Doonesbury strikes again.

"On MSNBC they're covering the [Libby] trial like it's the Normandy Invasion, starring Elvis Presley, as told by Joseph Goebbels."

While I may listen to npr for my news, I depend on Garry Trudeau to keep me up to date on what is really going on in the world.

The above quote was featured in the "Say What?" section of the Daily Dose page on the Doonesbury web site a day or so ago. I believe that it was attributed to Ann Coulter.

Quotations from Ms. Coulter appear in the Mudline under the Doonesbury strip on a fairly regular basis, and I haven't figured out yet if those appearances are exactly complimentary. For the most part, it leads me to think that she is a loud woman who insists on being heard (rather than listened to). I'm not sure who her audience is supposed to be, but she certainly talks quite a bit.

In this particular case (oh goody! a pun!), however, she has hit the nail right on the head, although I'm not sure who Jeff Goebbels is. Every day there are extensive reports on the Libby trial, and every day there is very little new information. I get the feeling that it would be much like a daytime soap opera in that I could tune out for a week or two only to discover when I tuned back in that I hadn't really missed much.

Before I came across Ms. Coulter's assessment, I had been thinking that it seemed that the press wants to elevate this trial to the level of the Iran-Contra hearings. Since I was fairly young during the Reagan years, all I really remember about the Iran-Contra hearings is that they were boring and that they bumped my afternoon cartoons off the air.

At least the Lewinsky scandal had subplots of intrigue and betrayal to it.

In Libby trial is all about whether or not one guy lied about one piece of information. A piece of information which has been slathered across all sorts of newspapers, magazines and news programs. The bigger issue of *why* the CIA operative was outed in the first place--thus jeopardising her career and possibly her life--isn't even up for discussion, and that strikes me as a far more serious issue than whether or not one of the people supposedly involved in leaking the information is lying about doing it. The issue of the White House contradicting evidence--which an ambassador was specifically sent to collect--that did not support its agenda is also not up for discussion. Again, a more serious issue.

What kind of justice will really be served by this relentless public humiliation of Mr. Libby?

Lack of Experience

Hermits tend not to be particularly politically active. At least this hermit tends not to be particularly politically active. I start out interested in what is going on in an election. Then I get confused. Finally I become disgusted and throw my hands up at the whole situation.

I vividly remember one local election which was a fierce contest. As election day drew closer, the television ads became more and more frequent. The night before the election two completely contradictory ads were shown consecutively. One said that the incumbent had solved the education funding crisis. The other claimed that the incumbent had not only not solved the education funding crisis but also made it worse.

Surely only one of those assertions is true. Or is this one of those "truth from a certain point of view" situations?

In high school, as part of an extra credit project, I read a book entitled How to Lie with Statistics. I have been suspicious of the interpretation of numerical data ever since.

I am concerned about how early the 2008 presidential campaign is beginning. There is too much work to be done. The Congress needs to get something done now, or at least start getting something done now, rather than waiting for a change in twenty-two months. Let's focus on the matter at hand, shall we? There is the war that isn't helping anyone. Actually there are several wars that aren't helping anyone, and if we aren't careful, there are a few more on the horizon. There are too many people in this country who are hungry and underemployed and unable to afford health care. There are kids who can't afford to go to college. There are kids who can't get in to college because they aren't getting the education that they need in elementary and secondary school. There are veterans of current and past wars and their families who are not being taken care of properly. And we're all doing our part to destroy the planet.

But why work when we can start another contest? At least this contest hasn't gotten too ugly yet. So far the biggest concerns seem to be that one candidate is a Mormon and another doesn't have much in the way of experience on the national and international political stage.

Let's take a step back, shall we? Let's look at our current fearless leader. He's a born again Christian who openly talks to God and lets it be known that his faith influences his decisions, and his only serious political experience before becoming president was a single term as the Governor of Texas.

De ja vu anyone?

Rest in Peace, Indeed

Wow.

I am sitting on my book-strewn bed in a tangle of blankets and flannel sheets snacking on food that probably isn't meant for breakfast, listening to the radio and generally enjoying a leisurely Saturday morning, and Scott Simon on NPR's Weekend Edition just said something wonderfully sensitive, sympathetic and almost beautiful about the recently deceased Anna Nicole Smith.

In the last several days, I have been appalled at the coverage of this woman's demise. I was especially surprised at the extent of coverage on NPR. I don't want to sound like a snob and imply that Anna Nicole Smith wasn't good enough for NPR, but NPR usually doesn't cover the more titillating, sensational stories so thoroughly.

[As an aside, however, I have noticed that in general NPR seems to cover stories without a lot of substance for much longer than strikes me as informative. I can understand repeating the same story throughout the day, but when the same story is repeated for three or four days, is it really still news? It certainly ceases to be as interesting.]

When I first heard about Smith's death, my first thought, quite frankly, was "Who cares?" It's a tad harsh, I suppose, but I didn't find it to be particularly newsworthy, especially since I was fairly sure that her death was not being reported out of respect or concern but for the sensational reporting possibilities. Once more the press could make a spectacle out of a woman who has been simultaneously admired and criticized by the media who focus solely on the persona created by her obvious public actions--working in a strip club, having a child at sixteen, marrying a wealthy man almost three times her age, posing for Playboy, battling with weight problems--without concerning themselves with the troubled woman behind the persona.

The fact that she has died is only the beginning of the story. Now there must be an autopsy so that we can know the intimate details of where and how she died and thus speculate on the reasons it may have happened.

Whatever anyone may have thought of her, whatever she may have appeared to be in public, she was a human being who struggled through life just as most of the rest of us do. Sure, her struggles led to fame and fortune to some extent, but she had to deal with real hardship, the gravest of which was surely the loss of her son. I can't imagine any loss greater than that of a child, but after the young man's death, his mother was watched closely, but not out of sympathy.

Sure it can be argued that she sought out fame and fortune and enjoyed the spotlight that sensationalism offered to her, but now that she has died, is it really necessary to continue to look for as many sordid details as possible? Don't people have anything better to do? Wouldn't it be better to take a more magnanimous approach of not saying anything at all since you can't think of anything nice to say? Or just think about how you would feel to have the death of yourself or someone you love mercilessly and unsympathetically scrutinized.

Rest in peace, indeed.