Thursday, October 7, 2004

Recommended Viewing

Here's a Windows Media File video of Ohio Congressguy Tim Ryan speaking on the floor of the House. He was voting in opposition to the bill to reinstate a military draft in this country but wanted to explain why so few people, himself included, are satisfied by Bush-Cheney assurances that it will not happen. It's a short clip so if you can play asx files, take a look. This is what Kerry and Edwards should be saying.

• Posted at 5:11 PM · LINK

The Name Game

The Shubert Organization is renaming two of its Broadway theaters. Okay, that may not be a bad idea. Some of those hallowed shrines have names that are pretty meaningless and have no real connection to the art form. It was nice that the Martin Beck Theater, for instance, became the Al Hirschfeld Theater. No one even knew who Martin Beck was, whereas Mr. Hirschfeld was an important contributor to the history of the theater.

(In case you care: Martin Beck was a theatrical impresario, distinguished mostly in the area of vaudeville. But near the end of his life, he turned to Broadway, built a theater and named it after himself.)

Unfortunately, the Shubert executives have decided to rename those two theaters after...other Shubert executives. The Plymouth Theater will become the Gerald Schoenfeld Theater. The Royale Theater will become the Bernard B. Jacobs Theater. While neither the Plymouth nor the Royale have been sporting names that mean anything in the theater, the new monikers won't mean much to anyone, either. (Mr. Schoenfeld is the chairman of the Shubert Organization. Mr. Jacobs was its president for 24 years, up until his death in 1996.)

These two men may be wonderful, important folks who made great contributions to the theater...but really, no one cares about executives. If theaters are named for people, they should be named for authors, actors, directors...maybe even producers.

How about naming some theater for George S. Kaufman? Or Alan Jay Lerner? Wouldn't you like to see a musical at the Ethel Merman? Or a serious drama at the Arthur Miller? They named a theater for Richard Rodgers...how about one for Oscar Hammerstein? They named one for George Abbott...how about Jerome Robbins or Harold Prince? And everyone hated David Merrick but he was responsible for a staggering number of shows ever existing. I'd go see a show at the Merrick.

The other day at a big memorial service for Tony Randall, Jack Klugman concluded his eulogy with the fervent hope that New York would someday have a Tony Randall Theater. He's right. It should. It would remind me people of a fine actor and a great supporter of Broadway, whereas looking at the marquee of the Jacobs isn't going to remind anyone of anything.

• Posted at 3:15 PM · LINK

The Truth About Lies

Quite a few folks have written to argue that Cheney's claim of never meeting Edwards before the debate was a more consequential and deliberate falsehood than I think it is. I picked this message from Richard Bensam to represent this sentiment...

Gotta disagree with you on this one. Cheney saying he had never met Edwards wasn't a meaningless fib or glossing over some trivial detail or even an honest mistake. His allegation was intended as the capstone of Cheney's argument that Edwards is supposedly lacking in legislative experience, and has been largely absent from the Senate, in contrast to Cheney's purportedly tireless service to the nation. Cheney was trying to build a case against Edwards and used this claim they'd never met before as the clincher in his argument. It was no small matter, but immediately relevant to tearing down his opponent. But it was a lie.

Did Cheney himself feel that his case against Edwards was so weak that it needed to be bolstered with a lie that he imagined no one would bother to check? It's hard to imagine this could have been an honest mistake, given how long Edwards has been in the race, and how long Cheney has known he'd eventually be facing the senator in a televised debate. Can we really believe that he never once sat down and thought about any past encounters he'd had with Edwards, or asked an aide to research any past dealings they may have had?

And will Cheney step forward, now that the world knows he met Edwards on at least three separate occasions, and admit that he said something that was untrue, deliberately or not? That in itself would be a big step forward. Bush and Cheney have set themselves up as the people who never make mistakes, who never misstate things, and who would do everything exactly the same if they had it to do all over again. This has become their trademark. They act that way whether the topic is Iraq or Osama bin Laden or meeting John Edwards.

So, it's not some theory about small lies being equivalent to big lies that makes this important. It's important because this is what Cheney does every chance he gets.

Actually, I think Cheney might admit his mistake on this one. If I were slimy and in his position, I'd apologize for the error and say something like, "I guess I only remember Senators who've actually accomplished something in their terms of office." Then I could stick the knife in again and at the same time, maybe counteract a bit of the claim that I never admit mistakes. It would enable my supporters to say, "Hey, when Dick Cheney makes an error, he owns up to it."

Yes, I absolutely believe Cheney said it to tear down his opponent. But I also don't believe he said it, knowing it was untrue and that no one would bother to check. First of all, both men had to know that every syllable they uttered in that arena would be checked, cross-checked and placed under an electron microscope. Cheney especially knew that because his crew did that to Al Gore and succeeded in convincing much of America that innocent, accurate statements were "character-defining lies." Secondly, John Edwards was sitting right there. If Cheney thought, "Hmm, I'll pretend I never met this guy before tonight," he was running the risk of Edwards responding with something like, "Gee, I guess your memory is going, Mr. Vice-President. Let me list a couple of the times we met..." and making him look foolish or senile or just plain bad at facts. (One assumes Edwards didn't do that because he knew there were plenty of pictures and that he'd sound less wounded by the barb if he let others refute it and instead changed the topic.)

People lie either because they think they can get away with it, or because the truth would be more damning than being caught in a lie. We can all understand how Cheney, who is not a stupid man, would figure he can't say, "Well, yes, I have spent a lot of time suggesting that Iraq was deeply involved in 9/11." So he denies it. But no one asked him if he'd ever met Edwards before. He didn't have to say that. He could have insulted Edwards in dozens of other ways that couldn't be turned back on him with an old photo or file videotape. I think Cheney just got reckless, forgot he'd met Edwards before and said something he thought would have an impact in a debate where he wasn't doing as well as he'd hoped.

My other point is along the lines of those bumper stickers that say, "No one died when Clinton lied." No one will die as a result of Cheney's misstatement about meeting Edwards. Even if Cheney deliberately lied about that, it's not even in the same hemisphere of importance as lies relating to the wars in Iraq and on terrorism (and I think, by the way, Democrats should be making the point that those are really two separate wars). Look at the new revelations of how many administration officials knew those aluminum tubes were not related to any Iraq nuclear weapons program. So far, the kindest interpretation one can put on this is that a lot of senior officials in the White House staff knew they were spreading a justification for war that might well be false, and now they're lying about what they knew and when they knew it. Those are lies of the "truth would be more damning" variety.

It might well be that it will have more impact with the electorate for the Dems to sell the "never met Edwards" thing as a lie because they can show photos and footage that prove it isn't true. But if I'm going to get incensed about Dick Cheney lying, I'd prefer to be incensed about the statements that don't have any possible innocent explanation and that plunged us into a war under false pretenses.

• Posted at 10:44 AM · LINK

Truth to Tell

I mentioned earlier that someone would surely make a commercial juxtaposing things Cheney said in the debate with footage of him saying the opposite. Sure enough, there's one now up at www.democrats.org. It's called "Cheney vs. Reality" and I wish they hadn't included the part where he says he never met Edwards. Even if it is lie (as opposed to a simple memory lapse), it's not in the same category as denying he ever spoke of a link between Iraq and 9/11.

The premise is that an administration that would lie about the small things would not hesitate to lie about the big things. I think they have that backwards. A lot of us will lie if a friend asks if we like their new haircut...but we'd never lie about something that might get someone killed. Or in this case, thousands of someones.

• Posted at 12:39 AM · LINK

Teaser

Coming soon to this weblog: Chapter Two in Mark's problems with the home delivery service of Albertson's Markets.

• Posted at 12:18 AM · LINK

October 8, 2004 • Current • October 6, 2004