Archive for September 2004
Reuters reports that more that more than 100 countries signed on to a plan to combat world hunger – $50 billion in aid, and innovative ideas like “global tax on financial transactions, a tax on the sale of heavy arms, an international borrowing facility and a scheme for marketing credit cards whose users would donate a small percentage of their charges to the cause.” But…
But the leader of the U.S. delegation, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, coolly dismissed it.
“Economic growth is the long-term solution to hunger and poverty,” she told the meeting.
“The report should give more attention to practical steps to sustained growth. There is too much emphasis on schemes such as global taxes to raise external resources. Global taxes are inherently undemocratic. Implementation is impossible.”
Hearts and minds, hearts and minds…
Photographic Reinforcement of Why This Year Will be the First in Two Decades that I Do Not Attend a Single Yankee Game
I’m not quite ready to cheer for the Sox, but the Yanks are wearing out their welcome me-wise.
To be quite honest, I had partial season tickets in the bleachers at Yankee Stadium the last two seasons. But I couldn’t take it anymore. Paramount among other things: the homophobic cheers that the stadium guards ignore – while they eject fans for racist slurs. If they had a uniform policy for the two (spew whatever filth you want / spew no filth at all), I wouldn’t be blaming the team for it… But…
In short, no Yanks for me this year.
Interesting timeline of the debunking of the Bush guard docs in this week’s New York Observer. A piece by Robert Sam Anson. (Read it while it lasts on the site…)
Anyway, here’s the relevant section, “filched,” as Anson says, “from ABC’s “The Note” and the Los Angeles Times”:
At 8 p.m. last Wednesday, 60 Minutes broadcast Mr. Rather’s report, which centered on ex–Texas House Speaker and Democratic power Ben Barnes describing how he’d greased Mr. Bush’s way into the Guard (putting the lie to the longstanding claim that Dubya had made it on his own hook), and now felt bad on account. Mr. Barnes’ assistance wasn’t exactly a scoop, though that’s how Mr. Rather advertised it; in 1999, he’d told essentially the same story to the Dallas Morning News. All that was new was being on camera. Sandwiched between his recollections and White House communications director Dan Bartlett kicking them as “dirty politics,” the documents appeared, accompanied by Mr. Rather saying they’d been verified by “a handwriting analyst and document expert.” To bolster credence, there was an interview with a Texas Air Guard officer and friend of Killian’s, Robert Strong, who said the papers were “compatible” with the fella he remembered Jerry Killian being.
Not the most ringing testimony. Nor was the word of a single, unidentified, off-camera “expert” exactly open-and-shut proof. But Mr. Barnes was emphatic and—better yet—truthful. And Ben Barnes, Dan Rather said, was what the story was all about.
That’s not how it worked out.
Mr. Rather’s report hadn’t been over 10 minutes when a post appeared on the right-wing Web site FreeRepublic.com from “TankerKC,” saying the documents were “not in the style that we used when I came into the USAF … can we get a copy of those memos?”
Three hours and a little later, fat met fire with another FreeRepublic posting, this one from a blogger named “Buckhead.” He (or she—Buckhead won’t reveal his identity outside cyberspace) wrote:
Every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman. In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts. The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90’s. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn’t used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80’s used monospaced fonts. I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old …. This should be pursued aggressively.
Here the plot starts a-thickening.
First (leaving aside how suspiciously well Buckhead puts sentences together for a righty blogger), there’s the extraordinary, yeah, boggling, knowledge of typewriting arcana. More remarkable still are the circumstances under which discernment occurred. Namely, viewing the document on a TV screen from a presumed distance of six to a dozen feet. Folks who make their living at this sort of thing rely on magnifying glasses, if not microscopes. And they don’t venture opinions unless the document’s in their puss.
Then there’s the warp speed with which Buckhead discerned monkey business. The last big document mess was the trove that conned Seymour Hersh into believing Jack Kennedy signed a contract with Marilyn Monroe agreeing to pay a hundred grand in consideration of her shutting up about their adventures between the sheets, as well as his pillow talk of owing the 1960 election to the good offices of Chicago mob boss Sam (Momo) Giancana. Their exposure (in which your correspondent had a walk-on) took weeks. And those documents were nutso on their face.
Watching CNN tonight, and we get the latest report from the front. A Bradley Fighting Vehicle was attacked in Baghdad, disabled, burst into flames. (We are informed that all US personnel were successfully evacuated…)
And then this.
A crowd of people gather around the empty burning APC. Some are celebrating, some appear to simply be hanging about, watching… An Al-Arabiya reporter – a young, handsome guy – is reporting from the scene. And then, in the characteristic temporality of our time – out of nowhere comes concusion, smoke, fire. The reporter suddenly doubles over as the smoke fills the shot. A US Apache helicopter had opened fire on the crowd.
The cameraman reports later the last words of his co-worker, Mazen Al-Tomaizi:
“Seif, Seif! I’m going to die. I’m going to die.”
I rewind the program and watch it again (I have a DVR – I can do this sort of thing). I notice two things:
1) None of the people crowding around the Bradley, even standing on top of it, are visibly armed. No guns anywhere that I could see.
2) Immediately after the rocket lands, two, maybe three, drops of Al-Tomaizi’s blood dot the camera lens, my television screen. Tiny, almost invisible.
According to today’s Financial Times (full article not on-line):
World opinion, however, is unlikely to sway American voters. A third poll of 798 Americans also released yesterday showed that 74 per cent of undecided American voters would be unaffected by global attitudes about the presidential race.
Also, war close to obsolete in European minds:
The two sides disagreed on the use of force – only 41 per cent of Europeans said that war could achieve just ends, compared with 82 per cent of Americans.
Anybody else obsessively turning from whatever else you’re doing when the TIAA-CREF commercials come on. “There’s a place for us…” And this scene (in the newest iteration of the ad) of a professor guy in a huge lecture hall, out from behind the podium, hands a-punctuating his eloquent and excellent lecture.
Whoa. Little tears well up in the corners of the eyes every time I see it. Started running it during the Olympics, which was a good idea.
(For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about – maybe every one – TIAA-CREF is the company that handles retirement accounts and the like for universities and other cultural organizations and I guess the medical field as well. They just started a huge ad campaign, featuring images of teachers teaching, nurses nursing, curators curating, etc… )
It’s a facinating ad tactic, playing right in to the academics general sense that 1) he/she is in the biz for reasons way beyond the personal, mercenary and 2) that society never gives us the thanks we deserve.
But the question remains – why in the hell does TIAA-CREF need to advertise so extensively in the first place? Sort of like those defense company ads that run now and again on CNN. I understand there’s bucket of money to be made, but is CNN really the right venue to get this sort of message across?
Josh Marshall cites a poll that (somewhat ambiguously) confirms what I’ve been suspecting for awhile now. Everytime they show the polls on tv with Nader included, Nader’s picking up 5 percent (more or less the same number he was hitting in 2000, when I and beaucoups of other progressives voted for him). Given the fact that none of the folks that I knew would vote for Nader now – it’s almost laughable to even think about it – I’ve been wondering if a large number of the people chiming in for him in these polls don’t actually lean Republican.
The folks who voted Reform, Perot, who are pissed about outsourcing, about Walmart stealing their family business, corporate welfare, and the like… Interesting. Maybe it should be us instead of the Shady Right Wing Groups sending Ralphie the money…
New ICR poll, conducted September 1st-5th …
With Nader, among ‘likely voters': Bush:46, Kerry: 46, Nader: 4.
Without Nader, among ‘likely voters': Bush 48, Kerry 47.
Without Nader, among ‘registered voters': Bush 46, Kerry 47.