Bennett cartoons | The Christian Science Monitor | csmonitor.com

Clay Bennet's cartoons are incredible!

The New York Times | Gonzo Nights

"''There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Bay, then up the Golden Gate or down 101 to Los Altos or La Honda. . . . You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning. . . .

''And that, I think, was the handle -- that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn't need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting -- on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. . . .

''So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look west, and with the right kind of eyes, you can almost see the high-water mark -- that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.''"

Yeah, this is it. This is the heart of the book, where it all makes sense and you start to understand HST, the 60s movements, the drug craze and the hippies. It was about prevailing over a depraved established order, letting karma conquer dogma, winning without fighting.

The Bush years are as different from that time as can be. These are the Bubba years!

FT.com | Europe rallies to save French referendum

The Financial Times usually talks about a "rally" in the market, but this "rally" has to do with a nebulous, opaque entity that it calls "Europe". Just who is "Europe" and where did it "rally"? I didn't happen to see any European ministers in France recently. Barroso passed through a week again and was given the cold shoulder: he was supposed to have 100 minutes prime time to "convince" but this was somewhere vetoed because, as well all know, he isn't really very convincining.

The second part of this title is "to save French referendum", presumably meaning to favor a "yes" vote. I don't myself consider this a "save" because I don't like the European Constitution and think that it is an anti-democratic, neocon piece of trash that will do in the best of French public services with nothing but hollow promises in return.

Most French understand this: that is why the "yes" camp has been attempting to promote the idea that the "no" camp is essentially using the referendum as an opportunity to deliver a no-confidence vote to Chirac on domestic policy. I don't think that French voters are so naive and I am comforted by the notion that the "yes" camp will continue to push on the wrong buttons in this respect.

Finally, the FT is just as bad as any other paper in its misleading articles: it promotes the "yes" vote as simply a way of avoiding "the worst": vote "yes" becase you are afraid and Big Brother Europe will help you. "Europe", if it is going to try to get a "rally", is going to have to understand that Europeans are not Americans.

"Michel Barnier, French foreign minister, said many of his European counterparts were worried about a No vote, "but I am confident in the capacity of French politicians to explain this constitution and finally convince people".

Barnier reminds me of Alain Juppé: just keep saying "I'll explain some more" and hope that folks will cave in. Barnier needs to do less "explaining" and more "listening", but I'm confident that he will not.

Helen Thomas | Who You Calling A Journalist?

I picked a link to this story off of the Gannon/Guckert site. It had been a while since I had actively followed the Gannongate story and I wanted to get into it again.

Helen Thomas re-iterated the "g-rated" part of the story, but gives it more punch because she puts it into perspective. 'Gannon' wasn't just in the White House press briefings -- he was hand-chosen by Bush for questions during a rare Bush appearance.

"Gannon made news recently after some liberal bloggers began investigating him when he asked President George W. Bush a question that had as its premise the assertion that congressional Democrats were 'divorced from reality.'

Bush comes to his rare news conferences armed with a list of reporters his staff has designated for him to call on. In giving Gannon the nod, he passed over some of the regular White House journalists -- including yours truly -- all with our hands up.

Gannon had attended White House briefings over a two-year period by getting a regular flow of one-day press passes that allowed him to enter the White House grounds. He did not qualify for a permanent White House press pass or a congressional press pass because he failed to meet the accreditation rules, which include the requirement that the applicant work for a news publication or broadcast outlet.

Gannon was known in the press room for asking softball, right-leaning questions. The digging bloggers revealed him to be a Republican operative, employed by the Talon News Web site, run by volunteer GOP activists and linked to GOSPUSA, a Republican consulting group, owned by Bobby Eberle of Houston.

Once that was established, questions arose as to why he was allowed to attend the daily press sessions. Gannon complained that he had been targeted by liberal bloggers who did not like his 'pro-administration' questions and argued that the harsh treatment he was getting in the mainstream media would have a 'chilling' effect on other conservatives in the media."

Gannon definitely does claim to be the target of "liberal bloggers": Gannon's header says:

Jeff Gannon
A Voice of the New Media
So feared by the Left it had to take me down

The headline switch from third person to first is but an example of the journalistic quality of Gannon's blog. Sure, bloggers make mistakes, I certainly do, but then again I have yet to be called upon by the President of the United States during a press conference, so you may understand that my expectations are higher in Gannon's case.

Helen Thomas does not go into the other points that are interesting about Gannon, sticking with the simple "special access, not a journalist", part of GOPUSA, aspects. That's enough to bring this into question already.

What's a lot more interesting about Gannon is what has been discovered about his being a male prostitute. (Yes, a gay male prostitute, but prostitute is the operative part, not gay, lest one falsely accuse me of homophobia.) See my earlier article with links to several on-line resources on the subject.

The inimitable Frank Rich wrote a compelling article about HST and Gannon (that I blogged at the time, since I had also written about HST and Gannon just days before.)

The administration has footdragged on efforts by House members to obtain information about the delivery of day passes to Gannon and, quite seriously, about his purported involvement in the outing of Valery Plame.

[...] Mr. Guckert’s questions clearly reiterated the White House’s policy, and simply asked for concurrence. Finally, Mr. Guckert ’s “articles,” published by a news front for GOPUSA, track White House talking points word for word.

Clearly, Mr. Guckert returned the White House’s favor by advancing the President’s policies with gusto. With such a close relationship between Mr. Guckert and the White House, the conflict of an administration-led investigation is all too apparent.

This is an odd state of affairs, a major hot item, much bigger than Watergate, yet with almost no mainstream media following it, unless you count Frank Rich and Eric Boehlert as mainstream.

The blogosphere, including yours truly, is still bouncing this one around. Recently, there have been some incredibly bizarre stories coming out, very scary and difficult to believe. I get the impression that these stories have been "hoked" up with the sole intention of discrediting the serious claims, which are, themselves, already quite bizarre (prostitution, outing of CIA undercover operatives).

The new stories would have you believe that a) Gannon as a child was kidnapped by a right-wing child prostitution ring furnishing the White House; b) Hunter S Thompson was part of the ring; c) Gannon was trying to out this group as part of his revenge process. The HST part is perhaps the weirdest and the least believable.

PIPA - France Most Widely Seen as Having a Positive Influence in World

Got this one off of cursor.

Seems that the PIPA poll of citizens of 23 countries found that France had the most positive influence in the world, with Europe right behind it.

The US leads the pack as being the most negatively viewed.

A public opinion poll across 23 countries finds that in 20, a majority (17) or a plurality (3) of citizens think it would be mainly positive for Europe to become more influential than the US in world affairs. Currently, Europe is seen as having a mainly positive influence in the world in 22 countries. Among specific major countries, the one most widely viewed as having a positive influence is France —viewed positively in 20 countries. The countries most widely viewed as having a negative influence are the US (viewed negatively in 15 countries) and Russia (14 countries).

The New York Times | The Continental Dream: Will the French Shatter It?

"But in a brutal shock to the European experiment, 11 opinion polls in France in the last month have indicated that the French are poised to vote no in the national referendum on May 29 on Europe's first constitution."

The NY Times is the Bubba Times today on this article about the French referendum on the European Constitution Treaty.

The point of the Times, like many papers, is simple, misleading and wrong. Their point: voting "non" on the Constitution Treaty is a vote against Europe. Horse-hooey and poppy-cock.

To start with, you must ask yourself a question: why do you vote yes for a Constitution? The answer should be that you think that it is a good Constitution and that you will benefit more from having this Constitution than not having it.

So what do you do when this Constitution is notoriously bad, threatens to destroy the best public institutions in France, sets up an anti-Democratic politburo, even two, called the European Commission and the European Council? Do you vote it in?

What happens when that Constitution promises "right to life" but not "right to choose"? Do you vote it in?

I won't. I'm voting "non". Not because I'm against a "United Europe" but because it is a very bad Constitution, pitifully bad. Americans are used to having a Constitution that they are proud of. Even when the American administration does everything to trammle it, Americans expect it to be honored by some future administration. We love our Constitution, arm-bearing and all.

The Europe Constitution project has nothing to love. It is a sham, an interventionist rag, a neocon manifest. It should be spat upon.

To hell with those who try to sell this rag on fear: "France will be ostracized." "France will be alone." On the contrary: France will be respected for having made the right decision. That's what France is all about: intelligent, reasoned choice, not fear-mongering.

For a United Europe, vote "non" on the European Constitution Referendum. I've read it, it's not worth it!

BBC NEWS | Americas | Pharmacists 'denying birth control'

"'More and more pharmacists do not want to hand over the birth control package and feel that it is within their rights to lecture women about their morals,' said Judy Waxman of the National Women's Law Centre in Washington DC.

A very small and very loud minority is trying to thwart women from getting their basic health care needs

'There are many incidences of pharmacists not giving back the prescription so that the women can fill it somewhere else.'

At a Brooks pharmacy in Laconia, New Hampshire, Suzanne Richards, a 21-year-old single mother with a 3-year-old son, was denied the morning after pill because of the pharmacist's religious convictions."

He told Richards he would not fill her prescription because "it would end the fertilisation process of the egg in the embryo" and, based upon his religious beliefs, it was wrong.

It was Saturday night in this rural town - all other pharmacies were closed, leaving Richards without an option.

Richards says she felt "humiliated and traumatised", and was too frightened to approach another pharmacist the next day, allowing the 72-hour limit for taking the pill to pass.

Clearly these pharmacists should be thrown out of the practice for prefessional faults.

And, BTW, this is getting big airplay in Europe. The image of American as a dreamland is just about forgotten over here.

The Gadflyer: Fly Trap

"[Special Council] Barrett was appointed in May 1995 to investigate allegations that Cisneros lied to the FBI about money he paid to a former mistress. Cisneros pleaded guilty in September 1999 and paid a $10,000 fine and a $25 court assessment. He was later pardoned by President Bill Clinton. By then, Barrett had spent $10.3 million on his investigation, and Congress had allowed the independent counsel law to lapse.

Just so you understand, what this was all about is that Cisneros was not honest to the agents conducting his background check about money he had paid a former mistress (he said the amount was lower than it actually was). Dishonest? Sure. Stupid? Absolutely. But he admitted it and paid the fine. For this, an investigation that lasts for a decade and spends over $20 million of taxpayers' money? And they're still investigating?"

Incredible. Why is anyone still going after Henry Cisneros, you may ask? Because he bucked the war and even presented articles of impeachment against Bush père. He was a good guy, well liked, from Texas, so he had to go!

Thanks to cursor.