Reassuring Prasanth – 2 (Plus a Few Words About the Letter S and Cocaine) September 16, 2004February 27, 2017 Prasanth: ‘Do you hear any good news from your DNC friends or am I correct in feeling that there is a sense that this election, which seemed so winnable, is getting away from them.’ ☞ I would give odds that John Kerry will win, but every time I start to lay out the case, something comes up (like 5 million fundraising calls or proofing the galleys of the next edition of my investment guide) and I put it off – because I want to do it well. So bear with me just a little longer, and accept these tidbits instead: WHAT JAY LENO REALLY THINKS According to this interview in LA Weekly, he ‘really worries’ what a Bush win would do to the makeup of the Supreme Court . . . believes ‘the wool was pulled over our eyes’ with the Iraq war . . . thinks the White House began using terrorism ‘as a crutch’ after 9/11 . . . and believes ‘the media is in the pocket of the government, and they don’t do their job.’ If you frequent any motorcycle web sites – Leno is a famous enthusiast – link them to the interview. They won’t hear him say it on the ‘Tonight Show,’ but it sounds to me as if Jay’s voting for Kerry. WHAT IS RSS? Who the hell knows. But I have it now, as some of you have requested – click the link at top right, just above the Quote of the Day, to install it. CHRISTMAS IS COMING; SONY CHANGED ITS EARBUDS For the iPods among you, or the audible.com listeners, I have previously recommended Sony’s expensive-but-worth-it ‘earbuds,’ the MDR-EX70’s. Well, now they are the EX-71’s (you can’t stop progress), and you can use this link to find the best price if you have a stocking that needs stuffing. THE CBS DOCUMENT MYSTERY You are really a remarkable lot, which is one of the reasons it is a privilege to have your eyeballs (even when you squint skeptically at what I have to say). I was reminded of this when one of you wrote in to say that the ’60 Minutes’ memos, allegedly from Lieutenant Bush’s commanding officer in the Air National Guard, were ‘obvious fakes.’ I had just watched Dan Rather answer those charges – it turns out superscript was available on typewriters of that era – indeed, had been used in materials the White House itself had released from Bush’s file – and that far from not having yet been invented in 1972, the Times New Roman type face, according to its owner, had been introduced in 1931. CBS had engaged a leading document expert to verify authenticity. So I was feeling pretty confident when I replied, ‘They may be obvious fakes to you, but Dan Rather makes a very good case that they are real. What is your expertise in determining them to be fake?’ I wasn’t haughty, exactly (I hope), but here was a well-meaning Rush Limbaugh ditto-head (as they are proud to call themselves) whom I thought I was making a pretty good effort to treat respectfully (since he obviously knew nothing). And then, in a wonderful ‘Well, I happen to have Marshall McLuhan right here‘ moment – and if you have never seen Woody Allen’s ‘Annie Hall’ you need to rent it for that moment alone – Scott Nicol replied: I’m a programmer. I have no formal education in typography and publishing, but I picked up much through osmosis. I have played around with a few old typewriters, and have read lots of stuff typed up on them (academic papers, military records, government records, etc). I have done technical writing, a little of which has actually been published. I used to work for a small company called Mortice Kern Systems (think of the significance of those words), whose founders tried to produce a desktop typesetting system in the early ’80s (and failed, microprocessors of the time weren’t up to it) but then went off to do other things. Had many beer-and-pizza lunches with said founders. For a time I also had an interest in TeX, a digital typesetting system by Donald Knuth. I even read the history of the letter “S” (which you can now find here). So I know a little of this and a little of that. Enough to be dangerous. There are plenty of obvious problems in the documents. 1. The font. It lines up perfectly with Microsoft’s 12pt TrueType Times New Roman, reduced about 1.5%. You could say “but Times Roman has been around for ages,” and you’d be correct. It is the font used by the Times of London for printing Roman characters. However, there are many different versions of Times Roman, all are slightly different. There are differences in spacing and shapes of letters. It’s very curious that these early ’70s documents line up so well with a variant of Times Roman that was created in the early ’90s. 2. It uses proportional spacing. Not terribly common on typewriters, especially those from the early ’70s. 3. It backspaces after f. This is a feature of Times Roman. I’ve never seen it implemented automatically on a typewriter. It has to print the character, then half-backspace. Look at all instances of “flight” for examples — note how the “f” and “l” run together at the top? Doing this in software is easy. Doing this in hardware, like a ’70s typewriter, is hard. If the typewriter has a fixed typebar, then you could design the typewriter to automatically half-backspace after typing “f” (but said typebar would probably be a typewriter font, not a book font like Times Roman). If the typewriter has a changeable type element (such as a selectric with the golfball typeheads), then it is pretty difficult, since you have to change the behavior of the f key based on the typehead installed. You can fake it by using a half-backspace, however if you were faking it you’d forget occasionally. 4. You’ll also notice some instances of “st” and “th” that are separated by a space from the preceding number. If you are typing in MS Word and enter 147th or 9921st, Word will automatically superscript. However, if you type 147 th and 9921 st, then go back and delete the spaces, it won’t superscript. It’s curious that all 3 forms (superscript, regular, with space) are seen in these 4 short pages. The superscripted little “th” is possible on some typewriters, but generally a pain to do, and wouldn’t be done for a memo. The typewriter faces I’ve seen with “th” combinations have been much closer to the size of the non-superscripted characters. So, in short, it looks typeset. It is quite possible to typeset things in the ’70s (hey, they had books and newspapers back then :-), but it wasn’t terribly common in an office. I’ve seen lots of small-volume books of that era (academic journals, mostly) that were horribly typeset — these memos look fantastic by comparison. If CBS News’ experts claim the documents are likely authentic, give us the name of a least one typewriter of that era that could have produced the memos. Just a few lines of one of the memos, as a sample, would suffice. A quick search turned up a site comparing the note to an IBM office typesetting machine. Close, but no cigar. Using questionable documents throws the whole report into question, which isn’t good because most of the report (from what I’ve seen) can stand on its own. I consider myself an independent, and vote on the candidate that best fits my ideals, fully aware that I’ll never find anybody that I completely agree with. However I’ve never seen a candidate I completely disagreed with, before W. I’d rather vote for a telephone pole than W. So I guess he knows a little about typography after all. I have the best readers in the world. Another reason to think the memos are fake is that, as you may have seen, Dan Rather had their deceased author’s secretary on TV last night, and she thought so. She never typed them, she says. But – and here is what makes it the stuff of a good mystery – she says they are accurate, and very much like the memos that were written at the time. They are consistent with the facts of the case, she says, and with the late Colonel Killian’s feelings. So the big picture here is that – even without these memos, real or not – the CBS reporting appears to be fair and accurate. (Bush did get special treatment and lied in 1994 when he denied it. He did fail to obey a direct order and take the annual physical everyone else took. He was grounded for failure to take that physical and did fail to fulfill his duties. And thus he is misleading us now when he says otherwise.) But the little picture delights with intrigue. Could this secretary have recreated the documents from memory and gotten them to CBS somehow herself? And now come on the show to debunk their authenticity but verify the contents? Bush fans will say none of this is relevant anyway; it’s ancient history. But if it is truly Bush’s nature to take the easy way in – to Yale, to the Guard, to Harken Oil, to the White House – and to take the lazy man’s approach once there, grabbing short cuts, not feeling constrained by the rules (the Harken Oil insider trading episode springs to mind), then one can perhaps understand how it happened that he completely ignored the January 7, 2001, CIA warning that Osama bin Laden represented a ‘tremendous’ and ‘immediate’ threat to the United States . . . and subsequent warnings . . . and has taken more vacation time than any president in recent memory. (It was on the first day of his month-long August 2001 vacation, after six months in office, that his Presidential Daily Briefing was titled, ‘Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The U.S.’) All of which is charming in a bon vivant, but not necessarily what you want in the CEO of the most important, complicated endeavor in the history of mankind. And just to finish this, here’s what troubles me about the cocaine, if it’s true. (You have surely by now seen Kitty Kelly and her book on TV?) Not that he may have done it when he was ‘young and foolish.’ Not even that he may have done it ‘and more than once’ at Camp David, although that would certainly fit the pattern of being above the rules. What gets me, if he’s done cocaine, is that during his term as governor, more than 20% of the inmates in the huge Texas prison system* were incarcerated on non-violent drug charges, and he did nothing compassionate that I know of to pardon or rehabilitate any significant number of them or reduce their sentences. (If I’m wrong about this, as I may be, I trust one or more of you will set me straight.) Indeed, in Florida, as reported here previously, his compassionate brother Jeb eliminated drug treatment programs in all but four of Florida’s 55 prisons. *The population of which skyrocketed during his term, despite his record number of compassionate executions. In none of this am I suggesting that George Bush should be impeached or imprisoned or even disliked – just that he should not be reelected. We can do better, and John Kerry will. Which brings me back to what I was supposed to be writing about. Hang on, Prasanth! I haven’t forgotten you.
Reassuring Prasanth September 15, 2004January 20, 2017 But first, before we do . . . TAX Third quarterly estimated income tax due today – don’t forget, if you owe it. GNATS And . . . will someone please tell me why Microsoft puts those tiny red dots beneath anything it thinks is a place, like Belgium or Nevada? What is that about? How do I turn it off? They’re just annoying – like gnats. THINNING YOUR JUNK MAIL And I keep meaning to finish this thread . . . Bob Sanderson: ‘Be careful with Alec ‘T.’ Whittaker’s system to identify junk mail by using different fake middle initials. I tried this a few years ago, and began receiving multiple mailings from the same source, addressed to me with different middle initials. The plan actually generated more junk.’ ☞ Ah, but at least it was easy to spot and throw out. And if you have a five-year-old, what a great way to begin training him for a career in the mail room. Dana Dlott: ‘I used this system. When I subscribed to Consumer Reports I was Dana C. Dlott. I get tons of junk mail addressed to him, even though Consumer Reports promised they wouldn’t sell my name.’ KERRY STRENGTHS And one of you made a very good addition to yesterday’s list of attributes, reminding us to read this piece, to which I have linked before: Follow The Money – How John Kerry Busted The Terrorists’ Favorite Bank. And, separately, she quotes this, which may be a little harsh, but still: ‘The fact that George W. Bush borrowed money from BCCI in 1987 but John Kerry launched the investigation in 1988 that eventually brought them down really says about all you need to know about the character of the two men.’ TINY URLs And do you know about this site – http://websearch.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm? site=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F – which turns long URLs like that one into tiny ones like this: http://tinyurl.com/bl18 ? REPORT FROM ABROAD And speaking of yesterday’s point that George Bush has turned a massive surplus of post-9/11 global goodwill into a massive deficit, I keep meaning to post Marc Honaker’s dispatch from the Olympics: Being overseas gives you some sense about how intensely Bush is disliked. Even the Greeks (who are considered our friends) came out in massive numbers for a peaceful demonstration when it was announced that Powell (the most liked and respected member of the Bush Administration) would come to represent the US for Closing Ceremonies. He ended up canceling his trip not to distract from what was a very successful and peaceful Games for the Greeks. But in general the POV I found from most Europeans was: “We love Americans; but not American policy” What this man has done to our country’s image overseas will take a long time to repair – but what does it say if we, the people, re-elect him? Americans won’t get such a free pass anymore. And, so, at last, I was going to reassure Prasanth . . . when I read Paul Krugman, who should passed on, respectfully, to your well-meaning relative who thinks the way to keep us safe is to vote for four more years. Prasanth can wait. I end with this: September 14, 2004 Taking On the Myth By PAUL KRUGMAN The New York Times On Sunday, a celebrating crowd gathered around a burning U.S. armored vehicle. Then a helicopter opened fire; a child and a journalist for an Arabic TV news channel were among those killed. Later, the channel repeatedly showed the journalist doubling over and screaming, “I’m dying; I’m dying.” Such scenes, which enlarge the ranks of our enemies by making America look both weak and brutal, are inevitable in the guerrilla war President Bush got us into. Osama bin Laden must be smiling. U.S. news organizations are under constant pressure to report good news from Iraq. In fact, as a Newsweek headline puts it, “It’s worse than you think.” Attacks on coalition forces are intensifying and getting more effective; no-go zones, which the military prefers to call “insurgent enclaves,” are spreading – even in Baghdad. We’re losing ground. And the losses aren’t only in Iraq. Al Qaeda has regrouped. The invasion of Iraq, intended to demonstrate American power, has done just the opposite: nasty regimes around the world feel empowered now that our forces are bogged down. When a Times reporter asked Mr. Bush about North Korea’s ongoing nuclear program, “he opened his palms and shrugged.” Yet many voters still believe that Mr. Bush is doing a good job protecting America. If Senator John Kerry really has advisers telling him not to attack Mr. Bush on national security, he should dump them. When Dick Cheney is saying vote Bush or die, responding with speeches about jobs and health care doesn’t cut it. Mr. Kerry should counterattack by saying that Mr. Bush is endangering the nation by subordinating national security to politics. In early 2002 the Bush administration, already focused on Iraq, ignored pleas to commit more forces to Afghanistan. As a result, the Taliban is resurgent, and Osama is still out there. In the buildup to the Iraq war, commanders wanted a bigger invasion force to help secure the country. But civilian officials, eager to prove that wars can be fought on the cheap, refused. And that’s one main reason our soldiers are still dying in Iraq. This past April, U.S. forces, surely acting on White House orders after American television showed gruesome images of dead contractors, attacked Falluja. Lt. Gen. James Conway, the Marine commander on the scene, opposed “attacking out of revenge” but was overruled – and he was overruled again with an equally disastrous decision to call off the attack after it had begun. “Once you commit,” General Conway said, “you got to stay committed.” But Mr. Bush, faced with the prospect of a casualty toll that would have hurt his approval rating, didn’t. Can Mr. Kerry, who voted to authorize the Iraq war, criticize it? Yes, by pointing out that he voted only to give Mr. Bush a big stick. Once that stick had forced Saddam to let W.M.D. inspectors back in, there was no need to invade. And Mr. Kerry should keep pounding Mr. Cheney, who is trying to cover for the absence of W.M.D. by lying, yet again, about Saddam’s ties to Al Qaeda. Some pundits are demanding that Mr. Kerry produce a specific plan for Iraq – a demand they never make of Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry should turn the tables, and demand to know what – aside from pretending that things are going fine – Mr. Bush intends to do about the spiraling disaster. And Mr. Kerry can ask why anyone should trust a leader who refuses to replace the people who created that disaster because he thinks it’s bad politics to admit a mistake. Mr. Kerry can argue that he wouldn’t have overruled the commanders who had wanted to keep the pressure on Al Qaeda, or dismissed warnings from former Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army’s chief of staff, that peacekeeping would require a large force. He wouldn’t have ignored General Conway’s warnings about the dangers of storming into Falluja, or overruled his protests about calling off that assault halfway through. On the other hand, he can argue that he would have fired Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary who ridiculed General Shinseki. And he would definitely have fired Donald Rumsfeld for the failure to go in with enough troops, the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and more. The truth is that Mr. Bush, by politicizing the “war on terror,” is putting America at risk. And Mr. Kerry has to say that. THINGS YOU CAN DO TO VOLUNTEER Click here. Tomorrow: Reassuring Prasanth
Nader, Kerry, Bush September 14, 2004February 27, 2017 NADER A message from 74 of his 113 top supporters: We, the undersigned, were selected by Ralph Nader to be members of his 113-person national ‘Nader 2000 Citizens Committee.’ This year, we urge support for Kerry/Edwards in all ‘swing states,’ even while we strongly disagree with Kerry’s policies on Iraq and other issues. For people seeking progressive social change in the United States, removing George W. Bush from office should be the top priority in the 2004 presidential election. Progressive votes for John Kerry in swing states may prove decisive in attaining this vital goal. ☞ Please note: this does not mean that the remaining 39 members of Nader’s top 113 supporters disagree. Some have presumably died (out of heartbreak over how badly things turned out?) and others have presumably not yet been reached or decided whether to participate. To see the current list – ranging from Ben Cohen and Susan Sarandon to Bonnie Raitt and Phil Donahue – click here. KERRY Jack: ‘You trashed Bush. Now can you ‘see’ Kerry with the same eyes? Show us why Kerry’s last 50 years qualify him to be Pres.!’ ☞ Well, I can make a start, anyway (even if I can’t make the items on this list grammatically parallel [hey: YOU try it!]): Superb education, which he took seriously. Volunteered for and fulfilled four years’ service to his country, which he also took seriously – volunteering for the most dangerous duty, earning the respect of his crew, awarded Bronze and Silver Star, saving at least one man’s life. Principled leader who helped end a bad war – a very serious business. Prosecutor who worked successfully to put bad guys away. Fought for victims’ rights and rape counseling. Experience as Lieutenant Governor. Leader in the U.S. Senate (voted FOR every weapons appropriation Ronald Reagan signed into law), with 19 years experience on the Foreign Relations Committee. Would appoint moderate, mainstream judges and Justices, preserve separation of church and state. Is jazzed to make health care more efficient, affordable and available . . . to promote stem cell research, fund education initiatives, work toward a sustainable environment. Would not be a puppet of the gun lobby, tobacco lobby, oil industry. Would make most folks, not the wealthiest few, his main priority. .. Would not ignore CIA warnings of an “immediate” and “tremendous” threat to the United States. Would not have let bin Laden escape Tora Bora or recklessly rushed into war without a plan for winning the peace. Would not have inflamed an entire region, created thousands of new terrorists, and turned a massive surplus of global goodwill on September 12, 2001, into a massive deficit. Would give us a fresh start in the eyes of the world, which has come to distrust and dislike George Bush. Listens to a wide range of opinion. Reads the newspaper. I’m not saying he’s perfect, but in the words of the Seattle Times, which endorsed Bush in 2000, “he is head and shoulders above the incumbent.” Thanks for asking. In case you missed this in the Fairbanks, Alaska, News-Miner: If results matter, just look By Alex Prichard George W. Bush’s new campaign slogan is “Results Matter.” As the election approaches, I suggest we examine the record to see how well President Bush’s results have matched his promises over the last four years. George Bush and Dick Cheney promised to cut health-care costs. The Bush-Cheney 2000 Web site stated, “There are 43 million uninsured Americans. … George W. Bush will reverse this trend by making health insurance affordable for hard-working, low-income families.” In reality, under Bush, the number of uninsured Americans has grown and health insurance premiums have increased by 12.5 percent per year. The budget-busting $530 billion prescription drug bill will provide little relief and prohibits Medicare from negotiating for lower drug costs. They promised to be fiscally conservative. The Bush-Cheney 2000 Web site stated, “As president, Governor Bush will … pay the debt down to a historically low level.” In reality, they have turned a record surplus into a record deficit of $445 billion this year alone. [Over $600 billion when you include their spending rather than saving the Social Security surplus.] Much of the debt has arisen from increased discretionary spending by a Republican Congress and irresponsible tax cuts focused on the richest Americans. The Bush tax cuts alone account for more than half of the 2004 deficit. They promised to protect Social Security. Their Web site stated, “The Social Security surplus must be locked away only for Social Security.” Instead, they spent $159 billion of the Social Security trust fund in 2002 alone. Because Social Security taxes were used to pay for tax cuts and the war in Iraq, Alan Greenspan is now warning that Social Security benefits will probably have to be cut. They promised to create jobs. In 2002, they claimed that tax cuts would provide an “economic stimulus” and create 300,000 jobs per month. In reality, they only created 32,000 jobs in July and Bush is likely to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs during his watch. Because the tax cuts were heavily tilted to the very rich, took years to implement and shifted the tax burden from investment income to wage income, they were poorly designed as an economic stimulus package. A more effective and cheaper economic stimulus package would have been short-term tax cuts for middle-class workers and financial aid to states. For most families, the benefit from the Bush income tax cuts will be more than offset by increases in local taxes, health-care costs, gasoline prices and college tuition and by cuts to services. They are still making unrealistic promises. They are now promising to cut the size of the deficit in half by 2009, but their forecast includes unrealistic domestic budget cuts, doesn’t include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ignores the costs of implementing their own proposals to make the tax cuts permanent. Even under these very unrealistic budget forecasts, the size of the deficit decreases only until 2009, then increases rapidly as the baby boomers start to retire in 2011. Since the last election, the country has had to deal with corporate scandals, the attacks of Sept. 11 and a lagging economy. Not all of these factors were under President Bush’s control, but he came into office with a massive budget surplus. He could have chosen to spend money on rebuilding our roads and schools (fixing school buildings alone is estimated to cost $127 billion), stimulating job creation, paying down the debt or addressing the looming health-care crisis. Instead, he chose to spend the surplus and more on tax cuts that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, have shifted the overall tax burden from the rich to the middle class, and to pay $200 billion for the war in Iraq. Whatever your views on the war in Iraq, everyone should agree that we, not our children, should pay the costs. The current deficit spending means that our children will have to pay for the cost of the war in Iraq on top of their own defense needs, which likely will include the continuing threat of terrorism. This massive debt puts the U.S. economy at the mercy of foreign investors, endangers Social Security and Medicare, increases our interest payments and limits our ability to react to future economic crises. Despite the fact that the Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate and the presidency for four years, the reality has consistently fallen far short of the promises. This year, don’t believe the rhetoric, look at George Bush’s record and hold him accountable, because “Results Matter.” Alex Prichard is a 10-year Fairbanks resident. Tomorrow: Reassuring Prasanth
The Issues Made Simple September 13, 2004February 27, 2017 TAXES John Kerry has pledged to keep the tax cuts on income up to $200,000. He would tax your income above $200,000 the way it was taxed under Clinton/Gore. It’s really that simple. If you make less than $200,000 a year, taxes are a non-issue. If you make more than $200,000 a year, you have to decide whether you’re willing to pay a little more to help finance the war on terror. End of story. TERRORISM George Bush has lost the trust and goodwill of the world. Even if John Kerry winds up following the exact same policies that a re-elected George Bush would, President Kerry will be more successful, because the world will know he arrived at these policies not through swagger and arrogance but through analysis and consultation. Even if you agree with George Bush that Donald Rumsfeld has done a ‘superb’ job . . . even if you agree it was wise not to commit ground troops to finish bin Laden at Tora Bora . . . even if you agree it was in our best interests to pull Special Forces off the hunt for al-Qaeda so they could begin preparing for the war in Iraq . . . even if you agree it was OK for George Bush to break his pledge to Congress and the world to attack Iraq only as a last resort . . . it doesn’t matter. We will be more successful fighting terrorism – and we will create fewer terrorists – if we regain the trust and goodwill of the world. THE ECONOMY The job market and the stock market both do better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. And they certainly will do better under John Kerry than under this Republican president. STEM CELLS John Kerry is pro-science. He encourages the stem cell research that Bush is working to impede. If you worry about being stricken by Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s someday – or seeing your parents or spouse stricken – vote Kerry. # There is so much more to say – one bursts to say it – but sometimes (a lesson I should heed more often) less is more. Let me give the rest of the page to this op-ed from Friday’s San Jose Mercury News. It is by former eight-term congressman Pete McCloskey, a highly decorated Korean War veteran: Posted on Fri, Sep. 10, 2004 If you’re a true Republican, you’ll vote for Kerry By Pete McCloskey Although I’m a lifelong Republican, I will vote for John Kerry on Nov. 2. The choice seems simple under traditional principles of the Republican Party. I first met John Kerry in the spring of 1971. Each of us was just back from Vietnam — he as a Navy officer and I as a member of Congress — and were appalled by what we had seen there. I found Kerry to be idealistic, courageous and, above all else, truthful to a fault. He demonstrated courage in Vietnam, but as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, the courage to speak against prevailing opinion in civil strife is often greater than that demanded on the battlefield. During Kerry’s public career after his election to the Senate, he has clearly grown and matured. I believe he is incapable of deliberate deceit or dissembling. This alone represents a refreshing hope for a return of public faith in our government. That Kerry has attained the solid support of former Secretary of Defense William Perry, with whom he has worked for years on issues of nuclear proliferation, confirms his ability to study, listen and reach sound judgments. The primary issue in November will be who can best lead us in the bitter struggle against the Islamic fundamentalists who perpetrated 9/11 and are willing to die to kill Americans throughout the world. The Iraq occupation has caused thousands of new suicide bombers to join the jihad against us; with Kerry as president, the nation will properly refocus the battle away from Iraq and against the true enemy, Al-Qaida. As Kerry has stated, we desperately need the cooperation of every country in the world, friend and enemy, where terrorist cells can germinate and operate. We need to be more humble in asking for this assistance. A return to the “speak softly but carry a big stick” philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt should be far more effective than the bluster, bravado and “shock and awe” firepower of the neocon advisers who have commandeered White House foreign policy. There are many other reasons to support John Kerry. The incredible budget deficits projected to be $2.3 trillion or more in the next decade, disrespect for the United Nations, international law and Geneva Conventions, secrecy in government — all of these are positions Kerry would certainly reverse. As a Catholic, Kerry is sure to maintain the constitutional separation between church and state, recognizing that while we are indeed a nation under God, everyone is free to choose his or her own faith in God. He will also end the inordinate secrecy that has characterized this administration. It seems incredible that a matter as important as our national energy policy could be decided in secret by Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force — individuals whose very names have been withheld from the public. Kerry’s record on environmental issues is superb, an area where the Bush administration has been a disaster. Finally, there’s the matter of John Ashcroft and prospective judicial appointees who could undo Roe vs. Wade, a woman’s right of choice and many of the civil liberties we have earned over 225 years. Each of the foregoing reasons for supporting Kerry is based on traditional Republican values of fiscal responsibility, limited governmental intrusion and the accountability of individuals. In truth, John Kerry and John Edwards come far closer to the Republicanism of Teddy Roosevelt, Earl Warren, Barry Goldwater, George Bush the elder and, yes, even Richard Nixon, than does the present incumbent. Ending secrecy and bringing truth and honesty back to the White House are reasons enough to elect Kerry and Edwards.
Pretty Rotten September 10, 2004January 20, 2017 DUH! Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s smear of philanthropist George Soros was so egregious that few took a moment to realize how, also, stupid it was. You will recall that Hastert suggested maybe Soros gets his money from the drug cartel. After all, he said, Soros is in favor of legalizing drugs. Mark Willcox: ‘Dennis Hastert suggests that the Drug Cartels are in favor of legalizing drugs?’ Legalizing drugs would, of course, destroy the drug cartels. A SMALL LIE The trillion dollar lie about his proposed tax cut was, needless to say, far more significant to actual people’s lives than anything he may have said about his National Guard service. ( ‘By far the vast majority [of the benefit of his tax cut],’ he looked into the camera and lied, would go ‘to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.’) Still, when pressed during the 1994 Texas gubernatorial debate, he answered this way: Moderator: You are confident no influence was exercised on your behalf [in getting a spot in the National Guard]? George W. Bush: I am, yeah. We all can be sad that so much of the election is argued over stuff like this instead of about, say, the $400+ billion deficit . . . which is really $600 billion when you count the Social Security surplus Bush pledged not to touch but has spent instead . . . or about the decision to divert resources from the hunt for bin Laden to invade Iraq. (Or about stem cell research, the environment, assault weapons, or uniting not dividing.) But the Bush machine goes after character, as it did with Dukakis and McCain and Gore and Cleland . . . and as it is now working to mock and destroy a Bronze and Silver Star medal winner. So it’s fair game, I think, to point out that Bush lied about his military service. In 1994 and again in this campaign season, he said he got no special treatment and that he showed up for duty as required. But the truth is that ‘President Bush failed to carry out a direct order from his superior in the Texas Air National Guard in May 1972 to undertake a medical examination that was necessary for him to remain a qualified pilot.’ [Washington Post, 9/9/04] And that he ‘performed no service at all for one six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months in 1973.’ [Boston Globe, 9/8/04] (Not that he wasn’t an enthusiastic supporter of the Vietnam War. He just was not eager to fight in it.) He was, let’s face it, a pretty rotten student at Yale, a pretty rotten Guardsman, a pretty rotten student at Harvard Business School, a pretty rotten businessman, and is now . . . well, we get to decide November 2 what kind of president he has been. But we know this much: He is the first president since Herbert Hoover to see a net job loss on his watch (all the more remarkable in the face of low interest rates and massive deficit spending) . . . a president who misled us into a disastrous war (which, even if it had ultimately proved necessary as a last resort, as it might have, could have been managed so much better) . . . a president who has turned most of world opinion against us (helping, thereby, to create thousands of new terrorists) . . . a president who has engineered a huge redistribution of wealth to the wealthy . . . a president who has failed spectacularly at killing the man who masterminded the attack that killed 3,000 of us (or who – even worse – is cynically timing this event for maximum political impact*). How can so many Americans still be cheering for George Bush in the face of a record like this? I again commend to you Paul Krugman’s explanation in Monday’s New York Times. *If they should just happen to get bin Laden, coincidentally, in these last critical weeks before the election, it will surely be the most cynical political act since Karl Rove bugged his own office. (You don’t know that story? This crowd is as good as it gets at deceiving voters.) Monday (I hope): Your Taxes
We Are All Campaign Strategists Now September 9, 2004February 27, 2017 IT’S ALL IN THE SUBTITLE Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter has just come out with a new book: WHAT WE’VE LOST: How the Bush Administration Has Curtailed Our Freedoms, Mortgaged Our Economy, Ravaged Our Environment, and Damaged Our Standing in the World. Careful you’re not caught carrying it outside a free speech zone.* *This is what’s known as a cheap shot. But sometimes, cheap shots are irresistible. YOUR $87 BILLION This election is turning a lot of us into copy writers. One of you sent me this proposed script: DRAFT RESPONSE AD ON IRAQ WAR SPENDING (60 seconds): [Kerry speaking directly to the camera:] My fellow Americans, George Bush has had a lot of fun attacking me over how I voted on his 87 billion dollar spending request for the Iraq War. He thinks it’s a big laugh line. But he’s laughing all the way to the bank, with YOUR grandchildren’s money. My position has been perfectly clear all along: No. 1: I support spending whatever it takes to get the job done in Iraq. No. 2: I DEMAND that we pay for it honestly by asking the wealthiest Americans to give back just SOME of the enormous tax breaks Bush gave them. That’s why I voted the way I did. Bush, by contrast, just ran up the deficit another 87 billion dollars. Instead of asking his wealthiest supporters to make ANY sacrifice at all, he favored dumping the debt burden on all of our grandchildren. I support spending what we need, but I OPPOSE Bush’s refusal to pay for it honestly. He calls that a flip-flop. I call it common sense. You be the judge. END ☞ A good script? Bad script? You be the judge. YOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER Another of you – a well known prize-winning author who prefers to remain nameless (which leaves me all but desperate to tell you my ‘rename maneless’ pun, but like Strangelove wrestling his arm to his side, I resist) – offers this advice: ‘Kerry’s No. 1 message for the next 60 days should be this: Bush let 9/11 happen. It’s his fault. It is his greatest shame. He was warned, and he did nothing but continue his vacation. Then for two years he tried to keep secret the fact that he was warned. But now we know (cite President’s Daily Briefing, roll tape of Condi revealing its title). And then? He did nothing. Mr. President, what actions did you take to protect America? Insert here: Elizabeth Drew’s piece in the New York Review of Books and Bill Maher’s rant from HBO: New Rule: You can’t run on a mistake. Franklin Roosevelt didn’t run for re-election claiming Pearl Harbor was his finest hour. Abe Lincoln was a great president, but the high point of his second term wasn’t theater security. 9/11 wasn’t a triumph of the human spirit. It was a screw-up by a guy on vacation. Now, don’t get me wrong, Mr. President. I’m not blaming you for 9/11. We have blue-ribbon commissions to do that. ‘It has the virtue of being true, and the related virtue of being plausible. People already half know it, but they need to hear it from the candidate.’ ☞ I’m not sure it should come from the candidate, because as Paul Krugman argued chillingly in Monday‘s New York Times, ‘once war psychology takes hold, the public desperately wants to believe in its leadership.’ And even if it didn’t, blaming Bush for 9/11 is strong. I would settle for recognizing that it’s a myth he did as much as anyone could. (As early as January 7, 2001, he was told by the CIA that bin Laden represented a ‘tremendous’ and ‘immediate’ threat to the United States – and instead of building on the ongoing initiatives to take him out, Bush shut those initiatives down.) He did nothing. He should have done much more. That didn’t cause 9/11, but it might have prevented it. You really should take the time to read the Krugman column, if you can. Tomorrow (I hope): Your Taxes
A Smart System for Thinning Junk Mail; Smart Thoughts on Roth IRA Conversions September 8, 2004February 27, 2017 AH STAND CORRECTED! Brad: ‘You write of Zell Miller: ‘And then, a little later, he challenged CNBC’s Chris Matthews to a duel.’ Wrong. He said he wished he lived in a time when he COULD challenge Matthews to a duel.’ ☞ You are absolutely right. A SMART SYSTEM FOR JUNK MAIL Alec T. Whittaker: ‘I have no middle initial. When I buy anything or respond in a way that suggests my name might become public, I add an initial. ‘T’ for Tobias means that any mail I get from you (if you had my address) goes straight into the trash and I’m not in danger of junking something important.’ WE COULDA BEEN SMARTER Mark Phariss: ‘Bush’s principal argument for re-election is his war on terrorism, but in fact that’s one of the principal reasons he should NOT be re-elected. Leading up to 9/11, Bush downgraded his terrorism czar to a sub-cabinet level position and ignored intelligence reports informing him that Osama bin Laden wanted to attack in the US. After 9/11, he didn’t go in for the kill at Tora Bora, allowing Osama bin Laden to escape. He pursued a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11, diverting our attention from the war on terrorism and Osama bin Laden, as Bush’s father’s own national security adviser said it would, inflaming the Muslim world, and creating thousands of new terrorists. His evident disdain for other nations’ views, both before and after 9/11, has made it more difficult for us to get international support in our war on terrorism. ‘Simply saying Bush ‘misled’ us into a war with Iraq – though true – does not connect the dots on why that UNDERMINES our war on terrorism.’ ☞ And let’s not forget that he opposed creation of a Homeland Security department for nine months . . . opposed creation of the 9/11 Commission . . . and has extremely close ties to the Saudis, who may not be the great allies we would like to think they are. Dana Dlott: ‘The G.O.P’s position, as far as I can tell, is that if a Democrat had been president in 1941 we would have lost WWII. It’s a good thing Kerry voted against the B-1 bomber. Costing more than $200 million per copy, this dog crashes repeatedly and has been so useless that since it was put in service 20 years ago it has done nothing worth note. The B-1 has been a disaster. It isn’t stealthy, its electronic warfare systems don’t work correctly, and its support costs are astronomical. The Serbs – no one’s idea of world-class adversaries – managed to shoot decoys of them nine times, forcing changes in attack plans. The Air Force would rather fly 50 year old B-52 junkers than this clunker. ‘John Kerry votes for a bill. The Republicans say, Hmmm, this is something the Democrats support, let’s load it up with a bunch of pork amendments and crazy right-wing rhetoric and have another vote. Then Kerry votes against the ridiculous amended bill. This isn’t flip flopping, this is being smart.’ SMART THOUGHTS ON ROTH IRA CONVERSIONS Many of you know that the estimable Less Antman, whose asterisk blinks eternally at upper left on this page (‘Ask Less’), is a wonderfully smart and witty financial advisor. The latest issue of his newsletter begins: One of my favorite uses of the Roth IRA is to turn a year or two of low income into an opportunity to save enormous amounts of income tax (and possibly estate tax) [by converting some or all of a regular retirement into a Roth IRA]. To read the whole thing and, doubtless, learn a good deal about retirement accounts, click here. To sign up for his (free) newsletter, click here.
The Keynoter, the V.P., and the A.G.’s Wife September 7, 2004February 27, 2017 THE PRESIDENT ‘The problem isn’t George Bush’s decisiveness. It’s his decisions.’ – Ellen Goodman in the Boston Globe THE KEYNOTER It’s very ‘last week’ – and the Bush bounce is already pretty well gone (that was fast) – but did you actually see Zell Miller’s speech at the Convention? It was noteworthy because it was billed as the KEYNOTE address, just as Barack Obama’s was in Boston five weeks before. But where Barack’s was filled with hope and inspiration for the future, Zell’s was so angry it wasn’t just angry or even angry, it was scare-the-children, purple with RAGE. Because (as Jon Stewart so aptly put it), after four years of controlling the White House and Congress and the Supreme Court, they have a lot to be angry about, and they’re not gonna take it anymore! How dare anyone run for president against George W. Bush . . . a man who has lost more jobs on his watch than any president since Herbert Hoover, who has rolled back environmental regulation and fought to impede stem cell research here at home and around the world. A man who played right into the hands of Osama bin Laden by (a) ignoring all the warnings he was given, beginning at Blair House January 7, 2001 (‘a tremendous, immediate’ threat to the United States); (b) letting bin Laden get away when we had the chance to kill or capture him at Tora Bora; and (c) inflaming much of the Middle East (thereby helping to recruit thousands of new terrorists) by rushing into war in Iraq without adequate world support and without a plan to win the peace. How dare the Democrats want a change, Zell seemed to be asking. And then, a little later, he challenged CNBC’s Chris Matthews to a duel. (I assume you know this, but in case you missed it, I am not making it up.) The Republicans want this guy? Hey – take him! THE VEEP I don’t begrudge Dick Cheney his five deferments – I was too scared to be drafted, too. But one of them tells you that this was a guy who was truly determined to live to . . . well, if not ‘to fight another day,’ then at least to send other people’s kids to fight another day. He got his student deferments and then his deferment for being married, but then on October 26, 1965, they announced that childless married men were fair game for the draft. Nine months and two days later, the Cheney’s daughter arrived. THE A.G.’S WIFE Listen: I respect everyone’s religious faith. But to anyone who is unnerved by, say, the 2004 Texas Republican Platform, which calls for an end to the separation of church and state, I just think it’s important to note that these folks are quite sincere (as they are entitled to be), and that they are increasingly influencing our government. One of them is President, another is Attorney General (who has himself anointed in Crisco oil before being sworn in to important jobs). Others are just in college, hoping one day to help steer the ship of state – as they are totally entitled to want to do. With that in mind, here’s part of a piece by Mac VerStandig, a junior at the University of Wisconsin, describing his recent visit to Patrick Henry College, on whose board of trustees Janet Ashcroft, the A.G.’s better half, serves as secretary: In Purcellville, Va., sits one of America’s youngest and most respected schools. Less than 10 years old, Patrick Henry College has already gained notoriety for tremendous placement of its students in internships all over Washington, D.C., from the White House to the Capitol. The secretary of the school’s Board of Trustees is none other than Janet Ashcroft, the attorney general’s wife. And early alumni of the college have gone on to work in places as prestigious as the aforementioned internship hubs. . . . A strict Christian college in the tradition of Bob Jones University, the Virginia school boasts a student body of fewer than 1,000 and almost all of which had been home schooled. Moreover, according to a March 8 New York Times article, the school formerly enrolled only a single black student. He dropped out. . . . In order to enter the college, students must sign a document saying that they accept the Christian Bible – in its entirety – as being literal. In fact, the school’s website explains, ‘Any biology, Bible or other courses at PHC dealing with creation will teach creation from the understanding of Scripture that God’s creative work, as described in Genesis 1:1-31, was completed in six 24-hour days.’ . . . And PHC does little to help expand students’ worldview. In fact, the college works as an almost incestuous compound where pupils are so radically exposed to their own homogeny that the real world comes as a shock. One PHC student, upon meeting this writer – a practicing Jew who imbibes openly – inquired almost innocently, ‘What does it feel like to know that you’re going to hell?’ The question is sensible if you consider that students at the Virginia college are prohibited from touching alcohol while attending school (including weekends and other non-class times). Yet PHC’s crippling shelter only grows greater with its ‘courtship policy.’ Should a male student wish to date a female student, he must first get the permission of her parents. . . Should the parents sign off on the courtship, the two budding young romantics will be permitted to hold hands on campus – so long as they are walking of course. That’s right, at PHC, if you’re sitting down, standing still or otherwise immobile, you better not be caressing the palm of another student. ☞ To each his own. Where it gets awkward is when, say, John Ashcroft tries to use the power of the federal government to overturn the twice-passed-by-referendum Oregon assisted-suicide law or the passed-by-referendum California medical marijuana law. Or when this crowd attempts to amend the US Constitution to discriminate against gays and lesbians – or when the House, as it recently did, approves a bill that would prevent the Courts from ruling certain discriminatory laws unConstitutional. In those cases, it’s not to each his own, it’s ‘you will do as I say, because God speaketh through me.’ Shouldn’t it be enough to know that we who don’t see it the same way will burn in hell? Tomorrow: A Smart System for Thinning Junk Mail; Smart Thoughts on Roth IRA Conversions
30 of Bush’s Flip-Flops September 3, 2004February 27, 2017 FLIP-FLOPPER-IN-CHIEF Click here for an American Progress compilation of 30 major Bush policy flip-flops . . . or here to print it out as a poster. Example: 1. Social Security Surplus BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS… “We’re going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus.” [President Bush, 3/3/01] …BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that “the president’s new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes.” [The New York Times, 2/6/02] IT’S 10 O’CLOCK. DO YOU KNOW WHO YOUR VICE PRESIDENT IS? Many credit him with being the most powerful veep in American history, with a major hand in directing the course of your country, and thus your children’s future. Do you really know the first thing about him? Click here for T.D. Allman’s profile. Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. – Vice President Dick Cheney, August 2002 LET US NOW SMEAR FREEDOM-LOVING PHILANTHROPISTS No one has given more money to foster liberty and democracy than George Soros. But if you can smear war heroes, why not philanthropists? Thanks to Jesse Kornbluth’s Swami Uptown for pointing me to this exchange between House Speaker Dennis Hastert – third in line for the Presidency after the aforementioned Dick Cheney – and Fox News’s Chris Wallace. HASTERT: You know, I don’t know where George Soros gets his money. I don’t know where – if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from. And I… WALLACE: Excuse me? HASTERT: Well, that’s what he’s been for a number years – George Soros has been for legalizing drugs in this country. So, I mean, he’s got a lot of ancillary interests out there. WALLACE: You think he may be getting money from the drug cartel? HASTERT: I’m saying I don’t know where groups – could be people who support this type of thing. I’m saying we don’t know. The fact is we don’t know where this money comes from. And how about this characterization of Soros, which Jesse says was posted on the GOPAC website last year (‘the premier training organization for Republican candidates for elected office’): No other single person represents the symbol and the substance of globalism more than this Hungarian-born descendant of Shylock. He is the embodiment of the Merchant from Venice. Shylock, lest anyone’s memory need refreshing, was Shakespeare’s merciless, miserly Jew. There must be many fine Republicans who are appalled by all this. Help us help you get your party back. Vote Kerry. QUICK – IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE LIVING ABROAD This site will help them get an absentee ballot in time to be heard. But hurry! # Have a great weekend! If you live in Frances’s path . . . stay safe. Don’t forget that Cheney profile.
Please Read This One September 2, 2004February 27, 2017 It’s all so dishonest, so calculatingly deceptive – like the way they smeared John McCain and Al Gore in 2000. (McCain didn’t father a black baby out of wedlock, he adopted a Bangladeshi child. Al Gore never said he invented the Internet – although he did crucial work to help launch it.) Zell Miller last night: ‘For more than twenty years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.’ Zell Miller in 2001: ‘In his sixteen years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington. Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so. [Hey, wait – I thought you guys have said – endlessly – that he’s the #1 liberal in the Senate!] John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment.’ [Remarks to the Democratic Party of Georgia Jefferson Jackson Dinner 2001] Miller last night: ‘Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security.’ He then listed a whole lot of weapons systems John Kerry voted against. He did not mention that Dick Cheney opposed almost all the same programs. He did not quote Cheney, then Secretary of Defense, on ABC’s This Week: ‘I’ve closed or terminated 81 programs. We’re shutting down 300 military bases worldwide. It’s a massive reduction already underway.’ He did not mention that John Kerry voted for every single one of the Defense Authorization and Appropriation bills signed by Ronald Reagan. So it’s all a deception. Here’s John Kerry on defense: ‘I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response. I will never give any nation or any institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger military. We will add 40,000 active duty troops, not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended and under pressure.’ Here’s Pat Buchanan on Iraq: ‘We invaded a country that did not threaten us, did not attack us, and did not want war with us, to disarm it of weapons we have since discovered it did not have. We may have ignited a war of civilizations it was in our vital interests to avoid. Never has America been more resented and reviled in an Islamic world of a billion people.’ We probably need to change his name to ‘I can’t believe I am quoting Pat Buchanan, because I find so many of his opinions loathsome,’ but still – that’s a pretty powerful quote: ‘We invaded a country that did not threaten us, did not attack us, and did not want war with us, to disarm it of weapons we have since discovered it did not have. We may have ignited a war of civilizations it was in our vital interests to avoid. Never has America been more resented and reviled in an Islamic world of a billion people.’ Do we really want to rehire the man whose judgment it was to rush into war without a plan to win the peace? Who pledged he would get Bin Laden dead or alive before he could plan another attack on us . . . but who quickly diverted key resources from that effort to war preparations in Iraq? Who pledged to go to war in Iraq ‘only as a last resort’ but then broke that pledge? We could have done this – if in the end it had to be done, a few months later – so much better! And with so much more world support! Back to the Convention in a minute, but a couple of you took exception to this item from yesterday – whose numbers, I argued, suggested a pattern: Change* in real median household income (2003 adjusted dollars): Bush II: – $1,535 Clinton: + $5,489 Bush I: – $1,314 Change* in number of Americans living in poverty: Bush II: + 4,280,000 Clinton: – 6,433,000 Bush I: + 6,269,000 *As gleaned by the Daily Kos from this month’s Census report Aaron Long: ‘While I hate Bush as much as the next guy, don’t you think that the Internet boom (bubble) that occurred during the Clinton years would have happened under any president? If you can somehow factor that effect out (good luck) and still provide a damning comparison it would be more compelling.’ ☞ Yes it would. But while the Internet bubble made for a lot of stock market wealth, skewing the numbers among the best off, can it account for as much of the reduction in poverty as, say, raising the minimum wage? Or raising the Earned Income Tax Credit? Or hiking taxes for the top few in order to assure the world financial markets that we were headed for fiscal responsibility – thus touching off a virtuous economic cycle? Those broad policies – affecting many millions of people – were supported by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans. Policies matter. And listen: Internet or no, under most presidents throughout our nation’s history, median income has gone up. Why not under the Bushes? Could it be that the plight of ordinary Americans just does not much interest them? I think we try so hard to be fair (as we should), that we sometimes go too far and wind up being unfair to ourselves. It’s okay to think Clinton/Gore did a way better job on economic policy than Bush 41 or Bush 43 (or Herbert Hoover). Because they did. And Kerry/Edwards will, too. BUSH TO ALTER ECONOMIC STATS AGAIN Not that the Bush team won’t do its best to persuade us otherwise. According to The Daily Mislead (click to see the full version, with sourcing): Last week, the Census Bureau released statistics showing that for the first time in years, poverty had increased for three straight years, while the number of Americans without health care increased to a record level. But instead of changing its economic and health care policies, the Bush administration today is announcing plans to change the way the statistics are compiled. The move is just the latest in a series of actions by the White House to doctor or eliminate longstanding and nonpartisan economic data collection methods. In a Bush administration press release yesterday, the Census Bureau said next week it ‘will announce a new economic indicator” as “an additional tool to better understand” the economy. The change in statistics is being directed by Bush political appointees and comes just 60 days from the election. It will be the first modification of Census data in 40 years. This is not the first time the White House has tried to doctor or manipulate economic data that exposed President Bush’s failed policies. In the face of serious job losses last year, the Associated Press reported “the Bush administration has dropped the government’s monthly report on mass layoffs, which also had been eliminated when President Bush’s father was in office.” Similarly, Business Week reported that the White House this year “unilaterally changed the start date of the last recession to benefit Bush’s reelection bid.” For almost 75 years, the start and end dates of recessions have been set by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private nonpartisan research group. But the Bush administration decided to toss aside the NBER, and simply declare that the recession started under President Clinton. It is a scary time. I think in the end it will work out. John Kerry will be elected and we will get the country back on track. But most people know so little about what’s going on and – for all our innate skepticism – still have a natural tendency to believe much of what they hear, especially if they hear it often enough. That’s why people assume Al Gore said he invented the Internet. That’s why more than half the country thinks Iraq was involved in the September 11 attack. That’s why a lot of people are being aggressively misled by the Republican Convention. (How else to get them, in so many cases, to vote against their own self-interest?) It is an upside down world. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist tells the Convention that under George W. Bush health care has become more affordable and available. (It has?) Education Secretary Rod Paige – whose own Texas miracle turns out to have been a documented fraud – tells us what a triumph the Bush education policy has been. Arnold Schwarzenegger calls those who worry about the economy ‘economic girlie men.’ (Why didn’t we think of that line when the Republicans, for years, were demanding a balanced budget amendment? But if Arnold says things are good, then never mind the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover; never mind massive budget and trade deficits and consumers stretched as never before; never mind lower median household income and increased poverty – you are a girlie man to be concerned about our economy [huge laugh line, applause, cut to next scene].) President Bush says Kerry’s military service was heroic . . . but his father wonders on national radio whether all 150 of the Swift Boat veterans could be lying, and Bob Dole dismisses Kerry’s medals, and the Bush team hands out mocking Purple Heart Band Aids for the assembled delegates. And everyone talks about ‘four months,’ not mentioning, first, that Kerry served his full four years in the Navy . . . and that even four months is a long time to be going up and down a narrow river with people shooting at you from behind thick foliage from both sides. Kerry could easily have been killed. Others were. It is an upside down world when one guy can be given special consideration to avoid Vietnam – Bush lied about this in 1994, as documented Monday – and can then fail to show up for a required physical (what was he afraid it would reveal?) . . . and can then fail to show up for several months’ service . . . and yet, with all that, manage to smear the record of a man who volunteered for four years’ service, and volunteered to be stationed in Vietnam, and volunteered for truly dangerous duty . . . who attacked the enemy aggressively, who saved American lives, who was wounded – all this backed up and attested to by all the military records and by all the surviving members of his crew. Hand it to the Bush character assassins. They are good at what they do. But good enough to win your vote?