Melder's Musings

As if being punched in the face over the non-response to Hurricane Katrina and questions about the missing $9 billion in Iraq (among numerous other scandals) weren't enough, the ineptitude just keep getting worse at the Bush White House.

This week, the latest scandal is a deal that would sell control of 6 major American ports to a company owned by the government of Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates. The biggest problem with this deal (at least in the eyes of thinking people) is that the UAE (claimed as an ally in the "War on Terror" by the Bush White House) partially funded the 9/11 attacks, was home for two of the 9/11 hijackers, and stonewalled an FBI investigation into 9/11 funding.

To repeat: one of the nations responsible for 9/11 will soon be responsible for our security. I certainly feel safer. Don't you?

As if that news wasn't bad enough, the plot thickens. Documents uncovered and reported by the Associated Press show that the White House and the Dubai company had a secret agreement. That secret agreement "did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries."

To repeat: one of the nations responsible for 9/11 will soon be responsible for our security, and they won't be subject to legal proceedings or American oversight. Isn't that feeling of safety just getting stronger?

In what could be an answer to the proverbial question of how much worse things can get, two of the ports up for Dubai control are New York and New Orleans. Just when we thought Bush had done enough, or rather, hadn't done enough for these cities, it gets worse.

Luckily, some Republicans are putting their partisanship aside and are actually looking out for our safety. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have both called for a review of the Dubai agreement. Frist has even threatened to write legislation to that end, drawing a veto threat from Bush (which, by the way, would be his first ever veto).

One Republican is making her stance on the Dubai agreement quite clear. Representative Sue Myrick, in a letter to the President, said "not just NO--but HELL NO!"

This issue is one that will only get bigger, and more troubling, for the White House. Stay tuned to Melder's Musings for further analysis. If you don't think aiding the people responsible for 9/11 is enough reason to say "hell no," just wait. I'll post items in future days that show just how bad a nation Dubai really is.

My hometown Young Democrats chapter will celebrate the occasion in style by hosting a forum between the Democratic Primary candidates in our Texas House of Representatives district.

Your humble blogger will be dusting off his broadcasting and journalism skills to moderate. The rules are set and so are the questions. It should be a very informative event.

Democrats were asking questions about the President's illegal wiretapping long before it became public.

As the GOP continues to cover their collective asses and defend the President's illegal spying, they continue to advance the idea that Democrats are only now making noise about the issue.

As usual with GOP claims, the opposite is true. Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sent Vice President Cheney a letter in 2003 (some two years before public disclosure of the spying) outlining the senator's concerns with the practice. You can download a copy of the letter for yourself.

The so-called liberal media is also ignoring this fact.

The International Herald Tribune, and it's parent paper, the New York Times, have both published articles that ignore the letter (which, as any reporter should know, is a part of the public record).

The New York Times, meanwhile, is also ignoring evidence that communications between Americans with no terrorist ties are also being spied on.

Over at NBC, "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert is bending his own network's poll results to make the President look better.

While the allegedly liberal press is kissing Republican ass (pardon the pun), "Fox News Sunday" will not be outdone. On this past weekend's edition of the talk show, host Chris Wallace let the general in charge of the illegal spying speak using both sides of his mouth.

That was preceded by another Fox News blunder. Friday's edition of "Special Report with Brit Hume" saw correspondent Jim Angle and pundit Charles Krauthammer actually pull fiction out of thin air. The two claimed that Democrats are changing their position on the issue. Naturally, they have no proof. Like the papers cited above, they also ignore the facts.

That lie followed another by Angle the day before in which he claimed the illegal spying had stopped a terrorist attack. This time the lie was actually reported correctly by the New York Times.

As the lies continue to mount across the media, we're also seeing a new version of the name game. Illegal wiretapping has become "domestic surveillance" which has become a "terrorist surveillance program." Perhaps I should call my blog an "updated directory of multimedia resources and commentary."

With President Bush's constitutionally-mandated (the only part he's willing to follow, that is) State of the Union Address behind us, the good folks at Democratic Underground recap the speech in this week's list of the Top Ten Conservative Idiots.

Apparently, we have more than terrorists to worry about. If Congress doesn't act soon, human-animal hybrids Catwoman and Spiderman may well walk the streets. Perhaps they can help us catch the "evildoers."

Earlier in this blog, I said that Fox News correspondent Geraldo Rivera "can't read" after he accused the New York Times of calling ABC Anchroman Bob Woodruff's presence and subsequent injury in Iraq a "ratings stunt."

As it turns out, the Times did use the phrase "ratings stunt" in the subhead above the article. That said, the article itself did not call Woodruff's actions a "ratings stunt." At the time I heard Rivera's accusations, I only had access to an on-line version of the article. That on-line version did not include the subhead that was used in the published version. Having since seen the published version (which is not immediately available in Crockett, Texas), I admit my error.

Articles are written by correspondents. Headlines and subheads are usually written by copy editors and layout editors. The correspondent that penned the article should not be criticized. Rivera, for his part, should have taken more care to point out that a subhead is separate from the article it previews. Had he done that, however, it would have made his dramatic cry of shame on the Times much less attention-grabbing; and that doesn't make for very good TV ratings.

This year, Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Address fell in the same week. As Air America Radio pointed out, "It is an ironic juxtaposition: one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication, and the other involves a groundhog."

Remember...it's only humor.

The U.S. Capitol Police are apologizing for their over-enthusiasm.

That headline is no surprise these days. Usually, it's the Republican lawmakers offending good sense. Last night, it was the Capitol Police.

As previously reported by this blog, Military Mom Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing a t-shirt. Thankfully, that kind of incident is not a partisan one.

As reported widely in the media Wednesday, the wife of Republican Congresswoman Bill Young was asked to leave the House gallery when Capitol Police officials saw her t-shirt. Mr. Young took to the House floor to protest the action Wednesday afternoon. What seemed to offend him most was that his wife had been called a "protester," as if that's some horrible, life-ending moniker.

Meanwhile, Sheehan is telling her side of the story and Capitol Police officials are extending an apology to her and to Mrs. Young.

What remains troubling to me is the inequity with which the Capitol Police violated both women's constitutional rights. Sheehan was arrested. Mrs. Young was simply asked to leave.

Sheehan says she's meeting with lawyers to discuss a lawsuit against the Capitol Police. I hope she sues the pants off 'em.

Texas Governor Rick Perry appears to beg former Congressman J.C. Watts for something. Hell...just for fun...insert your own caption here. (Dallas Morning News photo)

Some time ago, I posted to this blog about an infomercial I happened upon during the middle of the night this past summer. Better late than never, and after seeing the infomercial again last night, I'm making good on my promise to fill in the details.

First, let me cut to the chase: former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts of Oklahoma is a liar and a hypocrite.

Let's get to the hypocrite part. While in the Congress, Watts, like other Republicans, made a big deal about smaller government, lower taxes, streaminglining spending, blah, blah blah. Now, out of the Congress, Watts is earning his keep by helping people get government grants.

As reported by The Hill and on another blog, Watts now works for the National Grants Reservation Service, an organization that claims to help people "qualify to receive government money." I guess for Watts, his public position all depends on who's buttering his bread. After all, as online magazine Slate contends, he's not the brightest crayon in the box.

The hypocrisy is so obvious it hurts. Now, for the lying.

J.C. Watts, when he's not pimping the same government grants he once worked to kill, is making commentary on allegedly liberal CNN. He's one of thier new slew of Republican talking heads. Fresh into his new job, he flat out lied about what the GOP has been up to lately.

During last night's coverage of the State of the Union address, Watts criticized Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine. He said Kaine's Democratic response to the SOTU was wrong for claiming that Congressional Republicans are cutting funding for student loans and have tried to cut Medicaid funds.

While bantering with CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, Watts said that "they ought to send Governor Kaine to bed with no dinner for saying they're cutting student loans and cutting Medicaid funds. You know, that is not the case."

The following truth, which proves Watts to be a liar, comes from a report by Media Matters for America.

In fact, bills already passed by the House and the Senate include $12.7 billion in spending cuts to student loan programs and approximately $7 billion in spending cuts to Medicaid.

On December 21, 2005, in a 51-50 vote, the Senate approved nearly $40 billion in budget cuts, including cuts of $12.7 billion to federal student loans and nearly $7 billion in Medicaid funding as part of the Republican-sponsored Deficit Reduction Act (DRA). Five Republicans and independent Sen. Jim Jeffords (VT) joined all 45 Democrats in voting "no" on the measure, forcing Vice President Dick Cheney to cast the tie-breaking vote. Senate Democrats forced small changes to the bill by using a procedural tactic known as the "Byrd rule" and sent it back to the House for a new vote . The House approved the new bill 216-214.

On January 27, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report studying the effects of the proposed budget cuts and found, as a January 30 New York Times article noted, that the proposed Medicaid budget cuts would mean that "[m]illions of low-income people would have to pay more for health care under a bill worked out by Congress, and some of them would forgo care or drop out of Medicaid because of the higher co-payments and premiums." According to the CBO: "In response to the new premiums, some beneficiaries would not apply for Medicaid, would leave the program or would become ineligible due to nonpayment. CBO estimates that about 45,000 enrollees would lose coverage in fiscal year 2010 and that 65,000 would lose coverage in fiscal year 2015 because of the imposition of premiums. About 60 percent of those losing coverage would be children."

The DRA would also cut funding for student loans by $12.7 billion, mainly by raising interest rates on college loans. According to a December 21, 2005, Boston Globe article, "[t]he bill would cut the amount of loan money guaranteed by the federal government, pushing up interest rates. It would also impose a[n] insurance fee on student loans." The Globe further noted: "Student borrowers would be forced to pay a fixed rate of 6.8 percent on loans, and parents would have an interest rate cap of 8.5 percent, up from 7.9 percent. Further, Pell Grants would remain capped at $4,050 per student per year, despite earlier promises by the Bush administration to raise the cap to $5,100." The National Education Association and several others have called the reductions the "largest cut [in student aid] in history."

Mr. Watts, you suck.

For those of you who regularly read this blog, you know that headline is farce. It's the same type of farce being advocated by the extreme uberchristian right and, now, by ABC News.

In a story run on the media outlet's website and two of its broadcasts, ABC is reporting that uberchristians are pissed off because most of the Academy Award nominees for Best Picture are movies that they won't see and that they don't want the rest of us to see.

As the story reports, uberchristians believe that "it's a sad day for American [sic] when a small group of very determined activists are dominating the awards ceremony," said Janice Crouse, the senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, a think tank associated with the Concerned Women for America."

Here's the reality that the CCW and all the other rightwingers need to accept: the Oscars are chosen by people who work in the film industry. They're not based on box office sales, societal customs, religious beliefs, or even on some so-called gay agenda. The people that make movies are awarding their colleagues for making movies. Most industries have similar award banquets, but most of those other banquets don't get shown on TV. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the CCW give out awards to their more prominent activists. Hollywood personnel don't get to pick those awards, and neither should the CCW decide who gets an Oscar.

I'm not a Republican. I don't get to pick winners in the Republican primary, nor should I. So it should be with the CCW and the Academy Awards. On the other hand, if the CCW should find themselves in the movie business, then they'd get a vote in the Oscar balloting. Unfortunately, they'd have to participate in that other thing they don't like: democracy.

January 31, 2006

Ms. Paula Zahn
Cable News Network
One CNN Center
P.O. Box 105366
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-5366

Dear Ms. Zahn:

Your commentary this evening during "The Situation Room" coverage of the President's State of the Union address was irresponsible, incorrect, and just plain bad journalism (to the extent that such commentary can even be considered true journalism). You should retract your statements and apologize to the network's viewers without delay.

To refresh your memory, I am referring to your comments about Democrats and national security during the "“Strategy Session"” portion of "The Situation Room." You said, "“you've got a lot of people out there saying, if you're Republican, we're going to keep the country safe, you know, if you vote for a Democrat, that basically you want to be bombed."

Mere words cannot express my outrage at such a foolish comment. From a journalistic standpoint, can you identify that "lot of people"” saying these things? Can you even identify one person saying such things? Can you identify a single American, regardless of party, that wants "to be bombed" in any kind of attack? I suspect that you cannot. Instead, you are simply repeating tired GOP talking points.

I am a Democrat. I do not want to be "“bombed." I assure you that everyone else identifying themselves as Democrats also do not want to be "“bombed." We love our country as much as anyone else and we value our safety as much as anyone else. We may not agree with Republican tactics, but that doesn't mean we harbor some masochistic desire to be "“bombed." You should remember that September 11, 2001, fell during a Republican president'’s term. This same Republican president has failed to bring the people responsible for that fateful day'’s attacks to justice in spite of his promise to find them "dead or alive."”

I do hope that your comments are not some vain effort to outfox, as the case may be, your competition. Monday night'’s ratings put you in fourth place among cable news anchors. Bill O'Reilly brought in 595,000 viewers, Nancy Grace brought in 258,000 viewers, and Keith Olbermann brought in 229,000 viewers while you brought in only 208,000. Comments like those you made last night are sure to only keep you at the bottom of the heap.

Your comments have made me lose all faith in CNN's political coverage. I will watch future events like the State of the Union address on C-SPAN. I don'’t have to put up with silly talking heads there.

I thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I hope you will do the honorable thing and apologize for your gross error.

Sincerely yours,

Daniel Melder
Lampasas, Texas