A View from the Classroom -- Lehmann's Log

Toni Smith -- One Year Later

Last year, as the United States went to war, Toni Smith, a senior forward at a small liberal arts school in suburban New York, turned away from the flag at the start of her basketball games as a silent protest against the policies of this country. It was, as gestures go, a small one. She had no reason to expect that anyone would notice, outside of a few teammates and fans.

She was wrong.

At a time when dissent was almost unheard of, and Howard Dean's public anger at the war was months away, the story garnered national attention. ESPN followed it closely. Editorial page writers all over the country weighed in on the story, often cruelly attacking Toni for her actions. Throughout the controversy, Toni handled herself with grace and class.

Can the Internet Change Politics?

Professor Lessig links to Quoticus, an online political speech repository. They keep an archive of both the transcript and the video, so you can make your decision with the cold light of the words, rather than all the images.

I want to believe that all of this that we are seeing in the 2004 election is new. I want to believe that blogs and the wave of populism that I think is behind them will matter against $100 million dollars. I want to believe that every time another web site pops up that lets voters think critically about this election, that people will make an informed decision. And yes, I think there is a right choice to make.

But I have to admit a feeling of fear. I worry that the Bush administration will just outspend Kerry... I feel they will lie all the way down to the river (if I may use a poker term...) and I worry that it won't matter how many Paul O'Neills and Richard Clarkes come out against their former administration.

But I do have hope. I read the blogs, I read the meta-analysis blogs that blog about blogging (yes, that was fun to write) and I read that more and more people are getting information from places outside of the traditional media. I look at the energy that Dean's organization continues to generate, and I hope.

And just in case it's still money that matters, I just contributed $50 to the Kerry campaign today.

Beaconites: Watch 60 Minutes

It should air at around 7:15 this evening -- delayed by the NCAA Basketball Tourney, of course, but Richard Clarke, head of the White House Counter-Terrorism division under Bush and Clinton, is on tonight, talking about his new book. He paints a less than flattering picture of the Bush administration.

From CBS News::

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

And for more reading on this issue... Brad DeLong's take on it... and Atrios' ideas as well.

I agree with Professor DeLong. Impeach them. Impeach them now.

Update: For all those who didn't watch it, be sure to read the 60 Minutes story link above. 60 Minutes also has a video link.

This one will be hard for the Bush Administration to refute. Clarke, like Paul O'Neill, is someone who has spent his career working at the highest levels of government -- and Republican administrations at that. He came off in the interviews and strong, committed and truly outraged by the behavior of this administration. In contrast, the Bush administration official, Steven Hadley, really did not appear to have the courage of his convictions at all. His non-denial about a conversation Clarke says happened was worse on video than it reads... and it doesn't read well (again, from CBS:

As for the alleged pressure from Mr. Bush to find an Iraq-9/11 link, Hadley says, "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the president ever occurred."

When told by Stahl that 60 Minutes has two sources who tell us independently of Clarke that the encounter happened, including "an actual witness," Hadley responded, "Look, I stand on what I said.

I want to see a Kerry ad that asks, "Why are all of Bush's former advisors speaking out against him? If the members of his own administration don't believe his lies, why should the American people?"

At the end of the day, I think billmon at The Whiskey Bar says it best, in his post-60 Minutes entry...

If tonight's 60 Minutes doesn't shake our fellow Americans out of their illusions about George W. Bush, nothing will.

Caught

Moveon.org shows us Donald Rumsfeld's most recent appearance on Face the Nation.

They are right. It is time for the deception to stop.

Only In Philadelphia

Apparently, MTV didn't understand what it meant to make The Real World in Philadelphia. As it says in State College's Centre Daily:

This is the true story of "The Real World" and the city's powerful labor unions. The long-running MTV reality show found out what happens, to borrow its trademark slogan, when Philly people stop being polite and start getting real.

Only in my hometown. You really have to love Philly.

Thanks to Eschaton for the news.

A Simple Pleasure

I just sang "City of New Orleans" to JZ as Kat fell asleep. That might be the perfect definition of a simple pleasure.

Hoy Todos las Personas del Mundo Somos Madrileņos

The image and idea was taken from Wil Wheaton's blog. As he said, this event just reminds me -- and him and many others, I'm sure -- of 9/11. There's a sense of hopelessness and sadness that goes with a terrorist attack, but also a sense that we must remember what brings us together as people. I remember thinking in the days after 9/11 about how powerful a feeling it was... that the world had come together around New York. May we, as the people of the world, offer the comfort we can to the citizens of Madrid. You are not alone.

And perhaps we can all say a prayer to whomever or whatever we hold holy... as we ask for peace.

Ahora nosotros oramos que el mundo encuentre paz y justicia

(Thank you to Beacon senior Sasha De La Cruz for the spanish translations)

What Irrational Number Are You?

Total geekery. This is for Ordway and Thayer:

Proof You Should Get Out Every Now and Again

31 year-old video game player drops dead after 20 hours game marathon.

Fresh air. It does a body good.

More on Nader

Hendrik Hertzberg, in this week's New Yorker, takes on the Nader legacy.

For the past three years, everything Nader accomplished during his period of unparalleled creativity, which lasted from around 1963 to around 1976, has been systematically undermined by the Administration that he was instrumental in putting in power. Government efforts on behalf of clean air and water, fuel efficiency, workplace safety, consumer protection, and public health have been starved, stymied, or sabotaged in tandem with the shift of resources from public purposes to high-end private consumption, the increasing identity of government and corporate interests, and the growth of a cult of secrecy and arrogance that began well before September 11, 2001. Nader bears a very large share of responsibility for these spectacular traducements of his proclaimed values. So it is quite a tribute to the brilliance of his early achievements that an argument can still be made that the net effect of his career has been positive.

What I love about the entire piece is that it doesn't negate Nader's positive contributions, but it does look at what his legacy will be. He argues that, despite 2000, Nader is still a net positive -- which I am not sure I agree with -- but that if his run in 2004 were to help a second term, then Nader's assistance in creating eight years of Bush-rule would effectively negate the good work the man had done in the public sphere.

I, for the record, agree. He has tarnished his progressive legacy already. He may be well on his way to destroying it.