Seeing the recent movie Good Night, and Good Luck sparked my curiosity about the legendary newsman Ed Murrow, so I’ve been reading a book by former NPR host Bob Edwards called Edward R. Murrow and the Birth of Broadcast Journalism. It’s a short little volume, less an in-depth biography than a concise overview of Murrow’s life and philosophies. Sparse as it is, though, the book provides plenty to think about. Consider, for instance, the following passage:
Ponder if you will the following quotes:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
–Amendment IV, U.S. Constitution
[President] Bush said he approved [wiretapping without a court warrant] “because it enables us to move faster and quicker. We’ve got to be fast on our feet.
“It is legal to do so. I swore to uphold the laws. Legal authority is derived from the Constitution,” he added.
—“Bush Says NSA Surveillance Necessary, Legal”, The Washington Post
Interesting, don’t you think?
There’s an interesting (if rather “bullet-pointy”) interview in the Boston Globe today with Mike Wallace, the 87-year-old bulldog reporter that nervous CEOs don’t want to see waiting in their lobbies when the arrive for work in the morning. His trademark bluntness is on full display here, especially when it comes to the current President Bush:
Q. President George W. Bush has declined to be interviewed by you. What would you ask him if you had the chance?
A. What in the world prepared you to be the commander in chief of the largest superpower in the world? In your background, Mr. President, you apparently were incurious. You didn’t want to travel. You knew very little about the military. . . . The governor of Texas doesn’t have the kind of power that some governors have. . . . Why do you think they nominated you? . . . Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that the country is so [expletive] up?
That’s a 60 Minutes segment I’d definitely tune in to see. Unfortunately, given this president’s aversion to appearing before any but the most supportive audience, I think it’ll probably happen about the same time Wallace gets Jim Morrison to sit down with him and chat about what life in the Phantom Zone with Jimmy Hoffa is really like.
Here’s another interesting statement from Senator Hagel of Nebraska:
Terrorism is a real threat and a present danger that we must confront and defeat. But we must not sacrifice the strengths and ideals of America that the world has come to respect and trust, and that define us. That is why I co-sponsored Senator McCain’s amendment to prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment of any detainee under the custody of any branch of the U.S. Government. I strongly oppose any exception to this prohibition…
The recent media reports of a worldwide American system of secret, black-hole jails, run by the Central Intelligence Agency, and developed explicitly to circumvent our obligations under the Geneva Convention, sullies everything that America represents.
Both this quote and the one in the previous entry come from a speech the senator delivered yesterday to the Council on Foreign Relations. It’s a pretty interesting read as political speeches go, made even moreso by the fact that Hagel’s words seem to stand in direct opposition to much of what his party has championed — or at least tolerated — under the Bush White House. Oddly enough, he says many of the exact same things I myself have been muttering ever since 9/11. It’s a strange feeling to find myself nodding in agreement with a Republican. I really don’t know what to make of it…
“The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies.
“Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late. Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic – to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices.”
–Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska
[Ed. note: emphasis mine]
I imagine my previous entry probably ruffled a few feathers, so as long as everyone in Utah is pointing and hissing at me anyhow, I may as well go ahead and reference Scalzi’s recent post on President Bush’s plummeting national (if not local) approval rating. I find this section especially resonant:
What do I think about the Bush’s approval rating? Well, I think it’s exactly what he deserves. He’s a terrible president with an incompetent administration, and it’s gratifying to see the large majority of the American people coming around to this fact. Would that they would have come around to this conclusion a year ago, when the vote was on.
You’ll note, however, that I did not say that I was happy that Bush has such a God-awful rating. I’m not. Having a weak and deeply unpopular president makes us vulnerable as a nation, particularly when we are engaged in a war, and especially when engaged in a war that it is becoming increasingly clear the origins of which are best described as an administration misadventure. I don’t like Bush, and I wish he weren’t president; nevertheless he is my president, and my country is ill-served at home and abroad by his weaknesses, both real and perceived. Noting that this is a mess of his own making is cold comfort indeed. Bush may have made this bed, but we all have to lie in it.
One hopes that if the American people get anything out of the Bush second term, it’s to be reminded that the next time around, Republican or Democrat or something in between, they might want to try for competence. It’s not too much to hope for. Because at a 35% approval rating, we have a clear indication people recognize that incompetence isn’t working.
From time to time, well-meaning friends who have escaped the protective dome that seals off my home state from the rest of our sinful planet ask me why I stay in Utah. Their implied suggestion is that I, with my unorthodox (for Utah) interests and attitudes (not to mention my somewhat scruffy looks), might be happier if I lived in some place a bit more… cosmopolitan. I don’t deny that they could be right. After all, I am an unmarried, childless, socially liberal, anti-authoritarian agnostic who enjoys the occasional distilled beverage and generally doesn’t care what people do (or don’t do) with their genitalia. My out-of-state friends are not misguided to wonder what could possibly keep me living in a place that is notoriously conservative, religious, provincial, family-oriented, and hostile to dissenters — in short, about as opposite from everything that defines my life as you can get. Nevertheless, my response to their concern is usually just a shrug and the somewhat lame proclamation that, “this is home.”
Boing Boing is linking this afternoon to a Chicago Tribune obituary for one Theodore Roosevelt Heller, an 88-year-old man who must’ve been quite a character. In addition to noting that he “forced his way back into the Illinois National Guard [after being discharged from the Army], insisting no one tells him when to serve his country,” the obit also contains this line:
In lieu of flowers, please send acerbic letters to Republicans.
You just know this guy’s going to have an interesting eulogy…
Bumpersticker spotted Sunday afternoon in a Costco parking lot and presented here without further comment:
Frodo Failed.
Bush Has The Ring.
Did you see the recent poll that says 51% of all Americans now believe the White House “deliberately misled” us about those weapons of mass destruction? I’ve believed that all the way along, myself. Not that it matters much at this point.
Nevertheless, that poll number is interesting. Mark Evanier thinks so, too, and he’s raised a very good question in regards to it:
…as more and more of Bush’s negative ratings hit that magic number of half-the-nation-plus-one, I wonder about something. [I wonder] how many Bush supporters who thought 51% in the last election was a mandate or even a landslide will now argue that 51% or even anything below 55% or so isn’t really a majority.
For the record, I’m not trying to be a smartass here. I’m just considering a semantic point: in this age when nothing is free of the taint of political spin, when each side of the debate jockeys endlessly for the slightest edge over the other, can we even agree anymore what constitutes a majority? And what does it mean for our society if we can’t even find consensus on that?