Missed It By That Much

We missed our first anniversary of blogging. "Lost Chord" premiered April 16, 2005 with 14 posts. Obviously, we had a lot to say that first day. Click the archives over there on the right if you want to read what we blogged about that first day. Or click here for our very first post.

You'll note a few changes over the past couple days. More links to blogs via Blogrolling, a couple of pesky ads. Oh, yeah. That photo in the upper right. Strange fellow. Watch out for him.

Rhymes with Stan, Enough to Make a Plan

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Cheney Channels Reagan

Tim Sloan/AFP


Dickie during a press briefing by President Bush and Chinese leader Hu Jintao while Rummy checks out the shine on his new loafers. The veep's people later insisted he was reading his notes.

Double Standard?

The Springfield News-Leader reports today that the Rountree Elementary school principal has been placed on paid administrative leave. The action comes following a Missouri Department of Social Services report indicated sexual abuse and neglect occurred at the school. In March, a teacher was arrested on suspicion of molesting students. The teacher has not been charged.

The News-Leader identifies the principal by name, but has never identified the accused teacher by name. Here's their explanation as to why:

The News-Leader has not named the accused teacher because he has not been charged with a crime. The principal has been named because reporting the change in leadership at Rountree requires identifying the principal.

Exactly how does "reporting the change in leadership at Rountree" require identifying the principal? Why the double standard?

Some readers of Ron Davis' blog objected to the teacher being named when arrested, but not charged. Should the news media name the principal who has been placed on administrative leave? Couldn't the media simply say the "Rountree Elementary principal" as I've done in this post?

Seriously, I'm very curious about this and not trying to mock. I'm open to arguments either way on the naming of the teacher and/or the principal. I don't buy the News-Leader's explanation for naming the principal but not the teacher.

"'Rape' is a Buzzword"

We now know why the South Dakota legislature did not include exceptions for rape or incest in its abortion ban, courtesy of state Rep. Joel Dykstra (R-Lincoln County):

“I think ‘rape and incest’ is a buzzword,” said Rep. Joel Dykstra about not including those conditions in the abortion bill. “It’s a bit of a throwaway line and not everybody who says that really understands what that means. How are you going to define that?"

Yes, according to Joel (Dick-straw) Dykstra one cannot define "rape" or "incest" in legal terms.

My Father's Eyes

Eric Clapton penned a tune in 1998 in which the British rock superstar sings soulfully about the father he never knew: "How did I get here? When will all my hopes arrive?" He answers four times in a poignant refrain: "When I look in my father's eyes."

That song has been in my head for the past week following a visit from my parents, older sister, and her 11-year-old step-grandson.

All in all it was a pleasant visit. I had not seen my sister in almost 10 years, had not seen my parents in many months, and had never met this step-great-nephew. We enjoyed a night at Hammons Field in which I did NOT nearly get hit by a foul ball (first time THAT'S happened!), a first-ever trip to Incredible Pizza, and some fine dining around Springfield. We also got to show off the house we're buying.

My step-great-nephew is an extremely courteous, well-mannered young man. He quite obviously and unashamedly loves his step-grandmother. He also has a warped sense of humor which resulted in several prank cell phone calls we both quite enjoyed.

But back to that Clapton tune. My father is 78-years-old and has Parkinson's Disease. He is no longer the strong man I loved, and sometimes feared, growing up. My father never mistreated me or my siblings. He and my mother went out of their way to support us in whatever we chose to do. They attended every music concert, sporting event, and play in which any of us participated. They agreed with me when I decided I wanted to play in the band, and when I decided I no longer wanted to participate.

My father was never a tall person, barely reaching 5-feet in height. In high school, my buds often spoke gleefully of finally being taller than their dads. I was taller than my father in 6th grade. Now my father hunches over when he walks. Or rather, when he shuffles.

When we were little kids my father would simultaneously arm wrestle my brother and I, nearly beating us before suddenly losing all strength and allowing us to win. Now, my father's right arm constantly shakes.

Many Sunday's I heard my father's distinct tenor in the church choir. He would sing at many weddings. His voice would remain calm under almost any circumstance and sooth me when I was frightened. Now, he slurs his words.

I've looked into my father's eyes many times in life. I've seen disappointment when I screwed up, forgiveness when I apologized, understanding when I felt lost, pride when I succeeded. I only saw anger once, and that's when some bullies picked on a little kid. Then, forgiveness when they apologized.

My father took care of me when I was growing up. Now he needs me to take care of him. His brain has been attacked and he is no longer able to control his body. When I look into his eyes I see a little bit of fear. My father knows what is happening to him, and knows there's nothing he can do about it. I'm saddened by this revelation.

And yet, I also see the love my father has for his family. I see the pride he has for my accomplishments. I see he still believes in me.

"How did I get here? When will all my hopes arrive? When I look in my father's eyes."

Thank you, Mr. Clapton.

Bush Wants More Nukes

In elementary school in the 60s in small-town Iowa we had what were referred to as "disaster drills." They involved calmly leaving the classroom in single file, going to the basement and into the fallout shelter with every other person in the school building. I'm not sure what we were supposed to do once we all got in the shelter as we there was no room to move about or even sit. The "disaster" for which we were practicing was a nuclear attack.

It always seemed quite silly to me. Even at the tender age of 7 or 8 I knew we had nothing to worry about. I didn't know it was called MAD (Mutually Assured Distruction), but I KNEW the president and the leader of the Soviet Union were too smart to actually ever fire a nuclear weapon as it would mean the death of both countries. Plus, we lived down-wind of Omaha, Nebraska, home of the Strategic Air Command, which was most certainly a primary target. There would be no surviving a nuclear war.

This knowledge did not worry me. I KNEW there would never be a nuclear war. I KNEW it was all rhetoric and posturing. There was a war in Southeast Asia, but it was being fought with conventional weapons. And yes, a couple of boys from that small town in Iowa died in that war. And I knew them. One attended the same church as I, the other was a neighbor with a brother my age.

Then Reagan became president, and for the first time I believed nuclear war was possible. For the first time in my life I believed the president actually wanted to "press the button." Evidently, many elementary school children did as well. Newspapers and networks ran stories about the depression and anxiety that afflicted many children under the age of 12. And many pundits wondered how 7-year-olds could be so in tune with the concept of a nuclear holocaust.

For those of you who grew up during the Cold War, here we go again. For those of you too young to remember it, "you're about to get a taste of the Reagan administration, only dumber."

Many of our nuclear weapons are quite old, the "youngest" one having been built in 1989. So last year, the Bush administration started up the "reliable replacement warhead" (RRW) program, in which aging nuclear weapons would be replaced by more "reliable" ones.

An LA Times story, which received little attention, reports the Bush administration's RRW program is only the tip of the nuclear weapons iceberg:

The Bush administration Wednesday [April 5, 2006] unveiled a blueprint for rebuilding the nation's decrepit nuclear weapons complex, including restoration of a large-scale bomb manufacturing capacity.

The plan calls for the most sweeping realignment and modernization of the nation's massive system of laboratories and factories for nuclear bombs since the end of the Cold War.

Until now, the nation has depended on carefully maintaining aging bombs produced during the Cold War arms race, some several decades old. The administration, however, wants the capability to turn out 125 new nuclear bombs per year by 2022, as the Pentagon retires older bombs that it says will no longer be reliable or safe.

Read the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) press release. According to the NNSA, the purpose of the new program is "to establish a smaller, more efficient nuclear weapons complex able to respond to future challenges."

The plan includes a "consolidated plutonium center", where the nation's plutonium would be kept for research, as well as weapon manufacturing purposes. The LA Times article continues:

Under the plan, all of the nation's plutonium would be consolidated into a single facility that could be more effectively and cheaply defended against possible terrorist attacks. The plan would remove the plutonium kept at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory by 2014, though transfers of the material could start sooner. In recent years, concern has grown that Livermore, surrounded by residential neighborhoods in the Bay Area, could not repel a terrorist attack.

But the administration blueprint is facing sharp criticism, both from those who say it does not move fast enough to consolidate plutonium stores and from those who say restarting bomb production would encourage aspiring nuclear powers across the globe to develop weapons.

So does "take apart old bombs and streamline the system" mean the U.S. will once again participate in nuclear proliferation?

The plan was outlined to Congress on Wednesday by Thomas D'Agostino, head of nuclear weapons programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, a part of the Energy Department. Though the weapons proposal would restore the capacity to make new bombs, D'Agostino said it was part of a larger effort to accelerate the dismantling of aging bombs left from the Cold War.

D'Agostino acknowledged in an interview that the administration was walking a fine line by modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons program while assuring other nations that it was not seeking a new arms race. The credibility of the contention rests on the U.S. intent to sharply reduce its inventory of weapons.

So, this is a case of the U.S. saying "do as I say, not as I do" to Iran, and North Korea, and Syria, and any other nation that desires a nuclear weapon program.

Time to start building your fallout shelter. Time for elementary school children to once again practice "disaster drills."

Talent Draws a Crowd

As children, we all learned the saying "Two's company, three's a crowd." Jim Talent found that saying to be true.

Left in Missouri has learned that at two recent campaign stops, the Talent team was only able to scrape together 5 - that's right FIVE - people interested enough in Mr. Talent and his plans for Missouri to come listen to him speak.

The first stop was in Sikeston. When Talent walked in, this is what he saw: two people assembling a 1,000-piece puzze of Big Ben, two old salts chatting about the war, and Shirla, a disgruntled Democrat from Dexter. The director of the center came in to ask if anybody wanted juice, and a woman named Dorothy from the Dept. of Aging in Cape Girardeau watched the goldfish.

At the next stop, in Jackson, again only five seniors showed up, along with a few reporters - including one from The New York Times, and Dorothy.

Two campaign stops, 10 total supporters. Is it bad planning, or do Missourians just not care about Jim Talent?

He's Stupid and Ugly and Nobody Likes Him

We're talking about the president, of course. The latest 50-state SurveyUSA poll shows Bush's approval ratings continuing to tank at 36%. Only four states show approval ratings above 50%: Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Nebraska.

Only 36% of Missourians approve of Bush's performance. That's down from 42% one year ago. In Missouri, men are more likely to approve of Bush than women, as are older people. Surprisingly, 55% of Hispanics approve of Bush versus 39% whites and 11% of blacks. And even though 72% of Republicans approve of Bush, only 59% of conservatives do. Folks in the Ozarks provide a 41% approval rating.

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt has a slightly higher job approval rating at 37%, making him the 8th lowest-rated governor in the nation. That approval rating is up from 33% one year ago when Blunt was the third least popular governor.

Missourians in March gave Sen. Kit Bond a 53% approval rating and Sen. Jim Talent a 51% approval rating. Bond's numbers are up slightly from one year ago, down slightly from February. Talent, who's running for re-election, has a higher approval rating than one year ago and from February.

And here is the rest of it.

All the Great Things About Marriage

From mcjoan at DailyKos:
Coloradans for Marriage is a hate group pushing an anti-gay amendment in their state. To support their cause, they've created a list of all the great things about marriage. It's, um, a bit sparse.

Go see for yourself.

Stanley Kurtz Tells Cindy Sheehan Why Her Son Died

Kurtz writes crap at National Review. Today he told Cindy Sheehan and all the families of the 2,377 U.S. troops who have died in Iraq why their deaths were necessary: To prove ours is bigger than Iran's or any other country's.

We need to see peace and democracy in Iraq is icing on the cake. The real goal is the proof of resolve against Iran and others. If the public sees that, it might change its view of what’s important and what success means.

Yes, America sent 2,377 individuals to die, and thousands of others to be maimed, only to "prove" our "resolve against Iran and others." Evidently neocon chickenhawks believe people must die just to show that "we" are the toughest bastards on the block.

Is this what you believe? Is this the America you want?

Race

This week's Street Talk is about race. In part, it describes attitudes held by white people in Springfield and many other places. You can listen to an audio podcast at the Street Talk web site. But this show in particular really needs to be VIEWED for the full impact. It will air on Mediacom Cable channel 14 Wednesday at 6:30 p.m., Thursday at 10:30 p.m., Friday at 8:30 p.m., Saturday at 9:00 p.m., and Sunday at 12:30 p.m.

One might think attitudes had changed after 100 years. One might be wrong. Immigration is the current buzzword for racists. Consider:

A right-wing talk radio host in Arizona advocates murdering illegal immigrants.

Ditto-heads pass along lies about illegal immigrants, and try to play the military card. Problem is, illegal immigrants are dying in Iraq while chickenhawk ditto-heads sit comfortably at home spewing hate.

We likely still have lynchings. Perhaps not as open or as vivid as 100 years ago.

Watch Street Talk. Be shocked. Be ashamed. Be resolved to stop the hate.