This past Thursday I received an urgent voice mail to call Verizon’s "High Toll Fraud Department".  The message stressed that this was not a sales call and to return the call immediately and have the account number for my landline phone handy.  Though at work and needed in a meeting, I called back right away, sure that someone had somehow rung up thousands of dollars on my account.  If you’ve ever gotten one of those calls from a credit card company, you know what I mean.  Usually, by the time you get the call, someone has already spent a lot of money.  When it turned out Verizon’s alarm bells were set off because of a legitimate 35-cent phone call to Germany, I was initially relieved.  But the questions they asked set off my bullshit detector big time.  I had to get to the meeting so couldn’t stay on the phone, but the more I thought about it, the more it bugged me.  (No pun intended.)

Edward Wong wrote an incredible article in the NY Times Week in Review section yesterday.  I’m sure someone noticed or diaried on it somewhere.  If they did- apologies in advance.  I couldn't find it with my meager tag search.

I see those long, long diaries.  Thoroughly researched, linked, downright scholarly in fact.  I like them.  Respect them.  But I kind of prefer the Atrios school of short & sweet.  Things like, Hitchens- Wanker - please discuss.

Yes- this diary has a sports theme.  But it's not about sports.  It's really about arrogance, or more precisely values and the lack there of.

A passenger was shot and killed by a Federal Air Marshall on AA Flt. 924 in Miami today.  Here is my interpretation in words of how CNN, MSNBC and Fox News covered the situation.

Friday, July 22 2005, John Gibson aired one of the most despicable diatribes ever uttered by an American "journalist".  I'm talking, of course, about his "Five in the Noggin" piece aired on Fox News.  I searched the diaries and didn't see others on this.  If there are, I'll take this down when I get up in the morning.  

Atrios has the key graphs.  Emphasis mine,

I read somewhere that the best reporting today was being done on the business pages.  With Enron, Tyco, Worldcom- No wonder.  

For climate change, the travel section is now the place to see what's really going on.  This New York Times article lays it all out without much room for editing from the White House.

I'm not here to pontificate.  Just read it and think about how this will affect all of our futures.  Think about the Pentagon report that came out last year.    

Free NYT registration needed, takes a minute or two.  The White House and Pentagon links are used because the original NYT and Fortune articles are pasted there for free.

In the dark days after Tuesday, many of us have boycotted the news, talked of fraud and leaving the country.  Not out of sour grapes, but from a real and physical pain in the pit of our stomachs.  Myself and many of my friends found ourselves in need of inspiration.  As a parent, you have the double edged sword of being fearful four your children's future, but sometimes they can sound pretty damn smart and capable of securing their own future too.

The following was an essay written by a twelfth grader sorely disappointed by being a hair too young to vote despite being active in the process for the first time.  It was as perceptive to me as anything I've read about our country and made me feel a lot better in the aftermath.  If there are enough like her in the next generation, maybe things won't be so bad after all...

Senator Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney won't matter for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is a subject the republicans don't want to talk about.  Check that- It's a subject that they are mortified to even have discussed in public. (Unless it's directed at stereotypical gays in San Francisco or New York, that is.)  

Compare this to Zell Millers speech at the RNC convention.  It was by far the most vile and confrontational speech given.  But after the initial shock and outrage, it was a non-starter for dems.  The evil guy was a democrat who had given Clinton's keynote speech in 1992.  If the dem's attacked him, in the end, they were only attacking themselves.  So let it die.

The dems may have learned something from that episode.  I do not think they were trying to be cruel or were out of bounds at all, as this digby/ Andrew Sullivan stretch illustrates better than I could.

Were Kerry and Edwards as calculating as the republicans were by un-caging Zell at the RNC?  Maybe. But the difference is that they were being honest, on firm moral ground and the republicans won't have anything to gain by trying to prove otherwise.  That would require an open discussion.  It's a non-starter.

For the first two days after Friday night's second debate, the Internet was alive with discussion and analysis.  Likewise, Saturday's newspapers gave thorough coverage.  Fine.  As it should be.

But where was all the expected spin on CNN, MSNBC, and the Sunday morning shows?  There was enough of the kind of stuff they normally eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner to sustain the media for days.  

To be sure, Bush had enough telling moments in his mannerisms and thought processes to keep any conversation lively.  But other than standard after debate shows, the televised media has been strangely silent.  What talk we did hear that night centered on the "draw" factor.  This was in stark contrast to newspaper analysis that sided pretty convincingly with Kerry.

Are they afraid to declare the early TKO?  

Today on Wolf Blitzer when asked about Sen. Edwards charges during the debate that while Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton they were-

fined millions of dollars for providing false information to investors.

Did business with Libya and Iran, sworn enemies of the US.

Are now under investigation for bribing foreign officials during that period of time.

Her response?

"Well I would just point to what I said before.  um, This is an issue that Democrats continue to raise.  Go to factcheck.org, go to the Washington Post piece on this.  um, there's nothing here, there's no charge here..."

Okay, here's the Wapo article and the factcheck.org article.

What could she be thinking?  These articles do not make Cheney or Halliburton look good at all.  They must be hoping their base doesn't go on the internets!

We all know the story of Bush's past alcohol problems.  It was my impression that 1986 was when he quit drinking.

From about.com;

-It appears from all reports, that candidate Bush did abuse alcohol for a long period of his life, but in 1986 decided to quit, because it began to "compete for his energy."-

And from the last week of the 2000 election;

-We would urge Gov. Bush to state frankly and unambiguously, between now and Tuesday, that he has not had a drink since 1986.-

But last night on Jimmy Kimmel, he played a wedding video from 1992 (I think) that shows an apparently inebriated G.W. Bush answering some silly questions.

This video was new to me.  Anyone know anything about it?

Many news orgs covered the election today that is set for tomorrow.

All kinds of problems remain- Warlords, The Taliban, Opium, and it remains to be seen if the election will be seen as fair and just.

Some things are obvious-

• It's better than before and we're all grateful.
  
• Bush is going to try and get as much traction as possible as this fine example of liberty takes wings
  
• Bush will try to diffuse as much as possible the fact that he has turned Iraq into something even worse than what Afghanistan was before.

With things seemingly spinning out of control in the re-election campaign and Iraq, I can only hope that Afghanistan will survive this test.  It's the one thing everyone agreed on going in...