Nosey Online

After 9/11, I realized that there was a greater need for security, especially at airports. But I remember just how bad it was before the terrorist attacks. During every visit to an airport, I would notice just how poorly the security workers did their jobs. After the high-profile hijackings in the 80's, don't you think that pilots should have kept their doors closed no matter what? Before 9/11, we weren't running a tight ship when it came to securing our airports. Clearly we dropped the ball. Things needed to change.

That said, I wonder just how much is too much?

In the days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the nation's largest airlines, including American, United and Northwest, turned over millions of passenger records to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, airline and law enforcement officials acknowledged Friday.

A senior official with the F.B.I. said the airlines cooperated willingly. Some, like Northwest, provided as much as a year's worth of passenger records, which typically include names, addresses, travel destinations and credit card numbers.

"There was no reluctance on the part of anybody," added the senior F.B.I. official, who said that bureau rules required him to speak anonymously.

...But the disclosure that airlines had handed over such an enormous trove of data directly to government criminal investigators, 6,000 CD-ROM's full of digital records from Northwest alone, raised red flags among privacy advocates, who played a role in uncovering the information transfer.

"It certainly takes the airline privacy issue to a new level, because it's much more material than we've ever seen disclosed," said David Sobel, the general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a high-tech policy and advocacy group in Washington.

This is the biggest problem most people have with things like the Patriot Act. Why does everyone become a suspect? It's a little unnerving.

Today is the one year anniversary of President Bush announcing the end of "major combat" in Iraq. I think it's appropriate to look at this photo in contrast with tonight's edition of Nightline. This is not a game, it's war, and people are dying. Like I said Friday morning, if you can't handle it, don't support the war.

I watched Nightline and felt a great sadness for all those who died. It is not my viewpoint that Koppel read the names to be partisan. Nor do I think they were completely pure in their intent. But Koppel had a good point at the end. He said that it's easy to support a war without feeling any burden on yourself. This was his attempt at making us face the realities. He even stated he supported the war effort.

So when I look at the image above, I think, at the very least, that the Bush administration was/is cocky. Sure we got to Baghdad quickly and kicked Saddam's regime out. But with all those soldiers who died in April alone, you've got to wonder if they've got a handle on things. My hope is that the situation gets better, Iraq is rebuilt and handed over, and we get the hell out of there.

So on that note, I'll bid you goodnight.

I'm not sure if this detail of Pat Tillman's death was released initially. Even so, it's worth a mention.

A Silver Star has been awarded posthumously to Cpl. Pat Tillman, the former football player who died last week after returning to an ambush to save the remainder of his platoon, Army Special Operations Command said Friday.

Tillman was killed while performing his duty "without regard to his personal safety," the Army said in a statement.

"I have gained a deep and profound respect for the wisdom of having an unwavering principle that stands at the summit of the Constitution, and holds: 'Government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'... Benevolent or not, we did not sign away to a Philosopher-King the responsibility to determine for us, like a caring parent, what messages we should and should not hear."

-Michael Powell in 1999 accepting the Freedom of Speech Award

Jeff Jarvis has an excellent piece up at The Nation about the First Amendment, the FCC, and Howard Stern. Add an election year to the increase in moral activism, and you get a recipe for a free speech disaster.

Advertising Age says we are a nation not of red versus blue but of a "moral minority" versus an "edgy elite." And the moral minority is winning.

Let us recite the litany of America's new official religion: "This mad race to the bottom," in the pronouncement of one member of the Federal Communications Commission, began when Bono said "fucking brilliant" at the Golden Globes and when Janet Jackson's silver-studded globe invaded the family fun of the Super Bowl. Which begat politically panicked FCC chairman Michael Powell--Mr. Media Deregulation--suddenly embracing government regulation of content (read: censorship). Which begat a Congressional orgy of legislation to multiply broadcast indecency fines--from $27,500 to $275,000, then $500,000, then $3 million. Which begat Clear Channel's dropping Howard Stern from six stations. Which begat the FCC's fining Stern for the first time in six years. Which begat an NPR station's firing benign commentator Sandra Tsing Loh over an accidental F-word. Which begets well-chilled programmers' issuing dictums filled with newly forbidden words and slapping delays on shows of all sorts, taking the live out of life, the reality out of TV.

So that sums up the events leading us to this point. But if you delve in deeper things start to get hairy.

As this point, I'm wondering just what will have to happen for his numbers to start going back up. The NYTimes has a piece tracking the polls.

The public's confidence in George W. Bush is continuing to erode amid doubts about the Iraq war and sustained economic worries, according to opinion polls made public this week.

More than half the public does not approve of the way Mr. Bush is handling Iraq, the economy, job creation or health costs, according to an ABC News poll.

The wariness toward Mr. Bush comes at the same time as the public is paying more attention to the presidential campaign and while the Democratic nominating process is being played out, giving the public real alternatives to consider when deciding whether Mr. Bush should stay on for a second term.

Still, Mr. Bush's job approval ratings continue to hover around the 50 percent mark, with Newsweek measuring it at 48 percent, ABC News putting it at 50 percent, and the Gallup Poll at 52 percent.

It's pretty amazing that the nation is still split in half over a president who said he was going to "heal Washington's partisan wounds." For those who thought that a second term for Bush was a forgone conclusion, it doesn't seem that way right now.

In a finding that underscored just how polarized the nation is right now, Newsweek asked its poll respondents whether they would like to see Mr. Bush re-elected to another term as president. Forty-five percent of the voters surveyed said they would, while 50 percent said they would not. That nationwide telephone poll of 1,004 adults was conducted on Feb. 5 and Feb. 6, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

I think any number less then 50% on that question can't be good. But what is at the heart of these numbers? For a man who is running on his trustworthiness and the peoples' confidence in how he's fighting the war on terror, these numbers must be discouraging.

On the critical measure of trust, Mr. Bush's fortunes have also waned. When asked if Mr. Bush was honest and trustworthy, 52 percent of the respondents in the ABC News poll said he was and 45 percent said he was not. In September, 60 percent saw Mr. Bush as honest and trustworthy and 39 percent did not.

Questions about Mr. Bush's credibility stem in part from issues surrounding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. ABC News found that more than half the public, 54 percent, think the Bush administration intentionally exaggerated the evidence. Still, when asked if the administration had lied, a majority of those polled, 57 percent, said the administration had exaggerated without lying, while 39 percent said officials had lied.

The WMD issue is still coming back to bite them in the ass. If I remember correctly, over the last year since the war started, every spike in Bush's numbers have come with some good news. So I wonder, just what else has to happen in order for Bush to get a jump in the polls. If you factor out finding bin Laden and discovering WMDs, it leaves something on the domestic front. But as the Bush administration likes to day, Rome wasn't built in a day. That goes for domestic issues, too. You can't bet the ranch on just the outcome of foreign policy.

Isn't amazing how much can change in a month?

President Bush fired off a few one-liners but unlike a month ago when he poked fun at himself over the issue of weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq war was no joking matter at a traditionally tongue-in-cheek journalists' dinner Saturday night.

Five of the eight minutes Bush spoke to the White House correspondents were devoted to a serious message about the service of Americans -- in the news media and the military -- in what the president called "a period of testing and sacrifice."

He still managed to get in a few zingers.

"I was going to start off tonight by telling some self-deprecating jokes, but then I couldn't think of any mistakes I've made to be self-deprecating about," Bush said. He was referring to his recent news conference in which he was stumped by a reporter who asked him to name any mistake he regretted making as president.

ZING!

"So from now on, Dick and I will be holding joint press conferences." Bush was making light of criticism made by the White House insistence that Vice President Dick Cheney be at his side Thursday when the 9/11 commissioners questioned him in the Oval Office.

BAM!

"It really gets me when the critics say I haven't done enough for the economy," he said. "I mean, look what I've done for the book publishing industry. You've heard some of the titles. 'Big Lies,' 'The Lies of George W. Bush,' 'The Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.' I'd like to tell you I've read each of these books, but that'd be a lie."

OOH!

See my last post in regards to the third joke. Funny now?

Looks like the Kerry camp has decided on a strategy for the VP slot.

This much is known: The Kerry campaign is seriously vetting at least two candidates for vice president, but the process is still wide open, and the campaign has all but ruled out announcing the choice in May.

...Two sources with knowledge of internal strategies say that the campaign has put off an announcement until June or July because strategists believe that Kerry should focus on fundraising and establish a clear message and image before a new factor is introduced, even if it means he does not have help fending off GOP attacks on the campaign trail.

Why does he have to be a loner to raise more cash? Bush has Cheney, Hughes, and the rest of the GOP attack dogs in the House and Senate firing off rounds daily. Wouldn't it be better to name the VP now and have both of them going cross country to raise cash? Mark me down as not happy with this idea.

Looks like Bush and Clinton don't have similar views of history. What a surprise.

How much of a warning did Bill Clinton give incoming President George W. Bush that Osama bin Laden posed a grave danger? It depends on which President you ask. In his interview with the 9/11 commission last week, sources tell Time, Bush testified that Clinton appeared far more passionate about the dangers of North Korea's nuclear program and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to sources, Bush said Clinton "probably mentioned" terrorism as a national-security threat "but did not make it a point of emphasis." Clinton earlier told the panel that he had ranked bin Laden as the No. 1 problem the new Administration would face; he made the same point in a speech in New York City last October.

So if Bush is unhappy on how he was prepared for the importance of terrorism, why does he continue to support Tenet?

The content of the testimony Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney gave in the Oval Office remains confidential. But a source says Bush told the commission he had not been warned of the CIA's and the FBI's concerns about would-be 747 pilot Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested in August 2001. Yet Bush went out of his way to express confidence in CIA director George Tenet.

Maybe they're waiting for an opportune time to scapegoat the DCI.

Who said the rich are only Republican?

Warren Buffett, the world's second wealthiest person, said on Sunday he had joined Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's economic advisory team.

Buffett has long been a critic of the tax policies of the Bush administration, which he believes favor the wealthy and big corporations over the middle class.

When a rich guy says Bush's tax policies favor the rich, you know it's got to be true.

Here's some economic news for you to chew on.

The economy added a surprising 308,000 jobs in March and economists are forecasting more moderate gains this time around, about 175,000. There's a good chance the March numbers will be revised downward.

While 175,000 is headed in the right direction, it is only a drop in the bucket considering the economy has lost 1.9 million jobs since March 2001. All the speculation will be over on Friday when the Labor Department releases the data.

Tuesday is the other big day for clues to where the economy is headed. The Federal Open Market Committee meets to decide whether the economy has improved enough to raise interest rates without hurting the recovery.

One thing to be considered when thinking about rising interest rates is credit card debt. Many people got in over their heads during the dot-com boom and subsequent decrease in interest rates. Imagine what will happen when the rates go up. So the economy surges ahead and more people could go bankrupt. I'd wager that whoever is in charge next year will have a heck of a time.

I'm going to step into my "way-back" machine and travel to the land of George Bush's insurmountable fund raising circa last summer. Rich Republican donors were writing $2000 checks and we were wondering just how the Democratic candidate would ever catch Bush.

WaPo has a piece on the growing importance of small donors for both parties. It starts off by talking about small GOP donors but then goes into how John Kerry is playing catch up.

Democrats are rolling on a river of money, too. Although his campaign has collected less than half of what Bush has raked in, Kerry is quickly closing the gap with the help of lots of small checks. From January to March, Kerry raised nearly $55 million, the most a presidential candidate has ever raised in a quarter. The previous record was held by Bush, who ginned up $50 million during one three-month period last year. By the Kerry campaign's count, about 400,000 people have donated.

..."I've been doing this [fundraising] for 25 years, and I never expected what I'm seeing today," said Terence McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. "We have a unified party, a great candidate and an energized donor base. I call it a perfect storm."

I wish the piece would have mentioned more about the influence big time bloggers like Atrios and Kos have on fundraising, but it's good to know that we're making a difference.

It was no wonder to me that Bush's strong support of Ariel Sharon's plan for the Gaza Strip would be received with angry faces throughout the world. Coming down so hard on one side for the first time would certainly anger the Middle East and make our allies question our dedication to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even more. Little did I know just how bad it could make us look.

President Bush took a huge diplomatic gamble two weeks ago when he forcefully embraced Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza and handed Israel key concessions on a final peace deal. The backlash in Arab and European countries was especially intense, but administration officials argued Sharon's plan carried the seeds of a breakthrough in the stalled peace process.

Now, the Likud Party's overwhelming rejection of that plan has left the administration's credibility in the Middle East in tatters. The tilt toward Israel will not soon be forgotten by the Arab world, but it will be harder for the administration to claim that Bush's support of Sharon has made a difference. Moreover, the Likud vote comes when the image of the United States is already greatly damaged by accounts of psychological and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners by some U.S. soldiers.

...Samuel W. Lewis, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, said the vote yesterday "is an embarrassment diplomatically" for the Bush administration and "now they have the worst of both worlds." He faulted the administration for giving in to many of Sharon's key demands, including saying that in a final peace deal some Israel settlements in the West Bank would be retained and that Palestinians would have to give up their right to return to lands they lost during Israel's war of independence.

...The administration's next step is unclear. U.S. officials, fuming that Sharon did not wage a strong lobbying campaign once he had Bush's support, still hope Sharon will be able to push his plan through because polls show that most Israelis support it.

So after basically giving full support to Israel and marginalizing Palestinian demands, what do you do when it looks like Sharon's plan might not pass muster? You go back and change your mind.

The administration in recent days has tried to emphasize its concern for the Palestinians, such as floating an economic stabilization plan for Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal, in part relying on financial support of the World Bank, officials said. As part of the diplomatic offensive, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice last week called some Arab countries that were behind in making payments to shore up the Palestinian Authority.

Is it any wonder why we're losing credibility?

In one of those moves timed to increase poll numbers, the government is preparing for "regime change" in Cuba.

A government commission is recommending to President Bush a series of measures to cut U.S. dollar flows to Cuba as part of a broader policy to hasten the end of the country’s communist system, an administration official said Sunday night.

A commission report, in preparation for six months and overseen by Secretary of State Colin Powell, also calls for steps to overcome Cuban jamming of U.S.-government sponsored radio and television broadcasts to Cuba, the official said.

The official, asking not to be identified in advance of the report’s public release, said it urges increased support for Cuban dissidents and families of political prisoners and also calls for measures to encourage foreign governments to distance themselves from the Cuban regime.

Last October, Bush announced the creation of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba and set a May 1 deadline for completion of a report. The concept and the timing appeared to be linked to maintaining in the November elections the solid support Bush received in 2000 from Cuban-Americans in Florida. Without their backing, the election would have gone to Democrat Al Gore.

You gotta love it.

Kevin brings our attention to a piece in last Saturday's Seattle Post-Intelligencer. It touches on the special skills draft that I talked about here, as well as some new information on the scope of the draft plans.

The chief of the Selective Service System has proposed registering women for the military draft and requiring that young Americans regularly inform the government about whether they have training in niche specialties needed in the armed services.

The proposal, which the agency's acting Director Lewis Brodsky presented to senior Pentagon officials just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, also seeks to extend the age of draft registration to 34 years old, up from 25.

..."In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills," the agency said in a Feb. 11, 2003, proposal presented to senior Pentagon officials.

We already knew about the need for special skills in the military, but the expansion to include those up to 34 years of age is a new one. As Kevin says, it may just be normal agency planning. One might blow this off as liberal paranoia, but I for one keep it in the back of my mind.

You cannot expect to be able to effectively launch multiple military operations and peace keeping missions at the same time with the current force level. Unless we totally get out of the peace keeping business, it stands to reason that we might need an ample supply of troops. With the current all-volunteer military, it would be hard.

This topic seems to pop up every two to three weeks. It's just a good idea to be aware of the possibility.

I happened to be doing oppo research while listening to Rush in my car today. Some of the things he said were truly amazing, even by his standards. I've been trying to find out where I can find transcripts all afternoon, but I'm at a loss. So if anyone knows where I can get a copy of today's show, please drop me a line. (I'm going to paraphrase most of what I remember, so if it sounds a bit disjointed, I apologize)

For those who don't know, Rush typically puts only conservative callers on the air. The choice liberal that gets past the phone screener is almost always one of the "kook" "fringe Democrats" he's always railing against. Today was no different. Tiffany from Cleveland, who described herself as a Gen X'er who doesn’t subscribe to the two-party system, sounded a bit medicated and a little out of her league. In the midst of her accusing the Bush administration of being criminals, I heard some really crazy stuff come out of Rush's mouth.

They were talking about the American and British torture photos that came out of the Abu Ghraib prison. Current stories suggest that the British pics are fakes. Rush highlighted that fact and then said something to the tune of "the photos of Americans could be faked, but so what if they're real?" According to Rush, the pictures might just be showing "routine" pre-interrogation activities. At this point, Rush asked Tiffany if she remembered September 11th when three planes crashed into buildings and one into a field in Pennsylvania. She then asked why everything has to go back to 9/11. After that, Rush went into the typical "Iraq has everything to do with 9/11" conservative spiel.

The most amazing part of the segment was Rush actually condoning the alleged behavior of the Americans. Herein lies the problem with most Bush apologists. Regardless of what happens in the course of acting out the administration's agenda, there will be nothing to stand in the way of finishing the mission. It’s all or nothing.

I’ll post more later when I get a copy of Rush’s show.

So says President Bush. Screwed, that is, if John Kerry is elected president.

"Peace and freedom depend upon this election. Prosperity for the people depend upon this election," Bush said while wrapping up a campaign stop with about 1,200 supporters in Niles, in the southwest corner of Michigan.

So if you hate peace and freedom or like being poor, make sure you vote for Kerry. Thanks, but I'll take my chances. Arrogant ass.

One of, if not the most, important issues to voters this fall will be the war on terror. It's so important that Bush has made it the core of his reelection strategy. The Bushies have been, and will be, trying to paint Kerry as the sissy candidate. "He'll sell us out to the U.N.!" That's a frequent GOP war cry. But when it comes down to it, the war on terror will still be there after the election. Odds are Kerry will keep us on the same path.

Nuance and tone may be different, but no matter who wins this year's presidential election, political realities will limit the victor's policy options in the U.S. battle against terrorism, political analysts say.

The "war on terror" is a central campaign topic, and President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry have been at pains to highlight their differences while painting the other as weak on security.

But analysts say both men agree on most of the core issues and see stabilizing Iraq, hunting down militants abroad, tightening security at home, and reviewing domestic intelligence as central pillars of the fight.

"The difference between the two on the war on terror is much less than most people think. There might be a difference in emphasis, but not overall gist," said John Hulsman, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

So we're basically looking at the same policy. Sure, conservatives will try to tell you that Kerry is all bait and switch. No wait, that's the Bush administration on the Medicare drug benefit. (Is this thing on?) All jokes aside, the war on terror will continue down the same path.

The Bush administration will spend millions of dollars over the next 6 months to try and convince you that if Kerry is elected president, we're all going to hell. (See my last post) But not everyone is convinced that Bush is the better man for the job.

One former Bush administration official told Reuters Kerry might wage a more effective war on terror than Bush because he was likely to take a more complex approach, looking at broader threats while coupling military force with "soft power" such as alliance building and a battle for hearts and minds.

Some analysts also say Kerry will seek more alternatives to military force to fight the terrorist threat. Nonetheless, they do not expect a dramatic departure from Bush's security policies if he takes office in January 2005.

Conservatives love to scream and yell about 9/11 and accuse us on the left of forgetting about the planes crashing into buildings. I never forgot. I can remember exactly every single moment of that day. For the first few months I supported Bush and the actions he undertook to capture all those responsible. But as soon as Iraq started to make headlines, I knew that the train was heading off the track.

In the beginning, the most important aspect of the war on terror was international cooperation. How else were we going to catch all the terrorists? As images of the smoldering ruins that were once the twin towers played on television, the rest of the world felt sorry for us. America was the country that always came to help the rest of the world. Sure, the Europeans thought we were arrogant, but they marched in the streets showing solidarity with us.

But Iraq changed that. The international support became scarce and people started to hate us again. Instead of countries coming to our aid out of sadness they now fear our wrath. We need to mend the fences, get back the lost support, and work to make the world a safer place. So far, Bush has done the opposite of that. This is why I think John Kerry is the better choice.

First we had Dick Cheney urging us to get our news from FOX. Now we've got one of my favorites, Ralph Reed, stumping for FNC. (via Media Matters)

Stumping for President Bush, the former head of the Christian Coalition told Nevada Republicans he can't remember the last time he watched a television newscast on CBS, NBC or ABC.

Now a regional chairman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, Ralph Reed said he depends on the Internet, conservative talk show hosts and the Fox News network to get his information about the world.

And he urged Nevadans to do the same.

"Twenty-five years ago, most people got their news from ABC, CBS or NBC," Reed said in a speech Friday night to the Nevada Republican Party's state convention. "Fortunately, that is no longer the case. The gatekeepers of dominant media have lost their monopoly on information."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since when do three different networks constitute a monopoly? I can imagine a world where I only check Drudge on the net, watch FNC, and listen to Rush and the rest of the conservative ilk on the radio. Talk about a monopoly on information. If that is the world Ralph Reed wants me to live in, you can count me out. Especially if I start to think like this...

Media Matters for America recently commissioned a poll conducted by the Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group. Among the findings was that FOX News Channel viewers disproportionately hold inaccurate or false views. "Among daily viewers of FOX News Channel, 72 percent say there is strong evidence about Iraq's possession of WMD and development of nuclear weapons, while only 44 percent of those who watch FOX infrequently say that this statement is true," the poll found.

I think there's strong evidence that FOX News viewers will buy the bridge I have to sell them.

Did anyone think that this would just go away?

The Congressional Research Service says the Bush administration apparently violated federal law by ordering the chief Medicare actuary to withhold information from Congress indicating that the new Medicare law could cost far more than White House officials had said.

In a report on Monday, the research service said that Congress's "right to receive truthful information from federal agencies to assist in its legislative functions is clear and unassailable." Since 1912, it said, federal laws have protected the rights of federal employees to communicate with Congress, and recent laws have "reaffirmed and strengthened" those protections.

Oh boy.

If only the sun would shine on Ohio.

States across the country are reporting stronger tax collections this spring for the first time in three years, fueling hopes that the bleakest budget-cutting days of the economic downturn are over, state officials and fiscal experts say.

From Florida to Oklahoma to Oregon, tax revenues are up in recent months from the same period last year, the first consistent increases many states have experienced since Wall Street's bubble burst in 2001.

And then the bad.

Some states are reporting only minimal revenue improvements, particularly in Midwestern manufacturing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio, which have been hit hardest by layoffs.

In Ohio, Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican, announced in March a budget shortfall of $372 million for 2005. Having struggled through three years of deep budget cuts, Mr. Taft began imposing a new round last week, eliminating some state jobs and reducing the state vehicle fleet, among other steps.

Hmm, where is Bush's bus tour going?

On the first extensive trip of his re-election campaign, President Bush went rumbling by luxury bus across southern Michigan on Monday with the intensity of a man running as if the election were six days away rather than six months.

...The two-day jaunt, which will take the president to southern Ohio on Tuesday, was the first time Mr. Bush has traveled by bus as president, and reprises a style of travel much loved by modern candidates, including Mr. Bush in 2000 and Bill Clinton in 1992.

I wonder if he'll be able to see the abandoned factories from his luxury tour bus.

UPDATE: Apparently the tour bus thing is a scam. And Bush is only answering planted questions. (The Liquid List, via Atrios.)

He's back and letting us know that things aren't so bleak after all. Thanks George! Hopefully Ohio will be the state that sends Bush back to Crawford.

President Bush's campaign road show rolled into the crucial battleground state of Ohio on Tuesday, where he attacked Democratic challenger John Kerry and promised better days were ahead for the state's struggling economy.

"The economy is strong, and it's getting better," he said on the last day of a two-day bus tour to Michigan and Ohio that kicked off the active part of his campaign for re-election in November.

"The people of Ohio are going to feel the economic vitality that is occurring across the country," Bush promised at a pancake breakfast in Maumee, located in a Democratic-leaning county that includes Toledo.

Really? I guess he hasn't heard this little bit of information.

In Ohio, Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican, announced in March a budget shortfall of $372 million for 2005. Having struggled through three years of deep budget cuts, Mr. Taft began imposing a new round last week, eliminating some state jobs and reducing the state vehicle fleet, among other steps.

After reading the usual "support from foreign leaders" and "flip-flopper" jabs from Bush, we get this little gem.

Kerry has said he would repeal the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans but expand tax breaks for the middle class.

Bush told crowds in Ohio not to believe him, saying Kerry would have to raise taxes to pay for what he said was more than $1 trillion in spending proposals.

Kind of funny coming from a man who has turned the Republican party into the biggest spending machine this country has seen in awhile.

Gore and Hyatt finally get the deal done.

A company formed by former Vice President Al Gore and his partner, the entrepreneur Joel Hyatt, today acquired Newsworld International, an independent cable television network that will provide international news for young adults.

INdTV Holdings, the new company formed by Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, acquired Newsworld International from Vivendi Universal for an undisclosed sum, company officials said in New Orleans.

The pieces fall together and Gore has his network. But what exactly is it going to be?

"This is not going to be a liberal network, a Democratic network or a political network," Mr. Gore said at a news conference in New Orleans.

...We are creating an exciting television network for young men and women who want to know more about their world and who enjoy real-life stories created with, by and for their own generation," Mr. Gore, who will serve as chairman of the new company and will devote most of his time to the enterprise, said in a statement.

"This will not be a political network," he added said. "These stories will be in a voice that young people recognize and from a point of view they identify as their own."

...Last year, Democrats said that after Mr. Gore decided not to run for president in 2004, he expressed interest in starting a liberal challenge to outlets like the Fox News Channel, which he regarded as biased in favor of conservatives and the Republican Party. But associates of Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt said ideas had evolved away from the creation of an overtly partisan operation.

I'm a little confused about what to expect. Is it a pure business play? Or is it something to help get young people more involved? Anyone have ideas?

Nothing gets my blood going more then thinking about the influence the religious right has on the current administration. We have health care workers getting the ability to refuse service to homosexuals, the Justice Department trying to get access to confidential medical records, and now we have this.

The nation's major organizations of doctors who treat women today strongly criticized the Food and Drug Administration's handling of an application to make emergency contraception pills available without prescription, accusing the agency of caving in to political opposition and disregarding science.

...The issue of making Plan B available on open drugstore shelves has become a contentious one, with social conservatives actively opposed and women's reproductive rights groups strongly in favor.

An expert advisory panel voted 23-4 in favor of the switch in December, but conservative members of Congress have lobbied the White House to oppose it out of concern that it would encourage teen promiscuity. The FDA, which denies that politics is playing any role in its Plan B deliberations, has already postponed its decision once and now is scheduled to give an answer by May 21.

The "specter" of teen pregnancy appears again. When in doubt, let's use children as an excuse. Same argument can be found in discussions on indecency and broadcast media. Let's get one thing straight. Contraception and controversial material broadcast over the air have the same thing in common. Religion and morals. It's about what makes people feel uncomfortable. For those who want to debate the issues, let's try to keep it real, alright?

Some more corporate support for Bush.

The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.

Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

Well, we know this isn't about money, because Bowling For Columbine made $60 Million in theaters worldwide. This is, in case you don’t know, awesome for a documentary. (Don't forget about DVD sales) It is truly about censorship.

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."

Of course Disney denies the accusation, but why else would they complicating plans for the movie's release? We've got a politically charged movie, an election season, and a release date near the party conventions. The first time I saw a Michael Moore film was in 1995. My high school economics teacher thought it was good for us to see Roger & Me in order to understand the bad side of corporation decisions. Needless to say, it opened my eyes. So here's to hoping that Michael Moore gets another distributor and puts his movie in every suburban cineplex.

NOTE: Here is Moore's response.

Wednesday, May 5th, 2004

Disney Has Blocked the Distribution of My New Film... by Michael Moore

Friends,

I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter.

Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. The story is on page one of the Times and you can read it here (Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush).

The whole story behind this (and other attempts) to kill our movie will be told in more detail as the days and weeks go on. For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge (well, OK, sorry -- it WILL upset them...big time. Did I mention it's a comedy?). All I can say is, thank God for Harvey Weinstein and Miramax who have stood by me during the entire production of this movie.

There is much more to tell, but right now I am in the lab working on the print to take to the Cannes Film Festival next week (we have been chosen as one of the 18 films in competition). I will tell you this: Some people may be afraid of this movie because of what it will show. But there's nothing they can do about it now because it's done, it's awesome, and if I have anything to say about it, you'll see it this summer -- because, after all, it is a free country.

Yours,

Michael Moore

Why is this still getting press? It seems to me that it's a non-issue.

A former Navy doctor who says he treated Sen. John Kerry for the wound that led to his first Purple Heart in Vietnam said yesterday that several of Kerry's crewmates told him at the time that the injury did not occur in battle.

Dr. Louis Letson, a retired Alabama physician who served as medical officer at the Naval Support Facility at Cam Ranh Bay, said the crew's "confided" story contradicted Kerry's report in December 1968 that he was wounded during a river firefight between his swift boat and Vietcong gunmen.

Yeah, Kerry knew that 36 years later he'd be running for president and lied about getting wounded so he would look more heroic. Give me a break.

Score one for the little guy.

The Senate handed the Bush administration a significant defeat Tuesday by voting to block new rules on overtime that opponents say would cause millions of workers to lose their eligibility for the extra pay.

With five Republicans breaking ranks, the Senate voted, 52 to 47, to ensure that the new Labor Department proposal does not deny overtime to any category of worker now qualified to receive it. The proposal, which the administration says would expand eligibility for millions of workers, has been a source of growing conflict. Seeking to ease opposition, the Labor Department revised them last month.

Thanks to these Senators for crossing the aisle and making sure this gets done right.

• Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO)

• Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)

• Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

• Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

• Arlen Specter (R-PA)

Isn't Specter supposed to be in Bush's back pocket because of his big win last week? I guess this blows that theory out of the water.

...but does this count?

U.S. Retreats From Bush Remarks on Sharon Plan

Effort Is Intended To Placate Arabs

The Bush administration on Tuesday joined in a high-level diplomatic statement that stressed that the key issues dividing Israelis and Palestinians must be negotiated by both sides, just weeks after President Bush pronounced that Israel could keep some West Bank settlements and Palestinian refugees should not resettle in Israel.

U.S. officials and foreign diplomats described the statement as an effort by the Bush administration to repair the international damage from the president's remarks last month, which had drawn sharp criticism in the Arab world and from European allies.

Bush's comments, made with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at his side, had alarmed diplomats overseas because some perceived that the United States and Israel had cut their own deal on Sharon's plan to unilaterally separate from the Palestinians. U.S. officials now appear eager to erase that perception, both in private negotiating sessions and in public statements afterward.

At what point can we call this "flip-flopping?"

From Howard Kurtz we get Rush's take.

About as many soldiers are said to be involved in these outrageous acts of torture against the Iraqi prisoners as there have been plagiarizing and fabricating reporters working for the New York Times, USA Today, and other papers around the country. We have as many indecent acts by these soldiers as we have plagiarist reporters working for mainstream media, partisan media institutions here. I mean it's awful when it happens, don't you just hate it when it happens? But it doesn't mean the entire institution is disreputable. It doesn't mean the military is all bad and it doesn't mean that the media is all bad just because you've got some plagiarists out there making things up, making up quotes, making up people, saying they were places where they weren't. You know, torture is torture. Plagiarism is plagiarism.

"But I think that we need somebody with expertise to get to the bottom of this. And I think we should send Kerry over there. John Kerry, who has lots of experience in war atrocities. He admitted to committing them. He came back from Vietnam, and he's testifying there before the Senate, he says I did this, and I did that, and what Kerry said he did, is far worse than what's depicted in these pictures. I mean can we be honest here? What Kerry said he did, and what Kerry said other people, other soldiers did in Vietnam -- and, by the way, we need to point out again that he did not report these atrocities when he saw them."

Thanks for the analysis Rush. Plagiarism is to torture as Rush is to a shining beacon of truth. And as an added bonus we get Bill O'Reilly.

"Now what would you do if you were running CBS News? No question it's a big story. And you have exclusive shocking pictures. But you know your country will be hurt when those pictures get out. You also know somebody else will most likely get the story and the pictures. So what would you do?

"I would run the story but not the pictures. I'd describe them using vivid words. But I could not put my fellow countrymen, I should say, in even more danger than they are now by running the photographs. I'm not condemning CBS News. I'm just telling you what I'd do."

That's a good idea Bill. Too bad CNN did the story back in January and you didn't mention it. (Via Kevin)

U.S. soldiers reportedly posed for photographs with partially unclothed Iraqi prisoners, a Pentagon official told CNN on Tuesday.

A second source confirmed that the Army's Criminal Investigation Division has focused on these pictures, which may depict male and female soldiers.

....In addition, a senior Pentagon official said the investigation is focused on Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, which had been notorious for torture of Iraqis during the regime of captured Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

....The official that the Army is deeply concerned about possible problems of "poor discipline, poor leadership, and a need for re-training," in the military police community.

Bottom line is that these pictures have created a massive shit storm. Because we are basically shielded here from foreign media, I don't think anyone will be able to fully understand the impact the photos have had on outsiders. It's going to be awfully tough fighting the war on terror when everyone else could care less.

George isn't really happy with Don right now.

President Bush told Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday that he was "not satisfied" at the way he received information about charges that Iraqi prisoners had been abused by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison, a senior administration official told CNN.

At a private Oval Office meeting, Bush complained about learning of the existence of photographs showing Iraqi prisoners being humiliated and degraded from media accounts, the official said.

"He was not happy, and he let Secretary Rumsfeld know about it," the official said.

Bush also voiced concern that he was not kept up to speed on important information about the scope of the problem -- and how the Pentagon was handling it, the official said.

Is this a surprise to anyone? Consider the "wall" built around Bush by his subordinates. Only the worst news seems to get to the president, and then only after delays.

Plan A: Wait until after the election and ask for more money for Iraq.

Plan B: The shit hits the fan and Iraq needs it now.

Bush administration officials traveled to Capitol Hill this afternoon to make a request for $25 billion in new spending for the war in Iraq, lawmakers and House and Senate officials said.

...The request reflects a change in course for the administration, which had previously said it did not expect to ask for additional money in 2004 after receiving $87.5 billion last November to cover its operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

They'll definitely get the money, but at what expense? The next round of poll numbers should be interesting.

This is one of my favorite topics.

Legislation aimed at preventing incidents like Janet Jackson exposing her breast on live television remains stalled despite an outcry from parents and lawmakers about the coarseness of broadcast radio and television, a key lawmaker said on Wednesday.

Congress has been considering measures to substantially raise fines for indecent acts to as much as $500,000 per incident, up from $27,500, but a provision in the Senate bill to tighten media ownership limits has halted progress.

They still might be able to sneak it into a spending bill, but for all intents and purposes, it's going nowhere right now. If you read into the Reuters piece, you see something more interesting. Loosening media ownership rules is more important than the fines themselves. The so-called concern for the public is really just a mirage.

I'm a little bothered by this. Overtly recognizing religion is not something our goverment is supposed to be a part of. But I guess that changes when you are trying to appeal to a voting bloc.

President Bush's participation in a National Day of Prayer ceremony with evangelical Christian leaders at the White House will be shown tonight, for the first time in prime-time viewing hours, on Christian cable and satellite TV outlets nationwide.

For Bush, the broadcast is an opportunity to address a sympathetic evangelical audience without the risk of alienating secular or non-Christian viewers, because it will not be carried in full by the major television networks. Frank Wright, president of the National Association of Religious Broadcasters, said more than a million evangelicals are expected to see the broadcast.

So it's a covert operation. They are hoping that the rest or us aren't paying attention. National prayer day started out as a benign thing. It wasn't intended to offend anyone.

The National Day of Prayer has been celebrated every year since 1952, when President Harry S. Truman signed a congressional resolution calling for "a suitable day each year, other than a Sunday" to be set aside for common prayer.

...Under President Ronald Reagan, the date was set permanently as the first Thursday in May. Since the mid-1980s, the ceremony has been organized by the nonprofit task force headed by two prominent evangelical women: Vonette Bright, widow of Campus Crusade for Christ founder Bill Bright, and Shirley Dobson, wife of Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson.

So it's been under the radar for a long time. A nationally recognized prayer day for all religious Americans. This would be fine if it was that simple.

Bright did not hesitate, however, to express admiration for Bush: "I don't think he has a political agenda of his own. I think he's really trying to do what would please God."

So much for separation of church and state.

Three years later, it's coming back into the spotlight.

The debate over embryonic stem-cell research, which occupied President Bush during his early days in the White House, is re-emerging as an election issue as advocates for patients, including Nancy Reagan, press the president to loosen the limits on federal financing for the science.

...Embryonic stem-cell studies are controversial because they involve the destruction of human embryos; Mr. Bush's policy, announced in August 2001, restricts the research in a way that does not permit embryos to be destroyed with taxpayer dollars. But the diabetes found