blog.benschumacher.com

Music for America has an MP3 recording of Al Franken's response to Bush's 2004 State of the Union address. It's definitely worth checking out, as it's good for some laughs.

On a related note, Slate's Tim Noah takes the time to point out this omission from the address:

[I]n President Bush's State of the Union address, the words "cleaner" and "healthier" were never uttered, and the word "safer" was spoken only in the context of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Here are some other words and phrases that did not appear in the speech: "environment," "pollution," "natural resources," "global warming," "clean air," "clean water," and "Clear Skies," which is what Bush calls his main initiative on air pollution. The word "conservation" appeared once in a plea to pass the energy bill, which takes various steps to encourage more oil drilling.

from MIA in the SOU

No big surpirse there.

Update: One more thing... the same-sex marriage issue. Bush spoke this issue at some detail:

I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

from Transcript of State of the Union

Here's the part that tweaks me. First, it was offensive when Bush glibly used the adjective "activist" while describing the judges who've made recent rulings clearing the way for same-sex couples to marry -- decisions that were made on constitutional grounds, no less. I can't believe such a blantant attack made its way into the SOTU. Second, I think its alarming that Bush is basically advocating a constitutional amdendment that limits the civil rights of United States citizens. I find the concept of a constitutional amendment to remove rights from myself, and my fellows, extremely distasteful. I would hope that other Americans feel the same. It is not for the state to decide whom I should love, it is for my heart, and while my heart has decided that I love a woman (and a wonderful woman, at that), I don't think the state should be allowed to tell me that I can't love another man. And should I choose that course, I think it's only fair that I receive the same benefits for my dedication to my partner, and my partner's dedication to me, whether my partner is has two X chromosones, or an X and a Y.

And frankly, I don't care if its called "marriage" or "civil union," but if we want a fair soceity, then those rights given by the state should be shared, whatever the label.

While I have often found National Review articles to be quite entertaining, I hadn't laughed out loud while reading one until last night. If you don't know already, National Review is a far-right publication that is always quick to pickup the current line of right-wing punditry, but this quote really takes the cake:

Two years after President Bush's much bemoaned 2002 State of the Union address, the charges that he leveled against the "Axis of Evil" have been proven. As President Bush had alleged, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea were seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in violation of their international obligations. That Bush was justified in his public indictment of these states is rarely acknowledged. That in each case Bush was vindicated by an intelligence failure is insufficiently discussed.

In each "Axis of Evil" state, the successful concealment of WMD efforts went hand-in-hand with eluding detection by U.S. intelligence. The extent of deception in Iraq was so great that even after ten months of controlling the country, the U.S. has been unable to fully unravel and explain Saddam's WMD programs.

from Apostolou: Guilty as Charged

The first thing that struck me about Andrew Apostolou's article is his focus on Bush's 2002 SOTU address. I can only surmise that Apostolou wisely choose to skip back over the 2003 SOTU since it was filled with "facts" that have since been proven false. The spin Apostolou's putting on the failure of U.S. weapons inspectors to find any concrete evidence of WMD programs is unbelievable. Apparently, the reason we haven't been able to find those fabled WMD's is because Saddam did such a great job concealing them, that even after scouring with a fine toothed comb for 10 months, we can't turn up anything. (Maybe he hid them in a mud tunnel in Adwar.)

Look, I'm sorry, but ignoring the obvious implication for why we can't find WMD's in Iraq (they didn't have any), and spinning it into Saddam's amazing ability to hide them so well is analogous to claiming that the sky is, in fact, green, and the only reason we haven't realized that yet is because aliens from the planet Mars have been hiding it from us for thousands of years. (Not to worry though, we'll be invading it in 10 years.) I do feel bad for Apostolou, however, spinning that much must make him really dizzy.

The New York Times reports that the Columbia Journalism Review is launching a new web site to lead a nonpartisan review of the media's coverage of the 2004 presidential election. The site, called Campaign Desk (RSS feed), touts its goals it its opening post:

One of the minor rituals of American presidential politics is the post-election self-examination (or perhaps I should say self-flagellation) by the press. Quadrennially, we regret having pursued some lines of inquiry while ignoring others, or having gotten caught up in momentary feeding frenzies over unimportant things, or having been too susceptible to spin -- and then we resolve to do a better job next time. But now we have a new tool. In 2004, the Web makes it possible to analyze and criticize press coverage in real time, so that suggestions for improved coverage might actually be heeded, and incorporated into campaign coverage, while the campaign is still under way.

Thanks to generous funding from foundations -- mainly the Rockefeller Family Fund, the Revson Foundation, and the Open Society Institute -- we have set up a campaign press criticism "war room" here at the Journalism School, with the beginnings of a full-time professional staff of seven that will monitor as much of the campaign coverage as possible, and write about it here. The managing editor of CampaignDesk.org, Steve Lovelady, is already on board, and he and Mike Hoyt, the editor of CJR, are well into the hiring process. Steve is a veteran journalist who earlier served as a deputy page-one editor at The Wall Street Journal; then, as part of Gene Roberts's dream team at the Philadelphia Inquirer, helped supervise eleven Pulitzer Prize-winning works of journalism over twenty years; and, more recently, was an editor-at-large at Time Inc. Bryan Keefer, assistant managing editor, was one of the co-founders of the website Spinsanity.org. CampaignDesk.org will be updating the site several times daily, with particular emphasis on speed when the staff feels it can get inside the news cycle and try to improve coverage as it's being formed.

from Welcome to CampaignDesk.org

I think it'll be interesting to follow what they report upon. I have felt that the media's coverage to date has been far from complete and often sounds like its just repeating the party line, whether that line comes from the RNC or the DLC. At the very least, it might be a good source for people who are too busy to read a wide range of stories, as it seems they'll do a lot of the data mining to reach their goals. On a related note, I thought Salon's article, "The media vs. Howard Dean," was an intriguing look at how the media has already been acting as the RNC's echo chamber, touting Dean as "angry, gaffe-prone and unelectable." The extent to which the media plays along with this administration is sickening, so here's to hoping that Campaign Desk can shake things up a little bit.

In a move to protect their bottom line, Subaru is planning to redesign the Outback sedan and wagon to meet the specifications of a light truck. Check this out:

It is the first time an automaker plans to make changes in a sedan - like raising its ground clearance by about an inch and a half - so it can qualify as a light truck. But it is hardly the first time an automaker has taken advantage of the nation's complex fuel regulations, which divide each manufacturer's annual vehicle fleet into two categories. Light trucks will have to average only 21.2 miles a gallon in the 2005 model year. By contrast, each automaker's full fleet of passenger cars must average 27.5 miles a gallon.

The move will let Subaru sell more vehicles with turbochargers, which pep up performance but hurt mileage and increase pollution. "It was difficult to achieve emissions performance with the turbos," said Fred D. Adcock, executive vice president of Subaru of America. They also made it hard to meet fleetwide fuel economy standards for cars.

Subaru's strategy highlights what environmentalists, consumer groups and some politicians say is a loophole in the fuel economy regulations that has undermined the government's ability to actually cut gas consumption. The average fuel economy for new vehicles is lower now than it was two decades ago, despite advances in fuel-saving technology.

"This is a new low for the auto industry, and it would make George Orwell proud," said Daniel Becker, a global warming expert at the Sierra Club.

from To Avoid Fuel Limits, Subaru Is Turning a Sedan Into a Truck

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find this move pretty appalling, and it has totally turned me off from buying a Subaru in the future (which is too bad, cause I think the Impreza WRX is a fine automobile). I guess this is what we should expect, when we have a administration that doesn't give a damn about the environment, either. I think everybody should take a moment to write, or call (1-800-SUBARU3) to make them aware that they're letting you down.

My roommate sent me a video (select "Red Menace") from The Daily Show on Comedy Central about this group called PABAAH (or Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood). Following the lead of conservative pundits like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, the right has assailed the left with crass claims of anti-Americanism whenever somebody questions the wisdom of the current administration. Not only do they claim that criticizing the president and his cronies is unpatriotic, they also shrink away from an reasonable debate, choosing instead to attack the left while invoking the image of an entity who said, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

Alright, I'm off topic now. Let's get back to the video. It's hilarious. How can you not love something that starts with a quote like, "Those in Hollywood who choose to speak out against the war on terror they're taking a stance against America which would be, not only irresponsible, its dangerous." Or the beauty, that is, "Santa Claus would realize that America is on the side of right." Yup. That's right. The movie Elf is anti-American, simply because Ed Asner plays Satna Claus in it. Could this be more stupid? I think not.

One closing thought, "I think when Osama bin Laden pops in his bootleg copy of Elf, he'll smile and say, 'Thank you Mr. Asner for your support.'"