the daily snivel
Bush B-Gone
Wednesday, October 20, 2004 Well, Tucker Carlson is a dick.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is my daily dose of sanity. I don't watch a lot of television between school, the Clinic, and fraternizing, but I watch that show faithfully and with zeal. The Daily Show is a refreshing counterweight to the inane conventional wisdom purveyed by an increasingly lazy, timid, and tepid news media and the army of loudmouth talking heads commanding it. I've already read America (the book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction and bought copies for friends, because it's such an outstanding and delightful work.
So, when Stewart, who has long been critical of punditfests like CNN's crossfire, appeared on the show to confront its hosts, it was great to see him continuing this message.
See the Toronto Star article about it here.
The transcript is available on-line here. I like Angela's cleaned-up version better, but you may have to search for it.
Better yet, watch the video here.
Thursday, October 14, 2004 So, when Stewart, who has long been critical of punditfests like CNN's crossfire, appeared on the show to confront its hosts, it was great to see him continuing this message.
See the Toronto Star article about it here.
Stewart would not act like the comic "monkey" CNN obviously expected him to be when it booked him. He was supposed to be the good guest, and go through the motions of plugging the bestseller, The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Presents America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide To Democracy Inaction.
Instead, he lashed out at Crossfire's "partisan hackery," and accused the daily political screamfest of "hurting America."
Appearing in a grey V-neck and looking very serious, Stewart relentlessly went after the program, as he often does on the Daily Show. (His preferred punching bag is Carlson's conservative cohort, Robert Novak, whom Stewart calls "Douchebag for Liberty.")
Insisting that calling Crossfire a debate show is "like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition," Stewart charged: "You're doing theatre, when you should be doing debate ... What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery."
Stewart was making an appeal for serious political discussion, free of partisan spin, talking points, lies and deception.
The transcript is available on-line here. I like Angela's cleaned-up version better, but you may have to search for it.
Better yet, watch the video here.
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
Three debates, three disasters for George W. Bush. Here's the transcript.
Tonight he came off to the voters, once again, as smirking, jumpy, pugilistic, arrogant, and dishonest. This was his last chance to convince people to vote for him, and instead all he could manage was a litany of sound bites about why people shouldn't vote for his prepared, charismatic, well-spoken, and presidential opponent.
But onto the lies:
Liar!
What he said on March 13, 2002:
Video link if you're not much for the reading. [or here if that one goes down]
Next we move on to the economy. This is dangerous territory for Bush, because the economy has suffered terribly under his administration's ideology:
And when you're the President of the United States and you're hit hard with fact after damning fact, what do you do? Why, you change the subject, of course. And, of course, you also make stuff up about your opponent:
That's the President: forget about what I did, lookit that librul over there!
Magicians do this trick all the time. It's called misdirection. A puff of smoke, a flash of light, a dash of the hand. It turns your eye away at the critical moment from the sleight of hand. Bush does it again on the topic of jobs:
So, when questioned about jobs, Bush waves his hands and talks about his education plan. He'll do this again later. I'll point it out for you.
And Kerry calls him on it:
Later in the evening comes a question about the minimum wage, and the fact that real wages are dropping in the United States and more people are living in poverty. Here's what John Kerry had to say:
And what does George W. Bush have to say about living standards?
There's more of that famous misdirection. The only thing Bush can talk about in terms of the domestic situation is the No Child Left Behind Act, which is an underfunded set of empty promises. And it's all he has, so he's stretched it as far as he can. Yes, it really is a jobs act, Mr. President. Now settle down and drink your juice.
[update:] See World O'Crap for some more excellent snarkiness and fact-checking.
Corrente has more of Bush's lies tonight, and offers some excellent analysis.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004 Tonight he came off to the voters, once again, as smirking, jumpy, pugilistic, arrogant, and dishonest. This was his last chance to convince people to vote for him, and instead all he could manage was a litany of sound bites about why people shouldn't vote for his prepared, charismatic, well-spoken, and presidential opponent.
But onto the lies:
I have got a comprehensive strategy to not only chase down the Al Qaida, wherever it exists -- and we're making progress; three-quarters of Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice -- but to make sure that countries that harbor terrorists are held to account.
We're doing everything we can to protect our borders and ports.
But absolutely we can be secure in the long run. It just takes good, strong leadership.
SCHIEFFER: Anything to add, Senator Kerry?
KERRY: Yes. When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.
KERRY: Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."
SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?
BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.
Liar!
What he said on March 13, 2002:
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
Video link if you're not much for the reading. [or here if that one goes down]
Next we move on to the economy. This is dangerous territory for Bush, because the economy has suffered terribly under his administration's ideology:
SCHEIFFER: Senator Kerry, a new question. Let's talk about economic security. You pledged during the last debate that you would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year. But the price of everything is going up, and we all know it. Health care costs, as you all talking about, is skyrocketing, the cost of the war.
My question is, how can you or any president, whoever is elected next time, keep that pledge without running this country deeper into debt and passing on more of the bills that we're running up to our children?
KERRY: I'll tell you exactly how I can do it: by reinstating what President Bush took away, which is called pay as you go.
During the 1990s, we had pay-as-you-go rules. If you were going to pass something in the Congress, you had to show where you are going to pay for it and how.
President Bush has taken -- he's the only president in history to do this.
He's also the only president in 72 years to lose jobs -- 1.6 million jobs lost. He's the only president to have incomes of families go down for the last three years; the only president to see exports go down; the only president to see the lowest level of business investment in our country as it is today.
Now, I'm going to reverse that. I'm going to change that. We're going to restore the fiscal discipline we had in the 1990s.
Every plan that I have laid out -- my health-care plan, my plan for education, my plan for kids to be able to get better college loans -- I've shown exactly how I'm going to pay for those.
And we start -- we don't do it exclusively -- but we start by rolling back George Bush's unaffordable tax cut for the wealthiest people, people earning more than $200,000 a year, and we pass, hopefully, the McCain-Kerry Commission which identified some $60 billion that we can get.
We shut the loophole which has American workers actually subsidizing the loss of their own job. They just passed an expansion of that loophole in the last few days: $43 billion of giveaways, including favors to the oil and gas industry and the people importing ceiling fans from China.
I'm going to stand up and fight for the American worker. And I am going to do it in a way that's fiscally sound. I show how I pay for the health care, how we pay for the education.
I have a manufacturing jobs credit. We pay for it by shutting that loophole overseas. We raise the student loans. I pay for it by changing the relationship with the banks.
This president has never once vetoed one bill; the first president in a hundred years not to do that.
And when you're the President of the United States and you're hit hard with fact after damning fact, what do you do? Why, you change the subject, of course. And, of course, you also make stuff up about your opponent:
SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?
BUSH: Well, his rhetoric doesn't match his record.
He been a senator for 20 years. He voted to increase taxes 98 times. When they tried to reduce taxes, he voted against that 127 times. He talks about being a fiscal conservative, or fiscally sound, but he voted over -- he voted 277 times to waive the budget caps, which would have cost the taxpayers $4.2 trillion.
He talks about PAYGO. I'll tell you what PAYGO means, when you're a senator from Massachusetts, when you're a colleague of Ted Kennedy, pay go means: You pay, and he goes ahead and spends.
That's the President: forget about what I did, lookit that librul over there!
Magicians do this trick all the time. It's called misdirection. A puff of smoke, a flash of light, a dash of the hand. It turns your eye away at the critical moment from the sleight of hand. Bush does it again on the topic of jobs:
SCHIEFFER: Let's go to a new question, Mr. President. Two minutes. And let's continue on jobs.
You know, there are all kind of statistics out there, but I want to bring it down to an individual.
Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?
BUSH: I'd say, Bob, I've got policies to continue to grow our economy and create the jobs of the 21st century. And here's some help for you to go get an education. Here's some help for you to go to a community college.
We've expanded trade adjustment assistance. We want to help pay for you to gain the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century.
You know, there's a lot of talk about how to keep the economy growing. We talk about fiscal matters. But perhaps the best way to keep jobs here in America and to keep this economy growing is to make sure our education system works.
So, when questioned about jobs, Bush waves his hands and talks about his education plan. He'll do this again later. I'll point it out for you.
And Kerry calls him on it:
KERRY: I want you to notice how the president switched away from jobs and started talking about education principally.
Let me come back in one moment to that, but I want to speak for a second, if I can, to what the president said about fiscal responsibility.
Being lectured by the president on fiscal responsibility is a little bit like Tony Soprano talking to me about law and order in this country.
(LAUGHTER)
This president has taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see. Health-care costs for the average American have gone up 64 percent; tuitions have gone up 35 percent; gasoline prices up 30 percent; Medicare premiums went up 17 percent a few days ago; prescription drugs are up 12 percent a year.
But guess what, America? The wages of Americans have gone down. The jobs that are being created in Arizona right now are paying about $13,700 less than the jobs that we're losing.
And the president just walks on by this problem. The fact is that he's cut job-training money. $1 billion was cut. They only added a little bit back this year because it's an election year.
They've cut the Pell Grants and the Perkins loans to help kids be able to go to college.
They've cut the training money. They've wound up not even extending unemployment benefits and not even extending health care to those people who are unemployed.
I'm going to do those things, because that's what's right in America: Help workers to transition in every respect.
Later in the evening comes a question about the minimum wage, and the fact that real wages are dropping in the United States and more people are living in poverty. Here's what John Kerry had to say:
SCHIEFFER: The gap between rich and poor is growing wider. More people are dropping into poverty. Yet the minimum wage has been stuck at, what, $5.15 an hour now for about seven years. Is it time to raise it?
KERRY: Well, I'm glad you raised that question.
It's long overdue time to raise the minimum wage.
And, America, this is one of those issues that separates the president and myself.
We have fought to try to raise the minimum wage in the last years. But the Republican leadership of the House and Senate won't even let us have a vote on it. We're not allowed to vote on it. They don't want to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage is the lowest minimum wage value it has been in our nation in 50 years.
If we raise the minimum wage, which I will do over several years to $7 an hour, 9.2 million women who are trying to raise their families would earn another $3,800 a year.
The president has denied 9.2 million women $3,800 a year, but he doesn't hesitate to fight for $136,000 to a millionaire.
One percent of America got $89 billion last year in a tax cut, but people working hard, playing by the rules, trying to take care of their kids, family values, that we're supposed to value so much in America -- I'm tired of politicians who talk about family values and don't value families.
What we need to do is raise the minimum wage. We also need to hold onto equal pay. Women work for 76 cents on the dollar for the same work that men do. That's not right in America.
And we had an initiative that we were working on to raise women's pay. They've cut it off. They've stopped it. They don't enforce these kinds of things.
Now, I think that it a matter of fundamental right that if we raise the minimum wage, 15 million Americans would be positively affected. We'd put money into the hands of people who work hard, who obey the rules, who play for the American Dream.
And if we did that, we'd have more consumption ability in America, which is what we need right in order to kick our economy into gear. I will fight tooth and nail to pass the minimum wage.
And what does George W. Bush have to say about living standards?
BUSH: Actually, Mitch McConnell had a minimum-wage plan that I supported that would have increased the minimum wage.
But let me talk about what's really important for the worker you're referring to. And that's to make sure the education system works. It's to make sure we raise standards.
Listen, the No Child Left Behind Act is really a jobs act when you think about it. The No Child Left Behind Act says, "We'll raise standards. We'll increase federal spending. But in return for extra spending, we now want people to measure -- states and local jurisdictions to measure to show us whether or not a child can read or write or add and subtract."
There's more of that famous misdirection. The only thing Bush can talk about in terms of the domestic situation is the No Child Left Behind Act, which is an underfunded set of empty promises. And it's all he has, so he's stretched it as far as he can. Yes, it really is a jobs act, Mr. President. Now settle down and drink your juice.
[update:] See World O'Crap for some more excellent snarkiness and fact-checking.
Corrente has more of Bush's lies tonight, and offers some excellent analysis.
As always, Angela nails it.
I honestly don't know where she finds these gems. While I suspect there are factual quibbles to be made with the article, you really do have to concede that (as I have previously maintained) today's taken-for-granted institutions are yesterday's liberal ideas. Unfortunately, she doesn't have a system for referencing "permalinks" or archived links (at least not until she archives them), so I'm going to reproduce her post here:
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.
The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
Fan mail
One thing I've noticed lately is that there's been a huge increase in traffic to my website. My webhost allows me to buy ad-free hosting per set amount of bandwidth (a year or two gigabytes of data transfer, whichever comes first). When I first moved from my Carleton University webspace to bigjuicybrains.net, I actually found that this was plenty. Now, however, I've blown through over a gigabyte in transfers in a little over three months.
It may soon be time to upgrade.
Anyway, here's some mail I got today. It bugged me, not so much because it was critical, but because he seemed to base his conclusions on the most cursory of glances at my website, and so I felt both misjudged and insultingly condescended to. My response follows.
My response:
Hi,
In regards to your e-mail, I'm always happy to get someone else's perspectives on the world, so thanks for writing. In one sense I agree with you when you say that raw intelligence doesn't necessarily equate with being "smart" but I do take exception with your e-mail mainly for the reason that I don't think you've read nearly enough of my website, or know nearly enough about me as a person, to begin pronouncing judgment.
It's true that some things I've written focus on notions of misanthropy, but most of those were written quite a few years ago, and I've written much more since then about political activism, legal change, and social justice. I really don't care about fame or exceptionalism in the way that you imply. My website has always been about showing my good AND bad sides to the world, and never trying to filter things out to leave the best possible impression of me. I could take down all the things that I don't really think or agree with any more, but I've always felt that would defeat the purpose and deny the fact that I have grown and changed.
In terms of "making a contribution to the world," all I can say is that I'm in my final year of law school and I've spent the past year of that serving the community at my school's poverty law clinic. I continuously put in 20-25 hours a week there with a heavy caseload above and beyond the obligations of my other classes because I love helping people in need, and never look for thanks or recognition for this. I'm also actively involved in my school's innocence project, which aims to exonerate the wrongfully convicted by presenting new evidence that was not available or not presented at trial. I'm also an active volunteer in the community and I'm going to work for a legal aid criminal law firm after I graduate so that I can continue to be of assistance to people who need advocates in a time of singular need. I have no interest in becoming rich or famous and certainly don't ask anyone to pat me on the back for following my social conscience.
Perhaps in some very superficial assessment you have determined that I am a self-aggrandizing and immature person with no life experience, but in all honesty I think you've completely missed the mark. You take things as literal when they are meant in jest, and seemed to have missed a whole boatload of content about my abhorrence of cruelty, greed, exploitation, and violence. My worst sin is probably that I have an uncensored web page and the odd lamentation against ignorance, but I think this just shows that I really DON'T care what other people think of me, or I'd spend more time tailoring it to show the best possible side.
Cheers,
Rob.
Monday, October 11, 2004 It may soon be time to upgrade.
Anyway, here's some mail I got today. It bugged me, not so much because it was critical, but because he seemed to base his conclusions on the most cursory of glances at my website, and so I felt both misjudged and insultingly condescended to. My response follows.
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:49:55 -0600
From: Ian J beacom
Subject: A suggestion to improve your intellect.
I was surfing the net looking for more information on misanthropy when i discovered your website. All I can say is this: you need to learn a lot more...only then will you'll realize many things including how ignorant you are (non-informed), how arrogant (artificial inflated sense of self-importance) and what a low sense self-esteem you have. I suggest you read an excellent book by Alan de Botton, called Status Anxiety.
Just because you have a high intelligence quotient doesn't mean you're necessarily smart. "smart" invovles a mix of knowledge, experience (one area I can tell you lack in), and critical thinking.
Also, just because you have a high IQ doesn't mean you should ever have an attitude about it...after all, you never personally ACHIEVED IT, but rather lucked in in the gamble of nature (genetics). Having an ego about something you never personally achieved or worked for (especially when it is used to put down others) is a laughable attempt at trying to boost your own obviously low levels of self esteem. People with real self esteem don't care what others think about them. As well, they don't crave to be famous, take over the world, and base their pathetic attempt at grasping happiness on how much others love them.....You should evolve....Misanthropy does nobody any good...espacially the rest of the world....why don't you use your so called "great brains" and do something good for humanity (after all, you want to leave a legacy don't you?). Perhaps then you can actually start to feel proud of yourself (look up the term intelligent misanthropy!). Good luck. Ian.
My response:
Hi,
In regards to your e-mail, I'm always happy to get someone else's perspectives on the world, so thanks for writing. In one sense I agree with you when you say that raw intelligence doesn't necessarily equate with being "smart" but I do take exception with your e-mail mainly for the reason that I don't think you've read nearly enough of my website, or know nearly enough about me as a person, to begin pronouncing judgment.
It's true that some things I've written focus on notions of misanthropy, but most of those were written quite a few years ago, and I've written much more since then about political activism, legal change, and social justice. I really don't care about fame or exceptionalism in the way that you imply. My website has always been about showing my good AND bad sides to the world, and never trying to filter things out to leave the best possible impression of me. I could take down all the things that I don't really think or agree with any more, but I've always felt that would defeat the purpose and deny the fact that I have grown and changed.
In terms of "making a contribution to the world," all I can say is that I'm in my final year of law school and I've spent the past year of that serving the community at my school's poverty law clinic. I continuously put in 20-25 hours a week there with a heavy caseload above and beyond the obligations of my other classes because I love helping people in need, and never look for thanks or recognition for this. I'm also actively involved in my school's innocence project, which aims to exonerate the wrongfully convicted by presenting new evidence that was not available or not presented at trial. I'm also an active volunteer in the community and I'm going to work for a legal aid criminal law firm after I graduate so that I can continue to be of assistance to people who need advocates in a time of singular need. I have no interest in becoming rich or famous and certainly don't ask anyone to pat me on the back for following my social conscience.
Perhaps in some very superficial assessment you have determined that I am a self-aggrandizing and immature person with no life experience, but in all honesty I think you've completely missed the mark. You take things as literal when they are meant in jest, and seemed to have missed a whole boatload of content about my abhorrence of cruelty, greed, exploitation, and violence. My worst sin is probably that I have an uncensored web page and the odd lamentation against ignorance, but I think this just shows that I really DON'T care what other people think of me, or I'd spend more time tailoring it to show the best possible side.
Cheers,
Rob.
Terrible news, everyone...
Christopher Reeve died this weekend at the age of 52.
Every major media outlet been mentioning this, so I'm not posting is so much because it's breaking news as I am because of the personal impact this news had on me. I almost cried when I heard this. When I was a boy, I absolutely loved the Superman movies, and since his starring role, Christopher Reeve has remained synonymous with Superman. People don't mention Village of the Damned when they talk about him. No, it's Superman.
The Superman movies thrilled me when I was a kid, and seeing Christopher Reeve as that superhuman boy scout, who could not tell a lie, who was never greedy or vindictive and never sought power over others, served as a very early role model for me. I don't think I'm alone in that either -- I'm sure that, for a generation of kids who tied towels around their necks like capes and ran around the house pretending they were heroes, too, Christopher Reeve embodied the ultimate good guy. Someone who would never let you down.
I've since grown up, and filled my life with real-life heroes and role models, but deep down I never let go of that ideal that Reeve's portrayal Superman embodies. I went into law because I want to help people, and I work in a poverty law clinic because I don't want people's ability to pay to be the determinative factor in how much I can help them. I want to defend the underdog, and do what's right over what is profitable. I can't jump over tall buildings, but I can be honest and dependable and concerned with truth and justice and playing by the rules. My moral compass is quite significantly oriented to those values I loved as a small boy -- doing good because you had power, and because it was right.
After Reeve's accident, he gained a new prominence as an active proponent of research aimed to help the disabled. I don't think there's a worse fate than to have your vital, active mind trapped in a paralyzed and helpless body, and Reeve helped shine the spotlight on new paths of research -- such as stem cell therapy -- that might one day improve the quality of life for the paralyzed. I think we should take a lesson from his passing, as well as the passing of Ronald Reagan -- and, without a doubt, the tragedies and struggles of the thousands of non-celebrities afflicted with grave trauma to the nervous system and degenerative diseases -- and redouble our focus and dedication on making those forms of research viable.
We need more stem cell lines.
Fetal stem cell tissue comes from unimplanted test tube babies that would be discarded in any event, and not aborted fetuses. When I heard of some people making light of Reeve's death because he supported stem cell resarch, saying things like "I hope there are wheelchair ramps in hell," I was enraged by the ignorance.
We need more knowledge.
We need more funding.
We need more courage in our government.
Make these lives and these deaths mean something - donate, vote, support.
Every major media outlet been mentioning this, so I'm not posting is so much because it's breaking news as I am because of the personal impact this news had on me. I almost cried when I heard this. When I was a boy, I absolutely loved the Superman movies, and since his starring role, Christopher Reeve has remained synonymous with Superman. People don't mention Village of the Damned when they talk about him. No, it's Superman.
The Superman movies thrilled me when I was a kid, and seeing Christopher Reeve as that superhuman boy scout, who could not tell a lie, who was never greedy or vindictive and never sought power over others, served as a very early role model for me. I don't think I'm alone in that either -- I'm sure that, for a generation of kids who tied towels around their necks like capes and ran around the house pretending they were heroes, too, Christopher Reeve embodied the ultimate good guy. Someone who would never let you down.
I've since grown up, and filled my life with real-life heroes and role models, but deep down I never let go of that ideal that Reeve's portrayal Superman embodies. I went into law because I want to help people, and I work in a poverty law clinic because I don't want people's ability to pay to be the determinative factor in how much I can help them. I want to defend the underdog, and do what's right over what is profitable. I can't jump over tall buildings, but I can be honest and dependable and concerned with truth and justice and playing by the rules. My moral compass is quite significantly oriented to those values I loved as a small boy -- doing good because you had power, and because it was right.
After Reeve's accident, he gained a new prominence as an active proponent of research aimed to help the disabled. I don't think there's a worse fate than to have your vital, active mind trapped in a paralyzed and helpless body, and Reeve helped shine the spotlight on new paths of research -- such as stem cell therapy -- that might one day improve the quality of life for the paralyzed. I think we should take a lesson from his passing, as well as the passing of Ronald Reagan -- and, without a doubt, the tragedies and struggles of the thousands of non-celebrities afflicted with grave trauma to the nervous system and degenerative diseases -- and redouble our focus and dedication on making those forms of research viable.
We need more stem cell lines.
Fetal stem cell tissue comes from unimplanted test tube babies that would be discarded in any event, and not aborted fetuses. When I heard of some people making light of Reeve's death because he supported stem cell resarch, saying things like "I hope there are wheelchair ramps in hell," I was enraged by the ignorance.
We need more knowledge.
We need more funding.
We need more courage in our government.
Make these lives and these deaths mean something - donate, vote, support.
Aw, who needs you?
[** updated ** October 12, 2004 at 4:47 pm]
It's not a good commentary on the either/both myself and/or the state of people these days when the romantically detached and unattainable girl of my dreams that I'm (not so) secretly in love with is nevertheless funnier, more literate, more interesting, and more interested in me than just about every real life lonely single gal actively looking for a man on lavalife.com.
I guess I should elaborate. Lately I've been feeling mopey, because I've been feeling very uncertain about what to do regarding my strong but unproductive feelings for someone special to me. I accept that this isn't the right time to be professing my affection, and decided that perhaps some distraction was in order. Accordingly, I reactivated my silly on-line dating profile for several days, thinking that even a couple of dates that went absolutely nowhere beyond long, drawn out efforts to politely drink coffee amidst a smattering of awkward chit-chat would lead me to realize that there were plenty of fish in the sea and that I needn't endure feverish, repetitive dreams about a certain someone every night.
So, several e-mail messages were sent (at 6 paid credits a pop!) over the course of a couple of days later, and for all of that sucking up of pride and making a real effort to reach out to people who by definition are lonely and desperate too, and -- nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Bah.
Profile deleted in a fit of self-loathing for having sunk so low and for having achieved so little.
Back to unfulfilling, lonesome, but more preferable dreams for me!
It's not a good commentary on the either/both myself and/or the state of people these days when the romantically detached and unattainable girl of my dreams that I'm (not so) secretly in love with is nevertheless funnier, more literate, more interesting, and more interested in me than just about every real life lonely single gal actively looking for a man on lavalife.com.
I guess I should elaborate. Lately I've been feeling mopey, because I've been feeling very uncertain about what to do regarding my strong but unproductive feelings for someone special to me. I accept that this isn't the right time to be professing my affection, and decided that perhaps some distraction was in order. Accordingly, I reactivated my silly on-line dating profile for several days, thinking that even a couple of dates that went absolutely nowhere beyond long, drawn out efforts to politely drink coffee amidst a smattering of awkward chit-chat would lead me to realize that there were plenty of fish in the sea and that I needn't endure feverish, repetitive dreams about a certain someone every night.
So, several e-mail messages were sent (at 6 paid credits a pop!) over the course of a couple of days later, and for all of that sucking up of pride and making a real effort to reach out to people who by definition are lonely and desperate too, and -- nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Bah.
Profile deleted in a fit of self-loathing for having sunk so low and for having achieved so little.
Back to unfulfilling, lonesome, but more preferable dreams for me!
Buy this book
From America (The Book) by Jon Stewart:
Buy online:
www.amazon.com
www.chapters.indigo.ca
Saturday, October 09, 2004
A free and independent press is essential to the health of a functioning democracy. It serves to inform the voting public on matters relevant to its well-being. Why they've stopped doing this is a mystery. I mean, 300 camera crews outside a courthouse to see what Kobe Bryant is wearing when the judge sets his hearing date, while false information used to send our country to war goes unchecked? What the fuck happened? These spineless cowards in the press have finally gone too far. They have violated a trust. "Was the president successful in convincing the country?" Who gives a shit? Why not tell us if what he said was true? And the excuses. My God, the excuses! "Hey, we just give the people what they want." "What can we do, this administration is secretive." "But the last season of Friends really is news." The unmitigated gall of these weak-willed... You're supposed to be helping us, you indecent piles of shit! I... fuck it. Just fuck it...
Buy online:
www.amazon.com
www.chapters.indigo.ca
Furious George
From the official Kerry-Edwards campaign blog:
BUSH GOES NEGATIVE… ON CHARLIE GIBSON?
“President Bush smirked and winked and chuckled to himself. He jumped from his stool, chopped at the air and interrupted the debate moderator. As he fought to keep his emotions in check in a testy, personal debate with Sen. John Kerry, the president asserted, ‘That answer almost made me scowl.’” [AP, 10/8/04]
“An angry Bush at one point cut off moderator Charles Gibson to upbraid Kerry for criticizing the size of the coalition backing the United States in Iraq, saying it denigrated allies like Britain and Poland.” [Reuters, 10/9/04]
“During his [Bush’s] own answers and rebuttals, he was pugnacious. He overrode moderator Charles Gibson's protests at one point, saying loudly, ‘I have to answer this.’” [USA Today, 10/9/04]
BUSH ON DEFENSE
Mark Shields: “I thought the President played defense on an awful lot of issues tonight. I mean including the Canadian importation of drugs and so much on the economy, and as well as Iraq.” [PBS, 10/8/04]
Liz Marlantes, Christian Science Monitor: “I actually would in many ways characterize the president’s performance as heated and to me, at times; it seemed very defensive, actually.” [MSNBC, 10/9/04]
John Harwood, Wall Street Journal: “[Bush] was quite agitated at the beginning. He looked defensive, he looked like somebody who was sort of trying to push the rock up hill, convincing people why he really should have gone to war against Iraq even though there were no weapons of mass destruction.” [CNN, 10/8/04]
BUSH’S ANGER MANAGEMENT
“ANGRY MAN”
Jon Meachan: “That was so interesting to me about President Bush is that he seemed like an angry man tonight, and clearly Kerry got under his skin in the first debate and instead of frankly not letting butter melt in his mouth, tonight he seemed to me to be speaking very loudly.” [PBS, 10/9/04]
Melinda Henneberger: “[Bush] seemed angry to me.” [MSNBC 10/9/04]
“TIGHTLY COILED”
Liz Marlantes, Christian Science Monitor: “[Bush] still has some of those things… I mean, you look at his face, he’s so tightly coiled; he’s got the jaw, he’s doing the blinking thing.” [MSNBC, 10/9/04]
“TENSE AND ANGRY”
Joe Klein: “…Bush seemed tense and angry. The person who wins is the person when you turn off the sound, the one who looks better to the public – that was Kerry tonight. Bush is supposed to be the laid back regular guy, [but] he seems more tense than Kerry does.” [CNN, 10/9/04]
“When Mr. Kerry accused the president of going to war unilaterally, Mr. Bush could not suppress his anger. He jumped off his stool and interrupted the moderator, Charles Gibson of ABC, saying, ‘I've got to answer this.’ Mr. Gibson wanted to pursue the subject of whether deploying Reserves constituted a form of military draft, but Mr. Bush was adamant. ‘Let me just answer what he just said about going alone,’ he insisted. ‘You tell Tony Blair we're going alone! Tell Tony Blair we're going alone!’” [New York Times, 10/9/04]
“STRIDENT AND INTENSE”
“At the outset, Bush seemed strident and intense, as if over-eager to avoid a repetition of his pained performance eight days ago.” [New York Times, 10/9/04]
“[Bush]...could have used more humility and was almost shrill at times.” [Editorial, Dallas Morning News, 10/9/04]
“The president seemed to fall back frequently on name-calling....” [Editorial, New York Times, 10/9/04]
NIXON-LIKE
“Bush ‘seemed wound a bit too tight. He was a little like Nixon – sort of jumping out of his suit,’ said David Niven, political science professor at Florida Atlantic University. ‘He looked bad on the TV close-ups.’” [AP, 10/9/04]
HOT UNDER THE COLLAR
“The president...let his feelings get the better of him, getting hot under the collar in a medium best served cold. From the outset, his clenched jaw twitched, and he blinked repeatedly, like a man whose contact lens hurt. And when Senator John Kerry turned and confronted him face to face with the latest report on the absence of illicit weapons in Iraq, President Bush snickered derisively - the first sign that the president, though more combative than in the first debate, was not on his game.” [New York Times, 10/9/04]
“AGITATED”
“Bush, curbing most of the signs of frustration that marked his performance in last week's debate, grew agitated after Kerry asserted the United States is bearing the burden in Iraq.” [Houston Chronicle, 10/9/04]
“FLUSTERED”
“[Bush]...did come across as flustered at a couple points in the evening, referring to his opponent as ‘Sen. Kennedy,’ who is the senior senator from Massachusetts. When asked about the draft, Bush declared: ‘I hear there is a rumor on the Internets.’” [Chicago Tribune, 10/9/04]
BUSH’S DEJA VU EXPRESSIONS
“Mr. Bush seemed hesitant and spoke loudly when he took the stage...at times he flashed glances of anger at Mr. Kerry that were reminiscent of his demeanor the week before.” [New York Times, 10/9/04]
“And not unlike that first battle, the president sounded angry and defensive, as if scolding the undecided. ‘Yeah, great question,’ he said when a man asked him about the draft.” [New York Times, 10/9/04]
“Bush kept his smirks and other body language in check more so than he did in the first debate, though at times he still let them roam. At one point, Bush even interrupted moderator Charles Gibson to lecture Kerry about the allied coalition in Iraq: ‘You tell (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair we're going alone!’” [Arizona Republic, 10/9/04]
Thinking back to the Democratic primaries last spring, I thought the media made way too much out of the "Dean Scream," but, frankly, I think last night's performance was Bush's Dean Scream.
As Burnt Orange Report puts it:
And we had Britain, and Italy, and Poland, and Ukraine, and Fiji, and Vanuatu... and then we went into Iraq to take down Saddam! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEARRGH
The scary little man...
The word on the second Kerry vs. Bush debate, from truthout.org:
Full article here.
See the video of George W. Bush flipping out.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
In my report on the first debate, I described Bush as, "Shrill. Defensive. Muddled. Angry, very angry. Repetitive. Uninformed. Outmatched. Unprepared. Hesitant." As bad as that display was, it honestly paled in comparison to the frenzied hectoring Bush sprayed at 140 Missouri citizens who had the ill fortune of watching the man come unglued before their eyes.
John Kerry, by comparison, was every inch the controlled prosecutor pressing his case to the jury. It was, perhaps, that calm delineation of Bush's myriad errors which caused the Republican candidate to blow his stack. Exactly 30 minutes into the debate, Bush became so agitated by Kerry's description of the "back-door draft," which is literally bleeding the life out of our National Guard and Reserve forces, that he lunged out of his chair and shrieked over moderator Charles Gibson, who was trying to maintain some semblance of decorum.
"You tell Tony Blair we're going alone," Bush roared. "Tell Tony Blair we're going alone!" The disturbed murmur from the crowd was audible. Bush, simply, frightened them.
More unsettling than Bush's demonstrable agitation was his almost uncanny disconnect from reality.
Full article here.
See the video of George W. Bush flipping out.
And now for some hot Edwards on Cheney action!
Last night I was running a fever, so I left the Clinic early (that is, at 7:00 pm) and skipped my forensic science class. My friend Mélanie treated us to some Thai, and we watched the Vice Presidential debates between Dick Cheney and John Edwards. I'm a bit of a fiend for this upcoming election, notwithstanding the fact that I'm not American, because I'm simply so worried about the path that the United States will continue on if George W. Bush is re-elected, I have to stay on top of every development lest I go mad with worry and grief.
In terms of the debate itself, I like the way Jon Stewart put it: "the debate was really quite dull until Dick Cheney unhinged his jaw, and then devoured and slowly began digesting John Edwards. When asked for an explanation, Cheney responded, 'I need his life energy.'"
This was an interesting debate because of the fact that Cheney and Edwards are strong speakers with good rhetorical skills. In many ways, they are the dream candidates for their respective parties who simply could not win the nomination on their own because of other perceived weaknesses (Edwards' relative youth and inexperience, and Cheney's remorseless diet of newborn kittens). They both put forward a lot of facts with heavy partisan slants, and I think at the end of the day most spectators will agree it ended in a draw. I, however, am biased, so I think Edwards still carried it well. He was more forthright, optimistic, and energetic than Cheney, who seemed grumpy, resigned, and terribly, terribly negative. His job, as alwayas, was to scare voters into giving the Bush-Cheney ticket another chance. And, actually, taking a quick look at some post-debate poll numbers (I'm such a wonk), it looks like a fair majority have given up on that boobeyman's message, and agreed that Edwards did a better job.
Cheney was quite strong and aggressive on foreign policy issues, which in one sense is unsurprising as it has been almost the singular focus of that administration, and on the other hand is surprising because they've done such an awful job of mucking about in the world. But basically I felt that Cheney fibbed so often that Edwards had his work cut out sorting simply through it all. Consider the fact that Cheney lied about the Iraq-terrorism connection, alternatingly saying that there was one (lie 1), but also that he never said Saddam had anything to do with September 11, 2001 (lie 2). Responding to a serious critique of Cheney's record by Edwards, Cheney attempted to rebuke Senator Edwards by pointing to his attendance record in the Senate -- and in order to be able to get that zinger out, Cheney even lied about not having ever met Edwards before he walked onto the stage.
On the other hand, Edwards did much better on the domestic front, especially because the jobs figures are piss poor right now (just 96,000 new jobs were created last month, worsened by the fact that there were 110,000 announced layoffs in September. You need 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with population growth), as well as the fact that he stood his ground on health care vs. tort reform (Cheney: "Trial lawyers are bad, m'kay?" Edwards: "Actually, lawsuits only comprise 1% of healthcare costs."), and pointed out that Cheney voted against a resolution in support of freeing Nelson Mandela, voted against Head Start, he voted against banning plastic weapons that can pass through medical detectors, he voted against 'Meals on Wheels' for Seniors, and he voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. ("He voted against flunjers, capdabblers, and smendlers!" -- Dr. Seuss)
And Cheney didn't even try to respond to those.
I eagerly await the performance of Great Leader George W. Bush on Friday. They are getting desperate. Their messages are increasingly out of synch with what the news is telling us is actually happening, and they increasingly desperate.
"My opponent says he has a plan for Iraq. Parts of it should sound pretty familiar -- it's already known as the Bush plan."
"In Iraq, Senator Kerry has a strategy of retreat; I have a strategy of victory."
-- President Bush, in the same speech, this morning in Pennsylvania.
He's losing it.
From the spotted to the spotter
The weird thing about hitting the gym three or four times a week is that you are inevitably forced to progress from clueless, intimidated newcomer, and move towards becoming know-it-all, intimidating regular. Machines that once seemed baffling and inexplicable in purpose are now part of my alternating workout routines. Weights that were once unattainable are now being hoisted by my increasingly firm and defined muscle groups. I have to guiltily confess to even doing a little showboating once in awhile, and flexing in front of a mirror (though only when there's no one around). In my defence, it really does sicken me when I see guys strutting around the gym, constantly admiring themselves in mirrors and checking out all the girls like the musclebound narcissists they are. I think a dangerous point comes in the life of almost anyone serious about working out when it can move from self-improvement to self-obsession. It's a constant danger and is an intolerable vanity. There really is one guy in particular who is a serial offender in this regard, and he even makes little "I'm so sexy" faces as he poses unabashedly at every mirror he sees -- a real life Reggie Mantle.
The other night I was doing some bench presses (aside: I'm up to lifting 175 pounds now!), and was enjoying a quiet minute of repose after a set when I noticed a guy apparently lifting more than he could handle over at another bench. Indeed, the bar came down on his chest and he couldn't get it back up. He began calling out to a friend, who was busy working out somewhere else and hadn't noticed, but by that point I'd sprinted over and come to the rescue, and hefted the bar off him. He took some weights off after that and had his friend spot him. I felt good about being able to help out, but also about actually having progressed to the point where I'm on the lookout for others in trouble, and ready to help when someone is stuck or just learning, as opposed to needing a lot of help myself. These days I tend to work out on my own, or with a friend who's just learning, so I know my limits and increase my workouts incrementally and never to an exertion that is more than I could handle.
Not that I'm going about things entirely healthily. A good 75% of my motivation for working out is, of course, based upon my own health and self-esteem. But there's a lingering portion of motivation that is purely the vain quest for beauty, and to end up with body that I desperately hope a certain someone will notice and find attractive. Which isn't to say that I think she's in any way shallow, or that the sight of me sporting more bulgy muscles and a less bulgy tummy will suddenly make her see me in a different light. Our one date, with the many "fools rush in"-esque mistakes I made afterwards, and the close trust and friendship we've developed since then have probably put any past attraction to rest for her. But I will say that there are some nights... nights when I'm dead tired and would rather go home than spend half an hour on the elliptical machine and an hour and a half doing weights, that even the tiniest hope that I might someday nevertheless turn her head and put a twinkle in her eye... is why I ultimately go.
Sunday, October 03, 2004 The other night I was doing some bench presses (aside: I'm up to lifting 175 pounds now!), and was enjoying a quiet minute of repose after a set when I noticed a guy apparently lifting more than he could handle over at another bench. Indeed, the bar came down on his chest and he couldn't get it back up. He began calling out to a friend, who was busy working out somewhere else and hadn't noticed, but by that point I'd sprinted over and come to the rescue, and hefted the bar off him. He took some weights off after that and had his friend spot him. I felt good about being able to help out, but also about actually having progressed to the point where I'm on the lookout for others in trouble, and ready to help when someone is stuck or just learning, as opposed to needing a lot of help myself. These days I tend to work out on my own, or with a friend who's just learning, so I know my limits and increase my workouts incrementally and never to an exertion that is more than I could handle.
Not that I'm going about things entirely healthily. A good 75% of my motivation for working out is, of course, based upon my own health and self-esteem. But there's a lingering portion of motivation that is purely the vain quest for beauty, and to end up with body that I desperately hope a certain someone will notice and find attractive. Which isn't to say that I think she's in any way shallow, or that the sight of me sporting more bulgy muscles and a less bulgy tummy will suddenly make her see me in a different light. Our one date, with the many "fools rush in"-esque mistakes I made afterwards, and the close trust and friendship we've developed since then have probably put any past attraction to rest for her. But I will say that there are some nights... nights when I'm dead tired and would rather go home than spend half an hour on the elliptical machine and an hour and a half doing weights, that even the tiniest hope that I might someday nevertheless turn her head and put a twinkle in her eye... is why I ultimately go.
Get off the vote
Low voter turnout is a growing problem facing todays democratic governments. A number of solutions have been floated for this growing apathy, including mandatory voting laws. I've always been against forcing people to vote, as it strikes me as unconstitutional to impose a sanction on the exercise of democracy. But I do like the idea of encouraging voting, even though it's true that there aren't many candidates inspiring people to the polls these days. Nevertheless, some responsible voters taking it upon themselves to hit non-voters where it really hurts, which is the premise behind http://www.votergasm.org/. The idea is that registered voters take a pledge not to have sex with non-voters on election day. You can go further, all the way up to pledging to not have sex with non-voters for the next four years. In turms of fantastic reasons to cut people off, that strikes me as right being up there with failed condom negotiations.
What we need next is a Canadian version of this. Not that I'm getting any these days, but surely it could do some good for others.
What we need next is a Canadian version of this. Not that I'm getting any these days, but surely it could do some good for others.
This job would be so easy without all the questions and responsibility...
If you haven't been following the US Election as closely as I have, let me say that following the Presidential Debate on Thursday, October 30, the great consensus among pundits, analysts, Jon Stewart, and those polled is that John Kerry performed magnificently, projecting preparedness, confidence, consistency, and optimism, while George W. Bush looked petulant, irritable, sulky, and stupid.
This is what comes of a President who has held so few press conferences (the fewest ever during a Presidency: 12), who rarely appears outside of the safety bubble of pre-scripted questions and friendly audiences, and who honestly was never up to the job of being President of the United States. Bush has always kept a litany of patented themes and slogans close at hand, but has never offered much substance in his speeches or responses, leastwise not when there's no teleprompter in sight. And I'm delighted and relieved that, finally, a great many Americans are seeing the emperor without his clothes and realizing that he is a small and fearful man, not necessarily a bad man, but not one who should be leading the United States. And the Newsweek poll held after the debate showed just this: 47% of votes would vote for Kerry (49% without Nader in the running), compared to just 45% who would vote for Bush. Given that earlier polls showed a range of support for Bush somewhere between statistically insignificant lead and 10-point lead (notwithstanding that N = controversially oversampled Republican voters), I think (and hope and pray) that voters are sitting up and paying attention to the miserable failure Bush has been, and how few plans he has for improving matters either domestically or abroad.
Newsweek actually lays it out brutally here:
Bush, by contrast, sometimes looked peeved and impatient in the split screen, his features wrinkled into a smirk. Kerryites exchanged high-fives when their man uncorked a much-rehearsed defense of his vote against funding for the war in Iraq. And they were in ecstasy when he cleverly interpreted in strictly literal fashion Bush's statement that the war in Iraq had been launched in response to 9/11. "Saddam Hussein did not attack us, Osama bin Laden attacked us," intoned the senator—shocked, shocked. The unrehearsed move produced a devastatingly theatrical moment. Exasperated, Bush could only sputter: "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that." By the time grim-looking Bush aides marched into "Spin Alley," Kerry's team indeed were declaring victory.
Bush had very little to say about Iraq except that the coalition was strong and that Kerry kept forgetting to mention Poland. The same Poland who said this?
"They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride."
And as the Center for American Progress points out, here's how the rest of that strong Coalition in the War on Terra is doing:
President Bush said, “The alliance is strong.” FACT: The shaky international alliance in Iraq is disintegrating. Norway quietly pulled out its 155 military engineers last June, “leaving behind only about 15 personnel to assist a new NATO-coordinated effort to help train and equip Iraqi security forces. New Zealand intends to pull out its 60 engineers by September, while Thailand plans to withdraw its more than 450 troops that same month, barring a last-minute political reversal that Thai officials consider unlikely, say envoys from both countries. The Netherlands is likely to pull out next spring after the first of three Iraqi elections, while Polish military officials told the Pentagon that Poland's large contingent will probably leave in mid-2005, other diplomats say.” [Washington Post, 7/15/04]
Here is a quote from the transcript of one of the most telling moments in the debate:
Mr. Kerry: Jim, let me tell you exactly what I'll do. And there are a long list of things. First of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you've got $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers in the streets of Iraq and the president is cutting the cops program in America? What kind of message does it send to be sending money to open firehouses in Iraq but we're shutting firehouses, who are the first responders here in America? The president hasn't put one nickel - not one nickel - into the effort to fix some of our tunnels and bridges and most exposed subway systems. That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican convention was there. We haven't done the work that ought to be done.
The president - 95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected. Civilians get onto aircraft and their luggage is X-rayed, but the cargo hold is not X-rayed. Does that make you feel safer in America?
This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security. Those aren't my values. I believe in protecting America first. And long before President Bush and I get a tax cut - and that's who gets it - long before we do, I'm going to invest in homeland security and I'm going to make sure we're not cutting cops programs in America and we're fully staffed in our firehouses and that we protect the nuclear and chemical plants.
The president, also unfortunately, gave in to the chemical industry, which didn't want to do some of the things necessary to strengthen our chemical plant exposure. And there's an enormous undone job to protect the loose nuclear materials in the world that are able to get to terrorists. That's a whole other subject.
But I see we still have a little bit more time. Let me just quickly say, at the current pace, the president will not secure the loose material in the Soviet Union, former Soviet Union, for 13 years. I'm going to do it in four years. And we're going to keep it out of the hands of terrorists.
Mr. Lehrer: Ninety-second response, Mr. President.
Mr. Bush: I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap and - anyway, that's for another debate.
I have to say that I've always been optimistic about John Kerry's prospects in this election, but it's great to see energy and optimism in the air. America might finally be on the right track again.
One final note: I'd asked a friend to bring me back a Kerry/Edwards campaign pin while she was on a recent road trip to the United States. Instead, she and a friend pulled out a Kerry/Edwards lawn sign and brought it back for me. I wanted to apologize to anyone in the state of Pennsylvania who might have lost a cherished sign to that little mission (and who had perhaps blamed it on evil Republicans), but also say for the record that it went to a good home. Thanks.
