Fishseddy.com: they want your sale, they also want you to vote
1 day ago
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Twenty days…
TR
What would have been the Theodore Roosevelt Way to approach a debate? Certainly with a great command of the facts, a tremendous concern for the environment, for social justice, women’s rights, corporate responsibility and a call to end American isolationism abroad.
Familiar themes, aren’t they? Reading a biography of TR is enlightening. The 26th president’s interests and talents were stunningly multifarious. How can I be so presumptuous as to suggest that we overlap in some way? Oh, but there is indeed an area: it is said of him that he had a love of keeping connected to his friends and contacts through writing letters. Indeed, he appeared to have written well over 150,000 letters in his lifetime. Had he email, I’m sure the number would have been ten times that.
The “L” letter
Last night, 9 people came together (here) to listen carefully for the dreaded “L” word. It was announced prior to the debate that the evening would be one monstrous “L” attack as well as a defense of “L”-ness.
But in signaling this, the newscaster forgot to provide specifics. What “L” theme would be foisted on us, causing anarchy and chaos, moving us away from the “march to freedom?” [Thank you to the person last night who did a reenactment for me just to illustrate how that march might look. It was a militaristic moment.]
A stipulation for the evening: no drinking games (but it was so tempting, so tempting, especially when one heard such cunning lines as “I sent my budget man…”). One had to be alert to catch the moment went “L” would LEAP from the podium.
And so what happened? Did we miss it? Because, although there were a lot of “L” words floating around, no devastating punch was levied against the “L” leaning candidate. And which of the various "Ls" was the intended coup de grace? I’m running down my list of “L” candidates from last night: Was it Litmus test? Or Left? Or Left behind? Or Lesbian? Was it Legal reform and Litigation (said in one sentence, sort of like a punch and then a follow-up kick)? Or Lawsuit and Liability reform (also in one sentence; clearly GWB is tuned to the legal system)? You know, I bet it was Love. Because the press seems to believe that the crowning moment of glory for Bush (of all three debates) came when he spoke of his wife, Laura. Laura, hey that is IT! The intended punch at Kerry who has no Laura in his life! A good reason not to vote for him? You bet! Every presidnet needs a Laura to Love in order to do well in the White House! Love my wife Laura – 2 “Ls,” delivering the cataclysmic blow to Kerry who, struggling to survive, had to come up with Love for Mom. Not quite up there with Laura, but close enough in alphabet. Teresa is too far down the letter line-up. [And thank you, Mr. Schieffer, for coming up with the stupidest final Q of the debates.]
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
a photo of Rosemary Forbes Kerry:
TR
What would have been the Theodore Roosevelt Way to approach a debate? Certainly with a great command of the facts, a tremendous concern for the environment, for social justice, women’s rights, corporate responsibility and a call to end American isolationism abroad.
Familiar themes, aren’t they? Reading a biography of TR is enlightening. The 26th president’s interests and talents were stunningly multifarious. How can I be so presumptuous as to suggest that we overlap in some way? Oh, but there is indeed an area: it is said of him that he had a love of keeping connected to his friends and contacts through writing letters. Indeed, he appeared to have written well over 150,000 letters in his lifetime. Had he email, I’m sure the number would have been ten times that.
The “L” letter
Last night, 9 people came together (here) to listen carefully for the dreaded “L” word. It was announced prior to the debate that the evening would be one monstrous “L” attack as well as a defense of “L”-ness.
But in signaling this, the newscaster forgot to provide specifics. What “L” theme would be foisted on us, causing anarchy and chaos, moving us away from the “march to freedom?” [Thank you to the person last night who did a reenactment for me just to illustrate how that march might look. It was a militaristic moment.]
A stipulation for the evening: no drinking games (but it was so tempting, so tempting, especially when one heard such cunning lines as “I sent my budget man…”). One had to be alert to catch the moment went “L” would LEAP from the podium.
And so what happened? Did we miss it? Because, although there were a lot of “L” words floating around, no devastating punch was levied against the “L” leaning candidate. And which of the various "Ls" was the intended coup de grace? I’m running down my list of “L” candidates from last night: Was it Litmus test? Or Left? Or Left behind? Or Lesbian? Was it Legal reform and Litigation (said in one sentence, sort of like a punch and then a follow-up kick)? Or Lawsuit and Liability reform (also in one sentence; clearly GWB is tuned to the legal system)? You know, I bet it was Love. Because the press seems to believe that the crowning moment of glory for Bush (of all three debates) came when he spoke of his wife, Laura. Laura, hey that is IT! The intended punch at Kerry who has no Laura in his life! A good reason not to vote for him? You bet! Every presidnet needs a Laura to Love in order to do well in the White House! Love my wife Laura – 2 “Ls,” delivering the cataclysmic blow to Kerry who, struggling to survive, had to come up with Love for Mom. Not quite up there with Laura, but close enough in alphabet. Teresa is too far down the letter line-up. [And thank you, Mr. Schieffer, for coming up with the stupidest final Q of the debates.]
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
a photo of Rosemary Forbes Kerry:
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Yet another post that demonstrates my commitment to both sides of the political spectrum
I want to show my open-mindedness. I want to understand those who are deeply, passionately committed to the current president. And so (with guidance from my neighbor –thanks!) I went to the hometown of our folksy man to read about the support offered to him by the locals.
I was disappointed.
Instead of a yipee-tayay-yey (is that what they shout in a small town in Texas?) in support of their local hero, GWB’s hometown paper has just announced that it is leaving George behind.
Here are excerpts from an editorial appearing in the Lone Star Iconoclast (the newspaper from Crawford, Texas):
The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.…
We believed [Bush], just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.The Iconoclast, the President’s hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper’s publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.Again, he let us down.
…
That’s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country. The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.
True, the paper has a weekly circulation of 425 and perhaps it has been infiltrated by communists and pacifists in the last four years. In any case, my search for a better understanding of the GWB’s fan base continues. Crawford, Texas did not deliver.
I was disappointed.
Instead of a yipee-tayay-yey (is that what they shout in a small town in Texas?) in support of their local hero, GWB’s hometown paper has just announced that it is leaving George behind.
Here are excerpts from an editorial appearing in the Lone Star Iconoclast (the newspaper from Crawford, Texas):
The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.…
We believed [Bush], just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.The Iconoclast, the President’s hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper’s publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.Again, he let us down.
…
That’s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country. The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.
True, the paper has a weekly circulation of 425 and perhaps it has been infiltrated by communists and pacifists in the last four years. In any case, my search for a better understanding of the GWB’s fan base continues. Crawford, Texas did not deliver.
The very first offices of The New Republic were housed in buildings on the far west side of 21st street. Virginia Woolf once wrote for the New Republic (see VW post below; the intricate connections between events, people, circumstances are amazing).
Reading the editorial of TNR today, 21 days before the election, will put you right in the middle of where we, indeed ought to be: Darfur. As the editors points out (here), it is the one place where even a very small dose of “American might” can make a significant difference in stabilization efforts. It is an opportunity that the current administration refuses to take and one that Kerry is willing to consider. In the words of TNR:
[B]y hammering home this message [of a willingness to send stabilizing troops], Kerry would show how absent Bush has been. After all, it is Bush, not Kerry, who is now presiding over 6,000 to 10,000 Darfurian deaths each month. It is up to Bush, as president, to stop the genocide.
Tonight is, of course, the night of the last debate and Darfur will not be on the agenda. And in any case, few of those who are still undecided would consider the Darfur issue as crucial, even though what happens here on November 2nd will determine the fate of thousands in Sudan. It is frightening to give such power to a voter who can’t even point to Sudan on a global map let alone comprehend the importance of providing support to the region.
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
Reading the editorial of TNR today, 21 days before the election, will put you right in the middle of where we, indeed ought to be: Darfur. As the editors points out (here), it is the one place where even a very small dose of “American might” can make a significant difference in stabilization efforts. It is an opportunity that the current administration refuses to take and one that Kerry is willing to consider. In the words of TNR:
[B]y hammering home this message [of a willingness to send stabilizing troops], Kerry would show how absent Bush has been. After all, it is Bush, not Kerry, who is now presiding over 6,000 to 10,000 Darfurian deaths each month. It is up to Bush, as president, to stop the genocide.
Tonight is, of course, the night of the last debate and Darfur will not be on the agenda. And in any case, few of those who are still undecided would consider the Darfur issue as crucial, even though what happens here on November 2nd will determine the fate of thousands in Sudan. It is frightening to give such power to a voter who can’t even point to Sudan on a global map let alone comprehend the importance of providing support to the region.
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
Tuesday vignettes
Polishness
A friend just told me that she’d met a Polish couple in my neighborhood. Polish? Here? Yes, yes, she said – she spent time with them at the Polish Film Festival last year. I asked her how she liked the films. She hesitated, then admitted that they were kind of weird. A lot of animation, crazy stuff, squiggly lines – it made her dizzy so that she had to leave. And the Polish couple? Well – she answered – they were really into it. But they said you had to be Polish to understand it. Polish people have a certain way of looking at themselves that is really different. Most people can’t understand it; they kept saying – you had to be Polish to get it. I get it.
Cuban cigars
Another friend offered me a Cuban cigar. Did you smoke it? You hate smoking, smokers, smoke. You smoked it, didn’t you? Vices in small doses, if they hurt no one, can be very satisfying. Was it satisfying? No. And I can’t get the damn taste out of my mouth. I should have known better. I hate smoke, smoking, smoke-related anything, with the exception, perhaps, of smoked salmon. Never again.
Chinese tea, e-mail and Virginia Woolf
In a more virtuous vein, my walking buddy (I hereby gratefully acknowledge all three of you –K,K and S- for your indulgence of my walking addiction) brewed for me a pot of tea. She has recently traveled to China and she has with her a supply of tea leaves that I’m sure rivals in size the raked pile of fallen leaves outside my window. We sipped tea and talked about banes and vices. What’s yours, she asks. Email, I say without hesitation. I am a compulsive email-answerer. You send it, I answer. In fact, I’ll answer before you even send it. Colleagues will send a Q and bingo! There‘s a reply. You’d think that this would be regarded favorably? Oh no, it places the ball in their park again so instead of feeling deep satisfaction at having crossed off an item from their list, the item is right back on there. My friend kindly suggested that the compulsion is driven by a writer’s temperament. The medium is an odd weapon for people who feel compelled to formulate sentences and stories every waking hour of the day. Imagine the odd behaviors, she said, that would follow, if you placed email in the hands of Virginia Woolf.
I suppose I agree. And how much worse it would be to receive brilliance in your Inbox rather than the trite stuff I place there! Consider this exert from a Woolf essay where she contemplates writing (though in truth, we are in the dark what meaning lies behind these words, because Woolf can be painfully difficult to comprehend; here, you can almost believe that she is writing about email!) and imagine the strain of finding such words in your Inbox were she your acquaintance (emphases are my own):
Is it not possible that the accent falls a little differently, that the moment of importance came before or after, that, if one were free and could set down what one chose, there would be no plot, little probability, and a vague general confusion in which the clear-cut features of the tragic, the comic, the passionate and the lyrical were dissolved beyond the possibility of separate recognition? The mind, exposed to the ordinary course of life, receives upon its surface a myriad impressions—trivial, fantastic, evanescent, or engraved with the sharpness of steel. From all sides they come, an incessant shower of innumerable atoms, composing in their sum what we might venture to call life itself; and to figure further as the semi-transparent envelope, or luminous halo, surrounding us from the beginning of consciousness to the end.
A friend just told me that she’d met a Polish couple in my neighborhood. Polish? Here? Yes, yes, she said – she spent time with them at the Polish Film Festival last year. I asked her how she liked the films. She hesitated, then admitted that they were kind of weird. A lot of animation, crazy stuff, squiggly lines – it made her dizzy so that she had to leave. And the Polish couple? Well – she answered – they were really into it. But they said you had to be Polish to understand it. Polish people have a certain way of looking at themselves that is really different. Most people can’t understand it; they kept saying – you had to be Polish to get it. I get it.
Cuban cigars
Another friend offered me a Cuban cigar. Did you smoke it? You hate smoking, smokers, smoke. You smoked it, didn’t you? Vices in small doses, if they hurt no one, can be very satisfying. Was it satisfying? No. And I can’t get the damn taste out of my mouth. I should have known better. I hate smoke, smoking, smoke-related anything, with the exception, perhaps, of smoked salmon. Never again.
Chinese tea, e-mail and Virginia Woolf
In a more virtuous vein, my walking buddy (I hereby gratefully acknowledge all three of you –K,K and S- for your indulgence of my walking addiction) brewed for me a pot of tea. She has recently traveled to China and she has with her a supply of tea leaves that I’m sure rivals in size the raked pile of fallen leaves outside my window. We sipped tea and talked about banes and vices. What’s yours, she asks. Email, I say without hesitation. I am a compulsive email-answerer. You send it, I answer. In fact, I’ll answer before you even send it. Colleagues will send a Q and bingo! There‘s a reply. You’d think that this would be regarded favorably? Oh no, it places the ball in their park again so instead of feeling deep satisfaction at having crossed off an item from their list, the item is right back on there. My friend kindly suggested that the compulsion is driven by a writer’s temperament. The medium is an odd weapon for people who feel compelled to formulate sentences and stories every waking hour of the day. Imagine the odd behaviors, she said, that would follow, if you placed email in the hands of Virginia Woolf.
I suppose I agree. And how much worse it would be to receive brilliance in your Inbox rather than the trite stuff I place there! Consider this exert from a Woolf essay where she contemplates writing (though in truth, we are in the dark what meaning lies behind these words, because Woolf can be painfully difficult to comprehend; here, you can almost believe that she is writing about email!) and imagine the strain of finding such words in your Inbox were she your acquaintance (emphases are my own):
Is it not possible that the accent falls a little differently, that the moment of importance came before or after, that, if one were free and could set down what one chose, there would be no plot, little probability, and a vague general confusion in which the clear-cut features of the tragic, the comic, the passionate and the lyrical were dissolved beyond the possibility of separate recognition? The mind, exposed to the ordinary course of life, receives upon its surface a myriad impressions—trivial, fantastic, evanescent, or engraved with the sharpness of steel. From all sides they come, an incessant shower of innumerable atoms, composing in their sum what we might venture to call life itself; and to figure further as the semi-transparent envelope, or luminous halo, surrounding us from the beginning of consciousness to the end.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
There is a mist this morning that makes the outdoors look like a muted painting. Were I an artist, I could do a lot with the colors and tones right now.
This morning the Washington Post describes (here) the different level of enthusiasm demonstrated by crowds during campaign stops. Bush supporters are likened to fans at a rock concert. They are wildly enthusiastic about their candidate. True, they are heavily screened – only contributors and volunteers and registered supporters are given tickets.
In Kerry-land, crowds are divided 50 – 50 between support for their candidate and hatred of Bush. Reactions to Kerry’s fact-based speeches are more subdued, polite almost.
What consistently draws the biggest, wildest cheers for Bush? His relentlessly repeated message of putting a cap on jury awards and opposition to gay marriage!
Reading this almost drains the color from the day. We have a new cult figure – with weeping women standing in the rain, holding hand-made signs with Biblical messages scribbled across, waving them fanatically, screaming love for the president. They are 100% behind their man, they say. It’s not against Kerry or his policies or any of that – it’s all about their folksy hero, GW.
If this sounds like a bleak assessment of what inspires so many of the voters, only 22 days before the election, no less, let me end with a note of color. My neighbor, ever the optimist, is convinced that Kerry is now firmly in the lead. He has deconstructed the ABC poll (which has Kerry trailing slightly) and remains convinced that it is not representative of American public opinion. I’ll accept that for now. I’m willing to look for that burst of color in a monochromatic landscape. Hey, look below – it’s a photo from 22nd street in NY, followed by a photo taken this morning of freshly-cut flowers from my back yard. That’s right, in October, blooming roses and lavender and honeysuckle. I’m not averting my eyes to the signs of color, I’m not. [It would help if I don’t read things like “Passions runs high for GWB” or “Bush's speeches and their settings are largely emotional celebrations of conservatism” first thing in the morning.]
Time to make another contribution to the campaign I think. I’m hoping that others are doing the same.
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
This morning the Washington Post describes (here) the different level of enthusiasm demonstrated by crowds during campaign stops. Bush supporters are likened to fans at a rock concert. They are wildly enthusiastic about their candidate. True, they are heavily screened – only contributors and volunteers and registered supporters are given tickets.
In Kerry-land, crowds are divided 50 – 50 between support for their candidate and hatred of Bush. Reactions to Kerry’s fact-based speeches are more subdued, polite almost.
What consistently draws the biggest, wildest cheers for Bush? His relentlessly repeated message of putting a cap on jury awards and opposition to gay marriage!
Reading this almost drains the color from the day. We have a new cult figure – with weeping women standing in the rain, holding hand-made signs with Biblical messages scribbled across, waving them fanatically, screaming love for the president. They are 100% behind their man, they say. It’s not against Kerry or his policies or any of that – it’s all about their folksy hero, GW.
If this sounds like a bleak assessment of what inspires so many of the voters, only 22 days before the election, no less, let me end with a note of color. My neighbor, ever the optimist, is convinced that Kerry is now firmly in the lead. He has deconstructed the ABC poll (which has Kerry trailing slightly) and remains convinced that it is not representative of American public opinion. I’ll accept that for now. I’m willing to look for that burst of color in a monochromatic landscape. Hey, look below – it’s a photo from 22nd street in NY, followed by a photo taken this morning of freshly-cut flowers from my back yard. That’s right, in October, blooming roses and lavender and honeysuckle. I’m not averting my eyes to the signs of color, I’m not. [It would help if I don’t read things like “Passions runs high for GWB” or “Bush's speeches and their settings are largely emotional celebrations of conservatism” first thing in the morning.]
Time to make another contribution to the campaign I think. I’m hoping that others are doing the same.
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
Monday, October 11, 2004
Five-day report
As I mentioned in a previous post, last week in a fit of despair and irrational decision-making, I signed on to extended cable.
Since I post such lofty statements as “I think everyone should be self-critical and willing to change” or some such nonsense (realizing that no one is REALLY self-critical, let alone willing to change), I decided to scientifically evaluate the sanity of this decision. First, the daily scorecard on my TV watching now that I have some 80-plus channels to choose from (the plus refers to a movie option that I took but do not understand at all at, AT ALL! Except that it bought some free box into my home where now I can start movies –what movies??? From where???? – on demand):
Thursday (the day of cable installation): 0 minutes of TV viewing
Friday: The debate (perhaps 2 hrs?) on NBC (available without cable)
Saturday: 0 minutes of TV viewing
Sunday: 15 minutes of “60 Minutes” on CBS (available without cable)
Monday: 5 minutes of news at 7 a.m. on NBC (available without cable) and 20 minutes of the MacNeil/Lehrer Report (available without cable).
Am I ready to admit to complete stupidity and lack of self-awareness? No, of course not (remember: no one is REALLY self-critical). We’re dealing with unique circumstances, that’s all. [Yes, yes, I know; that’s what they all say…]
Since I post such lofty statements as “I think everyone should be self-critical and willing to change” or some such nonsense (realizing that no one is REALLY self-critical, let alone willing to change), I decided to scientifically evaluate the sanity of this decision. First, the daily scorecard on my TV watching now that I have some 80-plus channels to choose from (the plus refers to a movie option that I took but do not understand at all at, AT ALL! Except that it bought some free box into my home where now I can start movies –what movies??? From where???? – on demand):
Thursday (the day of cable installation): 0 minutes of TV viewing
Friday: The debate (perhaps 2 hrs?) on NBC (available without cable)
Saturday: 0 minutes of TV viewing
Sunday: 15 minutes of “60 Minutes” on CBS (available without cable)
Monday: 5 minutes of news at 7 a.m. on NBC (available without cable) and 20 minutes of the MacNeil/Lehrer Report (available without cable).
Am I ready to admit to complete stupidity and lack of self-awareness? No, of course not (remember: no one is REALLY self-critical). We’re dealing with unique circumstances, that’s all. [Yes, yes, I know; that’s what they all say…]
Another post that demonstrates my commitment to both sides of the political spectrum
[Q: GWB, a steward? Yes!]
However President Bush may choose to characterize himself (and there have been very interesting such characterizations), I never would have thought that he would pick this one: “steward of the land.” Because the word “steward” doesn’t fit with GWB-speak. Nor does "of the land." It’s as if Kerry suddenly said next Wednesday “I feel your pain, sister!” Clinton? Maybe, but not Kerry. So, too, the steward of the land thing seemed to me to be a Bush aberration.
Where did he come up with it? When was it first suggested that stewardship, land and George are like peas in a pod? After poking around a bit, I found that, lo and behold, lots of people HAVE been linking stewardship with the environment and GWB and this has been evidently taking place since the days of his governorship. We hear it from advocate types as well as within the corporate sector. So I was wrong: Bush is merely quoting others who have indeed used the phrase in conjunction with this administration. I’ll include a few samples, in case you don’t believe me (in chronological order; I've highlighted the appropriate words in case you're in a hurry and just want to get to the proof).
(from Iowa Press, questioning GWB’s record as Governor, Dec. 1999)
[IP]: You're being criticized for your handling of the environment in Texas. Specifically, people are saying that the Texas environment is a polluted one and that you've not been a good steward of the environment. How do you respond to that?
[GWB]: ...I don't believe we can sue or regulate our way to clean air and clean water.
(from ABC News, May 2001)
Mr. Bush went to Sequoia National Forest in California today to say that he is and he will be a good steward of the environment. ... But environmentalists are skeptical of Mr. Bush, even when he is trying to please them. The National Parks Association today gave him a barely passing grade, D.
(from ChevronTexaco home page, Aug. 2003)
President George W. Bush has announced his intention to appoint Lydia I. Beebe, corporate secretary of ChevronTexaco, to the Presidio Trust board of directors. The board is charged with preserving the Presidio’s [in SF] natural, cultural, scenic and recreational resources...
"I’m honored to be appointed to the Presidio Trust board of directors,” said Beebe. “The appointment allows me to put into practice the values we adhere to at ChevronTexaco of being a good steward of the environment and a constructive partner in areas where we live and work."
(from the Center for American Progress, Feb 2004)
Three years into the current administration, the trend in environmental regulation is sledgehammer clear: this administration is the worst steward of the environment ever. So bad is the record, so long the list of environmental depredations, that it is difficult to pick the worst.
What did I say? Peas in a pod. With ChevronTexaco, too.
However President Bush may choose to characterize himself (and there have been very interesting such characterizations), I never would have thought that he would pick this one: “steward of the land.” Because the word “steward” doesn’t fit with GWB-speak. Nor does "of the land." It’s as if Kerry suddenly said next Wednesday “I feel your pain, sister!” Clinton? Maybe, but not Kerry. So, too, the steward of the land thing seemed to me to be a Bush aberration.
Where did he come up with it? When was it first suggested that stewardship, land and George are like peas in a pod? After poking around a bit, I found that, lo and behold, lots of people HAVE been linking stewardship with the environment and GWB and this has been evidently taking place since the days of his governorship. We hear it from advocate types as well as within the corporate sector. So I was wrong: Bush is merely quoting others who have indeed used the phrase in conjunction with this administration. I’ll include a few samples, in case you don’t believe me (in chronological order; I've highlighted the appropriate words in case you're in a hurry and just want to get to the proof).
(from Iowa Press, questioning GWB’s record as Governor, Dec. 1999)
[IP]: You're being criticized for your handling of the environment in Texas. Specifically, people are saying that the Texas environment is a polluted one and that you've not been a good steward of the environment. How do you respond to that?
[GWB]: ...I don't believe we can sue or regulate our way to clean air and clean water.
(from ABC News, May 2001)
Mr. Bush went to Sequoia National Forest in California today to say that he is and he will be a good steward of the environment. ... But environmentalists are skeptical of Mr. Bush, even when he is trying to please them. The National Parks Association today gave him a barely passing grade, D.
(from ChevronTexaco home page, Aug. 2003)
President George W. Bush has announced his intention to appoint Lydia I. Beebe, corporate secretary of ChevronTexaco, to the Presidio Trust board of directors. The board is charged with preserving the Presidio’s [in SF] natural, cultural, scenic and recreational resources...
"I’m honored to be appointed to the Presidio Trust board of directors,” said Beebe. “The appointment allows me to put into practice the values we adhere to at ChevronTexaco of being a good steward of the environment and a constructive partner in areas where we live and work."
(from the Center for American Progress, Feb 2004)
Three years into the current administration, the trend in environmental regulation is sledgehammer clear: this administration is the worst steward of the environment ever. So bad is the record, so long the list of environmental depredations, that it is difficult to pick the worst.
What did I say? Peas in a pod. With ChevronTexaco, too.
It’s still very dark outside. On the twenty-third sunrise, we’ll wake up to an election morning. Do they have twenty-three day forecasts? They have ten day forecasts, how accurate are those? [I’m thinking of the weather which has been stunningly beautiful in Madison – perfect for walking and ruminating.]
The interesting thing about William Seward (pictured in the photo above) is that he ‘flip-flopped’ (to use a popular phrase) in his political positions over time. What does that mean in terms of a governor who later became Secretary of State for Lincoln? It means that his more radical views (focusing on abolishing slavery, promoting prison reform and providing education for immigrants) appeared to calm down over the decades, so that toward the end of his career he was more interested in the protection of national unity than of individual rights (at least that is how I read his life, admittedly based on limited information; but then we always interpret the views of others based on limited information).
People change. Yet, it is interesting to note how history remembers them and it turns out it is never for the act of change but for the direction and reasons behind it. It’s true in politics, it’s true in everyday life.
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
The interesting thing about William Seward (pictured in the photo above) is that he ‘flip-flopped’ (to use a popular phrase) in his political positions over time. What does that mean in terms of a governor who later became Secretary of State for Lincoln? It means that his more radical views (focusing on abolishing slavery, promoting prison reform and providing education for immigrants) appeared to calm down over the decades, so that toward the end of his career he was more interested in the protection of national unity than of individual rights (at least that is how I read his life, admittedly based on limited information; but then we always interpret the views of others based on limited information).
People change. Yet, it is interesting to note how history remembers them and it turns out it is never for the act of change but for the direction and reasons behind it. It’s true in politics, it’s true in everyday life.
(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
