many thanks to Daniel Schorr and Salon

The central question is not whether they did anything illegal to avoid military service. It is how they justified their avoidance in the first place. That so many leaders have given so few answers to such important questions must set some sort of record for a democracy. If so, it's one we shouldn't be proud of.

from this article

This, and Daniel Schorr's recent essay on NPR (I'll try to find a link to it) really highlight what, to me, is the big issue in the president's record: not that he may or may not have illegally taken time off from his National Guard service, but that he had arranged service in the Guard through his father's influence, instead of volunteering for active service. Aren't our leaders supposed to hold themselves to a *higher* standard, not a lower one?

personal account from the front lines in SF

OK, *I* can't read this without crying. How anyone can think that this is anything but the right thing to do is beyond me.

science, schmience

from the Washington Post, with thanks to Melissa Braddock for pointing me to it (let an LJ name, girl! ;-)

In two independent reports released yesterday, groups of prestigious scientists raised concerns about the role of politics in the formulation of Bush administration science policy and urged greater oversight by independent organizations.

Peggy Noonan on the president

in the Wall Street Journal

I remember reading one of her memoirs and finding it intelligent, engaging, and amusing. She's a good writer and a thoughtful person.

Which makes it a pity that she's so ready to perpetuate the stupid idea that there can only be smart people or practical people, no smart, practical people. Or that there's no middle ground, no reasonable, intelligent difference of opinion. It's so foolish to say that the question of foreign policy boils down to "[do you] support the effort in Iraq or do not."

But it's wonderful feel-good propaganda for Republicans. They can pat themselves on the back and say "We're for 'normal' folks, regular folks, honest, decent, everyday kind of folks. And those Democrats are just angry. They need to get over it." Yeah, the election is just about the Dem's being sore about losing the election to someone who didn't actually win it. It has nothing to do with the jobs lost, the lies, the caskets coming home, the sympathy for America turned over night into hatred and laothing, the buying of the environment and labor regulation by big business, the sole-source, high-profit contracts for the VP's former company. It's all just 'case the Dems are angry.

sigh

( The oddness of some peoples' metrics of presidentiality. )