A very good article from the Washingtonpost.com, comparing Bush and Kerry statements (and mis-statements) on Iraq, the economy, and healthcare.

Of course, they've both emphasized different statistics, and used language selectively to tell the stories they want to tell. But Bush is the only one who has out and out lied.

Not a surprise.

On a slightly lighter and, somehow, more uplifting note.

At House Hearing, Quips, Insults and Some Official Business

"So, Mr. Menendez asked Mr. Armitage, "did you fail to give the president a briefing that the Taliban is still in existence?"

Mr. Armitage said the president meant that the Taliban "is not shackling 28 million people anymore," not that it had literally vanished.

The reply did not entirely satisfy Mr. Menendez, who said, "I think we have to stop sugar-coating the realities of what is happening in Afghanistan and in our other conflicts and be honest with the American people."

Mr. Armitage did not respond directly to Mr. Menendez's "sugar-coating" metaphor, choosing instead to use one of his own. "The Taliban is very much running from hidey hole to hidey hole," he said.

Moments later, Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, opined that "nitpicking the president of the United States' words is not really constructive in this type of situation." Mr. Rohrabacher said Mr. Bush had driven the Taliban out instead of unwisely tolerating it, as he said President Bill Clinton had.

A bit later, emotions warmed even more as Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, asserted that Mr. Bush had misled the American people by taking the country to war against Iraq ("It wasn't difficult, because many people have a difficult time getting the details straight"), while the main mission was still Afghanistan.

"And I have never seen such a misuse of our power," Mr. Payne observed.

That was too much for Representative Henry J. Hyde, the Illinois Republican who heads the committee. He said that "calling the commander in chief a liar by every hour on the hour" was simply wrong, and was helpful to "the other side," by which he appeared to mean America's terrorist enemies.

Moments later, Representative Gary Ackerman, Democrat of New York, said he and his colleagues were "sick and tired" of hearing their patriotism questioned whenever they exercised their responsibilities and rights, as citizens as well as members of Congress.

Mr. Hyde did not mollify Mr. Ackerman a bit. "Nobody questions your patriotism," Mr. Hyde said. "It's your judgment that's under question."

The two lawmakers interrupted each other a few more times, until Mr. Ackerman said, "What's obvious, Mr. Chairman, is that you are a rather vicious partisan."

"Now you're really getting personal," Mr. Hyde observed.

"Well," Mr. Ackerman countered, "I think that willful ignorance is kind of personal also, Mr. Chairman."
"Just remember," Mr. Hyde shot back, "ignorance is salvageable, but stupid is forever."

"I know that," Mr. Ackerman said, "and I'm glad that you've memorized that." He went on to say that Mr. Hyde's insults notwithstanding, he had never called the president a liar.

If nothing else, the session underlined the importance of specificity in language, especially on the eve of President Bush's foreign-policy debate with Senator John Kerry, and the dangers of hyperbole.

"The time has expired, happily," Mr. Hyde said on adjournment."

--If nothing else, the session underlined that Republicans really had nothing good to counter with. Nitpicking the president is helpful to "the other side"? "Ignorance is salvageable, but stupid is forever"? Wow...
Or maybe it simply underlines the fact that Congress often resembles a playground.

From the NYTimes.com:

"Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, suggested that Mr. Cheney had a different view [of Iraq] now, linking the Iraq war to the fight against terrorism.

"The Kerry campaign has continually displayed a misunderstanding of the war on terror," he said. "When America was attacked, the fundamental nature of the conflict changed, but John Kerry continues to approach the war on terror as if 9/11 never occurred."

But Mr. Edwards portrayed Mr. Cheney's remarks as an inconsistency on Iraq and said the beheadings of civilian contract workers, more than 1,000 American military deaths and insurgency in Iraq were proof the Bush administration had failed in the occupation."

Can they really be serious? I keep coming back to the same phrase, over and over: Willful Ignorance. This is just too much. Going to war in Iraq displays a very serious misunderstanding of the war on terror. Why couldn't Mr. Edwards have said that? Why didn't he say that the growing insurgency in Iraq, the increasing number of terrorist-group recruits in Iraq, which are the direct outcomes of our invasion and occupation, display a far greater misunderstanding than any Kerry has ever displayed. Why are they not coming right out and attacking the outright lies?

"Iraq was to the neocons what Afghanistan was to the Taliban: the one place on Earth where they could force everyone to live by the most literal, unyielding interpretation of their sacred texts. One would think that the bloody results of this experiment would inspire a crisis of faith: in the country where they had absolute free reign, where there was no local government to blame, where economic reforms were introduced at their most shocking and most perfect, they created, instead of a model free market, a failed state no right-thinking investor would touch. And yet the Green Zone neocons and their masters in Washington are no more likely to reexamine their core beliefs than the Taliban mullahs were inclined to search their souls when their Islamic state slid into a debauched Hades of opium and sex slavery. When facts threaten true believers, they simply close their eyes and pray harder."

Behind the news of Iraq being reported in the New York Times and other like-minded media is the story of the Bush administrations' attempted economic "reform" of Iraq, which is frightening in both its results and implications. Naomi Wolf wrote all about it for Harper's here.

Dedicated to proving that Bush is The Worst President We've Ever Had (or, the TWPWEH files):

From NYTimes.com:
"Federal investigators said Monday that the Bush administration had improperly allowed some private health plans to limit Medicare patients' choice of health care providers, including doctors, nursing homes and home care agencies.

The investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, also said that the private plans had increased out-of-pocket costs for the elderly and had not saved money for the government, contrary to predictions by Medicare officials.

The study, the most comprehensive assessment of a demonstration project that the administration has described as the best hope for Medicare's future, focused on the program's experience with a form of managed care known as preferred provider organizations, the type of health insurance most popular among people under 65.

Medicare is spending $650 to $750 a year more for each beneficiary in such private plans than it would have spent if the same people stayed in traditional Medicare, the investigators said.

In negotiations over the Medicare bill last year, the administration pressed for more money and authority to foster the growth of preferred provider plans, saying they would be more efficient and would save money over time. Administration officials reiterated that view on Monday." [emphasis mine]

This is pretty typical. The administration has a great new plan to reduce costs and increase efficiency by, in some way, privatizing a traditional government program. Later studies show that costs, in fact, were not reduced and in general the plan failed. Administration officials blindly stick by their original stance, refusing to recognize failure or change their opinions one iota. But hey, I bet they and their friends made some money.

To make it all even more fancy:
"The report was the fourth in two years to find that the administration had skirted federal law in pursuing health policy objectives. In July 2002 and last January, the accountability office said the administration had improperly allowed states to divert money from the Children's Health Insurance Program to provide coverage for childless adults. "

Someone recently took a very informal political poll on MySpace that just about killed my soul. I was sorely disturbed to realize what a large percentage of people around my age are planning on voting for Bush. I kind of feel like even 10% of the populace is more support than Bush deserves, so that more than half of the people who responded to a "Who are you voting for?" bulletin board question support The Worst President We've Ever Had was shocking.

Even more disturbing were the reasons given: Kerry would take all of our tax money and give it to lazy, welfare recipients. Kerry would let Osama bin Laden "go." And my personal favorite: Bush is cuter than Kerry.

I had this misguided notion that our generation were educating ourselves, that we were starting to pay attention to politics because we were afraid to see things get worse. But the inarticulate, uninformed statements I saw posted almost made me lose hope entirely.

There were a fair number of people, too, who said they were voting for Kerry as the "lesser of two evils." While I often tend to view electorial politics through this lens, myself, in this instance I have to say that I'm not. As I wrote to a friend recently, I think we'd be lucky to have a man like Kerry in office.

Being a strong leader requires all the qualities that Kerry possesses: intelligence, an ability to negotiate, a willingness to look at all sides of an issue, and to change his mind when the situation requires, eloquence, experience, diplomacy. NONE of these are qualities Bush possesses. Bush mistakes headstrong resolve for leadership. We cannot allow our foreign policy to be built on the model of a snow plow.

I don't know what to do. I said the other day that all I could do was keep talking. But I don't know that anyone is listening, and it's entirely likely that if they are, they already agree with me. We've allowed ourselves to be so polarized we can't hear the other side anymore. We've disfigured democracy so thoroughly that it's become a joke. And it feels like no one really knows what to do.

We're going to hell in a handbasket. All I can hope is that it will prove so terrible once we get there, we will finally be able to turn things around and come back.

"Blair's speech was interrupted twice by protesters, one yelling that the prime minister ``had blood on his hands,'' others opposing a planned ban on fox-hunting. They were bundled out of the hall."
(From NYTimes.com)

Hm. Only in England I think.

"Item #2-- Threat Posed By Proposed New FOIA Exemption:
According to the
American Library Association (ALA), the Senate has approved
a provision in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005
(H.R. 4200)
that would create a new exemption under the Freedom of
Information Act
(FOIA). This exemption would restrict public access to
unclassified
satellite images and related data, such as maps, reports
and
analysis. Even if government officials felt that the
public should have
access to the information under FOIA, the provision
prohibits the
disclosure. According to critics, this completely bars the
public from
accessing certain commercial images and would threaten
significant amounts
of unclassified information that journalists, public
interest groups,
scientists, and the public routinely use. This provision
has been
incorporated into the House's version of the National
Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2005 as an amendment which is now being
discussed in
House-Senate Conference. The ALA is urging concerned
individuals to
contact members of Congress and ask that they defer action
on this
amendment until its long-term impact has been adequately
assessed. To take
action, tap into the ALA Legislative Action Center ."

(From National Coalition for History Washington Update mailing)

From Washingtonpost.com:

"'Great countries, great democracies have a balance of power between central government and local governments, a balance of power within central governments between the executive branch and the legislative branch and the judicial branch,' [Bush] said."

Just last night I was talking with my housemate about how frustrating it is that current partisan politics seems to misunderstand the fundamental requirement of democracy, and the foundation of our government's structure: the balance of power between all branches of government, and between state and local power. To hold as the party's goal to control all branches of government strives to eliminate that very necessary balance. Not to mention the fact that Bush administration seems intent on reducing the state's control over education, policing, regulation of resources, and on and on.

I hate all this empty rhetoric. This administration operates consistently on the basis of the disconnection between what they say and what they do. They will be re-elected based on what they say, and no one will pay any attention to what they're actually doing.

"As described by the officials, the pessimistic tone of the new estimate [regarding Iraq's future] stands in contrast to recent statements by Bush administration officials, including comments on Wednesday by Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, who asserted that progress was being made." (Read about it here.)

Oh, really? What a surprise! The Bush administration might be less than forthcoming about the real situation in Iraq?

'"You know, every step of the way in Iraq there have been pessimists and hand-wringers who said it can't be done," Mr. McClellan said at a news briefing. "And every step of the way, the Iraqi leadership and the Iraqi people have proven them wrong because they are determined to have a free and peaceful future."'

Yeah. Those damn pessimists in the National Intelligence Council and the National Foreign Intelligence Board. The obviously don't know what they're talking about, and are only out to make Bush look bad. They're against us. They must be evildoers.

I have a feeling things would unfold more smoothly in Iraq if we stopped operating there as though things were working the way we'd prefer them to work, and started operating with things as they are. Flexibility would be out greatest asset, and one which, unfortunately, the Bush administration does not possess.

THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE!!!!! Why are we discussing this? Why is this a headline story in the Washington Post? Why are we getting angry about a mis-pronounced name, instead of ridiculous budgeting, tax breaks that are crushing our economy, dangerous deregulation, disgusting political dishonesty, crippling "education" initiatives, and on and on and on.

There are much bigger problems facing us now than whether the Packers play at Lambeau or Lambert field. If anyone casts their vote based on this meaningless factor, I will be ashamed to consider myself an American.

$3 Trillion Price Tag Left Out As Bush Details His Agenda (washingtonpost.com): "A staple of Bush's stump speech is his claim that his Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, has proposed $2 trillion in long-term spending, a figure the Massachusetts senator's campaign calls exaggerated. But the cost of the new tax breaks and spending outlined by Bush at the GOP convention far eclipses that of the Kerry plan. "

Basic economics lesson for Mr. Bush: without income (uh, taxes, moron) there can be no outcome. You can't spend money you don't have. Why do I have to balance my budget, if Bush doesn't have to balance his.

Oh wait, I meant to say "if Bush doesn't have to balance ours." Because it's NOT his money he's fooling around with here. It's ours. And he's giving it away to his friends.

I just finished reading Bushwhacked, by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose. It's excellent. Read it. Get mad. Then GO VOTE!

" 'When it comes to Iraq, my opponent has more different positions than all his colleagues in the Senate combined,' Mr. Bush said. 'If he had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and would still be a threat to the security and to the world.' " (Reported in NYTimes.org)

This kind of rhetoric makes me so mad. What does this even mean? What's even more frustrating is that this hyperbolic, ridiculous talk increases Bushie's lead over Kerry. He's not saying anything. He can't back up what he's talking about. It's big, ugly, empty talk, and it's going to help him win.

I hate politics.

Everytime I read that Bush's lead is growing, I feel sick to my stomach. And I feel even more sick when I read things like this:

"Pollsters suggested that the change was a result of a month of attacks on Mr. Kerry's war record by a group of Vietnam veterans, combined with the Republican convention, which featured searing attacks on Mr. Kerry and staging designed to portray Mr. Bush as strong and forward-looking." (Also from NYTimes.org)

Essentially, Bush's numbers are rising based on attacks that were proved unfounded, and on what is pointedly and unabashedly called convention "staging."

I think I'm going to throw up. And start making plans to emigrate.

Why?! For the love of buddha, why?!

I'm still in the dark as to how anyone can support Bush, especially how anyone can be "pro-Bush all the way." (Notwithstanding the fact that this woman seems not to understand "all the way," when she later expresses reservations about the war on Iraq, and wants to know "what Bush was thinking." I'll tell you what Bush was thinking: Money and Control.)

I feel nauseated. Revulsed. Terrified.

The double plusgood duckspeaking is, apparently, working for them.

In the "very well said" category:

"We can only end the threat of terrorism by addressing constructively the routine violence of poverty, hunger, and exploitation which characterizes the daily existence of several billion people on this planet."
-Manning Marable, The Failure of U.S. Foreign Policies (from Znet)

Ahh, New York. I'm enamored. Any doubts I had that I want to move there after I finish my master's have been dispelled. This book store did much of the dispelling. I now know what heaven looks like.

I just finished read The Age of Innocence, and I think Edith Wharton has made her way into the pantheon of my all-time favorite authors.

I don't want to go back to work.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but morally treasonable to the American public."
-President Theodore Roosevelt

I wonder if Dubya knows what "morally treasonable" means? That's an awfully big word...

For the past week, I've been going through the most recent revision to our Composition Reader project: an addition of about 80 new articles and short stories, many by "women of color." And I keep noticing, over and over, something that has me a little disturbed.

It seems that "women of color" only ever write about being women of color. I think, though, it has more to do with the fact that the only black and hispanic women writers who get any recognition do so because they write about being black and hispanic women. It's a niche. The industry of words has a place for them, and it's a limited place. But we sure are opening up the canon!

Your mission (or mine) if it should be accepted: to find black women, and hispanic women, and asian women whose writing is published without being contained to the limited scope of their identities.