Leaving aside Chief Foxworth’s Erotic Porn and the Scandal that has broken out in City Government due to the his sexual dalliances with an employee. Leaving aside Mayor Tom Potter’s eventual response to place him on administrative leave to let the Investigation proceed.

There is something iconic in the photographs that popped up in the Portland Tribune. You have Tom Potter giving that “scratching the chin” look. You have Chief Foxworth with an “Uh Oh” face.

All that is needed is an “Under Fire” graphic to wrap the storyline up in. But perhaps that is the province of television news.

Leaving aside the information being parlayed on the screen, I have to ask this question: What is the point? Somewhere there’s a commitee of “creatives” in the back-room putting together Power Point images. My geography is off, but I do know that the map on the top translucent cube — the one next to what would presumably be data of information such that one would get from the CIA Fact-book — is Iraq. I do not know what nation is on the bottom translucent-cube — Iran, perhaps? Why does it not deserve the tiny, tiny, unreadable images evoking CIA Fact-book information. Meanwhile, the map of the Earth is spread out — in a manner that shows that the map is going away from us in 3 Dimensional Space. And the Bush photo is of the “Bush: Under Fire” variety.

One last image for your consideration, placed in the “Bush: Under Fire” sphere. Maybe you heard about Harry Taylor? The man who was sitting at one of Bush’s “Town Hall Meetings”, those exercises where Bush packs the hall full of his fans, and through both subtle and strong-armed measures shoos most dissidents away, and lets the audience ask him questions. He was eventually called on, and he went through a bit of a diatribe, that to his credit Bush let through while the audience of Bush fans murmured and groaned. I already saw that guy and that event one time… somewhere in my Civics book.

There is something both cool and off-putting about Arthur M. Schlessinger Jr’s “American Presidents” series of books. This is a series of slender volumes, autobiographys of each of the American presidents, all of them highly sympathetic to their topic. (And the nature of these books is that they are side-projects for the authors.)

It works well for the more obscure presidents, who tend to not have books written about them. And some of the authors tabbed to write them are inspired:

William McKinley — Kevin Philips. McKinley is noted for having been at the start of a vast “Republican Majority”, Philips wrote “The Emerging Republican Majority” in 1968.
Warren Harding — John Dean. Scandal-plagued (albeit posthumously) presidency.
John Quincy Adams — Robert Remini. The “foremost Jacksonin historian” — take a detour to the president who preceeded him.
James Monroe — Gary Hart. I’m not entirely sure what the connection between author and subject is, but I’m sure one exists.

On the other hand, the “Sympathetic” nature tends to make you believe that every president in American history is a forgotten fore-runner to some Historical force, an unappreciated genius, and someone you should jab upward on the Historian’s parlor-game of ranking these guys. Except for James Buchanan — who, reading the back-cover, it looks like the author admits his bottom-of-the-bottom ranking is deserved.

Okay. So Virginia has a Democratic Primary race between James Webb and Harris Miller. James Webb is the former Navy secretary under Reagan, and author of several books that any Virginian looking at this race needs to take a close look at. Harris Miller was the head of a computer lobbying organization.

This is a tricky race, and I concede that James Webb is probably going to win the right to take on the noxious Bush-clone George Allen. Bluntly put, once Kaine won the governorship there, the Democratic Party recruited Webb into the race. He has the backing of the, quote-in-quote “Democratic Political Machine”.

But I kind of don’t know what I’m supposed to make of this race. Here is the tricky matter: the book he wrote in 2004 — Born Fighting… I only skimmed through it, but…

… if this was a situation where there was a Democrat being challenged by a committed Republican, liberal bloggers would be throwing up quotes from this book (published in 2004, mind you) demonstrating his “wing-nuttiness”, showing WHY HE MUST BE STOPPED. I note that Webb’s story on why is a Democrat today is that he switched parties while researching for this book (a sort of Scotch-Irish Supremacy tome) impressed with “the Democratic Party’s working class traditions.”

James Webb retorts to Harris’s charge of faux-Democratic credentials that his computer lobbying organization contributed to many a Republican (as lobbying firms frequently do), including Dennis Hastert. This is fair enough. I also note the spectacle of Wesley Clark endorsing Webb. Which strikes me as former Republicans endorsing former Republicans… Webb, mind you, speaking grandiosely still today of the greatness of Ronald Reagan, who — according to his book — is alongside that other Scotch-Irish American Andrew Jackson, his favourite president.

All I am saying to Virginian Democrats is: Let the buyer Beware.

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Tonight: President Bush’s summer vacation. Is he taking off too much time? Or can he do his job at his ranch house just as well as at the White House?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You don’t have to be in Washington to work. It’s amazing what can happen with telephones and faxes. […] […] […]

The “Washington Post” calculates that George W. Bush has spent 42 percent of his time as president on vacation or traveling to vacations.

But his aides call his August activity, home to the heartland, with President Bush making side trips. Today, for instance, he did his imitation of Jimmy Carter by helping raise the wooden frame of a Habitat for Humanity house. He also did his imitation of Jerry Ford by accidentally smashing his index finger.

Is it a disgrace for the president to take off so much time? Or is it refreshing for him to spend a vacation in a house he paid for himself instead of following Bill Clinton’s path in mooching off rich liberal friends?

Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s campaign manager, is sitting in for Bill Press on the left. Welcome, Donna.

DONNA BRAZILE, FORMER GORE CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Barbara, the president once again is on the defensive, this time defending his month long vacation, the longest in presidential campaign history.

Let me ask you a question. Recent polls show that 55 percent of the American people believe that the president is spending too much time away from Washington. Is it a bit much? Are you concerned?

BARBARA COMSTOCK, RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: No, not at all because first of all when you’re president you never have a day off.

How many people on vacation get briefings about Iraqi troop movements or Saddam Hussein? I know I don’t when I get those days off. He are in the 21st century, telecommunications age, where wherever the president goes, the Oval Office is with him.

When he’s down there with his aides, he is working on issues, he is going to be traveling to six states, eight or nine cities. Today as we heard, the habitat for humanity, he was meeting there, but he was also meeting with HUD secretary Mel Martinez down there before that working on issues. And the real issue is, let’s look at the record of accomplishment, not how many hours he sits behind a desk. […]

PETER FENN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I’ll talk about the Florida reach count with you, but actually the way I look at this is this is good news and bad news, Bob. The good news for the Democrats is that he’s out of town and he is not causing as much trouble.

The bad news for the country is that he’s disengaged. And that I think is what people are concerned about, is that you have a president here who sometimes appears to not know what’s going on, to have his head in the clouds, and you know, he’s down there trying to talk about the patients bill of rights, and he says, you know, the Ganske somebody or other, somebody or other, somebody or other, you are thinking, oh boy.

So I think the thing that concerns the American people is you’ve gone from a president who knows the facts, who is engaged, who was very effective as president, to someone who they have still real serious questions about. […]

NOVAK: I know, Peter, you don’t understand a lot of things that go on around here, but I want to cite somebody who really knows what Bush is doing down there. Let’s listen to him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: I’m headed home to the heart land to listen to the American people, and to talk about the values that unite and sustain our country. Members of Congress are going home as well. When we all come back in September, so many accomplishments are within our reach and I look forward the work ahead.

(END VIDEO CLIP) NOVAK: Now, if we can just suspend for just a second all the spin about all the good Democratic issues which I’ve heard a million times, tell me, Peter, what is wrong with the president going home and, as you know, the president of the United States can go anywhere in the world and he’s still the president.

FENN: He is on that wonderful plane, Air Force One. No, I don’t begrudge him a vacation or going home. But I think what you have is, you have, look, you had an article in “The New York Times” right before the election talking about his style as governor.

And it was rather scary to a lot of us because it talked about him coming in at 9:30, 10 o’clock, taking two, three hours for lunch and work outs. Coming back, having a few photo-ops and going home at 5 o’clock.

And that was during the legislative session, that wasn’t in the off time. So I think the American people are a little concerned about a disengaged president. […]

NOVAK: One of my favorite presidents and I think he was a great president was Calvin Coolidge. He really was my kind of president and he slept 13 hours a day. Now, can somebody like you, who wants government to do more and more, think that there’s a lot of us Americans out there who feel happy when the president is sleeping, when he’s taking it easy, when he’s not trying to make our lives better as Bill Clinton did every waking hour? Can you believe that?

FENN: Listen, I hope he can sleep.

NOVAK: But can you understand that?

FENN: I can understand some of that but I think you want an activist president. You want a president who is engaged an inquisitive and knows the details.

NOVAK: Don’t you know that there’s a lot of us who don’t want an activist president?

BRAZILE: Bob, the American people want a president on the job.

The average American spends only 13 days on vacation each year. And yet this president…

NOVAK: They’d like to spend 30, though. [….]

NOVAK: One thing, I hate to ask this question, I really don’t want to ask it, but you forced me into it by saying the president doesn’t work hard. Isn’t it true that when President Bush is in the Oval Office you know he’s working?

FENN: Oh. Is that nasty or what? He could be sleeping. They asked him today did you hear? That was a great line, the guy said are you taking any naps while you’re down here Mr. President?

He said I’m not going to comment on that.

(CROSSTALK) NOVAK: I would rather him be sleeping than doing what Clinton was doing.

BRAZILE: I think he is lifting weights and working on his shoulders. Making sure he’s buffed.

COMSTOCK: If he’s working on that and he’s passing all this legislation, look at that the faith-based initiative that he got through there when he was out putting today the Habitat for Humanity.

(CROSSTALK) FENN: Barbara, where you are right, is the rubber is going to hit the road in September. It is going to hit the road on spending bills. It us going to hit the road on spending bills, it is going to hit the road on this tax cut, which — wait a minute… […]

COMSTOCK: Well you look at all of the polls that the press is putting out and the president’s numbers have been very high. You don’t see the kind of erotic roller coaster that we had with Bill Clinton because this president is disciplined and focused. He is getting the work done that he came in here and said he was going to do. […]

NOVAK: See you can’t understand this, but there’s a lot of us who feel that when the president is relaxing when he’s not working, when he’s sleeping, whether he’s Republican or Democrat that’s a plus for the American people because we want to be left alone.

BRAZILE: I understand, Bob.

NOVAK: We don’t want to be taken care of.

BRAZILE: But we have some pressing needs in this country right now and we need a president who is engaged and on the front lines helping the American people, especially working families.
……………………………………………………..

And the beat goes on. The rubber is going to hit the road in September?

Yes sirrebob, there is a War On Easter going on out there.

Point #1: Bill O’Reilly moves on to his interview with John Meacham and how the Founding Fathers were religious, and how Secularists are assaulting Easter and Christmas.

His opening shot shows Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

I missed those parts of the Bible. How does this work? Jesus is resurrected, and his followers pry the rock from the cave, to see that Jesus’s body is no longer there. Then they see a six foot bunny rabbit. They go ahead and chase the bunny rabbit around. Then they keel over and fall asleep in the meadow, exhausted. Jesus wanders around, trying to find everyone to show that he is there… but alas, everyone is exhausted and asleep from running around with the six foot bunny rabbit. Jesus eyes the six foot bunny rabbit, and scratches his head in confusion.

Point #2: I listened to a bit more of that Christian Radio Paranoia station. I must say that yesterday they had this absolutely hilarious program where… in standard talk radio format, the host has on a guest and they congratulate each other for agreeing with each other. It’s about Science. The guest explains the Biblical Science of, you know, there’s the Great Flood of Noah’s time which explains the Grand Canyon’s existence, and there’s the Rainbow which God created to tell us that he would never destroy all mankind by water again. Scientific Explanations like that. Then, with a straight face, they gave a comment lamenting the lack of Real Science in our public schools.

Anyway, that is beside the point. What I ponder is the conspiracy – mongering about how the Masons created the United States, you see no Christian symbolism throughout Washington, DC, or on our federal money — it’s all masonic symbolism. The upshoot is that the founding fathers are somehow plotting to destroy us all sometime 200 years into the future, and the “New World Order” is this Old World Order established then and there. Because they’re Masons. But, contradicting themselves, I can easily picture the next program as being an assault on “Secularists” about how they’re … waging war on Easter (???) … assaulting … the Founding Fathers, who created… a Christian Nation.

You cannot create a Christian Nation at the same time as you create a Masonic Nation. These two concepts are mutually exclusive and contradictory.

There has never been a time when Bob Seger’s “Her Strut” sounded like a fresh little diddy. I do not understand this song, and it along with 33% of the songs on “Classic Rawk” radio causes me to ponder why these things even exist.

Actually, I now wonder if I’ve misunderstood this song through the years. Here’s how I’ve always heard it:

Ew.
They Love to watch her Strut.
Ew.
They Do Respect her Butt.
They Love to Watch her Strut
Ew. Ew.

But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it actually isn’t “butt”, but instead is “but” — as in “they Do Respect her, BUT they love to watch her Strut.” I will just have to continue to wonder about this until Bob Seger himself decides to chime in and clarify himself.

I do hate this song. The biggest problem is that it evokes something on the order of a bunch of ogling Construction Workers. And the woman they are ogling is not terribly hot. I neither love watching her strut nor do I respect her butt. And her pants are just horrible.

At any rate, in the interest of freshening up songs that I hate that were stale the first time I heard them (if there ever was a first time), I have a few suggestions on how to alter the song.

First, change the “Ew”s to “Ut”s. Because, you see… Ut rhymes with “Strut” “Butt” (or But) and “They’d kill to make the CUT”. Also, “ut” evokes the decidingly unpleasant groin-upward movement that the inflection of “ew” seems to be trying for.

Second, a new line to add to the chorus. “She’d kick them in the Nut.” Because, you see, the song is all about how she’s a tough-ass, (“She’s totally committed To major independence But she’s a lady through and through She gives them quite a battle All that they can handle She’ll bruise some She’ll hurt some too“) but despite that (“But oh, they love to watch her strut“.)

“But… But… nobody kicks you in the ‘nut’. They kick you in the ‘NUTS’.” That would be a good detraction, except this shows just how tough she is. She kicks you in the nut, and stops just short of the other nut, and it hurts all the more.

Okay. Here’s how it works:

Ut.
They Love to watch her Strut.
Ut.
They Do Respect her Butt.
Ut.
She’d kick them in the Nut.
They Love to Watch her Strut.
Ut. Ut.

This will answer once and for all whether it is “but” or “butt”, and while Bob Segar may have wanted the ambiguity I think the character study is improved — her reaction to men respecting her butt a little too much is to kick them in the nut.

Rip that off, send it to Bob Seger, and see if he makes these changes at the next state fair he plays at. Somewhere before he gets to the Raise-the-Roof finale of “Hollywood Nights”.

The latest issue of Reason Magazine has a book review of a book that explores the role racism played in the Progressive Movement. I have not seen the book, nor do I even remember its name. For its part, the Reason Magazine article sweeps the Populists in with the Progressives, which is fair enough as they are sort of ideological cousins. I note that William Jennings Bryan’s “q” rating has risen, and I can quote various articles I’ve read referring to the book (A Godly Hero) by Michael Kazin that has pushed him in profile. The sentence that strikes me from some article or other for purposes here is that “Populism may have started as multi-racial, but distilled through the politics of the Democratic Party…” … well, that’s another story. Progressivism I guess is the elitist version of Populism, and…

Such thinking, which emphasized “expert” opinion and advocated sweeping governmental power, fit perfectly within the Progressive worldview, which favored a large, active government that engaged in technocratic, paternalistic planning. As for reconciling white supremacy with egalatarian democracy, keep in mind that when a racist Progressive championed “the working man”, “the common man” or “the people”, he typically prefixed the silent adjective “white”.

It’s probably a bit easier to extricate the problem with “Progressivism” (Um… simply drop the silent “white” away) than with “Populism”. Whether we like to admit it or not, Pat Buchanan is an heir to William Jennings Bryan. (I’m pretty sure he’d be against NAFTA).

I know I should engage the article in full, but I’m not being graded here. Skip to the last paragraph… and the Libertarian worldview becomes stark:

Despite these significant shortcomings [in reference to the “Buchanan v Warley” Supreme Court decision, as victory for Black Americans], The Progressive Era and Race deserves careful attention. The Progressive movement unleashed and aided some of the most destructive forces in 20th Century America. The better we understand this history the less likely we are to repeat it.

You do realize that by “most destructive forces in the 20th Century”, he is not referring to anything tied with Racism (Eugenics, perhaps?) but is referencing… the checks and balances put in place against the excesses of Industrial Society. That is to say:

Minimum Wage, Maximum Hour Laws, Antitrust statutes, Appropriations for hundreds of miles of roads and highways, Assistance to New Immigrants and the Poor (okay. As distilled through Corrupt big city political bosses. Fine.), the Popular Vote for Senators, and on and on.

Slant your head askew.

“I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation,” Bush said.

Wait. I thought Bush DID NOT READ the newspapers.

BUSH: I get briefed by Andy Card and Condi in the morning. They come in and tell me. In all due respect, you’ve got a beautiful face and everything.

I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves. But like Condoleezza, in her case, the national security adviser is getting her news directly from the participants on the world stage.

blah blah blah… Use the word “Objective Sources” with a straight face. Then again, this does qualify his lack of newspaper reading with “rarely.”

But I’m struck by the question. Why would Bush even know whether this is “wild speculation” or not? Apparently, his management style of “delegation” makes it so that he doesn’t really need to know quite a number of things. Such as…

Q Thank you, Mr. President. It’s an honor to have you here. I’m a first-year student in South Asia studies. My question is in regards to private military contractors. Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that very much. I wasn’t kidding — (laughter.) I was going to — I pick up the phone and say, Mr. Secretary, I’ve got an interesting question. (Laughter.) This is what delegation — I don’t mean to be dodging the question, although it’s kind of convenient in this case, but never — (laughter.) I really will — I’m going to call the Secretary and say you brought up a very valid question, and what are we doing about it? That’s how I work. I’m — thanks. (Laughter.)

If you watched Bill Maher on Friday, you saw his interview with Kevin Phillips, via satellite feed. If you want to know where Kevin Phillips was, he was in the rare books room at Powells in Portland.

That was a chaotic appearance of sorts. First, there was a medical emergency that delayed his talk a bit. Someone fainted, and had to be rushed out to an ambulance, parting the red sea of a crowd. Next, we had word that he would be interrupted by his Bill Maher interview. We would get to see his interview… or rather, his side of the interview. When he went back to prepare for the appearance, we got word that his appearance would not be at the :15 minute mark, but the :45 minute mark, meaning he would not come back for Questions. At this point, half the crowd dispersed. But, then, suddenly “Wow. Television is crazy. Um. They scheduled him back to :15.” At which point, half the half the dispersed crowd returned. By which point I had managed to grab a seat, which was good because I was sick of standing, and standing any longer would have made what was a split-decision to attend this appearance by Kevin Phillips anyway a little too cumbersome to make it worthwhile.

The crowd was instructed not to make any noises during his Bill Maher interview. I do not know if any laughter could be heard on the show. I guess the bullet is dodged in that the biggest bursts of laughter came with Kevin Phillips talking to the prep-staff before his interview. He found something Joe Biden said amusing, and said “I find anything said about Bush funny except when it’s positive.” — or something to that effect.

So what pearls of wisdom did he depart on the crowd? “I left Washington in 1997 because I just couldn’t take it anymore. I had no use for Clinton or Gingrich.” “I assume about 80% of the crowd here are Democrats, or Democrat-leaning. I have to say the Democrats have been the most inept Opposition Party I’ve ever seen. My advice to you is that when you run into local elected Democrats, to push their on buttons.” “I know voting patterns well enough to say that Bush did not ‘steal’ Ohio. He won Kentucky and West Virginia much too easily such that a Kerry victory in Ohio would be skewered a little too much to be plausible.”

Skimming through his book, a few items stick out of interest, but if I get to them I’ll have to get to them on some later moment of my convenience.

His career apparently stalled after superiors chided him for casting the war on terrorism in religious terms , Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin on Tuesday was caught up in a campaign for the U.S. Senate and a budding contest for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

A letter from U.S. Sen. George Allen, R-Va., urging Boykin’s promotion and transfer to a high-profile assignment drew howls of outrage from a potential Democratic challenger to Allen. […]

A veteran Virginia political analyst, meanwhile, saw the letter as a sign that Allen continues to look beyond this year’s Virginia campaign and is bolstering his support among Christian conservatives for the 2008 presidential race.

Allen “needs to depend on that group” if he is serious about gaining the nomination, he said. […]

Referring to a Somali warlord, who had said God would shield him from American troops, Boykin told congregants that “I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.”

Boykin later insisted that his references to an idol referred to the warlord’s corruption. He is not “anti-Islam,” he insisted.

I’ve long had Boykin’s quote on the sidebar over