« October 2007 |
Main
| December 2007 »
November 2007 archives
A country governed by a despot is an inverted cone.
— Samuel Johnson
Mr. Bush is not disappointed in these fellow leaders. Quite the contrary. He’s envious. Although sharing their goals, he is far less successful than they. They have shown how democracy works in an ideal world. Mr. Bush, of course, has the misfortune to be the president of the United States, which is not an ideal democracy notwithstanding his efforts to make it so.
On November 21 Mr. Bush gave ABC news an interview during the course of which Pervez Musharraf’s name came up. Describing Mr. Musharraf, Mr. Bush said that he “truly is somebody who believes in democracy.” According to reports, the reporter interviewing Mr. Bush asked if there was any line Mr. Musharraf should not cross, to which Mr. Bush said: “He hasn’t crossed the line. As a matter of fact, I don’t think that he will cross any lines.” Mr. Bush went on to say that it was a good sign that on the same day he was being interviewed Mr. Musharraf had released thousands of people from jail. (The reporter could have asked Mr. Bush if it was so good for Mr. Musharraf to release people from jail, why Mr. Bush didn’t follow his lead and let some folks out of Guantanamo who have no business being there. He might have gone so far as to point out to Mr. Bush that releasing people from jail who should not be in jail was not half as good for democracy as the act of putting them in jail was bad for democracy.)
Here are some of the things Mr. Musharraf has done to demonstrate his belief in democracy. On November 3 he declared a state of emergency. He suspended the constitution, shut down 58 independent news stations and replaced all the justices on the Supreme Court. Their replacement was necessary because they were about to rule that his election as president in October was invalid. By removing them and replacing them with justices who would do his bidding he was able to perpetuate democracy in Pakistan. (The shut television stations were told they could reopen if they adhered to a government code of conduct that was imposed because, said Mr. Musharraf: “We want to bring some responsibility to them.” Among other things, a journalist can go to prison for three years if coverage “ridicules” the president or other government officials.) In response to criticism from Condoleezza Rice about the imposition of martial law before elections scheduled in January, Mr. Musharraf said that martial law was the best way to insure free and fair elections.
The other of Mr. Bush’s good friends, whom Mr. Bush resembles more than we realized when we elected him, is Russia’s Vladimir Putin. At the conclusion of Mr. Putin’s visit to the Bush compound in July, Mr. Bush praised Mr. Putin. He said: “Here’s the thing, when you’re dealing with a world leader, you wonder whether or not he’s telling the truth. I’ve never had to worry about that with Vladimir Putin.” Returning the compliment Mr. Putin said that common democratic values are important for both countries. He said that Russia and the United States face the same problems that have “to do with the relationship with the media; it has to do with human rights,” said he. We know how that’s playing out in Bush’s America. Here’s how it’s played out in Russia.
Putin’s term as president is drawing to a close. Parliamentary elections are to take place in Russia in December. Mr. Bush was disappointed in his hopes that Republicans would have a majority in Congress following the 2006 elections. Mr. Putin is not taking any chances that his party, United Russia, will suffer the fate of the Republicans. At a recent campaign rally he stirred up his supporters saying: “Regrettably, there are those inside the country who feed off foreign embassies like jackals and count on support of foreign funds and governments, and not their own people.” Not content with railing against his opponents, on November 24 a rally was held against Mr. Putin, and the riot police beat and then arrested those who attended, including Garry Kasparov, the former chess champion and leader of Other Russia, one of the opposition parties. Mr. Kasparov was charged with organizing an unsanctioned protest and resisting arrest and sentenced to five days in jail. In the southern Republic of Ingushetia three Moscow television journalists and a human rights activist were reported attacked by armed, masked men as they went to cover an opposition rally.
If this column leads the reader to believe that Mr. Bush likes all despots, it has erred. Mr. Bush has no use for Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, who has likened Mr. Bush to the devil. But for that comparison, Mr. Bush would probably find it in his heart to say good things about him as well.
Prognostics to not always prove prophecies-at least the wisest prophets make sure of the event first.
— Horace Walpole, Letters
I was half right. In June I wrote that September was going to be an exciting month in Iraq. I observed that that was the month in which funding for the war would end and the debate about the future of the war would begin. I also said it was going to be exciting because that was the month in which the new United States Embassy in Iraq would be opened. It was going to be the first major construction project in Iraq that had been completed on time and right on budget, an unusual occurrence in the United States but even more unusual in a place like Iraq. I also observed that unlike the rest of Iraq, this splendid edifice (as large as the Vatican with an ambassador’s residence of 16,000 square feet) would have its own water and power supply. That served to distinguish it from the rest of Iraq where many residents have electricity only 4 hours a day and only 32% of the population has access to potable water.
As a columnists it is a pleasure to read in subsequent reports that one’s earlier comments prove accurate. Thus, I was delighted to learn of the testimony of Major Gen. Charles Williams (Ret.), the Director of Overseas Building Operation (OBO) at the State Department before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. On July 26, 2007, he tesitified that: “the project is on schedule and on budget. We are slated to complete the project in September of this year and personnel can begin to move into offices and residences shortly thereafter. As to project quality, OBO is proud of its employees’ and contractors’ work on this project. We have received numerous accolades as to the extremely high quality of construction. It is among the best that OBO has managed.”
That was then. This is now. November. No one has moved in. No one knows when anyone will move in. It is $144 million over budget.
On October 9, Henry Waxman, Chair of the Committee sent a letter to Condoleezza Rice inquiring about the embassy project and describing some problems uncovered by inspectors from the State Department’s Fire Protection Division who inspected the project during the last two weeks in August. They observed that since fire service mains were deficient there was no reliable automatic fire sprinkler system coverage in any building on the compound. No fire alarm detection systems were ready for testing, “most buildings have a complete lack of fire stopping in fire rated walls and floors” as a result of which “a fire could spread very quickly from one area to another.” The report then has the fairly global condemnation that “[T]he entire installation is not acceptable.”
According to Mr. Waxman, the September 4, 2007 report does not simply disclose deficiencies in construction. It disclosed that OBO and First Kuwaiti General Trading and Contracting, the prime contractor on the job “had been aware of these problems for nearly a year. In October 2006, OBO received reports that First Kuwaiti ‘is installing underground fire protection service mains that are not of the correct material, which has already resulted in stress cracking. This condition is unacceptable and was discussed with the contractor.”
Mr. Waxman’s letter does not content itself with describing deficiencies in the construction. He describes some things about First Kuwaiti that would lead some to question why it got the job in the first place. Mr. Waxman observes that Pentagon auditors released a report “several months before the award of the contract that questioned more than $130 million that First Kuwaiti had billed for services provided to the U.S. military.” He also observed that the Justice Department had asserted in court papers that “the Managing partner of First Kuwaiti bribed officials to obtain subcontracts for First Kuwaiti.”
I am sure that if Mr. Williams happens to hear about any of this he will be sorely disappointed since it suggests that he was not only clueless about the state of the project when testifying in July but not troubled by the corruption of the contractor, describing First Kuwait as a contractor that wanted to “get it right”. (He was not referring to the payment of bribes but completion of the project.)
In the real world Mr. Williams would be fired for incompetence, being so ignorant of the project about which he was reporting. That won’t happen. Incompetence in the Bush administration may be an excuse but not an excuse for firing someone. Were it otherwise, the White House and countless executive offices would be unoccupied. Were it otherwise the embassy project might in fact be on budget and on schedule.
Gossip is mischievous, light and easy to raise, but grievous to bear and hard to get rid of. No gossip ever dies away entirely, if many people voice it; it too is a kind of divinity. - Hesiod, Works and Days
Most United States voters spend hours each day contemplating things like taxes, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the trade deficit, and other weighty matters. Fascinated by the complexity of these and endlessly in search of enlightenment, they are grateful that there are presently 19 Democrats who have announced their intentions to seek the presidency and 74 Republicans who have done the same, each of whom explains complex issues in a manner that enlightens. (Included among the Democrats are such well-known figures as Christine Gerasimos Billings-Elias and Emperor Caesar, and among the Republicans people like Jedidiah Elijah Wendell Kennedy Banks and Freddy Irwin Sitnick.
According to Project Vote Smart “announced” candidates are those who have formed or announced a Presidential exploratory or campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission or filed a statement of candidacy). Elucidation of complex issues by the candidates in debates and on the stump is done with such oratorical flourish that any day now one expects William Jennings Bryan to rise up from the grave and cry out in pleasure at the skill demonstrated by those seeking the office to which he thrice aspired.
Notwithstanding the pleasure the voter derives from the reasoned discussion by the candidates of serious issues, occasionally, exhausted by consideration of the substantive issues, the voter longs for a bit of fluff as a diversion that may also be useful in selecting a favorite candidate. And that is where some of the sites on the Internet come in.
In the 2004 election a group of know-nothings was supporting the Republican ticket, led by a man who was a deserter during the Vietnam War and whose sidekick avoided military service by staying in school. They created rumors about John Kerry’s war record by spreading lies on their website that, nurtured by the the nature of the Internet and ignored by the Kerry campaign were quickly disseminated world-wide. Faster than you could say “jack rabbit” the lies had been picked up and commented on by newspapers and television stations around the country. They were eventually accepted as true by some of the voters who had long labored to understand all the truly significant issues then confronting the country and had looked forward to casting votes informed by knowledge. Seduced by untruths, they voted on the basis of the lies.
In recent days we have once again been momentarily excused from our assigned task of studying issues by a bit of trivia.
On November 8 it was reported that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, may have left a restaurant without leaving a tip. During the election of 1940 this would not have been reported on any radio station nor would it have been mentioned in the New York Times. Thanks to modern technology, however, this became really big news. Here’s what happened.
Clinton dined at a Maid-Rite diner in central Iowa. At the conclusion of the meal she and her retinue left the restaurant and may or may not have left a tip. That news was told to NPR’s David Greene by Anita Esterday, a waitress at the restaurant. Mr. Greene included it in an 8-minute report broadcast on Morning Edition on November 8.
No sooner was the tale told, than bloggers flashed the very important news all over the world. This very important news was then responded to by Ms. Clinton’s staff. It contacted news organizations to let them know that in fact a generous tip had been left and other news organizations then rushed to the Maid-Rite to interview people to see who was telling the truth. NPR then broadcast a much longer piece describing exactly what all the parties to this event had to say about it and the New York Times, not wanting to deprive its readers of this important news, published a 581-word piece describing the event and the campaign’s response.
In the meantime, sites opposed to Clinton's candidate, led by long-time Clinton critic Matt Drudge, unearthed a 2000 Washington Times report adding the important news that in 2000 Hillary Clinton left a Village House Restaurant in Albion, N.Y. without leaving a tip. After that event was reported Ms. Clinton called the server to apologize and sent the server a $100 savings bond. In the Iowa event a staffer returned and although stating a tip had been left gave Ms. Esterday and another waitress $20 each. Momentarily, this incident erased from the mind of the thoughtful American public all concerns about weightier issues.
Asked about the affair, the affronted waitress said to an inquiring reporter: “You people are really nuts. There’s kids dying in the war, the price of oil right now-there’s better things in this world to be thinking about than who served Hillary Clinton at Maid-Rite and who got a tip and who didn’t get a tip.” Ignoring the fact that her complaint started the brouhaha, she has a point.
Yet ‘tain’t being dead-it’s my awful dread of the icy grave that pains;
So I want you swear that, foul or fair, you’ll cremate my last
remains. - Robert Service, The Cremation of Sam McGee
Although this writer enjoys reasonably good health and has no expectation of dying in the near future, the envelope that came from an organization called the Neptune Society, hinted at exciting news. On the face of the envelope beneath the name of the addressee was printed “Free Pre-paid cremation! DETAILS INSIDE.” Although such an announcement is not quite as exciting as being notified that you have won millions in a contest you had no idea you’d entered, the prospect of receiving anything free, even cremation, excites the average postal patron. I am no exception.
Nonetheless, I was slightly apprehensive since I was sure the contents would disclose, as do so many seemingly irresistible offers, that there was a time limit associated with the offer and that in order to take advantage of it I would have to agree to be cremated by, for example, August 31, 2009 or some other date selected by the Neptune Society, probably a month in which cremations are typically low. That is how offers of free things such as free printers when buying a new Apple Computer, etc. typically work. So it was with some relief that upon opening the envelope I learned that although the contents breached the envelope’s promise of a free cremation, there was no time limit for taking advantage of the offer. It would be valid even if I chose to live another 40 or 50 years. That good news was more than offset, however, by the bad news that I had not won a free cremation as promised. In that respect the envelope was no different from the envelope one gets from the Publishers’ Clearing House addressed to “occupant” and informing the occupant that he or she has just won hundreds of thousands if not hundreds of millions of dollars in a Publishers’ Clearing House contest the occupant had no idea he or she had entered.
The enclosed letter explained that the Neptune Society has the distinction of being “America’s Cremation Specialists” and informs that Neptune’s motto is “Simple, Economical and Dignified.” The letter sets forth a number of reasons why cremation (after death) makes sense including the fact that by paying for the cremation now you “lock in today’s price” no matter when you decide to die. Somewhat mysteriously, the letter concludes with a footnote apologizing “if this letter has reached you at a time of serious illness or death in your family.” That seems odd since that is exactly the time when such a letter would be most relevant and, depending on the time of the next drawing, welcomed by its recipient.
Just because I got the letter did not mean I was entitled to a free cremation, even if the envelope suggested otherwise. All I was being offered was a chance to participate in a drawing where, if successful, I would be entitled to be cremated for free no matter how long after the drawing I became eligible to take advantage of my good fortune.
Enclosed with the letter was the ticket to participate in the drawing. It was in the form of a card, the completion and return of which entitles me to be entered in the free cremation lottery. On one side of the card is a tranquil picture of a misty forest with shades of green faintly visible through the mist, an apparent attempt to inspire thoughts of death and perhaps anticipation of what the environment in the long awaited hereafter will be. Such a picture though a touch maudlin is certainly preferable to a picture depicting the process Neptune is selling.
On the back of the card the misty forest is again presented, this time accompanied by a quotation from Eleanor Roosevelt that has no particular relevance to cremation but is a nice quotation nonetheless. It says: “Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, and today is a gift; that’s why they call it the present.” The quotation would be more meaningful if it meant that each recipient of the card got the present of a free cremation. That, the reverse of the card informs, is not the case since only a lucky few receive the free cremation. In large bold letters the reader of the card is informed that he or she can WIN A PRE-PAID CREMATION by simply completing and returning the reply slip, thus rendering the card’s recipient eligible for the monthly drawing.
I have not returned the card. I am waiting to see if those selling cryogenic preservation with the tantalizing prospect of possible future resurrection will be having a drawing in which I can participate. Then I can decide whether to go for the hot or the cold. I’ll not enter both.
The tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil. - The General Epistle of James
The fault lies not with its proprietor, but with his tongue. It keeps saying things that surprise both speaker and hearer and in two recent cases the utterances were completely unexpected and, indeed, unwelcome. They, suggested a bigotry to which neither of the tongues’ proprietors acknowledges subscribing.
The first belongs to former Nobel Prize winner, James D. Watson.
Mr. Watson received the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 1962 for deciphering the double Helix of DNA. In 2007 his tongue entered new territory. Echoing sentiments of an earlier Nobel Prize winner it made a pronouncement both startling and racist. Mr. Watson’s was quoted in the Times of London as as “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” even though “there are many people of color who are very talented.” Elucidating, Watson explained “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.” Such a pronouncement is startling at any time but being made when the free world is led by a madman of diminished mental capacity, surrounded by advisors of equal intellect, it is all the more startling.
Happily for Mr. Watson and his admirers, when informed of his error, he promptly disavowed his utterances, thus redeeming himself. In a statement to the Associated Press he said: “I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said. There is no scientific basis for such a belief.” Imagine George Bush disavowing his utterances that there were weapons of mass destruction or that things were going better in Iraq..
This was not the first time that a Nobel Prize winner’s tongue assumed its master’s award gave it license to make racist utterances. William B. Shockley, a Nobel laureate who received the prize in physics for his work with transistors, eventually left the world of physics and began teaching at Stanford University where he formulated a theory that led him to promulgate the idea that African Americans were inherently less intelligent than Caucasians, a theory never disavowed by him and one that took considerable luster from the medal he had received as a Nobel prize winner.
A day after Mr. Watson spoke, the tongue of another prominent American took flight and with an oratorical flourish that gave life insurance companies information that should increase their profits while denigrating minorities. The tongue took off while John Tanner, chief of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, was making a speech to the National Latino Congreso in Los Angeles.
One of Mr. Tanner’s responsibilities in the Justice Department is the protection of citizens’ voting rights, The tongue, whose master had recently expressed support for a Georgia law that requires voters to show identification cards before voting, told the Latino audience that a disproportionate share of elderly minority voters did not have identification cards. Acknowledging that that was a problem for them, as you can see from this video, the tongue went on to say: “That’s a shame, you know, creating problems for elderly persons just is not good under any circumstances” Continuing, but not making matters better, he went on to say: “Of course, that also ties into the racial aspect because our society is such that minorities don’t become elderly the way white people do. They die first.”
Tanner then explained that there are lots of inequities in the U.S. and anything that “disproportionately impacts the elderly has the opposite impact on minorities. Just the math is such as that.” That was a startling bit of information to impart and while it is unlikely that the utterance will qualify Mr. Tanner or for a Nobel Prize it may affect premiums paid by minorities for life insurance.
Given the opportunity to disavow Tanner's utterances, a Justice Department spokesman said Mr. Tanner’s remarks had been “grossly misconstrued” and that “nothing in his comments deviated from his firm commitment to enforce the law.” That may be, although Mr. Tanner’s support for Georgia’s voter identification law would suggest he is not as out of synch as supporters of voting rights would have had a right to expect from the chief of this Justice Department’s civil rights division.
