank you very much for coming to talk with us today.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
#
With the resurgent Astros playing this afternoon I'll be needing some alternative television viewing options tonight. This may be just the thing.
Dan Rather talks exclusively with former Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes. (Photo: CBS)
(CBS) Wed., Sept. 8 at 8 p.m. ET/PT
Correspondent Dan Rather talks exclusively to former Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, a Democrat, about the role Barnes says he played in getting President George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard -- and why he now regrets it.
Rather's exclusive interview will be broadcast Wednesday, Sept. 8, at 8 p.m. ET/PT.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
#
I was reminded recently of the time that I met our current president, Dubya. It was while he was governer of Texas. I was part of a film crew working on a piece for a non-profit educational organization that just happened to be a darling of Dubya's mom, Barbera. Anyway, he strolls in the room where we were set up to do the interview in that affected cock of the walk manner that he has and goes around glad-handing everyone, making sure to look each one of us in the eye, telling us what a wonderful thing it is we're doing and so on and so on. Well, he seems friendly enough, and makes small talk with the crew all during the time we are shooting. Mostly the small talk is of baseball, golf, hunting, etc., you know, subjects that he seemed to know something or other about. Of course, there is not a word of politics, as we(being the somewhat jaded film crew) were told not to bring up anything that might be contraversial or disagreeable. Anyway, we get through with the interview and Dubya leaves. And, as he exits the room, he again makes sure to make the rounds of the room to glad-hand everyone. I recall coming away from that encounter thinking that he really didn't impress me as someone that posessed the substance required of the governership but rather he reminded me more of the rich kid frat boy that hung out by the beer kegs and greeted all the prospects at the freshman rush parties trying to sell his particular fraternity. You can imagine my shock and dismay when the guy actually became president. Unbelievable!! Well, it turns out my appraisal of Dubya hits pretty close to the mark. In the recent Rolling Stone there is a quite interesting interview with Gary Trudeau(Doonesbury) who happenned to be at Yale at the same time as Dubya. Here's a small taste.
Did you know Bush as a student?
We both served on the Armour Council, which was the social committee for our residential college. Nobody in my freshman dorm knew what the council was. But I apparently had shown some leadership qualities in the first three or four days of school, so I was elected unanimously. George Bush was chairman. Our duties consisted of ordering beer kegs and choosing from among the most popular bands to be at our mixers. He certainly knew his stuff -- he was on top of it [laughs].
Even then he had clearly awesome social skills. Legend has it that he knew the names of all forty-five of his fellow pledges when he rushed Deke. He later became rush chairman of Deke -- I do believe he has the soul of a rush chairman. He has that ability to connect with people. Not in the empathetic way that Clinton was so good at, but in the way of making people feel comfortable.
He could also make you feel extremely uncomfortable. He was very good at all the tools for survival that people developed in prep school -- sarcasm, and the giving of nicknames. He was extremely skilled at controlling people and outcomes in that way. Little bits of perfectly placed humiliation.
I recommend checking out the whole interview for more nuggets from Trudeau.
Regards for now,
Derek-boy(my imagined Bush nickname)
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
#
Surprise, surprise. So Arnold is going to be the next governer of California. After, what I am sure was much thought, research, hand wringing, and due diligence(yeah, sure) the voters of California have decided that an enormously wealthy, body building, steroid stacking, pectoral pumping, serial groping, celluloid-action-hero-movie star was the most qualified candidate to lead them out from under the cloud that now darkens them. What the hell is going on here? When this surreal campaign/election honeymoon is over and the state awakens to it's hangover, the hero governer will be faced with the same continueing recession that grips the rest of the country, a state that is now considered less credit worthy than Mississippi(ouch!), and an 8 billion $ deficit that is growing. The hero governer is going to have to call in a whole slew of screenwriters to fix this production but I'm afraid no amount of rewrites can overcome these very real problems. Okay, take two, people! Quiet on the set! And, ACTION!
Sunday, October 05, 2003
#
Derek here. It is Sunday so that means I'll be going to my accordion class at 2 this afternoon. I've been attending this class for about 7 or 8 weeks now, learning how to play the 3 row button accordion, conjunto style. I feel pretty lucky in that I've found an excellent teacher, Rodrigo Gonzalez, a young, mid-twenty-something, who, it turns out is an excellent accordionista and comes from a family of accordionistas, well known in Houston conjunto circles. It's a group class consisting of myself, "el gringo viejo", and 5 Mexican compadres who are in their twenties. Though spanish is mostly spoken(a couple of my classmates do not speak english), Rodrigo, thankfully for me, runs a bilingual class.
The first few classes were spent with learning basic scales, chords, and finger positions. I came into the class already knowing a few scales, but soon learned that I had been playing them with poor finger position technique, so it was practically back to square one from the outset. Proper fingering technique is essential to be able to play with the speed required on the 3 row.
After about a month of the basics, Rodrigo began to introduce us to a few tunes, the first of which was a polka, entitled, Tampico Hermoso. He sent each one of us home with a CD that he had burned two tracks of the song on. The first track was a version that included the accordion, bajo sexto, and drum that illustrated how the tune should sound and be played. The second track was a version that consisted of just the bajo sexto and drum that we could play our accordions along to. These CD's that Rodrigo has created are turning out to be a great learning tool. The next week when we returned for our lesson, Rodrigo asked everyone how they had done with the polka and when he got around to me I admitted that I had found that the tempo was somewhat brisk. He assured me that I would eventually get used to the pace. I sheepishly asked if there might be a slower, "gringo tempo" for learning. My question brought a roar of laughter from my classmates. Even from the ones who supposedly could not speak english. Go figure.
As I was informed by Rodrigo, there is no "gringo tempo". And, he seemed to hammer that point home with the next tune, a huapango, entitled, El Lucero, which is even faster than Tampico Hermoso.
So, the challenge is ahead of me. I have much to learn and, it seems, never enough time for practice. But, I'm having alot of fun with it, enjoying the class and my fellow classmates(who, at first were somewhat leary of el gringo viejo but now have accepted me with open bellows
) and there is definitely progress being made. We have since gone on to other tunes, as well, including, Las Mananitas, the traditional birthday celebration song, and Las Tres Tumbas, a corrido. I hope to master these by the end of the year, as well as, one of my personal favorites, Volver, Volver, the great ranchero.