Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2004 July
2004 June
My Links
MSNBC
Democracy Now
NewsMax
CNN
United Justice
FOX News
WorldNet Daily
PBS Newshour
The Globe and Mail
The Independent
The International Herald-Tribune
The Irish Times
Iran News
Bill O'Reilly
Rush Limbaugh
Argus Hamilton
Jim Hightower
The Economist
Drudge Report
Michael Savage
Ann Coulter
Sean Hannity
Air America Radio
New York Times
Salon.com
BBC News
The Guardian
James Carville
Noam Chomsky
National Public Radio
Public Radio International
This American Life
Kansas City Royals
We The People
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Bag Lady of the Left? A lie. |
| 07.19.04 (12:57 pm) [edit] |
You've probably heard by now that John Kerry's wife, through the philanthropical entity she controls, has funded an evil organization with ties to several unsavory groups and organizations. You have been alerted to the link between her and Islamic suicide bombers, communist groups, radical protesters who attempt to disrupt important events and even that group of 9/11 victims' family-members that critiqued President Bush' advertising. You have been advised that the Tides Foundation has been funded by the Heinz charities so that the evil minions of many anti-American forces can go about their dirty work.
I don't know who broke the story. It may have been Drudge, NewsMax, Worldnet Daily, or any other similarly-minded source--whoever first read and then decided to extrapolate an apparently weak Capital Research Center paper. Whoever it was, though, is plugged in. Stories with titles claiming the presumptive nominee's wife is a "bag lady for the left" and similar slants quickly appeared and multiplied over and over again in cyberspace. I believe the Tides Foundation junk emails are replacing various Nigerian banking-related schemes as the most-popular-to-forward things in the world.
Here's the problem. The story is a lie.
I know, that seems hard to believe. After all, why would a lie be repeated over and over again? I mean, come on, even the Republican Party itself draws a link between the Heinz contributions and various less-than-desirable causes. The information presented is very compelling--there are great lists of all of the organizations funded by Tides and no denial by Kerry's camp of contributions made by Heinz to Tides. It must be true!
It is not.
Here's the deal. Heinz made contributions through Tides to specific causes. The money was specifically ear-marked for use by only those organizations. Some pollution abatement thing in Pennsylvania and some other relatively innocuous group were supplied with Heinz money to pursue their endeavors.
The crazy half-reporting of how this works is almost mind-boggling. Anti-Kerry types tell a simple story. Heinz gives money to Tides. Tides gives money to bad groups. Thus, Heinz funds bad groups. As with too many oversimplified statements, the story is misleading to the point of being wholly inaccurate.
Here's how the story really goes. Heinz gives money Tides. Heinz tells Tides to whom to distribute the contributions. Tides gives money to specified groups. Other contributors give money to Tides. Some of the other contributors earmark money for bad groups. Tides distributes money to specified groups.
See the difference there? Pretty significant. There is no doubt Tides has cut some checks to some pretty nasty organizations, as well as some pretty good ones. But Tides is nothing more than a mechanism for distribution. Tides is not the parent organization that has birthed every cause republicans find distasteful. It cuts checks. And it does so in accordance with the desires of those making contributions.
Tides offers a pretty good explanation: "The charge does not stand up to objective scrutiny...First, by legally binding contract, every penny of Heinz’s support to Tides has been explicitly directed to specific projects in Pennsylvania. It cannot legally be redirected and is the exact opposite of fungible.
Second, the Tides Center is a provider of management and administrative services, and we have used it only for those services, not to advance Tides’ grantmaking agenda. Foundations from all across the country-many, like Heinz, with strong centrist agendas-use these services to incubate an array of nonprofit programs. So does the federal government. It is no more accurate to suggest that Heinz supports every one of these programs than it is to suggest that someone who contributes to a specific group through the United Way supports the agenda of every other United Way beneficiary. "
The "Heinz Funds Evil" argument is already logged as an urban legend online. Still, the "bag lady for the left" nonsense continues.
The GOP's website continues to argue that those who criticized the Bush ads with the 9/11 backdrop were "a tiny group that's motivated by a far-left agenda and a festering hatred of the president - and has some quite dubious financial ties." The GOP then reminds us "Tides gets much of its funds from philanthropists like Mrs. Kerry and billionaire George Soros - who has made defeating President Bush his top personal priority." Of course, they stop short of revealing the truth about the nature of Tides and the Heinz money, instead relying on insinuation and implied linkages to score points against Kerry.
Drummond Pike, who heads Tides, takes that important step the GOP leaves out: "Tides Center, an independent offshoot of Tides Foundation, provides administrative and management services to nonprofit projects across the country. Tides Center has received additional support from the Heinz Endowments specifically to support projects in Pennsylvania, none of which has gone to September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows." And the people over at Peaceful Tomorrows have issued a statement stating categorically that they didn't get a dime via Heinz.
Even the person who edited the Capital Research Center report that spurred the accusations "said he saw no evidence the Heinz endowments were funding any extremist groups," although predictably claiming there were concerns in the giving patterns.
But the nonsense continues to make its rounds. "Heinz gives money to Tides, who gives money to bad guys" oversimplification is just too tasty for those on the conservative fringes to resist, I guess. Even if it is a lie.
GOP misleads HTTP://WWW.GOP.COM/NEWS/READ.ASPX?ID=3985
FrontPage magazine recites the "bag lady" lie HTTP://WWW.FRONTPAGEMAG.COM/ARTICLES/READARTICLE.ASP?ID=12187
Intellectual Conservatives mislead HTTP://WWW.INTELLECTUALCONSERVATIVE.COM/ARTICLE3198.HTML
Free Republic fibs HTTP://WWW.FREEREPUBLIC.COM/FOCUS/F-NEWS/1091129/ POSTS
NewsMax piles on HTTP://WWW.NEWSMAX.COM/ARCHIVES/IC/2004/3/6/ 121052.SHTML
Tides explains HTTP://WWW.TIDESFOUNDATION.ORG/PRESS_REL_03.CFM
Toledo paper comments HTTP://WWW.TOLEDOBLADE.COM/APPS/PBCS.DLL/ARTICLE?AID=/20040307 /NEWS09/103070191
ConWebWatch weighs in HTTP://CONWEBWATCH.TRIPOD.COM/STORIES/2004/FARAHKER RY.HTML
ETalkinghead talks about 501(c)(3) groups like Tides HTTP://WWW.ETALKINGHEAD.COM/ARCHIVES/DEFENDING-TE RESA-HEINZ-KERRY-2004-04- 27.HTML
|
|
|
| |
| Republicans Hate Trial Lawyers...Sometimes... |
| 07.19.04 (9:23 am) [edit] |
At least sixteen republican members of the U.S. Senate have endorsed his run for office.
George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, appointed him to a cabinet position and referred to him as "the embodiment of the American dream."
His name is Mel Martinez, former Secretary of HUD, current candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in Florida, and a a former trial lawyer.
Yes, a trial lawyer. You know, those people Bush and others have criticized so very vocally ever since John Edwards joined the Kerry ticket. Bush said "You can't be pro-small business and pro-trial lawyers at the same time. You have to choose. My opponent had made his choice, and put him on the ticket," while referring to Kerry's VP pick. Bush has blamed trial lawyers for the rise in medical care costs and a host of other horrible social ills. His brother, Jeb, Florida's Governor and a once-strong voice against trial lawyers (he wanted to "whack them") is also a fan of Mr. Martinez.
Well, you might assume Martinez' support among those usually opposed to the demonic force of trial attorneys is a result of an awakening on his part. Perhaps Mel Martinez now rejects his greedy past and seeks to distance himself from his career as a successful litigator. No. He's downright unrepetant about the whole thing. Martinez says "I'm proud of what I did as a lawyer, helping people, doing good things, fighting big insurance companies." Yes, GW's "embodiment of the American dream" stands by his profession as strongly as does John Edwards. He sticks up for himself using the very same arguments Edwards seems to use.
So, what's the difference between Evil Trial Laywer John Edwards and Good Trial Lawyer Mel Martinez? Jeb Bush tried to provide a bright line separating the two. He said: "Mel Martinez was a successful plaintiff's lawyer, but he's a proven conservative. His views are conservative. He's a Republican."
The attacks on Edwards really have nothing to do with his background as a trial lawyer. They have everything to do with creating an issue the Bush campaign hopes to use to win re-election. It would take time, effort, answers and argument to compare and contrast policy and to defend positions. It is much easier to call the bogeyman of "trial lawyers" out of the basement to persuade voters to reject the Kerry-Edwards ticket. "Boo! He's a trial lawyer. Stay the course."
Bush and Company are banking on the fact that people won't think too hard about how differently Mel Martinez is viewed. They wouldn't want anyone thinking about the republican Senator and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, is a former trial lawyer. They won't mention that republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is a former trial lawyer. They won't talk about the Schiavo case and how Jeb Bush went through the process of seeking a hardship-based continuance because the trial lawyer he hired to help out was double-booked and he didn't feel anyone else had the necessary skills for the job. Those sixteen republican Senators endorsing Martinez won't be asked to hit the talk-show circle armed with "Edwards is bad because he's a trial lawyer" talking points.
It is not about trial lawyers. Not with Martinez and not with Edwards. It's about looking for a quick-and-easy way to grab votes instead of talking about something a bit more substantive.
Hillnews. comHTTP://WWW.HILLNEWS.COM/NEWS/050504/LAWYERS.ASPX
Klayman for Senate HTTP://WWW.KLAYMANSENATE.COM/A021204A.HTM
HUD HTTP://WWW.WHITEHOUSE.GOV/GOVERNMENT/MARTINEZ-B IO.HTML
St. Petersburg Times
HTTP://WWW.SPTIMES.COM/2004/07/09/WORLDANDNA TION/TRIAL_LAWYERS_FACE_F R.SHTML
Martinez for Senate
HTTP://WWW.MELFORSENATE.ORG/INDEX.CFM?FUSEACTION=ABOUTMEL.HOME
|
|
|
| |
| Bush Not Worrying, Being Happy |
| 06.18.04 (1:36 pm) [edit] |
I had been sitting on the couch when I heard this happy voice chirp something like "I am George Bush and I approved this message." Despite the wonderfully optimistic tone of this voice, I decided to try to watch the advertisement carefully and assess the merits of his position and the veracity of the claims made. The approved narrator rattled off a series of great recent American economic achievements, implying linkage with the President. Then, he mentioned that John Kerry had the audacity to run around the nation talking about the Great Depression during this new era of significant economic gain. There was a pause and the narrator advised me that "pessimism has never created a job."
I felt like such a moron. Here I was, actually thinking about the state of the economy, comparing the narrator's approved remarks with my own personal observations and what I have learned from other credible sources, and wondering what we might be able to do to improve the economy even more. I was just like John Kerry. Kerry has been going all over the place during this tremendous economic boom talking about job growth rates, lost jobs, etc. He has been using past historical incidents, like the Great Depression, to put the current job numbers into historical perspective. Kerry refuses to just admit that almost everyone has been touched by our recent economic turnaround and that those who are not yet so blessed soon will be. Based on the message Mr. Bush is sending out, that is less than optimistic. It might border on being pessimistic. And, "pessimism never created a job."
I thought back to a Kerry ad I saw a few months ago. It was talking about the problems he perceived with our economy. They had some guy on there who was unemployed. As I remember it, he used to have a pretty good gig, but lost it. He seemed like a nice enough fellow, but I can remember him saying something about how he figured he'd find something in a month or two, but had gone a year without a job. Well, in hindsight, I recognize that he didn't seem particularly optimistic. To tell you the truth, that unemployed guy seemed pessimistic. No wonder he was griping on a Kerry ad. Sure, he said he started out optimistic (thinking he'd be working again within sixty days), but you could hear a complete lack of optimism in his voice when that ad was taped. What a sucker. He needs to be reminded that "pessimism never created a job."
I noticed another connection, too. As you probably remember, Ronald Reagan died very recently. One thing about Ronald Reagan that the media reminded me of over and over again was just how optimistic he was. How he believed in Americans. Every day was a new day for Reagan's America, filled with hope and promise. The way the papers and television made it sound, he was now remembered as a beloved figure, in large part because of that optimistic outlook. And now, here is George Bush talking about just how much he believes in Americans and America and reminding us of how optimistic he is. What was even more interesting is that I had heard him and a few people in his camp make comments about being optimistic in the days leading up to the ad's debut. It was perfect timing. Popular deceased Reagan was optimistic. Bush is optimistic. For a few seconds I thought about how this whole new "optimism" angle might be intentionally designed to exploit the recent attention and cultivated good feelings about Reagan. Maybe it was calculated to "cash in" on this new Reagan legacy? I immediately stopped thinking that way. It was cyncical, critical and not at all optimistic. It was a pretty darned pessimistic thought about Bush. And "pessimism never created a job."
So, I have decided to stop being critical, cynical, angry, considerate and pessimistic. When I pass by those poor dudes in front of the the county offices I will whistle, "Don't Worry, Be Happy" as loud as I can and hope it somehow acts as a remedy for that pessimism I can see etched in their faces. Why can't they figure it out? Did they miss the ads? Did they not watch the nonstop coverage of Reagan memorials? Heck, super-optimist Ronald Reagan was lauded again and again for his optimism and "pessimism never created a job."
I am going to post this and then download Bobby McFerrin's biggest hit...
Seriously, am I the only person who feels insulted by this new Bush angle? "Pessimism never created a job?" Give me a break. Delusional thinking and intentionally ignoring real problems never created a job, either, Mr. President. One can be serious about addressing economic difficulties without being a sad-sack pessimist. One need not be a smiling goof reporting only on the half-full portion of the glass to create a better economy. Besides, actions taken in response to accurate assessments of reality probably have saved a lot more jobs over the years than have smiling faces in the face of real work to be done. Dour pessimism may not be the key to economic progess, but it probably is good to keep a little critical thinking around. Optimism is nice, but all by itself it doesn't do too much other than make good eulogy material.
|
|
|
| |
| Ray Charles and My Baby |
| 06.14.04 (1:36 pm) [edit] |
One of the fears I encountered upon the birth of our daughter was children's music. I could too easily imagine a constant background of electronically toy-beeped versions of "Old McDonald" and "The Alphabet Song." Even worse, in my mind, was the prospect of listening to a chorus of over-enunciating adults trying to sound like wee ones singing the same songs.
So, soon after my baby girl came home and we settled into something of a pattern, I devised a strategy. I volunteered to change her diaper and get her dressed for the day every morning. I squeezed several CDs from my collection into the little rack next to the portable player we had on a shelf in the nursery. Every morning, I'd help prepare her for the day ahead with a new diaper, plenty of Balmex, a cute baby outfit and some good music. I had some crazy hope that the exposure to some "good stuff" would eventually encourage some kind of taste for music.
My little baby loves her changing table time in the mornings. I'd like to think our little shared daily musical moment has something to do with that. I don't know if she can really differentiate between Taj Mahal's "She Caught the Katy" or a Louis Prima/Keely Smith duet. It's not compelling to argue that a four month old child loves any particular music--it's more likely she enjoys the way her daddy sings along with it or dances to it while he holds her.
Regardless, her most glee-filled mornings have seemed to come when we undertake our morning ritual with a dose of Ray Charles. It's one of the CDs I come back to regularly.
A few days ago, we had a Ray Charles compilation in the little CD player. We were listening to "CC Rider." I sung along, smiling, and playing a little tickle game with her. She smiled back a lot yesterday, even coughed out a few of those little baby giggles we are seeing more and more often. I said to her, "I think Ray Charles is this baby's favorite!" She giggled a little more.
I found out about Ray Charles' death a few hours later.
I been a fan of Ray Charles for years. I have appreciated his ability to bring his own unique style to a variety of genres, his distinct voice, and his apparent joy for music. Over the past few months, I also developed a belief that he was my baby's favorite musician.
So, to Mr. Charles and his loved ones, I would like to add my own little bit to all the eulogizing:
Ray, your music has been the source of some wonderful moments. You've allowed a new father and his little girl to dance, giggle and sing in the early mornings. I don't know what all you hoped to accomplish with your music, but you certainly succeeded in creating some beautiful memories for me. Thank you.
|
|
|
| |
| Winning one with the Gipper? |
| 06.14.04 (8:05 am) [edit] |
Ronald Reagan's smiling countenance may not make it onto a ten dollar bill any time soon, so it won't be possible to physically buy votes using Reagan before November. That will not, however, stop the Bush administration from trying to garner a little extra support courtesy of the Gipper's passing. I am not so sure how terrible it is for them to do that, but I do know that I find their weak efforts to deny it pretty feeble.
The Bush people deny using the Reagan death. Of course. After all, some of us might find it a little grotesque to trade on a recent death. So, they will keep it low-key. They have already made statements assuring all of us they will not actively attempt to use Reagan's passing as a vote-gathering strategy. As such, a lot of the pro-Bush folk have avoided campaigning via Reagan, instead making "observations" on the record that are surely not intended to help GWB.
For instance, the International Herald Tribune stated "Bush's advisers said on Sunday that the intense review of Reagan's career that began upon the news of his death Saturday would remind Americans of what Bush's supporters have long described as the similarities between the two men: both straight-talking, ideologically driven leaders with swagger and a fixed idea of what they wanted to do with their office." See, no one is trying to use a dead President to assist a lagging campaign. Oh, no, it's just natural that Americans will look at Bush and see a bit of Reagan in him. Inevitable. So obvious that there's no need to comment on it, they will say in comment after comment.
Bush himself would never come right out and say, "Now that you are thinking about how much you liked Reagan, vote for me because we are so darn similar." Instead, he just made a few remarks in his radio address about how great "Reagan's bold actions and unwavering convictions in the fight to defeat Soviet Communism," were. Of course, as CNN noted, those are the "same attributes the campaign ascribes to Bush in his war against terrorism." Mere coincidence.
No one is actively trying to exploit Reagan's death, according to the Bush people. A spokesman for the RNC even said "it wouldn’t be appropriate to talk about the political impact of Reagan’s death," according to Hill News. I am not sure, though, whether that comment was made before or after RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie told The New York Times that voters would naturally see the similarities between Reagan and Bush. “The parallels are there,” he said. “I don’t know how you miss them.” Again, no one is trying to nab a vote off of the Reagan death and its press coverage. They are simply observing the unmistakable and obvious connection. Over and over again, they make sure everyone knows just how obvious the similarities are. So obvious they don't even require comment.
So obvious there was certainly no need for Ken Mehlman, the head Bush campaign honcho to say "In many ways, George W. Bush and the policies that he put forward stand on the shoulders of Ronald Reagan."
Republican veteran Ed Meese argued "One of the similarities is they both have a sense of good and evil, a moral clarity about evils in the world." But don't read too much into that, the GOP would never try to capitalize on Reagan's demise and the accompanying press coverage. The prime-time television tribute to Reagan being worked up for the party' convention is simply that--a tribute. It will surely not be designed with any hope of cashing in on Reagan's death. When the Bush campaign web site was reconfigured into a Reagan memorial, that was also a mere tribute. Sure, it featured links to the Bush eulogy, Cheney's eulogy, and Mehlman's tribute, but that was not an attempt to link Bush to Reagan. No way.
It must be hard for them to resist. Like a GOP official told the Washington Times, "It doesn't hurt to be compared with one of the most popular Republican presidents of the modern era." Yet the Bush campaign is exercising amazing restraint--refusing to capitalize on the situation.
Apparently, it was too hard for Karl Rove to resist. Rove, after learning of Ronald Reagan's passing, got to work on some great new television spots. Capitol Hill Blue described the ads: "The ads, ordered up by Bush political advisor Karl Rove immediately after Reagan’s death last Saturday, use images of Reagan and excerpts from his speeches in what one angry GOP conservative describes as a 'callous attempt to tie George W. Bush to the legacy of Ronald Wilson Reagan.' One proposed ad even goes so far as to show Reagan saying 'George, go out and win one for the Gipper.' The clip comes from Reagan’s speech to the 1988 Republican National Convention where the former President’s request was to Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, in his successful 1988 run for President."
But again, no one is trying to use the death for political gain. That would be unseemly.
So unseemly, in fact, that the Bush people have gone to great lengths to distinguish Bush from Reagan. They have made it clear that although those obvious similarities cannot be missed, there are some real difference. Bush likes the Department of Education and a few other much-appreciated programs for which Reagan didn't care. I know, you might be thinking it looks like those recent comments from Republicans are coldly calculate attempts to suck up all of what was loved about Reagan without taking on any of the negatives that accompanied the Gipper. Not true.
Remember, the Washington Times remarked that "Mr. Bush's senior aides and his campaign advisers are uncomfortable making any comparisons at a time of national mourning for the late president."
Does anyone believe this nonsense?
Here's the deal. For whatever reasons (not a can of worms I am interested in opening), Ronald Reagan was pretty popular. His popularity and stature seemed to increase after he left office and increased even more when his hard-edged character seemed softened by his struggles with a most horrible illness. When he died, it became very clear that the press coverage would be both extensive and exceedingly positive. Bush, meanwhile, was struggling. He would have been a fool not to try to bask in the positive light cast upon Reagan. His people would have been morons not to try to convince people that Bush was some kind of heir to the Reagan mantle.
They have tried to capitalize on the death of Ronald Reagan--or, more acccurately, on the positive press coverage of a beloved Republican. Look, I am not voting for GWB either way, but at least I could have congratulated him on being up front if his people would have said, "as the nation reflects on Ronald Reagan and what he meant to our country, we will try to remind people that Dubya and the Gipper have a lot in common. We hope people remember what it was about Ronald Reagan that led to his campaign victories and we hope to show people that our guy has many of those same qualities." Would they have been accused of trading on Reagan's death? You bet. But guess what, they are still getting that accusation--the difference is that they now get additional complaints because they are not being forthright about what they are doing.
Note: In fairness to Bush, the Rove adds will not be aired. Apparently they were a little too much for even hard-nosed Republicans.
Hill News comments on all of this .
Capitol Blue discusses the Rove ads .
[/i]
|
|
|
| |
| And You Thought Freedom Fries were Silly... |
| 06.12.04 (10:59 am) [edit] |
"[Jacques Chirac] salutes the memory of a great man of state who, through the force of his convictions and his commitment in favor of democracy, will leave a profound mark on history." --Statement Issued by Chirac's Office
"Talking Points believes that Chirac despises America and will even go out of his way to hurt this country. The other leaders from the G8 Summit have varied plans. Any good friend would honor America at this time and show a little respect." --Bill O'Reilly, encouraging a boycott of French Products
The French didn't buy Chalabi's assertions that Iraq was bursting at the seams with WMDs. They didn't want to invade Iraq. They didn't think it was particularly good timing to overthrow a government, set up an occupation, install a new democracy, combat the inevitable backlash a war produces, and committ human lives without a clear exit strategy on the basis of Colin Powell's recitations of inaccurate information. How dare they?
So, Mr. No-Spin and others encourage those outraged at the French for not marching lockstep with us to dump their French wines and Grey Goose vodka down the drain. No more Grey Poupon or Evian. Next time you have a burger, try a side of Freedom Fries. And if you are out on a date and want to do some passionate kissing, I suppose the second that tongue peeks out you should think of it as a Freedom Kiss.
Here we are months later, and a lot of the evil French perspective seems to be making sense to some people. Support for the war wanes, we find out the WMD justification was more than a little exaggerated, and more and more folks who probably dipped a Freedom Fry or two into ketchup would like to see U.S. troops make their way home.
Bashing the French, however, continues among some on the right.
O'Reilly still calls for the boycott and claims that Chirac's decision not to attend Reagan's funeral is proof of how much the French want to hurt us. Newsmax portrays Chirac as a Saddam loyalist when noting he wasn't planning on going to the funeral. Online anti-French conservatives react to that news with a series of witticisms about French body odor, "Old Europe," and other tired nonsense.
Following Reagan's death, Chirac issued a statement expressing admiration for our deceased President. The French also sent their Foreign Minister, Michel Barnier, and former President Valery Giscard d'Estaing to Reagan's funeral. Apparently, in the eyes of some, this is wholly insufficient. In fact, it is read as of evidence of a French hatred for all things American.
Let me tell any French folk reading this that I am not personally hurt by Chirac's decision not to attend the funeral. Thanks for the kind words about Mr. Reagan, and thanks for sending dignitaries to mark his passing. I suppose it would have been okay for Jacques to make an appearance, but then he'd have to hear all about how he was merely cozying up to the U.S. to reap the financial benefits of Iraq's rebuilding now that the dirty work is all done.
Maybe I am completely wrong. Maybe it is incumbent upon the ranking leadership of a nation to attend the funerals of former leaders of other lands. I am no expert in protocol, so I could be way off base thinking this is something less than a great slight on the part of the French.
If I am wrong, please let me express apologies on behalf of all Americans for my nation's similar failings this year. Bush skipped Finland's longest-serving PM's funeral in January. He had a speaking engagement at a Philadelphia hotel for the Congress of Tomorrow group and couldn't make it to pay his respects to Kalevi Sorsa. We also missed getting GWB down to Dominica for Pierre Charles' funeral. He had to give his radio address that day. I know, Dominica is a really small island, but it's a friendly island and we don't need to disrespect the Dominicans. We were represented at Izzadine Saleem's funeral in Iraq after a car-bomb killed the governing council member. Ambassador Bremer said a few words. Oh wait, I forgot, sending an emissary is not enough. Even an ex-President and a high-ranking official is inadequate. I guess we were disrespectful on that one, too.
Sorsa, Charles and Saleem may not have been leaders with the pull and power of Reagan. And, of course, there is a very unique Franco-American relationship that is incomparable to how we get along with the Finns, Dominicans and Iraqis. Still, the point is that you don't shuttle your leader off to every funeral.
We like to see ourselves as much more important and deserving of respect than Finland, Dominica and even Iraq. We expect the world to cry when our leaders die. We believe we deserve the undivided attention of the globe when we bury our own. We demand reverence and maybe a bit of boot-licking from the rest of the world. We skip champagne. We eat Freedom Fries. When you consider all of that, we are pretty lucky the French bothered to send anyone.
The Free Republic People Would Certainly Disagree
NewsMax--Source of Inflammatory Nonsense for Freedom Fry Lovers
Chirac was Nice about Reagan
No, Really, He was Pretty Kind
Bill O'Reilly Had Nothing Kind to Say about Chirac
|
|
|
| |
|
Oshkosh B Gosh
The Weblog
Review
|
