Nosey Online

Mel Karmazin is resigning as president of Viacom. The CEO, Sumner Redstone, is stepping down in a few years as well.

Mel Karmazin resigned Tuesday as president and chief operating officer of Viacom Corp., one of the nation's largest and most successful media conglomerates.

The company also announced that Chairman and CEO Sumner Redstone, the company's largest shareholder, has indicated that he will relinquish his role as CEO within three years.

The media conglomerate named Leslie Moonves, the chairman and CEO of Viacom unit CBS, and Tom Freston, the chairman and CEO of Viacom's MTV cable networks, as co-presidents and co-chief operating officers.

There has been a power struggle the last few years at Viacom, ever since Infinity, CBS, and Viacom became one. This is interesting to us because of the role Karmazin plays in defending Howard Stern. As we all know, the FCC has aggressively cracking down on broadcasters since Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." And Howard Stern is in the crosshairs. Karmazin has pledged to stand behind Stern, no matter how much in fines Infinity has to pay.

Think whatever you want about Howard, but he has become a very vocal proponent of liberal issues and a very staunch opponent of President Bush. Not a day goes by without Howard ranting about Bush leading us down the wrong path. So if Karmazin's exit from Viacom means anything, it could be detrimental to the fight against the FCC.

Paul Krugman gives the Bush administration a little dose of reality. I mentioned the memo in question last week. (emphasis added)

Beyond the routine mendacity, the case of the leaked memo points us to a larger truth: whatever they may say in public, administration officials know that sustaining Mr. Bush's tax cuts will require large cuts in popular government programs. And for the vast majority of Americans, the losses from these cuts will outweigh any gains from lower taxes.

It has long been clear that the Bush administration's claim that it can simultaneously pursue war, large tax cuts and a "compassionate" agenda doesn't add up. Now we have direct confirmation that the White House is engaged in bait and switch, that it intends to pursue a not at all compassionate agenda after this year's election.

This pretty much sums up the last three and a half years. The Bush Administration has said exactly what most people want to hear in an effort to get reelected. Realities be damned! My opinion has been that the tax cuts have been largely wasted for the Middle Class. What's an extra $300 or $600 if you have increases in property taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, staggering tuition increases, and not much wage growth? In 2000, Bush ran on a campaign that promised "compassionate conservatism." Turns out, he's not much of a conservative at all. It's been a wonder to me just how some Republicans have been able to stomach this for so long.

And it's real hard just to get a handle on the impact the large tax cuts will have in the future. Krugman tries to get a handle on it.

I can't back that assertion with official numbers, because under Mr. Bush the Treasury Department has stopped releasing information on the distribution of tax cuts by income level. Estimates by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, which now provides the numbers the administration doesn't want you to know, reveal why. This year, the average tax reduction per family due to Bush-era cuts was $1,448. But this average reflects huge cuts for a few affluent families, with most families receiving much less (which helps explain why most people, according to polls, don't believe their taxes have been cut). In fact, the 257,000 taxpayers with incomes of more than $1 million received a bigger combined tax cut than the 85 million taxpayers who make up the bottom 60 percent of the population.

Still, won't most families gain something? No -- because the tax cuts must eventually be offset with spending cuts.

And just as the Iraq war was billed as a "Rid the world of WMD" campaign, only to turn into the "Liberate Iraq" war, the tax cuts were sold on something that never happened.

Three years ago George Bush claimed that he was cutting taxes to return a budget surplus to the public. Instead, he presided over a move to huge deficits. As a result, the modest tax cuts received by the great majority of Americans are, in a fundamental sense, fraudulent. It's as if someone expected gratitude for giving you a gift, when he actually bought it using your credit card.

I love that last quip. But to give this conversation a nice punch line, Paul adds the following.

The administration has not, of course, explained how it intends to pay the bill. But unless taxes are increased again, the answer will have to be severe program cuts, which will fall mainly on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- because that's where the bulk of the money is.

...

Does Mr. Bush understand that the end result of his policies will be to make most Americans worse off, while enriching the already affluent? Who knows? But the ideologues and political operatives behind his agenda know exactly what they're doing.

This has been their M.O. from the beginning. Screw the future; let's push the Middle Class into oblivion forever. The economy might be chugging along, but that sound you hear is the Middle Class' piggy bank being smashed.

Seriously, she is freakin' deranged. The shit that comes out of her mouth amazes me. (Via Media Matters)

Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter denied that radio host Rush Limbaugh ever compared U.S. military guards' abuse of Iraqi prisoners to hazing or ever said that it wasn't a big deal.

From the May 27 edition of FOX News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Now are you buying into the -- this is just a hazing thing at Abu Ghraib?

COULTER: What, the media is hazing the American people by seeing how much we can take?

O'REILLY: Some of the right wing commentators say it's just hazing, what's the big deal? Are you buying into that?

COULTER: No, I don't think anyone is.

O'REILLY: No, they are. You know that. I'm not going to embarrass people but on the radio, talk radio you have right wing commentators say it's just hazing, what's the big deal?

COULTER: If I know what you're referring to, there were two hours and 59 minutes not saying that and at one point making fun of liberals for making fun of -- if you're talking about Rush, but Rush went on...

O'REILLY: ...program and he said it's not a big deal, it's just hazing.

COULTER: If you're talking about Rush, he definitely didn't say that. What other talk radio hosts say...

O'REILLY: I compete against him every day on the radio and I know what he says. He said many, many times and not only him that it wasn't a big deal.

COULTER: No, he didn't say that, but whatever -- no.

As Media Matters for America reported on May 5, Limbaugh compared the abuse of Iraqi prisoners to a college fraternity prank. From the May 4 Rush Limbaugh Show:

CALLER: It was like a college fraternity prank that stacked up naked men --

LIMBAUGH: Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?

Further, as Media Matters for America reported on May 11, Limbaugh again compared the abuse of Iraqi prisoners to a college fraternity prank, saying "[W]hat's the big deal here?" From the May 11 Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Now, let's look at this -- this prison business. When the first two or three pictures came out, and you know which ones they are -- the pyramid picture, which is what looks like a Skull and Bones initiation, the pyramid, the guys in the hoods, and we've got the female prison guard with a cigarette dangling from the mouth. And we had this -- the guy in all -- in all black, hooded, and so forth, wires attached to various extremities. And there was -- there was one other picture.

And I said, "Well, you know, what's the big deal here? This just looks like an average Skull and Bones initiation."

Coulter's frothing conservatism has made her delusional to the point of no return. Guys in white coats from Bellvue should be knocking on her door any day now. Even O'Reilly tells her like it is. I'm convinced Coulter doesn't even have a grasp on reality; someone has to feed her bogus information and then she writes about it her perspective. Plus, Ann's so afraid of Arabs, I bet she just stays in all day long.

PS... Don't forget to buy your Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure!

This piece gets the award for most important issue of the day. Among all the rest of the insanity of the day, this one stands out in my mind.

Charging that the Bush administration has moved too slowly to protect the nation from the threat of nuclear terrorism, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry Tuesday called for securing hundreds of tons of nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union in just four years.

With a backdrop of huge ships off-loading containers, Kerry proposed a worldwide ban on the production of fissionable material -- enriched uranium and reprocessed plutonium -- used to make nuclear weapons. He called for a broad international coalition to verify such a ban but said such alliances have been "shredded."

In the two years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Kerry said fewer nuclear weapons were secured in Russia than were secured in the two years before the attacks. At the pace the Bush administration is pursuing he said it will take 13 years to safeguard Russia's 600 tons of nuclear material.

Fact of the matter is that terrorists did not have to wait for Iran or Iraq to produce nukes, or for North Korea to decide to start shipping their finished product. All they had to do was go to a former province of the USSR and find a nuclear scientist with connection to the military. The state of Russia's stockpile is what we should be worrying about. God forbid the terrorists actually get their hands on WMD, or even bring it into the country, odds are that the source will be some part of the former USSR.

Quite pathetically, in my opinion, we get this response.

Kevin Madden, Bush campaign spokesman, said Bush has made stopping the spread of nuclear weapons a top priority, noting his drive to get Libya to renounce nuclear and chemical weapons.

"President Bush's leadership and resolute stance against the spread of weapons of mass destruction has made the world safer," Madden said.

One only has to look towards North Korea and Russia to know we aren't "safer" yet. Iraq, Iran, and Libya are all just small fish in a big pond. It's the big boys that already have the toys.

The Center for American Progress brings us a Bush Flip-Flop Top 20 list. Some are weaker than others, but they make a point. I'll serve up the highlights. These are all statements that Bush made while campaigning in 2000, only to change course over the next few year

1. OPEC

BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

4. Science

BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE... "I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

10. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to…establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

15. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

16. Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

20. Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold singing ceremony, 03/27/02]

Once again, making accusations of things that they themselves are guilty of doing. You know, in politics, sometimes people do, gasp, change their minds. Mediation and compromise are parts of getting things done in a two party system. The Bush campaign making an issue out of Kerry actually being a politician (even if Kerry isn't really flip-flopping) just shows us that the White House has no qualms about letting us know that they are the party in charge. No compromise for them. It’s their way or the highway. Just like the “either you’re with us or against us.” You cheese-eating, liberal, queer, surrender monkeys.

This is where we're headed. As the 30-second spot declines in effectiveness, I'll bet more of this will be on TV.

"The Last Ride," which appears tonight on USA, is a brazen commercial for Pontiac that is souped up to look sort of like a car-chase movie. The network has made no pretense about this, hyping its achievement as a "unprecedented integrated marketing opportunity." You can't skip the ads without missing the movie.

Sure enough, gleaming cars with fantastic handling are never far from view, or earshot, as roaring engines and singing brakes dominate the soundtrack. During a scene at a car show, no less, a woman in leather even recites the mantra of Pontiac's new sports car: "Zero to 60 in 5.3 seconds!"

Nothing makes me want to vomit more then watching a blatant product placement in a movie or on TV. This is happening more and more each year. Advertisers are at a cross-roads right now. Also check out the movie Minority Report for a look into our advertising future. If you don't think it's possible, you're nuts.

Hint: Not the White House.

Answer: The Senate

A bipartisan group of lawmakers claims it has lined up the 60 votes needed to get a prescription-drug reimportation bill through the Senate, which some say could lead the White House to change its position on the controversial issue.

The legislators are leaning on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to call up their bill — which would allow for the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada and selected other countries — before the July 4 recess, as the window for significant legislative activity narrows.

...Those who attended the meeting said Frist still harbors concerns over safety issues related to reimporting drugs from other countries. But [Olympia] Snowe [R-ME] said the bipartisan group has been able to address many of Frist’s concerns by revising the bill. “We really did a phenomenal job in precluding many of the safety issues,” said Snowe.

The White House strongly opposed a reimportation bill that passed the House last year. But Snowe said she didn’t believe the president would veto a measure that has picked up broad support. “It has the dynamic and the momentum to pass this year,” Snowe said. “It’s the one area of social policy we can really get done.”

This is still a long shot. Some Dems aren't too happy about it either.

Not all Democrats support reimportation. Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), a leader on healthcare issues who has worked closely with the White House, said, “I think the president would probably veto it” if it passed the Senate. “You don’t solve the problem just by reimporting drugs [when] you don’t know where they’re coming from,” he said.

“I’d be totally opposed to it,” Breaux said. “I would participate in a filibuster. I think it’s bad public policy from a trade standpoint, [and] a policy standpoint.”

Let's put it bluntly. Any legislation that allowed for the reimportation of drugs from Canada would be bad for the pharmaceutical companies. That's what Breaux meant by "bad public policy from a trade standpoint." This will probably go down one of two ways. Either it will die a slow death in conference committee, or it will move along and then Bush will switch positions and claim the bill as his own. My money is one the first one. For those of you unaware of how bad conference committees have gotten, read this piece by John Podesta at the Center for American Progress.

For example the conference committee on the energy bill, to which 58 members of Congress were formally appointed, actually consisted of private negotiations between just four members: Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Congressman Billy Tauzin (R-La.), and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Representative Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) on the tax portions of the bill. When the Senate passed a version of the energy legislation that was not to the liking of Senator Domenici, he bluntly declared, “I will rewrite the bill.” While a couple of members of the minority party were permitted to participate in committee negotiations over the Medicare legislation, those who did not see eye to eye with conservative leaders – including Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) – were excluded. The product of these secret conference negotiations – typically hundreds, if not thousands of pages long – is then sent to each chamber, often with 24-hours or less to review, for a straight up-or-down vote without prospect of amendments. Instead of providing meaningful time for amendments and debate on either bill, conservatives spent 40-hours demogaguing the issue of judicial confirmations – even though President Bush has had 98 percent of his nominees approved. The result has been not just the effective exclusion of the minority party (and the millions of citizens they represent) from any role in the legislation but also a series of poorly crafted, incoherent bills that are packed with provisions geared toward special interests at the expense of the public good.

Beyond being excluded from legislative negotiations, members of the minority party face punitive retribution for taking opposing positions. In a dramatic departure from the bipartisan tradition of the appropriations committee, members of the House who voted against the education and health spending bill this summer saw funding for roads, clinics and other important projects for their home districts removed from subsequent versions of the legislation.

Podesta's article was from November, but it's not like things have gotten any better. So much for the two-party state.

Beyond comparing Saddam Hussein's obvious cruelty with Hitler's hatred of all things outside of the Aryan race, please don't equate Iraq and Europe circa WWII.

President Bush is expected to compare his administration's war on terror to World War II, and say the Middle East is a critical front - as Europe was in that war six decades ago.

Mr. Bush is giving a commencement speech focusing on Iraq at the Air Force Academy in the western U.S. state of Colorado later Wednesday, after expressing his support for Iraq's new interim government Tuesday. A White House official said the president is likely to speak in detail about enemies of the United States.

The Iraq war and World War II are NOT the same thing. Say what you want about a Vietman comparison, but Iraq is not the European front. The American effort in WWII was to defeat fascism, which, at the time, had a chance of dominating the world. Saddam did not have the same power Hitler had back then. The German army was big and technologically stong. Iraq's army was weak after their defeat in the first Gulf War and after 10+ years of containment. Possibly, Bush 41 could have made the comparison of his efforts in the Middle East to WWII. Drawing the conclusion that the fight in Iraq is the same as the fight against fascism trivializes the efforts of the "Greatest Generation."

In the crazy world of political correctness, this one takes the cake.

Open your wallets, ladies.

The cheap covers and drink specials women have come to expect at local bars may be things of the past.

The director of New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights ruled Tuesday that Ladies' Night at a Cherry Hill bar and restaurant was discriminatory against men.

Though the decision dealt specifically with a weekly event at the Coastline bar and restaurant, the ruling carries the force of a court decision and applies statewide.

Judges in Pennsylvania and Iowa have said similar events are illegal. But courts in Illinois and Washington state have deemed ladies' nights permissible because they don't discriminate against men, but rather encourage women to attend.

Single guys everywhere are mourning.

Nick Confessore lets us know that the Democrats are preparing their own Contract With America. I tend to agree with his take. (Via Charles)

Roll Call reports that congressional Democrats:

[A]re in the conceptual stages of putting together their version of the "contract," crafted a decade ago by then-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). The GOP's plan laid out a series of promised changes they pledged to enact if elected to the majority and was the centerpiece of a campaign in which Republicans rode a wave of voter discontent to their first House majority in 40 years.

Democratic sources say in their version leaders will unveil a "palm card" with a handful of themes designed to define the party and explain why it would provide a better alternative to the current majority. Unlike the original contract, which laid out specifics such as support for Congressional term limits and applying workplace laws to Congress, this version is expected to shy away from detailing policies.

This is kind of a silly, on many levels. I mean, so they're gonna have palm cards with a handful of themes to define the party? Fine. But that's not exactly a new thing. And it's not exactly analogous to the Contract With America. The more important point, however, is that the Contract With America itself wasn't what the Democrats, Roll Call, and a lot of other people seem to think it was.

An effective weapon the GOP uses is to constantly label Democrats as lame and out of touch. The palm card idea is lame. Are we really in need of a Cliff Notes version of Democratic Party ideals? The biggest hit the Democratic Party has taken is over Iraq. The President was able to steamroll over the party by getting legislators to vote for the war. I'm sure there are many Democratic members who still whole heartedly support the war, but many of those who voted for the war are now against it. Case in point, John Kerry. (I believe that circumstances can allow for a politician to change positions without being called a "flip-flopper." My point is that Kerry should have just made the right decision the first time around.)

At the time of the vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq, it was generally accepted that to dissent was to sign your own ticket out of Congress. Now that things have turned south in Iraq, those who squeamishly voted yes are out daily calling for the Bush administration's head. This is the conundrum. If the Democrats could have just stood together unified in the first place, we wouldn't be having to worry about palm cards now. If I could only get one political wish, it would be to have the Democrats in Congress stick together from the beginning. But alas, I digress.

A piece in Newsweek outlines the investigation into Chalabi and the I.N.C. There's some new information, but the last two grafs caught my eye. (emphasis added)

U.S. officials say the investigations into Chalabi’s activities may have a long way to go. In addition to the inquiry into the leak of classified information to Iran, Chalabi and the INC are under investigation for corruption by Iraqi authorities, who last month staged a raid on his home and office in Baghdad, and last weekend drove INC personnel out of a satellite office in the Iraqi provinces.

One Bush administration official said that in addition to harboring suspicions that Chalabi had been leaking sensitive U.S. information to Iran both before and after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, some U.S. officials also believe that Chalabi had collected and maintained files of potentially damaging information on U.S. officials with whom he had or was going to interact for the purpose of influencing them. Some officials said that when Iraqi authorities raided Chalabi’s offices, one of the things American officials hoped they would look for was Chalabi’s cache of information he had gathered on Americans.

I wonder just who the damaging information could effect. If you piece together different sources on the Iraqi National Congress and Chalabi, you may be able to put two and two together. Here is a list of people having contact with Chalabi, according to the various sources...

George Tenet resigns as head of the CIA. Looks like a foreshadowing of the 9/11 Commission report, maybe? (Via Atrios)

CIA Director George J. Tenet has submitted his resignation and will leave the agency in mid-July, President Bush announced today.

In case you haven't heard, Michael Moore has found a distributor for his film Fahrenheit 9/11. They're looking at a June 25th release, and some of the major chains are going to screen the pic. But for now, go watch the trailer.

Or so said one of my college buddies in reference to my obsession with all things technology. While I might show the face of a politco obsessivo, I'm a techno-dork at heart. A piece at News.com highlights the reemergence of classic video games. What's old is new again.

In the early 1980s, when he was 25 and working on the arcade games Defender and Robotron 2084, Eugene Jarvis wasn't sure video games would last.

"There was a fear that everything would just kind of die," he said recently. Video games were new and seemingly impermanent, vulnerable to business convulsions that made him fear that he was involved in a faddish "digital Hula-Hoop" and that ever improving graphics would render early games obsolete. There were even wild theories that spaceborne alpha rays could cause arcade machines to decay.

Cosmic rays and other forces have not yet gotten the best of Jarvis' creations, which are among the most popular in the thriving market of retro games. As players age and '80s nostalgia reinvigorates interest in old games, an industry that has long focused on the present and future has become eager to herald its past.

This is something to which I can relate. Back in the 80's, my first computer at home was a Tandy and I used an Apple IIgs at school. I was never much for programming, but I sure did love to use computers. The Tandy was replaced by a Packard Bell, which was replaced with a Gateway (circa 1998). Recently, I ditched my old Gateway for a new Dell. The new box is great, I can play the new games for the first time in years.

But something is missing. For all the colors, sound, and fast-paced action a newer game can bring, there's just something not there. Maybe the problem is that my favorite games of all time are still the Quest games by Sierra. Kings Quest, Police Quest, and my ultimate time-wasting series, Space Quest. There's something to be said for a game played on 8MB of RAM and a 75MHz processor.

So while I'll gladly get the latest in the Doom series, give me a DVD full of old Sierra games and I'm set.

We're all screwed.

According to new research into chemical residue found in the dust collecting on computers and other electronics devices, the PC that you're using to read this story could pose a long-term threat to your health.

In a report published by Clean Production Action and the Computer TakeBack Campaign, two groups studying environmental and health issues related to computers, researchers contend that potentially dangerous elements of brominated fire retardants are turning up in dust samples swiped from computers. The research indicates that the most commonly found example of these substances, widely used fire prevention compounds known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, have been found to cause health problems in lab animals.

As if we didn't have enough to worry about.

That's the title of this piece in Newsweek about the story behind the story. I know I know, conspiracy theories area already flying around the internet, and I for one will play "wait and see." But this should whet your appetite.

CIA Director George Tenet’s sudden resignation caps a turbulent tenure in which some of the spy agency’s greatest triumphs—notably, its aggressive response to the September 11 terror attacks—were on the verge of being overshadowed by a series of new disclosures about the intelligence community’s faulty warnings about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

...

But congressional sources said the timing seemed to be influenced by the impending release of a massive Senate Intelligence Committee report that one official described as a “devastating indictment” of the agency’s handling of pre-war intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Another report expected next month from the national commission investigating the September 11 attacks is expected to roundly criticize the agency’s failure to develop sources inside Al Qaeda and piece together evidence—including information in its files on two of the hijackers—that might have helped uncover the plot.

"This seems to have as much to do with the president's re-election as anything else," says one veteran intelligence community official who has long been close to Tenet. "George is a fighter and it's not in his character to walk away like this. I think he read the tea leaves" that the White House wanted him to leave, the official said.

...

But the Senate report will document how major portions of the Powell’s speech—vetted line by line with Tenet and other top CIA officials—turned out to be wrong and much more thinly sourced than the secretary of State had been led to believe, sources said.

So, "he's leaving for personal reasons" could really be a fill-in the blank. One thing I'm certain of is that the reasons for Tenets departure will come clear over time. Whether or not the DCI's resignation will hurt Bush's reelection chances remains to be seen.

But this still can't be good for everyone. Last time I checked, bin Laden and his cronies still are still out there. Things will not fall apart in the intelligence area, but you've got to wonder just how bad things had gotten. In political terms, "reading the tea leaves" can lead to some pretty hasty decisions. And I don't take George Tenet as one who makes hasty decisions.

It's always nice when someone tries to make a point, only to shoot themselves in the foot.

While Hume criticized the Post for failing to include in its count the thousands of negative ads aired by the Kerry campaign during the Democratic primaries, the information the Post omitted is even less favorable to Bush.

From the June 2 edition of FOX News Channel’s Special Report with Brit Hume:

HUME: The Washington Post has reported that the Bush re-election campaign is using, quote, "unprecedented negativity against John Kerry." The Post says Kerry has so far aired only 13,300 ads in major media markets, while Bush-Cheney has aired more than 49,000. But the Post is only counting ads from the period since March 4, when the Bush-Cheney '04 team began its ad campaign. The Post fails to note that more than 15,300 negative ads that Kerry ran during the primary season, which means that Kerry ran nearly 29,000 negative ads, more than twice as many as the Post noted.

Pushing back the start date of the Post's survey only emphasizes how much more negative Bush's campaign has been: Bush has run 71 percent more negative ads than has Kerry (49,000 negative ads from Bush versus 29,000 from Kerry) in one-third of the time (three months since March 4, 2004, versus nine months since Kerry ran his first negative ad on September 4, 2003). Indeed, if Bush had been running ads at his current pace since Kerry ran his first ad, his current negative ad total would be approximately 147,000 -- 413 percent greater than Kerry's current total.

Thanks Brit. Next time, just don't try to be so blatant. It gives Media Matters an excuse to find even more bad news about Bush.

I bet George wishes he could fire his opponents, too.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon fired two conservative cabinet ministers today, which is expected to create a narrow majority for himself when the remaining ministers vote on the Israeli leader's plan to withdraw fully from the Gaza Strip.

Mr. Sharon sent a messenger to deliver dismissal notices to two far-right members of the National Union Party, Avigdor Lieberman and Benny Elon, after they failed to answer a summons to meet with his him in his office this morning. The dismissals will take effect in 48 hours; the vote is scheduled for Sunday.

As the Church Lady says, "How conveeeenient!" I haven't really been keeping up to date on Sharon's Gaza plan and what the people of Israel feel about it, but what kind of a message does that send?

Forcing human beings into bondage and making them pick cotton is not the same thing as having Scruffy the dog in your home.

Animal rights protestors staked out Petco Animal Supplies Inc.'s annual meeting in San Diego on Thursday to pressure the No. 2 U.S. pet supply chain to stop selling animals in its stores.

The shareholder proposal, brought by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, had asked Petco to study ending animal sales in its 670 stores.

The proposal won approval from less than 2 percent of shareholders, but PETA spokeswoman Christy Griffin said the organization planned "to keep bringing up this issue over and over until they get animals out of their stores."

Petco spokesman Shawn Underwood said "shareholders spoke clearly" with their sound defeat of the proposal.

"From our perspective, 62 percent of households have pets, so 62 percent think it's OK to have pets in the house," Underwood said. "We have a philosophical difference of opinion with them that I don't think we'll ever be able to bridge just because of the fact that they think pet ownership is slavery."

I will never get PETA. Of all my progressive values, putting animals on the same level as humans is not one of them. Don't get me wrong, animal cruelty is a horrid crime and testing on lab animals isn't the best way to go about things, but PETA really has to stop the whole "pet ownership is slavery" tack. I haven't had a dog for a long time, but my aunt and uncle had a dog, Jake, for about 15 years or so.

Jake was a golden retriever and was probably the most loyal, loving dog you could have. Last year Jake started to go downhill and my aunt and uncle had to put him to sleep. I went over to their house on the day they were going to put him down, just to say goodbye. They were devastated. Not devastated like they'd spend tens of thousands of dollars just to keep him alive, but they felt like they were losing a member of their family. My uncle swore he would never get another dog. But he missed the companionship having a pet can bring. So he got a new dog, Brinkley. They have to go through the whole training thing again, and Brinkley sure is energetic, but they enjoy having the companionship.

My point is that having a pet is good. So PETA, just stick to protesting against leather, ok?

The time for doing whatever the heart desires is over.

A House panel voted unanimously yesterday to slash a number of signature Bush administration domestic initiatives by $750 million, sending a signal that Congress intends to make the White House share the pain of belt tightening.

Among the spending rejected by a Republican-led House Appropriations subcommittee was $18 million for the "American Masterpieces" program, which has been championed by Laura Bush; $23 million for the "We the People" civics and history program, which was announced by President Bush at a White House ceremony, and $219 million for "FutureGen," a special initiative of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to develop a nonpolluting coal-fired power plant.

The action marked the beginning of what is expected to be months of contention over the 13 annual bills that allocate funds for government departments and agencies starting Oct. 1. Overall, the panel reduced funding for the natural resources bill from $20 billion this year to $19.7 billion in 2005. The elimination of the Bush initiatives, Republicans said, was necessary to accommodate a long list of congressional priorities, including more money for maintaining national parks, fighting disease in forests, improving Indian health services and providing more funds to fight forest fires in the West.

It's going to be fun watch them battle over the next few months.

No?

Your cell-phone company knows you hate it. Mobile-phone service was the second-lowest-ranked industry -- beating only cable providers among the 40 rated -- in the University of Michigan's newest customer satisfaction index.

And there's more: Mobile companies were the No. 2 sector in complaints last year to Better Business Bureaus, dropping from first place in 2002. Only auto dealers did worse.

...

The complaints range from mundane to dramatic.

...

Carl Hilliard, president of the Wireless Consumers Alliance, heard from a woman who had a Verizon Wireless family plan with her husband. After he died, Verizon Wireless charged her an early-termination fee on his service.

Good.

After getting the word a coupleof weeks ago that Timken is closing plants in Ohio, we now hear that Hoover is pulling up stakes as well.

Hoover announced today that it will get rid of 20 percent of the workforce in an effort to consolidate and save money, NewsChannel5 reported.

As part of a huge restructuring move, Hoover will move part of its operation from North Canton to Maytag's headquarters in Newton, Iowa, to become one company.

About 1,100 jobs will be lost. Hoover's restructuring comes on the heels of the recent announcement of Timken's closing its doors. Hundreds will be left without jobs in that closing.

To all my conservative friends, say what you want. I've said it before and I'll say it again, all economics are local. And if Ohio really is the Florida of '04, then Bush is in for some trouble.

On the way home from work today, I had the distinct pleasure of hearing a piece by Walter Kronkite on NPR. Twenty years after D-Day, Kronkite got the opportunity to accompany Eisenhower on his return to the shores of Normandy. If you have the time, I seriously recommend going to the NPR site and giving it a listen.

As you might have noticed, I couldn’t think of much to say this weekend. My plan was to write a little yesterday and today. But with Reagan's passing, there hasn't been much to add to what already is being repeated ad nauseam on both sides of the aisle.

I’ve read pointed, heartfelt remembrances from conservative friends and respectful, opinionated thoughts from friends on the left. My feelings are somewhere in between. I guess he appeals to my fiscal conservative-Democrat side (although he was a horror to my socially liberal side). While watching 60 Minutes tonight, I was struck with the thought that I understood why conservatives loved Ronald Reagan. He was a man who knew where he stood and knew just how to get you to like him, even just a little bit. Even today, I can’t fathom how someone could grow up a FDR Democrat only to become a hard line conservative Republican. Reagan shared no love for social programs; he even tried to cut down those that were championed by one of his idols, Roosevelt.

And it was the thought about Reagan that made it even harder for me to understand why conservatives love George W. Bush. If Reagan was the “Great Communicator,” then Bush is the “Worst Communicator.” The Gipper was able to get even his most hardened opponents to understand where he was coming from. The Europe that loved Reagan for helping to facilitate the end of communism curses Bush today. In Tom Brokaw’s Dateline interview with the President tonight, my belief that Bush truly thinks he has a plan but is totally incapable of sharing it with the rest of the world was underscored. But alas, that’s a topic for another post.

So in the end, the great raconteur died without his memories. And that’s the saddest thing of all.

The other of the two stories that I lacked words for this weekend is the anti-Soros escapade. You don't need to go too far outside the Six Degrees of Nosey Online to get the update on the new GOP talking point about Soros. And we all know that rich people have been fans of Republicans since the dawn of time. For those who spew the RNC line on Mr. Soros, a history lesson is in order.

Today's lesson consists of a profile on Richard Mellon Scaife. Who is this man, you ask? Well, our good friends at CNN are kind enough to provide us with some background. (This was done in 1998.)

Who is Richard Scaife? He's a 65-year-old billionaire Republican wielding power from the shadows.

According to President Bill Clinton's allies, he's the main money man behind a right-wing anti-Clinton conspiracy, attacking with his money. Former White House counsel Lanny Davis argues, "He's using it to destroy a president of the United States."

If it's a conspiracy, it's a pretty open one. Scaife's tax-exempt foundations disclose their grants on the Web. Among them: $2.4 million over several years to American Spectator to pay for anti-Clinton reporting, even a private eye to dig up dirt. And millions more went to other anti-Clinton groups.

And here's a list constituting what I imagine is just a small part of Sacaife's donations:

• To the Heritage Foundation alone, nearly $3.5 million from Scaife foundations in the most recent three years on record.

• $1.22 million to the American Enterprise Institute.

• $1.40 million to Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

• $325,000 to the Cato Institute.

• $575,000 to the Citizens for a Sound Economy, among others.

And for the uninitiated, those are right-wing organizations.

Is Richard Scaife great and powerful or just the man behind the curtain?

That's a matter of opinion. But it is a fact this billionaire has spent millions in tax-free money attacking the current occupants of the White House.

Mind you, this text is from 1998, but it's still a part of history. And what about a billionaire trying to influence politics? (Via Mr. Max)

[TONY] BLANKLEY: When a man with this kind -- when a man is with this kind of money, and he's spending it on trying to influence the American public in an election -- trying to buy the election; he is not going to -- we have a right to know what kind of an unscrupulous man he is.

...

BLANKLEY: He's a robber baron, a pirate capitalist and he's -- he is a reckless man.

Of course, if you're talking about Mr. Scaife, then you're right on the money Tony. But alas, you're talking about George Soros. But it's not as if rich people have tried to influence politics before, right*?

*= Thick sarcasm applied.

The Seattle P-I tells us another tale of Republican redistricting.

Colorado Republicans lost a Supreme Court appeal Monday over whether a congressional map favorable to Democrats is permanent until after the next census in 2010.

A fractured court refused to consider replacing that map with a GOP-drafted redistricting plan, a defeat for Republicans who have sought to reopen the boundary-drawing process in several states to protect their control of the House.

The Colorado Supreme Court had ruled last December that Republicans violated the state Constitution by pushing a new map through the Legislature just a year after a judge had redrawn the boundaries. District drawing may be done only once a decade, the court decided.

I think it's pretty sad that the GOP has to resort to using redistricting to keep the status quo. Why not just run on your achievements as House leaders? Or is it more likely that once people wake up from their one-party-rule nightmare, they'll vote Democrat just to get things even-keeled again?

This one really gets me.

In today's America, prisoners are held incommunicado for years, newspapers can't photograph soldiers' coffins returned from Iraq and the government can secretly track the books citizens read and the movies they watch.

But civil liberties can erode much further before Americans will say enough is enough, say experts in social history and political behavior.

Fear struck by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks helped launch the curtailment of civil liberties in the name of national security, and that fear keeps Americans willing to trade away rights for safety, they say.

"We're at war," said Ken Weinstein of the Hudson Institute, a policy think tank. "That's why it doesn't bother us."

Well, it bothers me. I was wondering, just what is the Hudson Institute? Turns out, they're champions of initiatives like Faith in Communities.

Mission: To conduct research that contributes to the shaping of public policies that facilitate effective grassroots organizations and to empower faith-based community practitioners through a variety of technical assistance and capacity building initiatives.

Otherwise know as breaking down the barriers between church and state. Score two (faith-based initiatives and eroding civil rights) for supporting the President's policies.

More bad news for Bush in Florida.

President Bush's policies toward Fidel Castro's regime and the war in Iraq are threatening to fray traditionally solid Republican ties to Cuban-American voters, the largest segment of Florida's fast-growing Hispanic community.

In 2000, Bush won Florida by a mere 537 votes, but his advantage among Cubans was about 4-to-1. Non-Cuban Hispanics tend to vote Democratic and are flocking to the state. On Nov. 2, the key to Florida - the decisive swing state four years ago - could well be this disparate Hispanic vote.

Florida's population has grown by more than 1 million since the last presidential election, a 6.5 percent increase from 2000 to July 2003 that could transform the state's electorate. From April 2000 to July 2002, nearly half of those new residents were Hispanic, according to the most recent numbers from the Census Bureau.

Inevitably, Bush's policies will tick off his most ardent supporters (i.e. fiscal conservatives). His attempts at playing politics 24/7 reminds me of this famous quote.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
-Abraham Lincoln

I knew this is why he was gone over the weekend.

It is with great joy, excitement, and relief that Tiffany and I announce the arrival of Olivia Rose Kuffner, who made her debut yesterday, June 6, at 5:58 PM, weighing in at 7 pounds 15.5 ounces (3.615 kg for the metric fans among us). Mother and daughter are dong beautifully and will be home tomorrow.

So congratulations, Tiffany & Charles!

I'd like to see them try and quiet New Yorkers. Good luck.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Monday proposed to rewrite the city's noise regulations to deal with the leading complaint about the city's quality of life.

"Noise disturbs our sleep, prevents people from enjoying their time off from work and too often leads to altercations," he said.

Bloomberg's proposed changes cover noise makers from pile drivers to air conditioners - as well as anything else deemed by police to be too "plainly audible."

The next endangered species; Drunk Yankee Fan. The DYF will now only be able to act like his drunk obnoxious self while visiting opposing parks (especially Jacob's Field).

When someone dies, people do tend to talk in the positive. In the end, dwelling on the negative is bad for everyone. But things are starting to seem more like 1984 everyday. (Via Media Matters)

On the June 7 edition of the FOX News Channel morning show FOX & Friends, co-host E.D. Hill falsely stated that former President Ronald Reagan appointed the first female Cabinet secretary in the United States.

Introducing guest Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), who became Reagan's Transportation secretary in 1983, Hill said:

Ronald Reagan, women's libber? Not necessarily the first thing that comes to mind, but as a young woman growing up at that time, here's the guy that I remember as appointing the first female Cabinet secretary and the first female on the Supreme Court.

In fact, four previous presidents had appointed a total of six women to Cabinet positions before Reagan took office, according to a Fact Sheet by Women's eNews. Reagan appointed three women to his Cabinet, but former President Franklin Roosevelt appointed the first woman to a Cabinet post nearly 50 years earlier.

Yikes, not FDR! While Reagan thought of Roosevelt as an idol, he was really the opposite of the Depression-era leader. I'm not here to trample on the man’s grave, but I can't wait for this week to be over. All the revisionist rhetoric is getting on my nerves. The best thing he did was to fight communism. But to actually insinuate that he was a champion of women’s rights is crazy.

This was all the rage yesterday in the blogosphere, so I thought I'd wait until today to comment. For starters, here's some info.

A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.

The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons.

One reason, the lawyers said, would be if military personnel believed that they were acting on orders from superiors "except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign," the lawyers wrote in the 56-page confidential memor