1
The childish dispute between Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge and AG Ashcroft serves no purpose other than to add to the publics growing weariness with the Bush Administration.
Evidence is gathering that few people take the terror alerts seriously anymore.
The president must establish credibility with the American people.
Can he?
David
Crellin@Audiea.com
God awaits us in the kitchen of imagination
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
1
From Andrew Sullivan 5/25/05
Unauthorized copy
THE PLIGHT OF GAY MUSLIMS: It's grim, of course. Radical Islamism hates only Jews more than homosexuals. And the mullahs best even John Derbyshire in their bigotry:
Dr Muzammil Siddiqi, director of the Islamic Society of North America, says "homosexuality is a moral disease, a sin, a corruption… No person is born homosexual, just as nobody is born a thief, a liar or a murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education." Sheikh Sharkhawy, a cleric at the prestigious London Central Mosque in Regent’s Park, compares homosexuality to a "cancer tumour." He argues "we must burn all gays to prevent paedophilia and the spread of AIDS," and says gay people "have no hope of a spiritual life." The Muslim Educational Trust hands out educational material to Muslim teachers – intended for children! – advocating the death penalty for gay people, and advising Muslim pupils to stay away from gay classmates and teachers.
What staggers me is how silent the gay establishment is about these obscenities. If a religious right figure had said them, there would be hell to pay. But the multi-culti left still has a stranglehold on official gay discourse and won't condemn Islamist bigotry. Why not? These mullahs are fanning the flames of anti-gay violence with literally incendiary rhetoric. Burn gays? Yep, that's what the cleric said.
From Andrew Sullivan 5/25/05
Unauthorized copy
THE PLIGHT OF GAY MUSLIMS: It's grim, of course. Radical Islamism hates only Jews more than homosexuals. And the mullahs best even John Derbyshire in their bigotry:
Dr Muzammil Siddiqi, director of the Islamic Society of North America, says "homosexuality is a moral disease, a sin, a corruption… No person is born homosexual, just as nobody is born a thief, a liar or a murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education." Sheikh Sharkhawy, a cleric at the prestigious London Central Mosque in Regent’s Park, compares homosexuality to a "cancer tumour." He argues "we must burn all gays to prevent paedophilia and the spread of AIDS," and says gay people "have no hope of a spiritual life." The Muslim Educational Trust hands out educational material to Muslim teachers – intended for children! – advocating the death penalty for gay people, and advising Muslim pupils to stay away from gay classmates and teachers.
What staggers me is how silent the gay establishment is about these obscenities. If a religious right figure had said them, there would be hell to pay. But the multi-culti left still has a stranglehold on official gay discourse and won't condemn Islamist bigotry. Why not? These mullahs are fanning the flames of anti-gay violence with literally incendiary rhetoric. Burn gays? Yep, that's what the cleric said.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
1
President Bush's speech at the War College was a dud. (In my opinion) He was clumsy in his delivery and he broke a cardinal political rule: "Never ever allow the opposition to have the lead." Now the Democrats can wave his positive speech before him when disaster comes. Good politicians do not make promises concerning a war. You keep quiet, offer solace, encourage patience, and assure that victory will come. Do not give dates or make promises of conditions to come. Every stumble, every setback plays into your opponents hands. In the Fall the Democrats will trash the President for creating false hope or simply trying to fool the voters. Bush ends up trying to explain away bad newsw and gets boggoed down in a swamp he created by unrealistic expectations. Why do that?
Bush created a list of events we are exprcted to witness. Among them the June 30th handover in Iraq. A farce by any standard. Who does POTUS think he is fooling? Every member of the Ruling Council is dependent on the good graces of Mr. Negropointe as well as Richard Cheney and possibly GW Bush? Is it true this administration fails to see what everyone else sees so clearly? Why pretend when the pretend council of leaders will falter and fail under the weight of it's on powerlessness? The United States thinks Iraqis will build relationships with these front men? Why? What gain is there? They will not survive an honest election, are they not tainted by US control?
Second, the President acts as if every step will come right on schedule and all will be just fine? Does he not grasp the law of unintended consequences?
The Council might just say "Go Home!" then what? We kill them?
Bottom line? Iraq needs a popular leader from it's own ranks who understands privately what the US actually wants and what the US will tolerate. The Iraqi leaders will not be independent of the US for a decade or more because the various business interests from the US will not allow it!
GW Bush talks as if all there is to do is fill seats and then we go home. The Iraqi religious community comes in several flavors and they are not going to blend just to suit us. Why should they?
My hunch is that scandals concerning No-Bid contracts will soil any real effort at setting up a US backed government and the increasing weariness of the Iraqis themselves will create further resistance movements and thus violence that defeats Mr. Bush's ambitions. The central fact, our being genuinely disliked by most Iraqis can not be ignored.
I want the US to leave a positive legacy in Iraq. If Bush can do so, fine with me. I just don't see evidence he or his advisors have a true understanding of the task ahead.
David
Crellin@Audiea.com
President Bush's speech at the War College was a dud. (In my opinion) He was clumsy in his delivery and he broke a cardinal political rule: "Never ever allow the opposition to have the lead." Now the Democrats can wave his positive speech before him when disaster comes. Good politicians do not make promises concerning a war. You keep quiet, offer solace, encourage patience, and assure that victory will come. Do not give dates or make promises of conditions to come. Every stumble, every setback plays into your opponents hands. In the Fall the Democrats will trash the President for creating false hope or simply trying to fool the voters. Bush ends up trying to explain away bad newsw and gets boggoed down in a swamp he created by unrealistic expectations. Why do that?
Bush created a list of events we are exprcted to witness. Among them the June 30th handover in Iraq. A farce by any standard. Who does POTUS think he is fooling? Every member of the Ruling Council is dependent on the good graces of Mr. Negropointe as well as Richard Cheney and possibly GW Bush? Is it true this administration fails to see what everyone else sees so clearly? Why pretend when the pretend council of leaders will falter and fail under the weight of it's on powerlessness? The United States thinks Iraqis will build relationships with these front men? Why? What gain is there? They will not survive an honest election, are they not tainted by US control?
Second, the President acts as if every step will come right on schedule and all will be just fine? Does he not grasp the law of unintended consequences?
The Council might just say "Go Home!" then what? We kill them?
Bottom line? Iraq needs a popular leader from it's own ranks who understands privately what the US actually wants and what the US will tolerate. The Iraqi leaders will not be independent of the US for a decade or more because the various business interests from the US will not allow it!
GW Bush talks as if all there is to do is fill seats and then we go home. The Iraqi religious community comes in several flavors and they are not going to blend just to suit us. Why should they?
My hunch is that scandals concerning No-Bid contracts will soil any real effort at setting up a US backed government and the increasing weariness of the Iraqis themselves will create further resistance movements and thus violence that defeats Mr. Bush's ambitions. The central fact, our being genuinely disliked by most Iraqis can not be ignored.
I want the US to leave a positive legacy in Iraq. If Bush can do so, fine with me. I just don't see evidence he or his advisors have a true understanding of the task ahead.
David
Crellin@Audiea.com
Sunday, May 23, 2004
BY BART JONES
STAFF WRITER
News Day (Unauthorized copy)
May 23, 2004, 7:17 PM EDT
E.L. Doctorow, one of the most celebrated writers in America, was nearly booed off the stage at Hofstra University Sunday when he gave a commencement address lambasting President George W. Bush and effectively calling him a liar.
Booing that came mainly from the crowd in the stands became so intense that Doctorow stopped speaking at one point, showing no emotion as he stood silently and listened to the jeers. Hofstra President Stuart Rabinowitz intervened, and called on the audience to allow him to finish. He did, although some booing persisted.
Doctorow, who spent virtually all of his 20-minute address in Hempstead criticizing Bush, told the crowd that like himself the president is a storyteller. But "sadly they are not good stories this president tells," he said. "They are not good stories because they are not true." That line provoked the first boos, along with scattered cheers.
"One story he told was that the country of Iraq had nuclear and biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction and was intending shortly to use them on us," he said. "That was an exciting story all right, it was designed to send shivers up our spines. But it was not true.
"Another story was that the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, was in league with the terrorists of al-Qaida," he said. "And that turned out to be not true. But anyway we went off to war on the basis of these stories."
Those lines provoked an outburst of boos so loud the "Ragtime" author stopped the speech. Rabinowitz approached the podium and called for calm. "We value open discussion and debate," he said. "For the sake of your graduates, please let him finish."
Some students and most of the faculty responded with a standing ovation, and Doctorow resumed speaking. He attacked Bush for giving the rich tax breaks, doing "a very poor job of combating terrorism" and allowing the government to subpoena libraries "to see what books you've been taking out."
Many parents and relatives were livid over the address, saying afterward that a college graduation was not the place for a political speech. "If this would have happened in Florida, we would have taken him out" of the stadium, said Frank Mallafre, who traveled from Miami for his granddaughter's graduation.
Bill Schmidt, 51, of North Bellmore, shared the outrage. "To ruin my daughter's graduation with politics is pathetic," the retired New York Police Department captain said. "I think the president is doing the best he can" in the war against terrorism.
Many students also called Doctorow's speech inappropriate. Peter Hulse, 24, of Manchester, England, said, "He's a bit like Michael Moore," the documentary director who provoked booing at last year's Oscars' ceremony by criticizing the war in Iraq.
But some defended Doctorow's speech. "I think he's entitled to his opinion and he's as American as anyone else," said a Hempstead resident who identified himself only as Frank and whose daughter was graduating.
One Hofstra official said Sunday that while Doctorow had the right to say what he did, he violated the unwritten code that college commencement speeches should inspire and unite a student body. Provost Dr. Herman Berliner said he has been to numerous graduation ceremonies during the past 30 years and "I cannot remember a commencement speech that was as divisive as this commencement speech was."
Berliner said it was relatively common during the Vietnam War, but "extraordinarily uncommon" in recent times for a speaker to have to stop speaking.
Still, it has happened recently. Last year, for instance, New York Times reporter Chris Hedges was booed off the stage when he tried to deliver an anti-war speech at Rockford College in Illinois.
Some Hofstra professors said Doctorow was on target in discussing the war. "I thought this was a totally appropriate place to talk about politics because that's the world our students are entering," said sociology professor Cythnia Bogard. "I only wish their parents had provided them a better role model."
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.
STAFF WRITER
News Day (Unauthorized copy)
May 23, 2004, 7:17 PM EDT
E.L. Doctorow, one of the most celebrated writers in America, was nearly booed off the stage at Hofstra University Sunday when he gave a commencement address lambasting President George W. Bush and effectively calling him a liar.
Booing that came mainly from the crowd in the stands became so intense that Doctorow stopped speaking at one point, showing no emotion as he stood silently and listened to the jeers. Hofstra President Stuart Rabinowitz intervened, and called on the audience to allow him to finish. He did, although some booing persisted.
Doctorow, who spent virtually all of his 20-minute address in Hempstead criticizing Bush, told the crowd that like himself the president is a storyteller. But "sadly they are not good stories this president tells," he said. "They are not good stories because they are not true." That line provoked the first boos, along with scattered cheers.
"One story he told was that the country of Iraq had nuclear and biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction and was intending shortly to use them on us," he said. "That was an exciting story all right, it was designed to send shivers up our spines. But it was not true.
"Another story was that the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, was in league with the terrorists of al-Qaida," he said. "And that turned out to be not true. But anyway we went off to war on the basis of these stories."
Those lines provoked an outburst of boos so loud the "Ragtime" author stopped the speech. Rabinowitz approached the podium and called for calm. "We value open discussion and debate," he said. "For the sake of your graduates, please let him finish."
Some students and most of the faculty responded with a standing ovation, and Doctorow resumed speaking. He attacked Bush for giving the rich tax breaks, doing "a very poor job of combating terrorism" and allowing the government to subpoena libraries "to see what books you've been taking out."
Many parents and relatives were livid over the address, saying afterward that a college graduation was not the place for a political speech. "If this would have happened in Florida, we would have taken him out" of the stadium, said Frank Mallafre, who traveled from Miami for his granddaughter's graduation.
Bill Schmidt, 51, of North Bellmore, shared the outrage. "To ruin my daughter's graduation with politics is pathetic," the retired New York Police Department captain said. "I think the president is doing the best he can" in the war against terrorism.
Many students also called Doctorow's speech inappropriate. Peter Hulse, 24, of Manchester, England, said, "He's a bit like Michael Moore," the documentary director who provoked booing at last year's Oscars' ceremony by criticizing the war in Iraq.
But some defended Doctorow's speech. "I think he's entitled to his opinion and he's as American as anyone else," said a Hempstead resident who identified himself only as Frank and whose daughter was graduating.
One Hofstra official said Sunday that while Doctorow had the right to say what he did, he violated the unwritten code that college commencement speeches should inspire and unite a student body. Provost Dr. Herman Berliner said he has been to numerous graduation ceremonies during the past 30 years and "I cannot remember a commencement speech that was as divisive as this commencement speech was."
Berliner said it was relatively common during the Vietnam War, but "extraordinarily uncommon" in recent times for a speaker to have to stop speaking.
Still, it has happened recently. Last year, for instance, New York Times reporter Chris Hedges was booed off the stage when he tried to deliver an anti-war speech at Rockford College in Illinois.
Some Hofstra professors said Doctorow was on target in discussing the war. "I thought this was a totally appropriate place to talk about politics because that's the world our students are entering," said sociology professor Cythnia Bogard. "I only wish their parents had provided them a better role model."
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.
Saturday, May 22, 2004
1
Rants at Andrew Sullivan and other respected blogs about various dissenters of the War In Iraq reveal an increasing despair. The truth is that so many decent folk of all political stripes graciously supported the Bush Administration in a time when we all were rightfully afraid. Now all these folks feel that they were hustled in some fashion.
Grim reports coming from Baghdad of pointless cruelty and increasing violence that resembles the mindless lashing out of retreating Germans in WW2 or the tales of sadism by retreating Japanese in WW2 especially in China.
The United States was sucker punched by Bin Laden in 2001. By 2003 we were deep in a fog of moral conviction that we just might solve our troubles by going into Iraq, liberate the place, and create a new society based on the best in us. Instead we have a bitter occupation and a smoldering civil war. We know we fucked up big time and it enrages us. We are America, we went to the moon, damnit!
Men like Andrew Sullivan are supposed to be responsible conservatives. The left is quiet least the Bushies come after them.
The whole country needs a rest. I see an increasing fatigue in the TV news, the Talk Radio and Blogsphere. Kerry might win simply because people are tired. Too much bad news and not enough hope.
The real scandals are coming. All the no-bid contracts VP Cheney gave out through the Congressional leadership as well as huge waste of money. Massive profitering and simple embezzlement all will make 2005 and 2006 miserable years for America.
In 2006 the GOP will take a bath in the congressional elections and in 2008 the Democrats will return on a wave of rejection. The GOP will not get the congress back for a generation and no Republican will reside in the White House for twenty four years.
Remember I said it.
David
Crellin@Audiea.com
Rants at Andrew Sullivan and other respected blogs about various dissenters of the War In Iraq reveal an increasing despair. The truth is that so many decent folk of all political stripes graciously supported the Bush Administration in a time when we all were rightfully afraid. Now all these folks feel that they were hustled in some fashion.
Grim reports coming from Baghdad of pointless cruelty and increasing violence that resembles the mindless lashing out of retreating Germans in WW2 or the tales of sadism by retreating Japanese in WW2 especially in China.
The United States was sucker punched by Bin Laden in 2001. By 2003 we were deep in a fog of moral conviction that we just might solve our troubles by going into Iraq, liberate the place, and create a new society based on the best in us. Instead we have a bitter occupation and a smoldering civil war. We know we fucked up big time and it enrages us. We are America, we went to the moon, damnit!
Men like Andrew Sullivan are supposed to be responsible conservatives. The left is quiet least the Bushies come after them.
The whole country needs a rest. I see an increasing fatigue in the TV news, the Talk Radio and Blogsphere. Kerry might win simply because people are tired. Too much bad news and not enough hope.
The real scandals are coming. All the no-bid contracts VP Cheney gave out through the Congressional leadership as well as huge waste of money. Massive profitering and simple embezzlement all will make 2005 and 2006 miserable years for America.
In 2006 the GOP will take a bath in the congressional elections and in 2008 the Democrats will return on a wave of rejection. The GOP will not get the congress back for a generation and no Republican will reside in the White House for twenty four years.
Remember I said it.
David
Crellin@Audiea.com
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
1
Tony Randall has died. He was my all time favorite actor. Tom Hanks comes closest to him in skill and charm. Randall was a generous, intelligent, and sympathetic figure. Like Allen King who died a week ago, Randall was a delightful figure in my life. Their films and wizardtry in comedy was original and endearing. I will miss both of them.
Here is an unauthorized copy of the Washington Post obit.
Actor Tony Randall Dies; Fussy Half of 'Odd Couple'
By Adam Bernstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 19, 2004; Page B05
Tony Randall, 84, the wispy-looking, rubber-faced comedian who scored his greatest fame as the fussbudget Felix Unger on the television sitcom "The Odd Couple," died May 17 at a hospital in New York. He had pneumonia, a complication from heart bypass surgery in December.
Mr. Randall, who had a long career in radio, television, stage and film and was a major promoter of opera, said he wanted to be known for more than playing Felix Unger. His press representatives warned reporters against humming the familiar "Odd Couple" theme in his presence.
Eager to talk about his other interests, he went on talk shows and made 70 appearances on David Letterman's "Late Show." He accepted Letterman's invitations with only an hour's notice and once allowed himself to be covered in mud -- a far cry from his image as the super-fussy Felix. He spoke enthusiastically about his other Letterman exploits, once asking, "Did you see the one where I came out in a baggy Batman suit?"
Mr. Randall achieved significant popularity in the early 1950s on the situation comedy "Mr. Peepers." He played the overbearing history teacher Harvey Weskit -- foreshadowing Felix Unger -- and parlayed his fame into movie roles.
In "Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?" (1957), he was the unlikely co-star of busty bombshell Jayne Mansfield. That was followed by roles as the fussy foil to Rock Hudson and Doris Day in romantic comedies such as "Pillow Talk" (1959), "Lover Come Back" (1961) and "Send Me No Flowers" (1964).
Showing his range, he was an alcoholic car salesman in Martin Ritt's drama "No Down Payment" (1957); played the seven title roles in "7 Faces of Dr. Lao" (1964), about a cunning Chinese medicine show impresario; and portrayed Agatha Christie's Belgian detective Hercule Poirot in "The Alphabet Murders" (1965). He also was the determined brain who directs the body's sex organs in Woody Allen's "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex but Were Afraid to Ask" (1972).
He had long been a fixture on Broadway. Among his notable roles was the cynical reporter based on H.L. Mencken in the hit drama "Inherit the Wind" (1955), about the Scopes "monkey trial." The fidgety actor said that part was one of his toughest because "I had to be onstage for 15 minutes without any lines."
He had studied voice for years and lent his baritone to the lead role in the Jay Livingston-Ray Evans musical "Oh, Captain!" (1958). The show, which ran 192 performances, was based on the Alec Guinness film "The Captain's Paradise," about a ferry captain with a wife in every port.
Mr. Randall was primarily a television star. Perhaps no role suited him better than that of Felix Unger, the compulsively tidy photographer who rooms with his best friend and fellow divorcee, the unkempt sportswriter Oscar Madison.
Neil Simon had a long-running Broadway hit in "The Odd Couple," with Art Carney and Walter Matthau, and Jack Lemmon and Matthau were in the 1968 film version. But Mr. Randall and Jack Klugman became most identified with the roles, largely through syndication.
The Randall-Klugman program ran from 1970 to 1975, and in its last year, Mr. Randall won an Emmy Award for outstanding lead actor in a comedy series. The show was canceled at the same time, leading him to quip: "I'm so happy I won. Now if I only had a job."
Off-camera, he was a dapper, cultured presenter and master of ceremonies. He hosted "Texaco's Opera Quiz" broadcasts and was the intermission commentator on "Live From Lincoln Center."
Mr. Randall was born Leonard Rosenberg in Tulsa, where his father was an art dealer. He was drawn to acting after a ballet troupe swooped into town for a dazzling performance. He soon was getting laughs for his talents at mimicry, but one of his teachers was unimpressed. More than one note went home saying, "Please stop him from making faces."
He attended Northwestern University for a year before going to New York to study at the Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre. He studied under drama instructor Sanford Meisner and choreographer Martha Graham in the late 1930s.
As Anthony Randall, he worked on radio soap operas and acted onstage opposite theater stars Jane Cowl in George Bernard Shaw's "Candida" and Ethel Barrymore in Emlyn Williams's "The Corn Is Green."
Returning from Army Signal Corps service during World War II, he briefly worked at the Olney Theatre in Montgomery County before heading back to New York.
He had small parts in two shows starring Katharine Cornell. One of them was Shakespeare's "Antony and Cleopatra" as Scarus, a soldier of Antony. A young Charlton Heston, Eli Wallach and Maureen Stapleton also were in the cast.
From 1952 to 1955, he had a large supporting role on the NBC sitcom "Mr. Peepers," which starred Wally Cox as a Midwestern science teacher. Mr. Randall played Cox's brash, overconfident pal and received an Emmy nomination.
That led to other television work, including several dramas and stints as a fill-in host for Steve Allen and Arthur Godfrey on their programs.
After "The Odd Couple," he played a stuffy Philadelphia judge on the sitcom "The Tony Randall Show," which aired on ABC and then CBS from 1976 to 1978. In "Love, Sidney," on NBC from 1981 to 1983, he was a single, middle-aged commercial artist, and it was implied but never specified that he was gay.
When the show aroused controversy from conservatives, he fumed. "If they want to attack things," he said, "why aren't they attacking the Ku Klux Klan?"
Mr. Randall frequently toured with road companies and was outspoken about cuts in arts funding during the Reagan administration. In 1991, he founded the National Actors Theatre in New York with $1 million of his own money. Focusing largely on revivals of classics, the company received mixed reviews as it produced "The Crucible," "Night Must Fall," "The Gin Game," "The Seagull" and other works. But Mr. Randall's name and passion attracted boldfaced talent, including Martin Sheen, Charles Durning, Julie Harris, George C. Scott and Matthew Broderick.
In 1992, his wife of 54 years, the former Florence Gibbs, died of cancer. In 1995, he married Heather Harlan, who worked for the National Actors Theatre and was five decades his junior.
After the marriage ceremony, Mr. Randall told the media: "It was so simple and so touching. He spoke of two people becoming one. I'm afraid I'm a sucker for that sort of thing."
The new bride declared her love and then added: "I wanted to be married. I'm an old-fashioned girl. I'm so old-fashioned I married a man three times my age."
At age 77, he fathered his first child. Survivors include his wife and their two children.
Mr. Randall spent recent years as a spokesman for the National Funeral Directors Association, saying he was well-qualified because he had attended so many funerals. Politically outspoken against Republicans, he joked that although he hoped his funeral would be attended by far-flung dignitaries, his friends should bar President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "because everyone knew how much I hated them."
In his autobiography, "Which Reminds Me," he suggested his own epitaph: "I'm not going to take this lying down."
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
David: Crellin@Audiea.com
Tony Randall has died. He was my all time favorite actor. Tom Hanks comes closest to him in skill and charm. Randall was a generous, intelligent, and sympathetic figure. Like Allen King who died a week ago, Randall was a delightful figure in my life. Their films and wizardtry in comedy was original and endearing. I will miss both of them.
Here is an unauthorized copy of the Washington Post obit.
Actor Tony Randall Dies; Fussy Half of 'Odd Couple'
By Adam Bernstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 19, 2004; Page B05
Tony Randall, 84, the wispy-looking, rubber-faced comedian who scored his greatest fame as the fussbudget Felix Unger on the television sitcom "The Odd Couple," died May 17 at a hospital in New York. He had pneumonia, a complication from heart bypass surgery in December.
Mr. Randall, who had a long career in radio, television, stage and film and was a major promoter of opera, said he wanted to be known for more than playing Felix Unger. His press representatives warned reporters against humming the familiar "Odd Couple" theme in his presence.
Eager to talk about his other interests, he went on talk shows and made 70 appearances on David Letterman's "Late Show." He accepted Letterman's invitations with only an hour's notice and once allowed himself to be covered in mud -- a far cry from his image as the super-fussy Felix. He spoke enthusiastically about his other Letterman exploits, once asking, "Did you see the one where I came out in a baggy Batman suit?"
Mr. Randall achieved significant popularity in the early 1950s on the situation comedy "Mr. Peepers." He played the overbearing history teacher Harvey Weskit -- foreshadowing Felix Unger -- and parlayed his fame into movie roles.
In "Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?" (1957), he was the unlikely co-star of busty bombshell Jayne Mansfield. That was followed by roles as the fussy foil to Rock Hudson and Doris Day in romantic comedies such as "Pillow Talk" (1959), "Lover Come Back" (1961) and "Send Me No Flowers" (1964).
Showing his range, he was an alcoholic car salesman in Martin Ritt's drama "No Down Payment" (1957); played the seven title roles in "7 Faces of Dr. Lao" (1964), about a cunning Chinese medicine show impresario; and portrayed Agatha Christie's Belgian detective Hercule Poirot in "The Alphabet Murders" (1965). He also was the determined brain who directs the body's sex organs in Woody Allen's "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex but Were Afraid to Ask" (1972).
He had long been a fixture on Broadway. Among his notable roles was the cynical reporter based on H.L. Mencken in the hit drama "Inherit the Wind" (1955), about the Scopes "monkey trial." The fidgety actor said that part was one of his toughest because "I had to be onstage for 15 minutes without any lines."
He had studied voice for years and lent his baritone to the lead role in the Jay Livingston-Ray Evans musical "Oh, Captain!" (1958). The show, which ran 192 performances, was based on the Alec Guinness film "The Captain's Paradise," about a ferry captain with a wife in every port.
Mr. Randall was primarily a television star. Perhaps no role suited him better than that of Felix Unger, the compulsively tidy photographer who rooms with his best friend and fellow divorcee, the unkempt sportswriter Oscar Madison.
Neil Simon had a long-running Broadway hit in "The Odd Couple," with Art Carney and Walter Matthau, and Jack Lemmon and Matthau were in the 1968 film version. But Mr. Randall and Jack Klugman became most identified with the roles, largely through syndication.
The Randall-Klugman program ran from 1970 to 1975, and in its last year, Mr. Randall won an Emmy Award for outstanding lead actor in a comedy series. The show was canceled at the same time, leading him to quip: "I'm so happy I won. Now if I only had a job."
Off-camera, he was a dapper, cultured presenter and master of ceremonies. He hosted "Texaco's Opera Quiz" broadcasts and was the intermission commentator on "Live From Lincoln Center."
Mr. Randall was born Leonard Rosenberg in Tulsa, where his father was an art dealer. He was drawn to acting after a ballet troupe swooped into town for a dazzling performance. He soon was getting laughs for his talents at mimicry, but one of his teachers was unimpressed. More than one note went home saying, "Please stop him from making faces."
He attended Northwestern University for a year before going to New York to study at the Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre. He studied under drama instructor Sanford Meisner and choreographer Martha Graham in the late 1930s.
As Anthony Randall, he worked on radio soap operas and acted onstage opposite theater stars Jane Cowl in George Bernard Shaw's "Candida" and Ethel Barrymore in Emlyn Williams's "The Corn Is Green."
Returning from Army Signal Corps service during World War II, he briefly worked at the Olney Theatre in Montgomery County before heading back to New York.
He had small parts in two shows starring Katharine Cornell. One of them was Shakespeare's "Antony and Cleopatra" as Scarus, a soldier of Antony. A young Charlton Heston, Eli Wallach and Maureen Stapleton also were in the cast.
From 1952 to 1955, he had a large supporting role on the NBC sitcom "Mr. Peepers," which starred Wally Cox as a Midwestern science teacher. Mr. Randall played Cox's brash, overconfident pal and received an Emmy nomination.
That led to other television work, including several dramas and stints as a fill-in host for Steve Allen and Arthur Godfrey on their programs.
After "The Odd Couple," he played a stuffy Philadelphia judge on the sitcom "The Tony Randall Show," which aired on ABC and then CBS from 1976 to 1978. In "Love, Sidney," on NBC from 1981 to 1983, he was a single, middle-aged commercial artist, and it was implied but never specified that he was gay.
When the show aroused controversy from conservatives, he fumed. "If they want to attack things," he said, "why aren't they attacking the Ku Klux Klan?"
Mr. Randall frequently toured with road companies and was outspoken about cuts in arts funding during the Reagan administration. In 1991, he founded the National Actors Theatre in New York with $1 million of his own money. Focusing largely on revivals of classics, the company received mixed reviews as it produced "The Crucible," "Night Must Fall," "The Gin Game," "The Seagull" and other works. But Mr. Randall's name and passion attracted boldfaced talent, including Martin Sheen, Charles Durning, Julie Harris, George C. Scott and Matthew Broderick.
In 1992, his wife of 54 years, the former Florence Gibbs, died of cancer. In 1995, he married Heather Harlan, who worked for the National Actors Theatre and was five decades his junior.
After the marriage ceremony, Mr. Randall told the media: "It was so simple and so touching. He spoke of two people becoming one. I'm afraid I'm a sucker for that sort of thing."
The new bride declared her love and then added: "I wanted to be married. I'm an old-fashioned girl. I'm so old-fashioned I married a man three times my age."
At age 77, he fathered his first child. Survivors include his wife and their two children.
Mr. Randall spent recent years as a spokesman for the National Funeral Directors Association, saying he was well-qualified because he had attended so many funerals. Politically outspoken against Republicans, he joked that although he hoped his funeral would be attended by far-flung dignitaries, his friends should bar President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "because everyone knew how much I hated them."
In his autobiography, "Which Reminds Me," he suggested his own epitaph: "I'm not going to take this lying down."
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
David: Crellin@Audiea.com
Saturday, May 15, 2004
1
From USA Today Online News 5/15004
Report: Rumsfeld OK'd program that led to Iraqi prisoner abuse
NEW YORK (AP) — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the expansion of a secret program that encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners to obtain intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq, The New Yorker reported Saturday.
Rumsfeld made the decision last year when he broadened a Pentagon operation from the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to interrogation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, according to the report, which cited unnamed current and former intelligence officials and was published on the magazine's Web site.
Seven soldiers are facing military charges related to the abuse and humiliation of prisoners captured by the now-infamous photographs at the prison. Some of the soldiers and their lawyers have said military intelligence officials told military police assigned as guards to abuse the prisoners to make interrogations easier.
According to the story, which hits newsstands Monday, the initial operation Rumsfeld authorized gave blanket approval to kill or capture and interrogate "high value" targets in the war on terrorism. The program stemmed from frustrating efforts to capture high-level terrorists in the weeks after the start of U.S. bombings in Afghanistan.
The program got approval from President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and Bush was informed of its existence, the officials told New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh.
Under the program, Hersh wrote, commandos carried out instant interrogations — using force if necessary — at secret CIA detention centers scattered around the world. The intelligence would be relayed to the commanders at the Pentagon.
Last year, Rumsfeld and Stephen Cambone, his undersecretary for intelligence, expanded the scope of the Pentagon's program and brought its methods to Abu Ghraib, Hersh wrote.
Critics say the interrogation rules, first laid out in September after a visit to Iraq by the then-commander of the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amounted to a green light for abuse.
Defense Department officials deny that, saying prisoners always are treated under guidelines of the Geneva Conventions. Pentagon spokesman Jim Turner referred to that assertion, made at a news briefing Friday, when asked to comment on the New Yorker article.
The intelligence sources told the magazine photos of the sexual abuse were used to intimidate prisoners and detainees into providing information on the insurgency. It was thought that some prisoners would do anything — including spying on their associates — to avoid dissemination of the shameful photos to family and friends.
One intelligence official said the CIA ended its involvement with the program at Abu Ghraib prison by last fall.
"They said, 'No way. We signed up for the core program in Afghanistan — pre-approved for operations against the high-value terrorist targets — and now you want to use it for cabdrivers, brothers-in-law, and people pulled off the streets,'" the source said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
From USA Today Online News 5/15004
Report: Rumsfeld OK'd program that led to Iraqi prisoner abuse
NEW YORK (AP) — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the expansion of a secret program that encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners to obtain intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq, The New Yorker reported Saturday.
Rumsfeld made the decision last year when he broadened a Pentagon operation from the hunt for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to interrogation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, according to the report, which cited unnamed current and former intelligence officials and was published on the magazine's Web site.
Seven soldiers are facing military charges related to the abuse and humiliation of prisoners captured by the now-infamous photographs at the prison. Some of the soldiers and their lawyers have said military intelligence officials told military police assigned as guards to abuse the prisoners to make interrogations easier.
According to the story, which hits newsstands Monday, the initial operation Rumsfeld authorized gave blanket approval to kill or capture and interrogate "high value" targets in the war on terrorism. The program stemmed from frustrating efforts to capture high-level terrorists in the weeks after the start of U.S. bombings in Afghanistan.
The program got approval from President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and Bush was informed of its existence, the officials told New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh.
Under the program, Hersh wrote, commandos carried out instant interrogations — using force if necessary — at secret CIA detention centers scattered around the world. The intelligence would be relayed to the commanders at the Pentagon.
Last year, Rumsfeld and Stephen Cambone, his undersecretary for intelligence, expanded the scope of the Pentagon's program and brought its methods to Abu Ghraib, Hersh wrote.
Critics say the interrogation rules, first laid out in September after a visit to Iraq by the then-commander of the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amounted to a green light for abuse.
Defense Department officials deny that, saying prisoners always are treated under guidelines of the Geneva Conventions. Pentagon spokesman Jim Turner referred to that assertion, made at a news briefing Friday, when asked to comment on the New Yorker article.
The intelligence sources told the magazine photos of the sexual abuse were used to intimidate prisoners and detainees into providing information on the insurgency. It was thought that some prisoners would do anything — including spying on their associates — to avoid dissemination of the shameful photos to family and friends.
One intelligence official said the CIA ended its involvement with the program at Abu Ghraib prison by last fall.
"They said, 'No way. We signed up for the core program in Afghanistan — pre-approved for operations against the high-value terrorist targets — and now you want to use it for cabdrivers, brothers-in-law, and people pulled off the streets,'" the source said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
1
Unauthorized copy from Andrew Sullivan and The New Republic.
Read it and weep!
That's The Ticket
The Kerry-McCain Dream
The last week has been an emotional whiplash for Americans. The shame of Abu Ghraib morphed into the shock of the beheading of Nick Berg. America seemed too powerful and then not powerful enough. And by the end of it, a kind of psychic equilibrium could be felt. No serious figure wants to cut and run in Iraq, however chastened and troubled Washington has become. And no serious neo-conservative or liberal interventionist has avoided what is in Washington a rare event: a bout of public self-doubt. What emerges is something of a consensus: Bush has a few months to persuade the country that Iraq is on the right path. If he fails, Kerry will have a chance to offer himself as the "smarter war, kinder peace" candidate. In this endeavour, Kerry needs some measure of hawkish credibility. And he needs someone who can ease polarization and bring independents into the Democratic tent.
One man can. Republican Senator John McCain is everyone's dream candidate, especially the Washington pres corps'. He's a charismatic Republican, tough on defense but alienated by George W. Bush and the Republican Party's fundamentalist Christian base. Last week, John Kerry mentioned him as a possible futrure defense secretary in a Kerry administration. But true dreamers are looking for something more radical: a Kerry-McCain bipartisan ticket. It's still highly unlikely, but recent events make it far less so.
Here's why. There is no one better suited in the country to tackle a difficult war where the United States is credibly accused of abusing prisoners than John McCain. He was, after all, a war hero and then a victim of the worst kind of prisoner torture imaginable in the Hanoi Hilton. His military credentials are impeccable but so are his moral scruples and backbone: that's a rare combination. As vice-presidential candidate, he would give the Kerry campaign the ability to criticize the conduct of this war of liberation, but also to pursue it credibly. He would remove the taint of an "anti-war" candidacy headed by a man who once helped pioneer the anti-war forces in Vietnam, while giving the Kerry campaign credibility on national defense. He would ensure that a Kerry victory would not be interpreted by America's allies or enemies as a decision to cut and run.
In office, McCain could be given real authority as a war-manager, providing a real counter-weight to Kerry's penchant for U.N.-style non-solutions. There's a precedent for such a powerful vice-president who could not credibly be believed to have ambitions on the Oval Office himself: Dick Cheney. Why no credible ambitions for the presidency himself? If McCain agreed to run with Kerry, he would also have to agree to support Kerry for possible re-election. There's no way that McCain could credibly run for president in eight years' time - as a Democrat or as a Republican. So he could become for Kerry what Cheney has been for Bush: a confidant, a manager, a strategic mind, a guide through the thicket of war-management.
But he could also be more for Kerry. He could be a unifying force in the country in the dark days ahead. Domestically, a Kerry-McCain ticket would go a long way toward healing the Vietnam wound, now rubbed raw again by recent events in Iraq. The two men represent very different responses to that war, and could help unite their generation - finally! - over it. To have two combat veterans up against Bush and Cheney would also eviscerate Republican attempts to paint Kerry as weak on defense and in the war on terror. Besides, McCain represents a real and utterly unrepresented constituency in America: the fiscally conservative, hawkish, socially tolerant hawks, usually described as "Independents." By bringing these people into the Democratic big tent, Kerry could not only win the election, but help position the Democrats to regain majority status. It would be, for the Democrats, a strategic coup de main.
McCain, of course, is a Republican. But he has worked with many Democrats, including Kerry, and has been systematically excluded by the increasingly fundamentalist caste of Republican establishment. On domestic issues, such as campaign finance reform, corporate scandals, and the deficit, he might actually be more comfortable in conservative Democratic ranks. He is pro-life, which makes him anathema to Democrats. But this year, with Kerry under fire from the Catholic hierarchy on the abortion question, picking McCain would enable the Democratic candidate to insist that there is real diversity within his own party, and that he respects those who disagree with him on abortion. His policy would remain the same, but he could go a long way to reversing the unfortunate litmus test among Democrats and Republicans that abortion has become.
Would McCain agree? The one sticking point has been his loyalty to his party. That counts for something. But Americans are now in a national crisis of confidence in the middle of a crucial war. The next president, whoever he is, may well have to encounter seismic shocks from new terrorist atrocities in America and the world. Under those circumstances, America cannot afford more polarization, partisan division and acrimony. In parliamentary democracies, such crises sometimes provoke the formation of a "national government" in which both parties agree to serve in a national unity government. The American tradition demands otherwise. But the need to heal divisions and yet fight on in Iraq and around the world may lead to a version of the national government in the shape of a unity ticket.
McCain could say that this national crisis demands that he put country ahead of party and serve. His loyalty to his party would therefore be trumped by loyalty to his country. Kerry could also say that his impulse is to be a "uniter, not a divider," and that, unlike George W. Bush, he will actually show it in his pick for the vice-presidency. Their platform? Winning the war, cutting the deficit, reforming corporate excess. A Kerry-McCain ticket, regardless of the many difficulties, would, I think, win in a landslide. Will it happen? Still unlikely. But the odds just shortened. And if Bush keeps stumbling, the arguments for such a dramatic innovation could get a lot stronger.
May 12, 2004, The New Republic.
copyright © 2000, 2004 Andrew Sullivan
David
Crellin@Audiea.com
Unauthorized copy from Andrew Sullivan and The New Republic.
Read it and weep!
That's The Ticket
The Kerry-McCain Dream
The last week has been an emotional whiplash for Americans. The shame of Abu Ghraib morphed into the shock of the beheading of Nick Berg. America seemed too powerful and then not powerful enough. And by the end of it, a kind of psychic equilibrium could be felt. No serious figure wants to cut and run in Iraq, however chastened and troubled Washington has become. And no serious neo-conservative or liberal interventionist has avoided what is in Washington a rare event: a bout of public self-doubt. What emerges is something of a consensus: Bush has a few months to persuade the country that Iraq is on the right path. If he fails, Kerry will have a chance to offer himself as the "smarter war, kinder peace" candidate. In this endeavour, Kerry needs some measure of hawkish credibility. And he needs someone who can ease polarization and bring independents into the Democratic tent.
One man can. Republican Senator John McCain is everyone's dream candidate, especially the Washington pres corps'. He's a charismatic Republican, tough on defense but alienated by George W. Bush and the Republican Party's fundamentalist Christian base. Last week, John Kerry mentioned him as a possible futrure defense secretary in a Kerry administration. But true dreamers are looking for something more radical: a Kerry-McCain bipartisan ticket. It's still highly unlikely, but recent events make it far less so.
Here's why. There is no one better suited in the country to tackle a difficult war where the United States is credibly accused of abusing prisoners than John McCain. He was, after all, a war hero and then a victim of the worst kind of prisoner torture imaginable in the Hanoi Hilton. His military credentials are impeccable but so are his moral scruples and backbone: that's a rare combination. As vice-presidential candidate, he would give the Kerry campaign the ability to criticize the conduct of this war of liberation, but also to pursue it credibly. He would remove the taint of an "anti-war" candidacy headed by a man who once helped pioneer the anti-war forces in Vietnam, while giving the Kerry campaign credibility on national defense. He would ensure that a Kerry victory would not be interpreted by America's allies or enemies as a decision to cut and run.
In office, McCain could be given real authority as a war-manager, providing a real counter-weight to Kerry's penchant for U.N.-style non-solutions. There's a precedent for such a powerful vice-president who could not credibly be believed to have ambitions on the Oval Office himself: Dick Cheney. Why no credible ambitions for the presidency himself? If McCain agreed to run with Kerry, he would also have to agree to support Kerry for possible re-election. There's no way that McCain could credibly run for president in eight years' time - as a Democrat or as a Republican. So he could become for Kerry what Cheney has been for Bush: a confidant, a manager, a strategic mind, a guide through the thicket of war-management.
But he could also be more for Kerry. He could be a unifying force in the country in the dark days ahead. Domestically, a Kerry-McCain ticket would go a long way toward healing the Vietnam wound, now rubbed raw again by recent events in Iraq. The two men represent very different responses to that war, and could help unite their generation - finally! - over it. To have two combat veterans up against Bush and Cheney would also eviscerate Republican attempts to paint Kerry as weak on defense and in the war on terror. Besides, McCain represents a real and utterly unrepresented constituency in America: the fiscally conservative, hawkish, socially tolerant hawks, usually described as "Independents." By bringing these people into the Democratic big tent, Kerry could not only win the election, but help position the Democrats to regain majority status. It would be, for the Democrats, a strategic coup de main.
McCain, of course, is a Republican. But he has worked with many Democrats, including Kerry, and has been systematically excluded by the increasingly fundamentalist caste of Republican establishment. On domestic issues, such as campaign finance reform, corporate scandals, and the deficit, he might actually be more comfortable in conservative Democratic ranks. He is pro-life, which makes him anathema to Democrats. But this year, with Kerry under fire from the Catholic hierarchy on the abortion question, picking McCain would enable the Democratic candidate to insist that there is real diversity within his own party, and that he respects those who disagree with him on abortion. His policy would remain the same, but he could go a long way to reversing the unfortunate litmus test among Democrats and Republicans that abortion has become.
Would McCain agree? The one sticking point has been his loyalty to his party. That counts for something. But Americans are now in a national crisis of confidence in the middle of a crucial war. The next president, whoever he is, may well have to encounter seismic shocks from new terrorist atrocities in America and the world. Under those circumstances, America cannot afford more polarization, partisan division and acrimony. In parliamentary democracies, such crises sometimes provoke the formation of a "national government" in which both parties agree to serve in a national unity government. The American tradition demands otherwise. But the need to heal divisions and yet fight on in Iraq and around the world may lead to a version of the national government in the shape of a unity ticket.
McCain could say that this national crisis demands that he put country ahead of party and serve. His loyalty to his party would therefore be trumped by loyalty to his country. Kerry could also say that his impulse is to be a "uniter, not a divider," and that, unlike George W. Bush, he will actually show it in his pick for the vice-presidency. Their platform? Winning the war, cutting the deficit, reforming corporate excess. A Kerry-McCain ticket, regardless of the many difficulties, would, I think, win in a landslide. Will it happen? Still unlikely. But the odds just shortened. And if Bush keeps stumbling, the arguments for such a dramatic innovation could get a lot stronger.
May 12, 2004, The New Republic.
copyright © 2000, 2004 Andrew Sullivan
David
Crellin@Audiea.com
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
1
The murder of Nick Berg is a three day wonder. Such pointless but emotional killings are a common part of modern warfare. As much as I dislike the sophistry of a Limbaugh, I do understand his thinking. All sides seize upon these events and play partisan politics. Who cries out when these things happen in Haiti, by thugs trained by the United States? Who cries out when Russia brutalizes the Checnyns? I condemn all of it by everyone.
Berg was a tragic victim, we should not forget him. But at the same time we must be honest about Linda English and others like her. She cynically abused inmates. However vicious they were, she was just the same brutish mindset on a different team. DR. Donald Sensing at "One Hand Clapping", states better than I, the way excuses are made and war becomes a slaughter. The United States must never give in or allow its forces to resort to such violence. Iraq is not going away. This mess will linger for years and define the US in the 21st century. The Bush Administration faces serious scandals over No Bid contracts as well as understaffing the military so GOP big shots can get contracts for numerous services. All the ugliness will come back in spades. I detest the violence and send the Berg family my condolences. I also send the US Soldiers who die for such a dubious cause. Iraq will be a sullen dictatorship soon enough. In 2005 Bush and CO. Will do everything to get out and thus condemn Iraq to further despair and ruin.
David: Crellin@Audiea.com
The murder of Nick Berg is a three day wonder. Such pointless but emotional killings are a common part of modern warfare. As much as I dislike the sophistry of a Limbaugh, I do understand his thinking. All sides seize upon these events and play partisan politics. Who cries out when these things happen in Haiti, by thugs trained by the United States? Who cries out when Russia brutalizes the Checnyns? I condemn all of it by everyone.
Berg was a tragic victim, we should not forget him. But at the same time we must be honest about Linda English and others like her. She cynically abused inmates. However vicious they were, she was just the same brutish mindset on a different team. DR. Donald Sensing at "One Hand Clapping", states better than I, the way excuses are made and war becomes a slaughter. The United States must never give in or allow its forces to resort to such violence. Iraq is not going away. This mess will linger for years and define the US in the 21st century. The Bush Administration faces serious scandals over No Bid contracts as well as understaffing the military so GOP big shots can get contracts for numerous services. All the ugliness will come back in spades. I detest the violence and send the Berg family my condolences. I also send the US Soldiers who die for such a dubious cause. Iraq will be a sullen dictatorship soon enough. In 2005 Bush and CO. Will do everything to get out and thus condemn Iraq to further despair and ruin.
David: Crellin@Audiea.com
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
1
Well, Blogger has reinvented itself, again! Lets hope things will stay the same for a few months. I have chosen a new page design, it looks like something from the late 1960s. All the bright colors and even a swiggle star. I feel as if Mike Douglas is around here some where! I can upload photos using something called "Hello" not bad! What is important is that people see my blog and return!
2
The Iraqi Prison scandal goes on. The Congress is set to conduct investigations and the media, smelling a juicy story with legs will be there as well. Nothing important will happen until March 2005, but it is coming. The Bush Administration will regret being re-elected. The real scandal will be the "No Bid Contracts" VP Cheney gave away in 2001 and 2002 and the direct consequence. Corrupt businesses smelling fast profits and various contract workers utterly ill prepared to do anything in Iraq. The gross waste of federal funds and the genuine graft! The GOP will seek to save itself and the next generation by junking the Bushies! Career politicians and career bureaucrats hate the flim flam hustlers who come to town. Every administration has crooks within or on the outside. But this administration is crooked through and through. Texas empty suit reactionaries, who hustled everyone, for awhile. 2005 will see the start of the unraveling and by 2007 a number of Bushies will be in prison or on their way!
GW Bush will be disgraced before history. VP Cheney will be prosecuted and if lucky will expire before being sent to prison.
Iraq will become just another cruel dictatorship secretly constructing atomic weapons, a headache for some future president.
Iraq will haunt America for a hundred years!
David: Crellin@Audiea.com
Well, Blogger has reinvented itself, again! Lets hope things will stay the same for a few months. I have chosen a new page design, it looks like something from the late 1960s. All the bright colors and even a swiggle star. I feel as if Mike Douglas is around here some where! I can upload photos using something called "Hello" not bad! What is important is that people see my blog and return!
2
The Iraqi Prison scandal goes on. The Congress is set to conduct investigations and the media, smelling a juicy story with legs will be there as well. Nothing important will happen until March 2005, but it is coming. The Bush Administration will regret being re-elected. The real scandal will be the "No Bid Contracts" VP Cheney gave away in 2001 and 2002 and the direct consequence. Corrupt businesses smelling fast profits and various contract workers utterly ill prepared to do anything in Iraq. The gross waste of federal funds and the genuine graft! The GOP will seek to save itself and the next generation by junking the Bushies! Career politicians and career bureaucrats hate the flim flam hustlers who come to town. Every administration has crooks within or on the outside. But this administration is crooked through and through. Texas empty suit reactionaries, who hustled everyone, for awhile. 2005 will see the start of the unraveling and by 2007 a number of Bushies will be in prison or on their way!
GW Bush will be disgraced before history. VP Cheney will be prosecuted and if lucky will expire before being sent to prison.
Iraq will become just another cruel dictatorship secretly constructing atomic weapons, a headache for some future president.
Iraq will haunt America for a hundred years!
David: Crellin@Audiea.com
Saturday, May 08, 2004
1
Here is an unauthorized reprint of a depressing article from the 8 May 2004 NY Times.
Think about John Ashcroft's actions here and GW Bush's possible invilvement.
Why would Lane McCotter be apointed to anything with his track record? Talk of cynicism!
Read it and weep.
If anything here is a thread of evidence that the Bush administration is full of shit when it comes to remorse over Iraq.
Mistreatment of Prisoners Is Called Routine in U.S.
By FOX BUTTERFIELD
Physical and sexual abuse of prisoners, similar to what has been uncovered in Iraq, takes place in American prisons with little public knowledge or concern, according to corrections officials, inmates and human rights advocates.
In Pennsylvania and some other states, inmates are routinely stripped in front of other inmates before being moved to a new prison or a new unit within their prison. In Arizona, male inmates at the Maricopa County jail in Phoenix are made to wear women's pink underwear as a form of humiliation.
At Virginia's Wallens Ridge maximum security prison, new inmates have reported being forced to wear black hoods, in theory to keep them from spitting on guards, and said they were often beaten and cursed at by guards and made to crawl.
The corrections experts say that some of the worst abuses have occurred in Texas, whose prisons were under a federal consent decree during much of the time President Bush was governor because of crowding and violence by guards against inmates. Judge William Wayne Justice of Federal District Court imposed the decree after finding that guards were allowing inmate gang leaders to buy and sell other inmates as slaves for sex.
The experts also point out that the man who directed the reopening of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last year and trained the guards there resigned under pressure as director of the Utah Department of Corrections in 1997 after an inmate died while shackled to a restraining chair for 16 hours. The inmate, who suffered from schizophrenia, was kept naked the whole time.
The Utah official, Lane McCotter, later became an executive of a private prison company, one of whose jails was under investigation by the Justice Department when he was sent to Iraq as part of a team of prison officials, judges, prosecutors and police chiefs picked by Attorney General John Ashcroft to rebuild the country's criminal justice system.
Mr. McCotter, 63, is director of business development for Management & Training Corporation, a Utah-based firm that says it is the third-largest private prison company, operating 13 prisons. In 2003, the company's operation of the Santa Fe jail was criticized by the Justice Department and the New Mexico Department of Corrections for unsafe conditions and lack of medical care for inmates. No further action was taken.
In response to a request for an interview on Friday, Mr. McCotter said in a written statement that he had left Iraq last September, just after a ribbon-cutting ceremony to open Abu Ghraib.
"I was not involved in any aspect of the facility's operation after that time," he said.
Nationwide, during the last quarter century, over 40 state prison systems were under some form of court order, for brutality, crowding, poor food or lack of medical care, said Marc Mauer, assistant director of the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group in Washington that calls for alternatives to incarceration.
In a 1999 opinion, Judge Justice wrote of the situation in Texas, "Many inmates credibly testified to the existence of violence, rape and extortion in the prison system and about their own suffering from such abysmal conditions."
In a case that began in 2000, a prisoner at the Allred Unit in Wichita Falls, Tex., said he was repeatedly raped by other inmates, even after he appealed to guards for help, and was allowed by prison staff to be treated like a slave, being bought and sold by various prison gangs in different parts of the prison. The inmate, Roderick Johnson, has filed suit against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, said Kara Gotsch, public policy coordinator for the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Mr. Johnson.
Asked what Mr. Bush knew about abuse in Texas prisons while he was governor, Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said the problems in American prisons were not comparable to the abuses exposed at Abu Ghraib.
The corrections experts are careful to say they do not know to what extent the brutality and humiliation at Abu Ghraib were intended to break the prisoners for interrogation or were just random acts.
But Chase Riveland, a former secretary of corrections in Washington State and Colorado and now a prison consultant based near Seattle, said, "In some jurisdictions in the United States there is a prison culture that tolerates violence, and it's been there a long time."
This culture has been made worse by the quadrupling of the number of prison and jail inmates to 2.1 million over the last 25 years, which has often resulted in crowding, he said. The problems have been compounded by the need to hire large numbers of inexperienced and often undertrained guards, Mr. Riveland said.
Some states have a hard time recruiting enough guards, Mr. Riveland said, particularly Arizona, where the pay is very low. "Retention in these states is a big problem and so unqualified people get promoted to be lieutenants or captains in a few months," he said.
Something like this process may have happened in Iraq, where the Americans tried to start a new prison system with undertrained military police officers from Army reserve units, Mr. Riveland suggested.
When Mr. Ashcroft announced the appointment of the team to restore Iraq's criminal justice system last year, including Mr. McCotter, he said, "Now all Iraqis can taste liberty in their native land, and we will help make that freedom permanent by assisting them to establish an equitable criminal justice system based on the rule of law and standards of basic human rights."
A Justice Department spokeswoman, Monica Goodling, did not return phone calls on Friday asking why Mr. Ashcroft had chosen Mr. McCotter even though his firm's operation of the Santa Fe jail had been criticized by the Justice Department.
Mr. McCotter has a long background in prisons. He had been a military police officer in Vietnam and had risen to be a colonel in the Army. His last post was as warden of the Army prison at Fort Leavenworth.
After retiring from the Army, Mr. Cotter was head of the corrections departments in New Mexico and Texas before taking the job in Utah.
In Utah, in addition to the death of the mentally ill inmate, Mr. McCotter also came under criticism for hiring a prison psychiatrist whose medical license was on probation and who was accused of Medicaid fraud and writing prescriptions for drug addicts.
In an interview with an online magazine, Corrections.com, last January, Mr. McCotter recalled that of all the prisons in Iraq, Abu Ghraib "is the only place we agreed as a team was truly closest to an American prison. They had cell housing and segregation."
But 80 to 90 percent of the prison had been destroyed, so Mr. McCotter set about rebuilding it, everything from walls and toilets to handcuffs and soap. He employed 100 Iraqis who had worked in the prison under Saddam Hussein, and paid for everything with wads of cash, up to $3 million, that he carried with him.
Another problem, Mr. McCotter quickly discovered, was that the Iraqi staff, despite some American training, quickly reverted to their old ways, "shaking down families, shaking down inmates, letting prisoners buy their way out of prison."
So the American team fired the guards and went with former Iraqi military personnel. "They didn't have any bad habits and did things exactly the way we trained them."
Mr. McCotter said he worked closely with American military police officers at the prison, but he did not give any names.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
David A Fairbanks Crellin@Audiea.com
Here is an unauthorized reprint of a depressing article from the 8 May 2004 NY Times.
Think about John Ashcroft's actions here and GW Bush's possible invilvement.
Why would Lane McCotter be apointed to anything with his track record? Talk of cynicism!
Read it and weep.
If anything here is a thread of evidence that the Bush administration is full of shit when it comes to remorse over Iraq.
Mistreatment of Prisoners Is Called Routine in U.S.
By FOX BUTTERFIELD
Physical and sexual abuse of prisoners, similar to what has been uncovered in Iraq, takes place in American prisons with little public knowledge or concern, according to corrections officials, inmates and human rights advocates.
In Pennsylvania and some other states, inmates are routinely stripped in front of other inmates before being moved to a new prison or a new unit within their prison. In Arizona, male inmates at the Maricopa County jail in Phoenix are made to wear women's pink underwear as a form of humiliation.
At Virginia's Wallens Ridge maximum security prison, new inmates have reported being forced to wear black hoods, in theory to keep them from spitting on guards, and said they were often beaten and cursed at by guards and made to crawl.
The corrections experts say that some of the worst abuses have occurred in Texas, whose prisons were under a federal consent decree during much of the time President Bush was governor because of crowding and violence by guards against inmates. Judge William Wayne Justice of Federal District Court imposed the decree after finding that guards were allowing inmate gang leaders to buy and sell other inmates as slaves for sex.
The experts also point out that the man who directed the reopening of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last year and trained the guards there resigned under pressure as director of the Utah Department of Corrections in 1997 after an inmate died while shackled to a restraining chair for 16 hours. The inmate, who suffered from schizophrenia, was kept naked the whole time.
The Utah official, Lane McCotter, later became an executive of a private prison company, one of whose jails was under investigation by the Justice Department when he was sent to Iraq as part of a team of prison officials, judges, prosecutors and police chiefs picked by Attorney General John Ashcroft to rebuild the country's criminal justice system.
Mr. McCotter, 63, is director of business development for Management & Training Corporation, a Utah-based firm that says it is the third-largest private prison company, operating 13 prisons. In 2003, the company's operation of the Santa Fe jail was criticized by the Justice Department and the New Mexico Department of Corrections for unsafe conditions and lack of medical care for inmates. No further action was taken.
In response to a request for an interview on Friday, Mr. McCotter said in a written statement that he had left Iraq last September, just after a ribbon-cutting ceremony to open Abu Ghraib.
"I was not involved in any aspect of the facility's operation after that time," he said.
Nationwide, during the last quarter century, over 40 state prison systems were under some form of court order, for brutality, crowding, poor food or lack of medical care, said Marc Mauer, assistant director of the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group in Washington that calls for alternatives to incarceration.
In a 1999 opinion, Judge Justice wrote of the situation in Texas, "Many inmates credibly testified to the existence of violence, rape and extortion in the prison system and about their own suffering from such abysmal conditions."
In a case that began in 2000, a prisoner at the Allred Unit in Wichita Falls, Tex., said he was repeatedly raped by other inmates, even after he appealed to guards for help, and was allowed by prison staff to be treated like a slave, being bought and sold by various prison gangs in different parts of the prison. The inmate, Roderick Johnson, has filed suit against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the case is now before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, said Kara Gotsch, public policy coordinator for the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Mr. Johnson.
Asked what Mr. Bush knew about abuse in Texas prisons while he was governor, Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said the problems in American prisons were not comparable to the abuses exposed at Abu Ghraib.
The corrections experts are careful to say they do not know to what extent the brutality and humiliation at Abu Ghraib were intended to break the prisoners for interrogation or were just random acts.
But Chase Riveland, a former secretary of corrections in Washington State and Colorado and now a prison consultant based near Seattle, said, "In some jurisdictions in the United States there is a prison culture that tolerates violence, and it's been there a long time."
This culture has been made worse by the quadrupling of the number of prison and jail inmates to 2.1 million over the last 25 years, which has often resulted in crowding, he said. The problems have been compounded by the need to hire large numbers of inexperienced and often undertrained guards, Mr. Riveland said.
Some states have a hard time recruiting enough guards, Mr. Riveland said, particularly Arizona, where the pay is very low. "Retention in these states is a big problem and so unqualified people get promoted to be lieutenants or captains in a few months," he said.
Something like this process may have happened in Iraq, where the Americans tried to start a new prison system with undertrained military police officers from Army reserve units, Mr. Riveland suggested.
When Mr. Ashcroft announced the appointment of the team to restore Iraq's criminal justice system last year, including Mr. McCotter, he said, "Now all Iraqis can taste liberty in their native land, and we will help make that freedom permanent by assisting them to establish an equitable criminal justice system based on the rule of law and standards of basic human rights."
A Justice Department spokeswoman, Monica Goodling, did not return phone calls on Friday asking why Mr. Ashcroft had chosen Mr. McCotter even though his firm's operation of the Santa Fe jail had been criticized by the Justice Department.
Mr. McCotter has a long background in prisons. He had been a military police officer in Vietnam and had risen to be a colonel in the Army. His last post was as warden of the Army prison at Fort Leavenworth.
After retiring from the Army, Mr. Cotter was head of the corrections departments in New Mexico and Texas before taking the job in Utah.
In Utah, in addition to the death of the mentally ill inmate, Mr. McCotter also came under criticism for hiring a prison psychiatrist whose medical license was on probation and who was accused of Medicaid fraud and writing prescriptions for drug addicts.
In an interview with an online magazine, Corrections.com, last January, Mr. McCotter recalled that of all the prisons in Iraq, Abu Ghraib "is the only place we agreed as a team was truly closest to an American prison. They had cell housing and segregation."
But 80 to 90 percent of the prison had been destroyed, so Mr. McCotter set about rebuilding it, everything from walls and toilets to handcuffs and soap. He employed 100 Iraqis who had worked in the prison under Saddam Hussein, and paid for everything with wads of cash, up to $3 million, that he carried with him.
Another problem, Mr. McCotter quickly discovered, was that the Iraqi staff, despite some American training, quickly reverted to their old ways, "shaking down families, shaking down inmates, letting prisoners buy their way out of prison."
So the American team fired the guards and went with former Iraqi military personnel. "They didn't have any bad habits and did things exactly the way we trained them."
Mr. McCotter said he worked closely with American military police officers at the prison, but he did not give any names.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
David A Fairbanks Crellin@Audiea.com
Friday, May 07, 2004
1
The photos from Iraq mean nothing. The US will not stop using physical force against those we feel are enemies of our ambition. The pictures will frighten many of the Muslims who hate us and will cause many of the "Tough Guys" to re-consider confronting US forces.
Donald Rumsfeld knew from day one of a get mean policy and he has no regrets. His appearance before congress was a farce. If he were truly remorseful, he'd resign, but the perks of power and considering his age, he would have nothing to gain by resigning.
In just one month 90% of the world will have forgotten these dark images and life will go on. The US Military will resume beatings and abusing inmates and no one will do a damn thing about it!
I resent the fraudulent and cynicism that comes through the Bush Administration.
phony apologies designed to limit John Kerry's effect and nothing else.
More later
David Crellin@Audiea.com
The photos from Iraq mean nothing. The US will not stop using physical force against those we feel are enemies of our ambition. The pictures will frighten many of the Muslims who hate us and will cause many of the "Tough Guys" to re-consider confronting US forces.
Donald Rumsfeld knew from day one of a get mean policy and he has no regrets. His appearance before congress was a farce. If he were truly remorseful, he'd resign, but the perks of power and considering his age, he would have nothing to gain by resigning.
In just one month 90% of the world will have forgotten these dark images and life will go on. The US Military will resume beatings and abusing inmates and no one will do a damn thing about it!
I resent the fraudulent and cynicism that comes through the Bush Administration.
phony apologies designed to limit John Kerry's effect and nothing else.
More later
David Crellin@Audiea.com
