Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at November 28, 2007 10:13 PM (vmyHK)

Posted by: j4vadrops at December 15, 2007 01:52 PM (0k29c)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hey, you damn Minnesotans for Romney bastards:

Ahem

STOP SPAMMING ME WITH YOUR DAMN JUNK E-MAILS!

If I'd wanted to be on your list, I would have signed up for it. That I'm on a blogroll with a number of conservative bloggers who happen to live in the state of Minnesota does not mean I want e-mails from you people, detailing your beautifully coiffed candidate's positions. It's that simple. Furthermore, that you want me to help manage your e-mail list pisses me off. I never subscribed to your list in the first place, hence I shouldn't have to unsubscribe, ya dig?

Now, knock it off or I'll start mocking you. I might even have some fun with Mitt and his hair in photoshop. So, if you'd like to prevent that eventuality, you know what you have to do, eh? Consider yourselves warned.

When are you e-campaigners going to learn, eh?

Posted by: Kathy at 12:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

So, French President Nicholas Sarkozy spoke to a joint session of Congress yesterday.

Here's a transcript of this extraordinary, well-written and moving speech. Go and read it in its entirety. It's really rather amazing.

Yet...here's the headline from this morning's Financial Times:

"Sarkozy Calls For a Strong Dollar Policy."

Sarkozy ended his speech with this:

{...}Long live the United States of America!

Vive la France!

Long live French-American friendship!

I can understand the inclination to disregard large chunks of this speech simply because it was apparently tailor-made for the audience to whom Sarkozy was speaking, but considering Sarkozy has done a complete one-eighty from his predecessor's policies toward this country, I don't think the one paragraph, in a four page speech, where he talked about the weak dollar should have been the lede.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

A move worthy of Bubba Clinton.

The sharp fall in the number of US troops killed over the past three months has brought about a corresponding reduction in the political temperature back home. Rising concerns about IranÂ’s apparently hardening stance over its uranium enrichment programme have supplanted Iraq as the USÂ’s chief foreign policy question.

The principal beneficiaries are John McCain, the erstwhile Republican frontrunner, who has loudly supported George W. BushÂ’s Iraq troop surge, and Hillary Clinton, whose vote in favour of the 2002 Senate resolution authorising war had been a bitter point of contention among grassroots liberals on the campaign trail.

“Until recently the conventional wisdom was that the 2008 election would be dominated by the Iraq war,” says Philip Gordon, fellow at the Brookings Institution, a research and policy organisation, who is advising Barack Obama’s 2008 bid. “But the situation in Iran is moving much more quickly and that is where President Bush’s decisions could have consequences for whoever takes over in January 2009.”

The fading of Iraq as a lightning rod is most evident on Capitol Hill, where Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, has all but abandoned Democratic attempts to force Mr BushÂ’s hand by attaching conditions to White House war-funding requests.

Mr Bush on Monday asked Congress for another $54bn (€38bn, £26bn) in supplemental war funding – bringing the total for this financial year to $194bn, or roughly $400m a day. Instead of promising new conditions, the Democrats announced they would merely delay Mr Bush’s request to authorise the money in coming weeks.

“Because casualties have fallen so far, it is futile to try to persuade moderate Republicans to vote with us to compel a withdrawal of US troops,” said a Democratic staffer on Capitol Hill.{...}

{my emphasis}

See, Democrats are moving away from Iraq not because the surge is working. Oh, no, no, no. It couldn't possibly be that. It's because fewer servicemen and women are dying at the hands of terrorists and they can't work their paltry majority into anything bigger without scores of dead and injured American troops. That's the reason why Democrats are abandoning the mission they were supposedly elected to achieve.

The question(s) of the day would be: do you think they realize that they just flat-out admitted their motives about supposedly "supporting the troops by pulling out" were completely bogus? Or do you think that one slipped by them entirely?

Posted by: Kathy at 10:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.

I know this has been all over the place, but go now and read it anyway.

Keep a box of kleenex at the ready.

Posted by: Kathy at 08:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

The husband often jokes that he would die without internet access.

An independent Cuban journalist, Guillermo Fariñas, apparently agrees.

But he's not joking. Far from it.

Visit Fausta's Blog for more information on how you can help save Guillermo's life.

(technorati tags: Guillermo Fariñas, internet)

Posted by: Kathy at 09:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Or, more accurately, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission.

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said on Wednesday.

The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission's Carolyn Beck.

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkeness, Beck said.

The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.

"We feel that the only way we're going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this," she said.{...}

{my emphasis}

Gee. I'm surprised you just didn't post agents in the parking lot and then call the cops so you could have had the DWI revenue. Really. You're shortchanging everyone by enforcing public intoxication laws, instead of going for the much more lucrative DWI charge. Where on earth is next month's donut money ever going to come from if not for the social drinkers who blew just over .08? Oh, wait. You're the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. You're not the police. What did you do? Just drop these hardened criminals off at the local police station and then instruct them to do the processing? I'll bet they just loved that, didn't they? A night's revenue...pissed down the drain in the holding unit at the local jail.

YEEHAW! That thar is some successful law enforcement!

Who knew that Texas, of all states, would turn out to be the next nanny state?

We all know this isn't about drinking, or even drinking and driving, but rather is part of a push for neo-prohibition, right? Don't believe me? Read this and see if you change your tune. (Read the whole thing.) DWI laws do nothing to stop drunk drivers. Trust me on this one. I know.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:17 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.

So, I don't have much for you this morning, my devoted Cake Eater readers, other than some interesting reading that should keep you occupied for a while.

• We have John Fund's latest entry on the Taliban Yalie from yesterday's Opinion Journal. It's windy, but it's quite good.
• There are two Hitchens pieces you NEED to read. The Stone Face of Zarqawi and My Ideal War (Jeff Goldstein has further thoughts on the latter piece.)

  I always find it heartening to read Hitch because he's so damn clear whereas others---whether they mean to or not---often obfuscate matters.

That should keep you busy for the time being.

UPDATE: And now for something completely different...

...a cache of over four hundred videos that is so freakin' wonderful I don't know where to begin.

A small sampling to tempt the palate:

General Public's Tenderness

The Fixx: One Thing Leads to Another

Psychedelic Furs: Love My Way

INXS: What You Need (It's off the Listen Like Thieves album which, just for some Cake Eater trivia, I still have on vinyl at the folks' house.)

For Mr. H., who remembers this video vividly, we have Berlin's Sex (I'm A)

For a bit of a Top 40 guilty pleasure, The Hooters' And We Danced

David and David's Welcome to the Boomtown (Curiously enough, I've heard this song about a thousand times, but I've never seen the video before now.)

Talking Heads Wild, Wild Life, which features a very young, relatively skinny, John Goodman.

I could go on, but go and explore for yourselves.

{Hat Tip: RP}

Posted by: Kathy at 09:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 3 kb.

The husband and I just returned from a walk wherein he laid down a simple precept that he believes ought to become the law of the land.

Ahem.

NO LAWYERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN ANY LEGISLATIVE BODY.

The quick and dirty explanation:

1. The husband believes there are too many laws on the books. He believes that if legislators (read Congresspeople) keep trying to solve every problem by passing a law, the United States Code will soon collapse under its own weight.

2. Hence, lawyers, who have an interest in making sure there are laws to enforce or work around---depending upon which side you take---are not the people who should be passing and enacting laws. It's, ultimately, a conflict of interest, the way the husband sees it.

3. Therefore no lawyers, practicing or otherwise, should be allowed to run for Congress---or any other legislative body. The husband does not believe this to be discriminatory because there are age and citizenship limits already in place for these very same offices. QED

Discuss.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:44 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

Do you really need more evidence that blocking the ports deal was a bad idea?

How's about this: "Arab Central Banks Move Assets Out of Dollar"

{...} Middle Eastern anger over the decision by the US to block a Dubai company from buying five of its ports hit the dollar yesterday as a number of central banks said they were considering switching reserves into euros.

The United Arab Emirates, which includes Dubai, said it was looking to move one-tenth of its dollar reserves into euros, while the governor of the Saudi Arabian central bank condemned the US move as "discrimination".

Separately, Syria responded to US sanctions against two of its banks by confirming plans to use euros instead of dollars for its external transactions.

The remarks combined to knock the dollar, which fell against the euro, pound and yen yesterday as analysts warned other central banks might follow suit.{...}

Oh well done, Congress. You should be proud of yourselves.

Here's my question to all you eager beaver Congresspeople: you blocked the ports deal---and Republicans in particular betrayed their President---for cheap electoral gains. Are you brilliant Congresspeople ready to face an electoral wrath if the dollar tanks, and inflation booms?

Because the President is safe from that sort of scrutiny this time around.

You brilliant Congresspeople, however, aren't.

{Hat tip: Martini Boy, who has further thoughts, as do his commenters.}

Posted by: Kathy at 01:57 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

Congresspeople are thinking above their pay grades. Again.

WASHINGTON - In a congressional election-year repudiation of
President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations. Democrats clamored for a vote in the Senate, too.

By 62-2, the House Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports. The landslide vote was the strongest signal yet that more than three weeks of White House efforts to stunt congressional opposition to the deal have not been successful.{...}

{my emphasis}

Or you could rephrase that bit in bold to read: "The lanslide vote was the strongest signal yet that in more than three weeks of Congressional electoral grandstanding that the White House has yet to cave to these morons' demands." It just all depends upon how you want to look at it.

{Insert best, booming Ron Popeil Voice Here}

But wait, there's more...

{...}Raising the stakes, the panel attached the ports language to a must-pass $91 billion measure financing hurricane recovery and wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee was to approve the entire bill late Wednesday and the full House could consider that measure as early as next week.{...}

I do so enjoy interparty blackmail, don't you? Keeps things lively.

/sarcasm.

If the GOP really is the party of national security; the party that will keep our country safe, well, one might think they, ahem, might actually want to achieve that goal. Alienating the UAE so Congresspeople can look like they're tough on terror in their primaries this spring and actual races this fall is the height of stupidity, and as I've written previously, is actually more damaging to our national security than this port deal ever will be.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

...there's a new holiday popping up everyday.

Posted by: Kathy at 05:16 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

YESYESYESYESYESYES!

{...}Some of us are scratching our heads all right, but we're wondering why Mr. Graham and others believe Dubai Ports World has been insufficiently vetted for the task at hand. So far, none of the critics have provided any evidence that the Administration hasn't done its due diligence. The deal has been blessed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multiagency panel that includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security.

Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over. Which tells us three things: First, this work is already being outsourced to "a foreign-based company"; second, discriminating against a Mideast company offers no security guarantees because attacks are sometimes homegrown; and third, Mr. Graham likes to talk first and ask questions later.

Besides, the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port "security" to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials. "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."

{...}Critics also forget, or conveniently ignore, that the UAE government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation. UAE leaders are as much an al Qaeda target as Tony Blair.

{...}So the same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really a battle for "hearts and minds" now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.? Guantanamo must be closed because it's terrible PR, wiretapping al Qaeda in the U.S. is illegal, and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these Democratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen. That's all sure to play well on al Jazeera.{...}

{emphasis mine}

While I've quoted liberally from this, please go and read the whole thing anyway.

I tried to pull my thoughts together on this whole deal last night but I couldn't: I was too angry at all the stupidity and grandstanding involved to get everything down in a coherent fashion. I'm glad for that because the Wall Street Journal editorial board did a much better job than I ever could have.

This whole controversy is manufactured. And it's been manufactured by people who are looking after American commercial interests, and then it was picked up by Hillary Clinton's people for the purpose of proving she's a hawk in time for re-election to her senate seat. That's it. And everyone has fallen for it, including Congressional Republicans who have a few electoral hopes and dreams of their own for 2008 and who are now in open rebellion against their president again over an issue that they're bound to lose. Did you hear me or do I need to repeat that again? Bush will win this one. It'll be ugly, but he'll win. This is not another Harriet Miers scenario. How could it be? All the facts are on Bush's side. The worm is already starting to turn on this issue. And this worm has teeth: it will come back to bite anyone who argues against the sale because that's the stupid, uninformed position to take.

None of this, of course, really gets into the first class xenophobia and, in some instances, flat-out bigotry on display here. While most Middle Eastern men do wear dishdashas and ghoutras, and this makes them look all alike, really and truly, you should be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys by now.

Or at least you should be able to if you want to comment on this matter without looking like an idiot.

The UAE is a liberalized country in the Middle East that we want to be associated with. It is in their best interests to foil Al-Qaeda as much as we would. They buy arms from us. They have some of the most innovative examples of free trade going on. Their oil runs out in 2010 and their leaders have done their best to make sure there is an economy for their people when this unhappy event occurs. They did this to make sure radical Islam did not gain a foothold within their country. To lump the UAE in with Saudi Arabia---which has done precisely the opposite in terms of building an infrastructure, liberalizing trade, and encouraging education---or Syria, or any number of repressive Arab countries is the worst of mistakes not only because it's a political boo-boo, but because it threatens our national security down the road by taking chickenhawk potshots at an ally who's done nothing but help us in the War on Terror.

This editorial ends with the hope that Bush means it when he says he's going to veto any legislation that would prevent this sale: I hope he means it too, and if he doesn't follow through on it, I will, again, wonder why I voted for him.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:01 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 925 words, total size 6 kb.

"DON'T SUE PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY"

This is, apparently, a rule which Mike Hatch, the Minnesota AG follows to the letter. Otherwise why would he be suing Pfizer and Merck on behalf of the great State of Minnesota to recoup the costs of cleaning up meth labs?

{...}Hatch said he plans to sue giant international drugmakers such as Pfizer and Merck on grounds that they long have known that large quantities of their legal products have been diverted to illegal meth labs, spurring an epidemic of addiction, crime and shattered lives across America.

It is a step likely to stir opposition, especially in an election year when the DFL attorney general is a leading candidate to challenge Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Drugmakers say Hatch's plan would penalize makers of valued medicines for others' misuse of their products.

"I'm sure it's controversial," Hatch said. "But we've got to be serious about this. This industry essentially lied to the American public. They're clearly dumping [meth ingredients] in a way that allows creation of this illegal substance."

{...}Hatch noted, however, that the companies "strenuously opposed legislation that would have made their products more difficult to obtain."

Hatch said he will seek enabling legislation to assist the courtroom assault -- including extending the drugmakers' liability six years into the past -- an idea that got a chilly reception from Republican leaders.

Hatch suggested, however, that he could move ahead without legislation, adding that "current law already provides legal theories for recovery of costs caused by meth from the manufacturers and suppliers of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine."{...}

{my emphasis}

Is this sounding vaguely familiar to you all?

{Insert the sound of Kath repeatedly slamming her head on her desk here}

Of course you know what's coming, don't you?

In a related move, the legislature, under prompting from Governor Pawlenty, decided to institute a seventy-five-cent per box "fee" on cold medicine because the cost of cleaning up meth labs is apparently as good an excuse as any for the legislature to raise some moolah for some other arm of government to spend.

When Pawlenty was called on his behavior, he scoffed, "Well, you know, I don't, I'm not a big fan of growing revenues through new mechanisms like this as I hope I've proven as governor but the bottom line was we had a historic government shutdown we had to find common ground and compared to the alternatives of the Democrats wanting to tax everything including income and business taxes and a variety of other things. This was the least offensive. And the good news is other states have done it and meth making has decreased dramatically, and so this has a health benefit as well."

Just you wait.

Posted by: Kathy at 10:28 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

...as in Martini Boy's bartender has a good question for the mainstream media in light of their apparent decision to keep beating the Cheney SHOT someone drum.

It's better than good, really. I'd say it's an absolutely crucial question that needs answering toute suite.

Posted by: Kathy at 09:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

It Could Only Happen in Russia!

{...}Perhaps nothing symbolises quite so potently the gulf between Russia's uber classes and the rest of the country as the flashing blue siren, or migalka, affixed to the top of the elite's chauffeur-driven luxury cars.

A hangover from Soviet times, the migalka confers on its owner the right to roar down the wrong side of the road at high speed, often disregarding traffic lights and careering on to pavements.

{...}Protests were also held over the weekend in 17 other cities, one of the most co-ordinated exhibitions of public anger seen in Russia in recent years.

"The blue light should be the preserve of the emergency services, not a badge of immunity for the elite and their relatives and friends," said Katya Zhitkovskaya, a manager who took part in one of the Moscow demonstrations.

The Kremlin claims it has started to clamp down on the issue, awarding migalkas only to the emergency services, senior government officials, judges and members of the Russian parliament.

But Vyacheslav Lysakov, head of the Free Choice Motorist's Movement that organised the protests, said the migalka was still freely available to those prepared to pay a £30,000 bribe for one - or for those with political connections.

Migalka owners are blamed for adding to Russia's horrific death toll on the roads - 95 people are killed in road accidents every day in Russia and 700 more are injured.

Giving the campaign a political tinge the protesters highlighted two cases.

In the first, a Siberian railway worker, Oleg Shcherbinsky, was jailed for four years last week after a judge ruled he was to blame for the death of a regional governor in a car accident because he did not get out of the way quickly enough.

Shcherbinsky said he did not see the governor's migalka limousine, which was allegedly travelling down the wrong side of the road at over 100mph, as he attempted a left turn.

The second involved the eldest son of Sergei Ivanov, the defence minister, who was travelling in a car last year that killed a 68-year-old woman on a zebra crossing. Charges against Alexander Ivanov were quietly dropped.{...}

I'm surprised. Really. Not about the extent of the corruption in supposedly democratic Russia, but rather that the people actually protested about it. In the middle of February no less.

Way to get off your collective ass, people!

Posted by: Kathy at 04:42 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.

So, last week at the Cake Eater Pad we got a survey from our state representative about the upcoming legislative session. Now, because I'm all about the power of the people, I wanted to fill it out and send it in.

Until I realized that my duly elected state representative, Ron Erhardt---whom I voted for---decided that if I wanted to have my say, I was going to have to shell out $0.39 for postage. As you might expect, my devoted Cake Eater readers, that irked me.

So, because I don't feel I should have to pay for postage to let my duly elected state representative know how I feel on issues he thinks should be raised this legislative session, I filled out the survey and posted it here.

Clicket for larger.

Don't you just love representative government? I do. Because I get blogging material out of it!

Posted by: Kathy at 10:59 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

The renowned French shower-of-chest-hair and intellectual, Bernard-Henri Levy, in today's Opinion Journal:

{...}And, faced with this triangulation in progress, faced with this formidable hate-and-death machine, faced with this "moral atomic bomb," we have no other solution than to counter with another triangle--a triangle of life and reason, which more than ever must unite the United States, Europe and Israel in a rejection of any clash of civilizations of the kind desired by the extremists of the Arab-Muslim world and by them alone.

The heart of this second triangle? First, the affirmation of principles. The affirmation of the press's right to the expression of idiocies of its choosing--rather than the acts of repentance that too many leaders have resorted to, and which merely encourages in the Arab street the false and counterproductive illusion that a democratic state may exert power over its press.

And second, in the same breath, the reaffirmation of our support for those enlightened moderate Muslims who know that the honor of Islam is far more insulted, and trampled under foot, when Iraqi terrorists bomb a mosque in Baghdad, when Pakistani jihadists decapitate Daniel Pearl in the name of God and film their crime, or when an Algerian fundamentalist emir disembowels, while reciting the Quran, an Algerian woman whose only crime was to have dared show her beautiful face. Moderate Muslims are alone these days, and in their solitude they more than ever need to be acknowledged and hailed.

If you subscribe to Christopher Hitchens' notion, as I do, that there is a civil war occuring in Islam between the moderates and the fascists, and that the jihad against Western interests, aka The United States of America, is only an offshoot of that battle, then it really becomes very important to know precisely where the moderate Muslims are, because they're not showing up to the battle. In fact, I have yet to see that they even realize they're at war with those in their religion who would have them brought over to their particular brand of orthodoxy by threat of dismemberment or death---whichever is easier. However, we do hear an awful lot from moderate Muslims when they're afraid they're going to be attacked by westerners. Then they're all about showing that they come in peace.

I am more than willing to support moderate Muslims, but here's the question that really needs answering: where are they right now? This is more their battle than it is mine, yet they are nowhere to be found---except on the internet, posting anonymous apologies.

We talk a good game about getting the Europeans to ante up and realize their civilization is about to collapse under the weight of Islamofascism, but we never hold the moderate Muslims to the same standard, do we?

{Hat Tip on the "We Are Sorry" thing to Pious Rob}

UPDATE: Dorkafork over at INDC sez "the silence is deafening." Make sure you read the comments section.

I'm not sure this does it for me, though.

Posted by: Kathy at 11:18 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.

The Los Angeles Times on Coretta Scott King's funeral: "Bush Gets an Earful at Coretta King's Funeral"

LITHONIA, Ga. -- A day of eulogizing Coretta Scott King turned into a rare, in-person rebuke of President Bush, with a succession of civil rights and political leaders assailing White House policies as evidence that the dream of social and racial equality pursued by King and her slain husband is far from reality.

{...}But it also included pointed political commentary, much of it aimed at Bush. The president and his wife watched as the sanctuary at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church near Atlanta filled with raucous cheers for their White House predecessors, Bill and Hillary Clinton -- a reminder that five years into his term, Bush and the Republican Party he leads have not found the acceptance across black America that GOP strategists had hoped.

"This commemorative ceremony this morning and this afternoon is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over," said former President Carter, a Democrat and former Georgia governor, to rising applause. "We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, those who were most devastated by Katrina, to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans."

Carter, who has had a strained relationship with Bush, drew cheers when he used the Kings' struggle as a reminder of the recent debate over whether Bush violated civil liberties protections when he ordered warrantless surveillance of some domestic phone calls and e-mails.

Noting that the Kings' work was "not appreciated even at the highest level of the government," Carter said: "It was difficult for them personally -- with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretapping, other surveillance, and as you know, harassment from the FBI." Bush has said his own program of warrantless wiretapping is aimed at stopping terrorists.

The most overtly partisan remarks came from the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a King protege and longtime Bush critic, who noted Coretta King's opposition to the war in Iraq and criticized Bush's commitment to boosting the poor.

"She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar," he said. "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we knew that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor."{...}

Compare this to the WaPo's "Coretta Scott King's Legacy Celebrated in Final Farewell."

{...}The six-hour service, held in a lavish black church in the wealthy, majority-black Atlanta suburb of DeKalb County, seemed to strive mightily to project a theme of inclusion and the setting aside of political differences. Among the speakers were four of the five living U.S. presidents; several lawmakers; the Georgia governor, who is locked in a pitched battle with black lawmakers over voting rights; and a television evangelist.

Several high-profile -- and politically charged -- black figures, such at the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton, were not accorded a place onstage.

Still, political tensions occasionally burst through the veneer of reconciliation. At one point, the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a former head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the group Martin Luther King Jr. helped found, made a reference to not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The well-heeled, mostly black crowd erupted in a standing ovation.

In his speech, former president George H.W. Bush noted that Lowery's address was all in rhyme. "Maya Angelou has nothing to worry about," he said, looking at Lowery. "Don't quit your day job."

Former president Bill Clinton, whose popularity among black people has not waned, was greeted like a returning hero, his remarks peppered with wild ovations and his one-liners greeted by raucous laughter. He dedicated his speech to the King children: Yolanda, Martin Luther III, Dexter and Bernice.

"Her children, we know they have to bear the burden of their mother and father's legacy," Clinton told the crowd. "We clap for that, but they have to go home and live it." He challenged the mourners. "You want to treat our friend Coretta like a role model? Then model her behavior."{...}

I'm assuming that each of these stories will be their respective newspaper's front page story for this morning's editions.

Now, do tell, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, which one actually reports on the funeral?

No matter how many times you see it, the bias can---and will---take your breath away.

Posted by: Kathy at 12:35 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 783 words, total size 5 kb.