Scatablog

The Aeration Zone: A liberal breath of fresh air

Contributors (otherwise known as "The Aerheads"):

Walldon in New Jersey ---- Marketingace in Pennsylvania ---- Simoneyezd in Ontario
ChiTom in Illinois -- KISSweb in Illinois -- HoundDog in Kansas City -- The Binger in Ohio

About us:

e-mail us at: Scatablog@Yahoo.com

Monday, July 31, 2006

They're getting our new home ready for us

The UK's Guardian informs us that the Pentagon is putting the finishing touches on a permanent prison at Guantanamo:

The controversy over the US-run detention centre at Guantanamo Bay is to erupt anew with confirmation by the Pentagon that a new, permanent prison will open in the Cuban enclave in the next few weeks.

Camp 6, a state-of-the-art maximum-security jail built by a Halliburton subsidiary, will be able to hold 200 prisoners. Commander Robert Durand, a spokesman for Joint Task Force Guantanamo, said the $30m, two-storey block was due to open at the end of September. He added: "Camp 6 is designed to improve the quality of life for the detainees and provide greater protection for the people working in the facility."


I'm so glad they want to improve the quality of life for the detainees.

Sunset on democracy

Get yourself prepared for Sunset -- "Sunset Commissions" that is. Under these plans being proposed by the White House and the Republicans a partisan committee would be appointed by the President to select government programs to be terminated. All programs selected for termination by the Commission would be terminated regardless of whether the termination was acceptable to Congress. In effect, this would give the President the power to terminate any government program he chose to terminate.

Condi Rice awarded the fickle finger of fate

So, what's going on? Is Israel really flashing the bird to Condi? This is really weird. Condi, not Israel, announces that Israel is going to halt the bombing campaign for 48 hours. Israel barely confirms that decision. Next, Israel is bombing once again.

JERUSALEM - Israeli warplanes carried out airstrikes in southern Lebanon on Monday, hours after agreeing to temporarily halt raids while investigating a bombing that killed nearly 60 Lebanese civilians, mostly women and children seeking shelter.
With this kind of diplomacy, it's no wonder W doesn't believe in diplomacy. Or, perhaps, the casue and effect works the other way. When you don't believe in diplomacy, you don't practice it well. A bit like when you don't believe in government, you don't run the government well.

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Twelve Texans do justice and compassion

This story from the Houston Chronicle, about the jury in the second trial of Andrea Yates, is really worth reading. (H/t to Mahablog.)

If you are reading this on Sunday morning, you may take it as hopeful evidence that Not All Is Lost.

Creating the Ultimate Police State

Bush is proposing legislation that would in effect throw out the Constitution and the Courts:

WASHINGTON - U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.

A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.
Naturally, this came out on a Friday night so no one has paid any attention to it.

Look quick cause you may not see your country ever again.

We don't see them, we make them up

The baseball umpire parody cannot be overexagerated with the Bush regime pointed out by Krugman today in NYT. "The people now running America never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don’t like have been established, whether it’s the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down the memory hole. But it’s dismaying to realize that the machine remains so effective. Here’s how the process works.
First, if the facts fail to support the administration position on an issue — stem cells, global warming, tax cuts, income inequality, Iraq — officials refuse to acknowledge the facts.
Sometimes the officials simply lie. “The tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive and reduced income inequality,” Edward Lazear, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, declared a couple of months ago. More often, however, they bob and weave.
Consider, for example, Condoleezza Rice’s response a few months ago, when pressed to explain why the administration always links the Iraq war to 9/11. She admitted that Saddam, 'as far as we know, did not order Sept. 11, may not have even known of Sept. 11.' (Notice how her statement, while literally true, nonetheless seems to imply both that it’s still possible that Saddam ordered 9/11, and that he probably did know about it.) She went on (to say) 'that’s a very narrow definition of what caused Sept. 11.'
Meanwhile, apparatchiks in the media spread disinformation. It’s hard to imagine what the world looks like to the large number of Americans who get their news by watching Fox and listening to Rush Limbaugh, but I get a pretty good sense from my mailbag. Many of my correspondents are living in a world in which the economy is better than it ever was under Bill Clinton, newly released documents show that Saddam really was in cahoots with Osama, and the discovery of some decayed 1980’s-vintage chemical munitions vindicates everything the administration said about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. (Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.)
Some of my correspondents have even picked up on claims, mostly disseminated on right-wing blogs, that the Bush administration actually did a heck of a job after Katrina.

Friday, July 28, 2006

I'll give you a dime if you will give me a $5.00 bill

So, the Republicans are ready to pass an increase in the minimum wage, but only if it's linked to an elimination of the estate tax. The Democrats choice: vote against the minimum wage in order to block the estate tax cut -- and be accused of voting against it by the thugs, or vote for it and have to swallow the estate tax cut.

Typical of Rethuglicans. They can't give anything to the poor without stealing it away again to give it to the rich. Let's hope the public gets wise to these creeps -- every one of them should be voted down.

WASHINGTON - Republican leaders are willing to allow the first minimum wage increase in a decade but only if it's coupled with a cut in inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates, congressional aides said Friday.

Terror watch list = random names

It turns out that the Feds are putting random names on the terror watch list in order to "fill quotas."

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked the Chief Privacy Officer of the Department of Homeland Security to investigate a recent news report that federal air marshals are labeling innocent Americans as "suspicious" after being directed to fill a monthly watchlist quotas, RAW STORY has learned.

The Air Marshals Service responded to earlier complaints by indicating that the complaints came from disgruntled Denver employees. However, Denver's KMGH-TV contacted 17 employees in 4 different states, who confirmed the story.


I'm sure that will make us all feel more secure. And, it's certainly consolation for those who aren't permitted to travel.

I'm still looking to see whether I can find anything this government does right.

If you don't like the law, ignore it

This news is a bit stale by now, but I can't let it go by entirely without a comment. In typical Bush fashion, since the prez can't seem to get the Congress to repeal the estate tax, Bush has simply decided not to enforce the law.

The New York Times reported this week that the Bush administration is eliminating almost half of the lawyers at the Internal Revenue Service who audit the tax returns of the wealthiest Americans. These lawyers specialize in auditing the returns of those who are subject to gift and estate taxes. Since taking office in 2001 President Bush has consistently lobbied Congress to repeal the estate tax, but he hasn't been able to get Congress to go along with him. Instead, the Bush administration has now decided to force the IRS to backpedal and circumvent the tax laws.
What could be a louder signal to all you rich fat cats to ignore filing your estate tax forms?

War Crimes Act: An inconvenient law

This is convenient. The administration has concluded that it is probably guilty of war crimes, so it now wants to legalize prior violations of the war crimes laws.

An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes, and prosecuted at some point in U.S. courts.

Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant U.S. personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. That law criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war and threatens the death penalty if U.S.-held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment.

In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that the international Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees in the terrorism fight, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such "protections," according to someone who heard his remarks last week.

Gonzales told the lawmakers that a shield is needed for actions taken by U.S. personnel under a 2002 presidential order, which the Supreme Court declared illegal, and under Justice Department legal opinions that have been withdrawn under fire, the source said. A spokeswoman for Gonzales, Tasia Scolinos, declined to comment on Gonzales's remarks.

I'd prefer we tried them, convicted them, and hung them.

Israeli paper decries military dominance

From Haretz:

And this is precisely the difference between us and the others: While in all other democracies, a certain dependency of policy-makers on generals is apparent, together with attempts to reduce it, in Israel, the case is not only one of dependency but the fact that our policy-makers are held captive by the generals.

The security policy-making process is in fact the domain of the Israel Defense Forces and the defense establishment. In the absence of non-IDF national security planning bodies, the major part of the planning - not only operational and tactical planning but also strategic and political planning - is done within the army.

The result is that military considerations have often become more dominant than political ones. Thus, Israel's foreign policies have come to be based on an essentially belligerent perception that favors military considerations over diplomatic ones. Violence is seen not only as a legitimate instrument in international affairs, but almost as the only means that can bring positive result

Hezbollah and the civilians

Via Juan Cole, I came across this piece in Salon. I don't have any way of knowing if this is accurate, but it's worth keeping an ear to the ground to try to find out:

Throughout this now 16-day-old war, Israeli planes high above civilian areas make decisions on what to bomb. They send huge bombs capable of killing things for hundreds of meters around those targets to destroy them, and then blame the inevitable civilian deaths -- the Lebanese government says 600 civilians have been killed so far -- on "terrorists" who callously use the civilian infrastructure for protection.

But this claim is almost always false. My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians like the plague. Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been.

One thing that does seem to be clear, nonetheless, is that Hezbollah doesn't seem to mind targeting innocent civilians with its rockets. For that, they should be condemned.

Thursday, July 27, 2006

DLC gropes for a Plan

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff July 25, 2006
DENVER -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton joined centrist Democrats yesterday in unveiling a new agenda designed to boost the prospects of the middle class, calling for easier access to college education, universal healthcare for children, and requiring nearly all employers to set up retirement accounts for their workers.
Clinton, a New York Democrat who helped develop the proposals for the Democratic Leadership Council -- the organization that helped propel her husband to the White House in 1992 -- said the ``American Dream Initiative" is a platform that can unite Democrats in this year's congressional elections.
``To paraphrase the historic 1992 campaign, `It's the American dream, stupid,' " Clinton told attendees of the DLC's annual meeting in Denver, referencing the ``It's the economy, stupid" theme of former President Bill Clinton's first national campaign. ``There is a better way. It's time for Democrats to show how an agenda for change can turn this country around, and bring the American dream back within reach."
The platform is filled with concepts few Democrats would argue with, including education tax credits and government-provided savings bonds for newborns. Leadership council organizers said the plan is at least a partial answer to the oft-repeated criticism that Democrats lack a positive agenda.
``We can replace trickle-down economics with rise-up economics, and we can make sure that everybody has a chance to rise up and fulfill their dreams for the future," Clinton said. ``We have the ideas and we have the will. That's what this new opportunity agenda stands for. Now all we have to do is win elections."
Yet as a platform for Democrats, the initiative is notably silent on what could be the overarching issue of the 2006 elections: the Iraq war. Clinton said the omission was deliberate, since the plan focuses on domestic policy and expanding and strengthening the middle class.
But the war remains a deeply divisive issue among Democrats, one that Republicans are eagerly exploiting. By steering clear of Iraq and controversial economic issues such as international free-trade agreements, the DLC is ignoring the very issues that could give Democrats a huge boost this fall, said David Sirota, a Democratic activist and author who has been critical of the DLC.
``It's time to lead on those issues," said Sirota, whose recent book, ``Hostile Takeover," accuses both major parties of being beholden to corporate interests. ``Their omissions are admissions of the unpopularity of the positions they've staked their name on in the past."
Senator Clinton was one of four Democratic presidential hopefuls who used the DLC meeting to hone stump speeches and court state and local elected officials. She was joined by Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico -- all of whom are building their ambitions on mainstream messages.
They're looking to follow a path blazed by President Clinton, who used his DLC leadership when he was governor of Arkansas in the early 1990s to boost his political profile.
Yet whether the centrist strategy the DLC prefers is the best choice for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 is the subject of a raging party debate. Other presidential contenders -- including Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin -- are charting a more liberal course, based largely on their strong opposition to the Iraq war.
The party's ideological differences are on display in Connecticut, where Senator Joseph I. Lieberman -- a three-term incumbent and the Democrats' 2000 vice-presidential nominee -- is locked in a surprisingly tough primary battle; his opponent is capitalizing on voter anger over Lieberman's support for the war and President Bush's foreign policy.
Yesterday, former President Clinton campaigned with Lieberman -- a former DLC chairman -- a few hours after Senator Clinton delivered the most anticipated speech of the three-day DLC ``National Conversation."
Al From, the DLC's founder, delivered a veiled jab at liberal bloggers and others who want moderates to boldly attack Bush and the GOP. He told attendees in Denver that this year's election will be ``an argument, not a shouting match" between Democrats and Republicans.
``We need to grow our party, not shrink it," From said. ``We need to persuade more voters to vote Democratic, not fewer. . . . We need to be a party of ideas, not a party of anger."
Vilsack struck a similar tone, encouraging Democrats to win elections with constructive ideas rather than attacks on the president. ``It seems to me that everybody in the country understands what this administration has done wrong," said Vilsack, the DLC's current chairman. ``It is important now for this country to understand what we need to do that's right."
Senator Clinton said Democrats will focus on Bush administration mistakes in foreign policy, but she made no mention of Iraq. Clinton voted for the war and has said she does not regret her vote, though she has been harshly critical of the administration's war conduct.
``We will not let the president and the Republicans off the hook for the mistakes they've made and the disastrous policies they have followed abroad," Clinton said. ``We'll hold them accountable every bit as much for national security and homeland security as for their failures to provide Americans with economic security."
Bayh exhorted Democrats to push back when Republicans try to paint Democrats as weak on national security. Though he didn't advocate a specific message on Iraq, Bayh said the party should be aggressive, pointing out Bush administration missteps that have contributed to violence in the Middle East and have failed to contain emerging nuclear threats. ``We've got to take this issue on," Bayh said. ``If [voters] don't trust us with our lives, they're unlikely to trust us with anything else."
Few Democrats would quarrel with the DLC's agenda -- even those who have been skeptical of stances the group has taken in the past, said Robert Borosage, codirector of the liberal Campaign for America's Future. That's an encouraging sign for those who want to promote party unity in a crucial election year, he said. ``It reflects the growing strength of the progressive wing of the party, rather than the money wing of the party," Borosage said.

Sen. Obama on Energy: Details Needed

America spends $800 million a day, or $300 billion annually, on its 20-million-barrel-a-day oil habit. Passenger vehicles alone burn 8 million gallons of oil each day. Because we import 60 percent of our oil, much of it from the Middle-East, our dependence on oil is also a national security issue. With oil prices hovering near $75 a barrel and total U.S. petroleum use estimated to increase 23 percent over the next 20 years, we must act now to prevent a future energy crisis.
The Fuel Economy Reform Act of 2006 seeks to break the decades-long logjam on increasing fuel economy standards by taking a new, more flexible approach. The bill charges the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to create regular annual increases in fuel economy with a target of 1 mile per gallon each year. This legislation flips the current debate about increasing fuel economy standards on its head, from a debate about whether standards will be raised to presumption that they will be raised.

How to rig election: get the right vendor.

From http://www.opednews.com by David Dill, Doug Jones and Barbara Simons . Most computer scientists have long viewed Diebold as the poster child for all that is wrong with touch screen voting machines. But we never imagined that Diebold would be as irresponsible and incompetent as they have turned out to be.Recently, computer security expert Harri Hursti revealed serious security vulnerabilities in Diebold's software. According to Michael Shamos, a computer scientist and voting system examiner in Pennsylvania, "It's the most severe security flaw ever discovered in a voting system."Even more shockingly, we learned recently that Diebold and the State of Maryland had been aware of these vulnerabilities for at least two years. They were documented in analysis, commissioned by Maryland and conducted by RABA Technologies, published in January 2004. For over two years, Diebold has chosen not to fix the security holes, and Maryland has chosen not to alert other states or national officials about these problems.Basically, Diebold included a "back door" in its software, allowing anyone to change or modify the software. There are no technical safeguards in place to ensure that only authorized people can make changes.A malicious individual with access to a voting machine could rig the software without being detected. Worse yet, if the attacker rigged the machine used to compute the totals for some precinct, he or she could alter the results of that precinct. The only fix the RABA authors suggested was to warn people that manipulating an election is against the law.Typically, modern voting machines are delivered several days before an election and stored in people's homes or in insecure polling stations. A wide variety of poll workers, shippers, technicians, and others who have access to these voting machines could rig the software. Such software alterations could be difficult to impossible to detect.Diebold spokesman David Bear admitted to the New York Times that the back door was inserted intentionally so that election officials would be able to update their systems easily. Bear justified Diebold's actions by saying, "For there to be a problem here, you're basically assuming a premise where you have some evil and nefarious election officials who would sneak in and introduce a piece of software... I don't believe these evil elections people exist."While Diebold's confidence in election officials is heartwarming, Diebold has placed election officials in an awkward position, with no defense against disgruntled candidates or voters questioning the results of an election. The situation is even worse for those states and localities using Diebold touch-screen machines that have no voter-verified paper records to recount.Diebold voting machines have been certified to be in compliance with 2002 Voting System Standards, as required by the Help America Vote Act. These standards prohibit software features that raise any doubt "that the software tested during the qualification process remains unchanged and retains its integrity." We must ask, how did software containing such an outrageous violation come to be certified, and what other flaws, yet to be uncovered, lurk in other certified systems?There have been many significant problems - some resulting in lost votes - involving paperless voting machines produced by other vendors. Recognizing the intrinsic risks of paperless voting machines, the Association for Computing Machinery issued a statement saying that each voter should be able "to inspect a physical (e.g., paper) record to verify that his or her vote has been accurately cast and to serve as an independent check on the result." Without voter-verified paper records of all the votes, and without routine spot audits of these records, no currently available voting system can be trusted. With such records, even when machines do not function correctly, each voter can make sure that his or her vote has been correctly recorded on paper.Our democracy depends on our having secure, reliable, and accurate elections. David L. Dill is a Professor of Computer Science at Stanford University and the founder of VerifiedVoting.org.Doug Jones is an Associate Professor of Computer Science at the University of Iowa.Barbara Simons is retired from IBM Research and a former ACM President. Jones and Simons are writing a book on voting machines to be published by PoliPoint Press.

The Bush/Rice Theory on the Middle East

Sidney Blumenthal explains the "theory" under which Bush/Rice are operating in the Middle East:

As explained to me by several senior state department officials, Rice is entranced by a new "domino theory": Israel's attacks will demolish Hizbullah; the Lebanese will blame Hizbullah and destroy its influence; and the backlash will extend to Hamas, which will collapse. From the administration's point of view, this is a proxy war with Iran (and Syria) that will inexplicably help turn around Iraq. "We will prevail," Rice says.

That's about the stupidest theory I can imagine.

a) Israel's occupation of Lebanon was what led to the creation of Hizbullah. There is next to no likelihood that Israel will be able to destroy it by re-occupying Lebanon. In fact, if there were ever a recruiting tool for Hizbullah, this is it.

b) Unexpectedly, Israel is having a much tougher time just fighting Hizbullah than anyone expected. Some even talk about a Hizbullah victory.

c) The Lebanese are likely to blame Israel, not just Hizbullah, for the destruction of their country. And, even if they blamed Hizbullah, the government is not and will not be strong enough to destroy it's influence.

d) Why the backlash will extend to Hamas is not explained, probably because there is no explanation. This is the same sort of wishful thinking that led us to believe dropping a few bombs on Iraq (now read "Iran") would cause the Iraqis (now read "Iranians") to rise up and overthrow their government. It's really worked well, hasn't it?

e) Believing that defeating Hizbullah will cause Syria and Iran to collapse is truly la la land. It's about as likely as the killing of al Zarqawi was to cripple al Qaeda.

Effective diplomacy

In a sure sign that Bush's uniquely effective diplomacy is paying dividends, the North Koreans decided to walk out of the nuclear talks today.

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) -North Korea refused to rejoin nuclear talks until the United States drops financial sanctions, dimming hopes of reviving the stalled discussions at a security meeting here.

The communist state's announcement comes despite days of hectic diplomacy aimed at dragging Pyongyang back to the negotiating table on the sidelines of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum.

Important stuff

Finally, a Senator from my State stands up to do something really important:

A United States Senator has introduced an amendment to re-name the Republican energy bill after an infamous Ex-Exxon-Mobil executive, RAW STORY has learned.

Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) filed the amendment today. It would re-name the bill itself, "The Lee R. Raymond Oil Profitability Act.”

Earlier this year, Raymond received the largest exit package in U.S. history--worth nearly $400 million--to step down as CEO of the oil giant.

A great guy to have a beer with

In today's NY Times [behind subscription wall], Bob Herbert captured a truth about America's favorite drinking buddy in his column:

In two years and a few months Americans will vote again for president. I hope the long list of tragic failures by Bush & Co. prompts people to take that election more seriously than some in the past. If you were about to be lifted onto an operating table, you’d be more interested in the competence of the surgeon than in his or her personality.

So true. I couldn't give a hoot whether my surgeon would be a great guy to have a beer with.

Clueless

More Israeli war crimes?

It gets harder and harder every hour to swallow the Israeli propoganda that they do everything they can to spare all Lebanese except the Hizbollah. What a crock.

The ambulance headlamps were on, the blue light overhead was flashing, and another light illuminated the Red Cross flag when the first Israeli missile hit, shearing off the right leg of the man on the stretcher inside. As he lay screaming beneath fire and smoke, patients and ambulance workers scrambled for safety, crawling over glass in the dark. Then another missile hit the second ambulance.

Even in a war which has turned the roads of south Lebanon into killing zones, Israel's rocket strike on two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances on Sunday night set a deadly new milestone.
What with Israel having continued to bomb the UN observation site hour after hour despite at least ten calls alerting them they were bombing a UN installation, bombing a Lebanese regular army headquarters, bombing apartment complexes, etc., etc. Claims these attacks are accidental just become more and more absurd.

Chemical weapons?

This report is from the Sydney Herald. I don't know anything about the reliability of the Herald's reporting:

Lebanon is investigating reports from doctors that Israel has used weapons in its 15-day-old bombardment of southern Lebanon that have caused wounds they have never seen before.

"We are sending off samples tomorrow, but we have no confirmation yet that illegal weapons have been used," Health Minister Mohammed Khalife said.

The Israeli army said it had used only conventional weapons and ammunition in attacks aimed at Hizbollah guerrillas and nothing contravening international law.

Blackened bodies have been showing up at hospitals in southern Lebanon two weeks into the war between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas that has seen at least 418 people, mostly civilians, killed in Lebanon and at least 42 Israelis.

Killed by Israeli air raids, the Lebanese dead are charred in a way local doctors, who have lived through years of civil war and Israeli occupation, say they have not seen before.

Bachir Cham, a Belgian-Lebanese doctor at the Southern Medical Centre in Sidon, received eight bodies after an Israeli air raid on nearby Rmeili which he said exhibited such wounds.

He has taken 24 samples from the bodies to test what killed them. He believes it is a chemical.

Cham said the bodies of some victims were "black as shoes, so they are definitely using chemical weapons. They are all black but their hair and skin is intact so they are not really burnt. It is something else."


The US has set the standard for civility in wartime, so I guess you can't blame others for following our example.

The "Christian" view of the Israeli-Lebanon thing

From the Wall Street Journal (hat tip to Kevin Drum):

Last week, as Israel's armed forces pounded Lebanon and worries of a wider conflagration mounted, Mr. Hagee presided over what he called a "miracle of God": a gathering of 3,500 evangelical Christians packed into a Washington hotel to cheer Israel and its current military campaign.

Standing on a stage bedecked with a huge Israeli flag, Mr. Hagee drew rapturous applause and shouts of "amen" as he hailed Israel for doing God's work in a "war of good versus evil." Calls for Israel to show restraint violate "God's foreign-policy statement" toward Jews, he said, citing a verse from the Old Testament that promises to "bless those who bless you" and curse "the one who curses you."

…Mr. Hagee is a leading figure in the so-called Christian-Zionist movement. This evangelical political philosophy is rooted in biblical prophecies and a belief that Israel's struggles signal a prelude to Armageddon. Its followers staunchly support the Bush administration's unequivocal backing of Israel in its current battle with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

President Bush sent a message to the gathering praising Mr. Hagee and his supporters for "spreading the hope of God's love and the universal gift of freedom." The Israeli prime minister also sent words of thanks. Israel's ambassador, its former military chief and a host of U.S. political heavyweights, mostly Republican, attended.

…"The battlefield will cover the nation of Israel!" he writes in "Jerusalem Countdown," his recent work, describing a "sea of human blood drained from the veins of those who have followed Satan."

God's love and the universal gift of freedon = a sea of human blood? Ah, the rapture must be at hand.

By the way, the rapture index now stands at 156 -- pretty high on the rapture scale.

Keep sounding the drums of fear

For several years now, my mother-in-law has been writing post cards (often as many as three or four a week) to the wounded GIs hospitalized at Walter Reed in an effort to demonstrate her support for our troops.

Yesterday, she received a letter from the government saying she must cease and desist because post cards are considered a security threat.

If post cards from a 78 year old woman, a Republican, a loyal Bush supporter are considered a security threat, what isn't a threat?

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Polling

The polls are not looking very good for our boy Bush. In this ARG poll, his approval rating slipped a bit (36% to 35%) this month, but the rest of the stats look really grim for King George:

Americans are again increasingly concerned about the national economy and their personal financial situations, including those saying they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job and the economy according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.

Among all Americans, 35% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 59% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 31% approve and 63% disapprove. Among Americans registered to vote, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 32% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 63% disapprove.

A total of 19% of Americans say the national economy is getting better compared to 31% in June and 57% say the the national economy is getting worse compared to 48% in June. A total of 6% say they expect the national economy to be better a year from now compared to 15% in June and 67% say they expect the national economy to be worse a year from now compared to 52% in June.

A total of 47% of Americans say their personal financial situations are getting worse compared to 22% in June and 45% say they expect to be worse off a year from now compared to 20% in June. A total of 17% of Americans say their personal financial situations are getting better compared to 31% in June and 17% say they expect their personal financial situations to be better a year from now compared to 35% in June.

A boy can dream, can't he?

Molly Ivins is trying to get Democrats excited about the prospect of running Bill Moyers for president.

"Dear desperate Democrats," the nation's most widely-read liberal newspaper columnist begins her latest missive. "Here's what we do: We run Bill Moyers for president. I am serious as a stroke about this. It's simple, cheap, and effective, and it will move the entire spectrum of political discussion in this country. Moyers is the only public figure who can take the entire discussion and shove it toward moral clarity just by being there."

McCain Supports Prez on Signing Statements

If it only took one reason to not vote for McCain, here it is:

In response to questions from Congressional Quarterly about whether he would support Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) bill to counter the President's use of "signing statements," McCain said this:

“I think the president will enforce the law."

All of which is not to say that I have any confidence in anything Arlen Specter proposes.

Israel-Lebanon

Co-blogger, Simoneyezd in Ontario, has a somewhat different perspective on the Israeli actions in Lebanon than I do. Here is one of his opinion pieces.

Subject: Middle East Crisis-Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon

Hezbollah and Hamas are two terrorist organizations that do not want or have peace with Israel in their sights nor do they foresee the well being and interests of the Lebanese and Palestinian populations that they hold hostage.

It is unfortunate that Israel had to resort to its retaliation that continues, but Israel has the absolute right to defend herself.

Right now Israel is taking the assaulting brunts from the forces of evil in the Middle East.

Regretfully, Israel has to perform the formidable task of defending herself and the Jewish people in Israel, the Region; and indirectly the World.

Israel is the first line of defence to western civilization on the other side of the world. Israel is the only hope for peace, stability, harmony, prosperity and sanity in the Middle East.

******

What a wonderful place the Middle East, being the cradle of civilization, could be if the peoples in the region would be free to reap the unending benefits and potential opportunities through the experiences of their mingled cultures, histories and natural beauty of the terrain.

Unfortunately, Lebanon, who I believe wants peace with Israel, is under the thumb of Hezbollah, being encouraged and supplied by the Syrian and Iranian rogue regimes. The Palestinians are in Hamas' noose. Hezbollah and Hamas must be disbanded.

******

Unless the hostilities at the northern and southern ends of Israel are contained, there is that dreadful possibility that they could spill over into a raging Middle East War, particularly with Iran and Syria fomenting and protecting Hezbollah and Hamas. Lebanon is in the unfortunate situation of a country without a government that is really able to speak for its people and pursue a peaceful destiny. It is controlled by Hezbollah with Syria's clenched fist in the background.


Simoneyezd
Ontario Canada



Pressure to confirm Bolton

It appears the Israeli lobby is pushing for John Bolton's confirmation to the UN, and the pressure may be starting to tell on Democrats who might otherwise oppose him:

Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) are "seriously reconsidering” their positions on the appointment of Ambassador John Bolton to the UN, according to the New York Sun.

The report quoted Morton Klein, President of the Zionist Organization of America who claimed to have spoken with "important friends" of the senators. He added, ""If they came out against him, I would be somewhat surprised," and that, "I think there's a reasonable chance they might support him this time around." He did however offer the caveat that, "with politics, you never know."

The paper also spoke with Jack Rosen, chairman of the American Jewish Congress, who found that the senators lack of a statement to date reflects an understanding "that the Jewish community is supporting Bolton and that when you represent a large Jewish community in New York, politics matters." In Rosen's calculation, Bolton's strong support for Israel in the current Middle East crisis might sway Clinton and Schumer to alter their positions.


It's a sad truth that no Democrat (or Republican for that matter) can expect to buck the Israeli lobby and win an election in this country.

Deliberate war crimes

It looks more and more as if Israel deliberately attacked the UN bunker in Lebanon, killing four UN observers.

Israel ignored repeated warnings it was shelling close to United Nations observers in southern Lebanon before an Israeli bomb killed four for them, the Irish foreign ministry has said.

The ministry said on Wednesday a senior Irish army officer had called Israeli military liasion officers at least six times to warn them that Israeli munitions were landing close to UN installations in the region.

The peacekeepers were killed on Tuesday night when an aerial bomb struck a United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) building in Khiam, southern Lebanon, an UNIFIL spokesman said.

"On six separate occasions he [the officer] was in contact with the Israelis to warn them that their bombardment was endangering the lives of UN staff in South Lebanon," a department of foreign affairs spokesman said.

The dead were Canadian, Finnish, Austrian and Chinese nationals.

Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, has condemned Israel, saying he was shocked by the "apparently deliberate targeting" of the post, and calling for it to investigate the incident.
Juan Cole asks why Israel would do this deliberately and concludes that if you plan to commit war crimes, it's best not to have neutral observers around.

I'm sorry, but this is NOT legitimate self defense. There is no way that the hundreds of people killed in Lebanon and the tens of thousands displaced can be blamed on inadvertent collateral damage. This is obviously a deliberate attempt to attack innocent civilians and undoubtedly constitutes a war crime. True, the Hizbollah attacks on Israel also constutute war crimes and were equally unjustified. But, one war crime does not justify another. Two wrongs do not make right. Both Hizbollah and those in Israel responsible for this should be tried for war crimes.

Meanwhile the US sits on its hands cheering Israel on, and neither party has the guts to speak out against this atrocity.

Shame.

Before you despair . . .

Remember what has changed in less than two decades: the end of the Cold War, "the Wall" and the "Iron Curtain"; our relations with China; the end of apartheid in South Africa – as far as we knew from general faraway knowledge, that one was absolutely impossible -- Bosnia and Kosovo, Northern Ireland, trade relations with Viet Nam.

Getting Real on Stabilizing the Israei-Lebanese Border

Tom Friedman nails this in today's NYT. "We need to get real on Lebanon. Hezbollah made a reckless mistake in provoking Israel. Shame on Hezbollah for bringing this disaster upon Lebanon by embedding its “heroic” forces amid civilians. I understand Israel’s vital need to degrade Hezbollah’s rocket network. But Hezbollah’s militia, which represents 40 percent of Lebanon, the Shiites, can’t be wiped out at a price that Israel, or America’s Arab allies, can sustain — if at all.
You can’t go into an office in the Arab world today without finding an Arab TV station featuring the daily carnage in Lebanon. It’s now the Muzak of the Arab world, and it is toxic for us and our Arab friends.
Despite Hezbollah’s bravado, Israel has hurt it and its supporters badly, in a way they will never forget. Point made. It is now time to wind down this war and pull together a deal — a cease-fire, a prisoner exchange, a resumption of the peace effort and an international force to help the Lebanese Army secure the border with Israel — before things spin out of control. Whoever goes for a knockout blow will knock themselves out instead.
Will Syria play? Syrians will tell you that their alliance with Tehran is “a marriage of convenience.” Syria is a largely secular country, with a Sunni majority. Its leadership is not comfortable with Iranian Shiite ayatollahs. The Iranians know that, which is why “they keep sending high officials here every few weeks to check on the relationship,” a diplomat said.
So uncomfortable are many Syrian Sunnis with the Iran relationship that President Bashar al-Assad has had to allow a surge of Sunni religiosity; last April, a bigger public display was made of Muhammad’s birthday than the Syrian Baath Party’s anniversary, which had never happened before.
Syrian officials stress that they formed their alliance with Iran because they felt they had no other option. One top Syrian official said the door with the U.S. was “not closed from Damascus. [But] when you have only one friend, you stay with him all the time. When you have 10 friends, you stay with each one of them.”
What do the Syrians want? They say: respect for their security interests in Lebanon and a resumption of negotiations over the Golan. Syria is also providing support for the Sunni Baathists in Iraq. Much as the Bush team wants to, it can’t fight everyone at once and get where it needs to go. There will not be a peace force in south Lebanon unless it’s backed by Syria. No one will send troops."

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

More on DLC: If you believe it, say it

The blogger MyDD had a great post on the rabidly centrist DLC (Democratic Leadership Conference) that resonates with my comments yesterday about what's fundamentally wrong with the DLC philosophy. It was prompted by Bill Clinton's statement that DLC initiatives "can win elections."

Why People Don't Think Democrats Believe What They Say

Now, when you preface your policy proposals by indicating that said proposals are intended to win elections and unite your party, you have already pretty much ended any chance that people will think you making said proposals because you believe in those proposals. This is because, well, you just said that the purpose of these proposals was to win elections. . . .

More brilliant messaging from the same article: "Stone said the council's centrist approach has been the only proven success for Democrats in the past 25 years."

While this is not a direct quote, it is a widely held sentiment in some Democratic circles. It is also utterly self-defeating, since it strongly gives the impression that the only reason Democrats are moving to the center is because they think it will help them to win elections. Not only does this tacitly admit that Republicans have the right ideas and Democrats must move toward those ideas in order to win, it also is a pretty direct implication that Democrats don't believe in anything, but that they are moving to the center solely for the purpose of winning elections. . . .

If you are going to stand on your principles, then stand on your principles. There is no need to preface that stance by saying that more Democrats need to stand on principles in order to win elections. In fact, such a preface just makes it look like you are standing on your principles in order to win elections, and trying to distance yourself from those other, evil Democrats who don't stand on principles.

If you are going to talk about faith, then talk about faith. There is no need to preface your discussion of faith with a statement that Democrats need to talk more about faith. All that will do is make it look like you are talking about faith in order to win elections, and to distance yourself from those other, evil democrats who don't talk about faith.

If you are going to talk about national security, then talk about national security. There is no need to preface your discussion of national security with a statement that Democrats need to change their stances on national security. All that does is make it look like Democrats don't stand for anything on national security, and are just talking about it now in order to win elections. Oh yeah, and it distances you from those other, evil Democrats who don't hold the same national security position you do.

If you are going to move to the center, then move to the center. Don't preface it with a statement about how Democrats need to move to the center in order to win elections. All that does is make you look like a pile of mush who freely moves from left to center to right and back again in order to win elections.

The bizarre Democratic need, found most often within DLC-type conferences, to preface any proposal with a public claim that the coming proposal will help Democrats win elections is a major factor in the national belief that Democrats do not stand for anything. If you tell the country that your ideas are designed to win elections, then they won't think you stand for anything except winning elections. And then, well, you probably won't win many elections, because Americans don't like politicians who only stand for winning elections. If you want to do something, then just do it. Throwing the "this will get us elected" qualifier in front of your statements just makes us all look like spineless jackasses who are trying to pull one over on the electorate. If you want to talk faith, or be a centrist, or be a hawk, or stand on principles, then just go for it. Stop wasting our time and making us all look bad by telling us you are doing it in order to win elections.

Go figure

Go figure. Rasmussen reports that Bush's approval rating dropped 5 points overnight from 42% to 37%. Meanwhile, Harris reports that 50% of Americans believe that Iraq had WMDs and 72% believe the Iraqis are better off without Saddam. 41% say the war has reduced the threat to the US from terrorists. All those measures have risen strongly in recent months.

Nobel Peace laureate wants to kill Bush

Now, if I were to say this, I would be stuffed in Guantanamo faster than lightning:

Peace prize winner 'could kill' Bush
July 25, 2006

NOBEL peace laureate Betty Williams displayed a flash of her feisty Irish spirit yesterday, lashing out at US President George W.Bush during a speech to hundreds of schoolchildren.

Campaigning on the rights of young people at the Earth Dialogues forum, being held in Brisbane, Ms Williams spoke passionately about the deaths of innocent children during wartime, particularly in the Middle East, and lambasted Mr Bush.

"I have a very hard time with this word 'non-violence', because I don't believe that I am non-violent," said Ms Williams, 64.

"Right now, I would love to kill George Bush." Her young audience at the Brisbane City Hall clapped and cheered.


Isn't it amazing how Bush brings out the best in people?

Monday, July 24, 2006

Memo to DLC-types: It's not the 90s anymore

What’s wrong with the DLC?

Here is the bare-bones of a theory that I suspect has been said before but I have not seen myself: the Democratic Leadership Conference's down-the-middle “third way” made sense in the 1990’s, at a time when there had not been a successful Democratic President since the mid-1960s – or at least one, unlike the only intervening Democrat, Jimmy Carter, who was recognized widely as having been successful. The shift to the right, with demonization of liberal policies with a variety of myths ("welfare queens," for example) had been dramatic under 12 consecutive years of conservative Republicanism, and 20 of 24 years since 1968.

Thus, Clinton, having won with less than a majority of the vote, was forced to prove the ability of the Democratic Party to govern – to prove that the “tax-and-spend” label was a ridiculous canard. Although we did get some traditional and important liberal solutions, including the marginal but meaningful restoration of more progressive income tax structure, a long-overdue increase in the minimum wage, and better enforcement of and symbolic support for the labor laws, we also had the challenge to Sister Soulja during the 1992 campaign, changing “welfare as we know it,” keeping the top marginal income tax rate under the symbolic level of 40%, NAFTA and, perhaps above all, striving to achieve a balanced budget.

But one thing we do know is that, during the 1990s, although wealth disparity may have continued to grow as investors in stocks saw their holdings explode in value, income inequality that had grown so much during the Reagan-Bush I years, started moderating and then actually reversing itself – with poverty declining dramatically and the middle class thriving as well. Unemployment dropped below 4%, despite millions more seeking (and finding) jobs. Yet, contradicting the predictions of Republican-leaning economists, inflation impossibly stayed low and, impossibly, the budget was balanced and, even more impossibly, we actually started seeing surpluses. These were outcomes both Democrats and traditional Republicans could love.

The Clinton years gave Democrats a different story to tell: a story of competence, and a story of how shoring up the safety net for all Americans actually helps the economy and all Americans. This is reinforced by the Bush II years that have demonstrated the grotesque incompetence of the Republicans and their discredited philosophies. As some have said, Bush-Cheney has proved you won’t do a good job running the government if you actually hate it.

In other words, there is no longer the same value in the namby-pamby, wishy-washy, split-the-difference philosophies that the DLC espouses for the Democratic Party. It’s a different world this time, and we know now – from the stark contrast between the Clinton years and the latest Bush years -- that progressive values, liberal values, work better for the country. That's for everybody -- yes, even the rich whose wealth grows faster when confidence in the economy is shared top-to-bottom. Now is the time to go out and show that to the American people. There is no need to split the difference between philosophies that work and those that don’t.

Of course, there is the foreign policy side, too, the part of our national life that “changed forever” after 911. It is hard to put this into a traditional liberal-conservative scheme – neither side historically favored preemptive war or nation-building -- and yet it has evolved in that direction due to Bush’s embrace of the aggressive theories of neo-conservatism. Generally speaking, now, liberals are against the Iraq War, while Republicans support it.

The DLC seems to want us to split the difference on that one, too. Yes, Bush lied us into the war, and it was a terrible thing to do that, but we cannot “cut-and-run” now. But where is there any principle in splitting the difference on this one? Without a principle for solution, what is the solution? It seems that there is no solution, and so we just muddle along doing what we are doing, even if our very presence is the problem and cannot be part of the solution. But when we hear someone like Marshall Wittman expressing the DLC position that Democrats should never say anything that might be twisted by Republicans as showing weakness on terrorism, where is the principle in that? Simply going along with exposing American soldiers to being picked off one by one, and Iraqis in scores when we respond, because we cannot be seen as weak?

There is something quite disgusting about the level of self-promoting cynicism in this kind of triangulation. Wanting to show toughness is the very opposite of actually being tough. How about instead focusing on how to demonstrate that the Republicans are the cowards – the ones too weak to acknowledge their horrendous mistake and take the political fall-out they deserve?

The idea that the Democratic “base” turning on Joe Lieberman and his DLC ilk are “leftists” is itself an absurd canard. In fact, they represent a wide range of Democrats, including ones who are quite moderate overall. What they really share is simple: it’s time to stop being so defensive. We will win, we will show strength, by not backing down from the core of what we believe.

The DLC's position that you must stay in the center is the Maginot Line that the French set up after World War I. It was designed for the last war and not the next one. It was not successful. The DLC is fighting the war that Clinton faced in the 1990s. We’re not in the 1990s anymore, Toto.

Sunday, July 23, 2006

New Coat of Paint on the Same Disfunctional Vehicle?

Not to wear out NYT today, but this excerpted from David Brooks: We neoincrementalists have kept our democratic dreams, but we’ve slowed our gait to a cautious walk. We look for guidance these days to two other notable squishes, George Bush and Condoleezza Rice. We neoincrementalists thought they were right to offer the Iranians an incentive package before the hard choices have to be faced. And we’re impressed with how they are handling the Hezbollah crisis.
They understand that the first goal must be to ensure that Hezbollah loses. Israel must be given time to dismantle the terrorist state within a state. But they also understand that the second goal must be to ensure that the democratically elected Lebanese government be seen to win. That’s why administration officials spent so much time on the phone last week, organizing a Security Council resolution to sanction an international force in Lebanon. This force would police not only the south but also the Syrian border (to prevent Hezbollah resupply), and would help the Lebanese government reoccupy its land. Senior administration officials know they have no hopes of really disarming Hezbollah (the terrorists can hide rockets under beds) or of really expelling it from Lebanon (it is integrated into society). But they do hope to change the environment, and slowly begin to crowd out Hezbollah influence, the way healthy grass crowds out weeds in a lawn.
They argue that the situation in south Lebanon cannot be resolved militarily and talk privately about some serious nation-building, with reconstruction packages and political assistance. They also talk about resolving some outstanding Israeli-Lebanese issues to give Fouad Siniora tangible victories to brag about. Mostly, they emphasize the larger context. This isn’t just about getting a cease-fire and separation, like past peace efforts. It’s about building momentum for Arab democrats and cementing a coalition of moderate Arabs who will stand up to extremists. In short, the administration approach embodies a few principles we neoincrementalists hold dear. First, you create policies in accord with your basic values while fully understanding the downside risks — the downside risk in this case being that terrorists may have developed methods that make it nearly impossible for superior military forces to uproot them given the global media environment. Second, you go to war with the world you have. Right now unilateral actions are politically unsustainable, so everything has to be done through a coalition. And third, statecraft is soulcraft. If you can create circumstances in which democrats win, you can change perceptions and create the momentum for future victories — incrementally.

No Brain Cells Resuts in No Stem cCells

Frank Rich in today's NYT: HOW time flies when democracy is on the march in the Middle East! Five whole years have passed since ominous Qaeda chatter reached its pre-9/11 fever pitch, culminating in the President’s Daily Brief of Aug. 6, 2001. History has since condemned President Bush for ignoring that intelligence. But to say that he did nothing that summer is a bum rap. Just three days later, on Aug. 9, he took a break from clearing brush in Crawford to reveal the real priority of his presidency, which had nothing to do with a nuisance like terrorism. His first prime-time address after more than six months in office was devoted to embryonic stem-cell research instead. Placing his profound religious convictions above the pagan narcissism of Americans hoping for cures to diseases like Parkinson’s and diabetes, he decreed restrictions to shackle the advance of medical science.
Whatever else is to be said about the Decider, he’s consistent. Having dallied again this summer while terrorism upends the world, he has once more roused himself to take action — on stem cells. His first presidential veto may be bad news for the critically ill, but it was a twofer for the White House. It not only flattered the president’s base. It also drowned out some awkward news: the prime minister he installed in Baghdad, Nuri al-Maliki, and the fractious Parliament of Iraq’s marvelous new democracy had called a brief timeout from their civil war to endorse the sole cause that unites them, the condemnation of Israel.
The news is not all dire, however. While Mr. Bush’s Iraq project threatens to deliver the entire region to Iran’s ayatollahs, this month may also be remembered as a turning point in America’s own religious wars. The president’s politically self-destructive stem-cell veto and the simultaneous undoing of the religious right’s former golden boy, Ralph Reed, in a Republican primary for lieutenant governor in Georgia are landmark defeats for the faith-based politics enshrined by Mr. Bush’s presidency. If we can’t beat the ayatollahs over there, maybe we’re at least starting to rout them here.

Learning Anything Con't

Kristof goes on to say: More broadly, one reason this current bombardment — like the invasion in 1982 — is against Israel’s own long-term interest has to do with the way terrorism is likely to change over the next couple of decades.
In the past, terror attacks spilled blood and spread fear, but they did not challenge the survival of Israel itself. At some point, though, militant groups will recruit teams of scientists and give them a couple of years and a $300,000 research budget, and the result will be attacks with nerve gas, anthrax, or “dirty bombs” that render areas uninhabitable for years.
All this suggests that the only way for Israel to achieve security is to reach a final peace agreement, involving the establishment of a Palestinian state (because states can be deterred more easily than independent groups like Hamas). Such an agreement is not feasible now, but it might be five or 15 years from now. Israel’s self-interest lies in doing everything it can to make such a deal more likely — not in using force in ways that strengthen militants and make an agreement less likely.
It’s certainly true that if America were raided by a terror group next door, we would respond just as Israel has. When Pancho Villa attacked a New Mexico town in 1916, we sent troops into Mexico. But that expedition was a failure (just as our invasion of Iraq has been, at least so far).
On the other hand, there are two democracies that endured constant and brutal terrorism and eventually defeated it. Neither Spain nor Britain was in a situation quite like Israel’s (Palestinian terrorists have been more brutal in attacking civilians), but they still offer useful lessons. And both the Northern Ireland and Basque problems were often considered insoluble a couple of decades ago, perhaps even more than those in the Middle East today.
Spain could have responded to terror attacks by sending troops into the Basque country, or by bombing the sanctuaries that ETA guerrillas used just across the border in France. (France was blasé about being used as a terrorist base.) Instead, Spain gave autonomy to the Basque country and restrained itself through gritted teeth, over the objections of those who thought this was appeasement.

Learning Anything from the Past?

Kristof in the NYT today nails it. As in 1982, Israel again believes that it is improving its long-term security by attacking Lebanon. And once again, I believe, that will prove counterproductive. Israel is likely to kill enough Lebanese to outrage the world, increase anti-Israeli and anti-American attitudes, nurture a new generation of anti-Israeli guerrillas, and help hard-liners throughout the region and beyond. (Sudan’s cynical rulers, for example, will manipulate Arab outrage to gain cover to continue their genocide in Darfur.) But Israel is unlikely to kill more terrorists than it creates.

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Get your mits off of us

It seems we're well-liked in Iraq:

US forces have committed butchery in Iraq and should leave, the speaker of the country's parliament has said.

Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was speaking on Saturday at a UN-sponsored conference on transitional justice and reconciliation in Baghdad.

"Just get your hands off Iraq and the Iraqi people and Muslim countries, and everything will be all right," he said in a speech as the conference opened.

"What has been done in Iraq is a kind of butchery of the Iraqi people."

Isn't it nice to have friends everywhere?

Let sleeping dogs lie

This does not sound like a step forward to me:

George W. Bush did not invent the document known as the presidential signing statement; he inherited it. Franklin Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, and even James Monroe, in 1830, authored the statements, which spell out the president's sometimes controversial interpretation of the very law he's signing. But no president has used signing statements quite like Bush.

Although the president has not issued more statements in total than any other president, he has challenged more than 750 laws in more than 100 signing statements. And he has used them to, in effect, challenge parts of laws, and challenge them more aggressively, than any president before him. Bush's liberal use of those statements first attracted attention in December 2005, when he signed a torture ban—but then added a statement reserving the right not to enforce the ban, alongside his signature. Since then, Congress has held a hearing to investigate Bush's use of the statements, a bipartisan advocacy group has condemned their use, and Democratic Rep. Barney Frank has introduced a bill that would allow Congress to override content in them that contradicts signed legislation.

Now, U.S. News has learned, an American Bar Association task force is set to suggest even stronger action. In a report to be released Monday, the task force will recommend that Congress pass legislation providing for some sort of judicial review of the signing statements. Some task force members want to simply give Congress the right to sue over the signing statements; other task force members will not characterize what sort of judicial review might ultimately emerge.


It sounds to me as if the people proposing these measures believe they are necessary to restrain the president. But, I'm not at all sure they will be helpful. As things stand now, as far as I know (subject to possible correction) neither the Supreme Court nor any other court has ever paid any attention to a presidential signing statement when interpreting Congressional intent. In other words, at the moment it appears that presidential signing statements have no effect whatever on the court's interpretation of laws. It seems to me that to ask the courts to review the signing statements simply elevates to statements to a higher plateau than they already command.

I have a feeling it's best to let sleeping dogs lie in this case.

On the value of human life

From the UK's Independent:
America's domestic policy vs America's foreign policy

This week, George Bush used his presidential veto to block a bill on stem cell research, saying he couldn't support the 'taking of innocent human life'. In Iraq, six civilians are killed by a US air strike, while casualties in Lebanon and Israel mount. George Bush (and Tony Blair) oppose UN calls for an immediate ceasefire
Need anyone say more?

A Perspective on Conflict in the Middle East

No student of history can escape the parallels between what is going on in Lebanon now and the start of World War I. The question is do we have political will and the sanity, to stop it. Those who are not interested in history are at the mercy of the present, so we might as well review.In 1914, a relatively obscure member of the Austro-Hungarian royal family was assassinated by a bunch of bumbling Serbian extremists when, after the plot had already failed, one of them was given by fate the opportunity of an easy, close up shot. Weapons had been provided to them by a secret society calling itself Black Hand, some of whose members were part of the Serbian government.In response the Austro-Hungarian government delivered to the Serbia government an ultimatum, described by British Foreign Minister Sir Edward Grey as "the most formidable document that was ever addressed from one state to another". The ultimatum was written to be unacceptable on its face, to serve merely as a pretext for war, threatening invasion and collective punishment on Serbia. And even though Serbia AGREED to 9 of the 10 demands, Austria-Hungary still declared war.Because of the various mutual defense commitments, Russia hurriedly mobilized in support of their ally Serbia, the Germans (backing Austria-Hungary) invaded Belgium to stage an attack on the French, who were Russian allies, and Great Britain declared war on Germany because of the violation of Belgian neutrality. Thus it was, within two weeks all of Europe was at war, though the United States did not enter the conflict until a German submarine sunk some of our ships in 1917 Now let us examine for comparison what is going on in Lebanon today. It is pointless to bicker like five year old children about who "started" it, in a 50 year old conflict that has never stopped smoldering. As an immediate provocation, or excuse for one, members of Hezbollah attacked some Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two, taking them back to Lebanon. Other members of Hezbollah occupy positions in the Lebanese government, and the group has admittedly been supported by militants in Syria and Iran. There are strong parallels here with the Black Hand militants of pre-World War I and their tangential ties to the 1914 Serbian government.But in response, Israel did not just THREATEN to invade and impose collective punishment; they ARE invading and have been bombing Lebanon for a week already. Already over 300 people have been killed there, mostly innocent civilians. Even more devastating have been attacks on civilian infrastructure. Most people in this country have no comprehension of the scale of the destruction. They are well on the way to leveling South Beirut already.For its part Hezbollah has been firing wildly and mostly ineffective rockets at Israel, much like Saddam's willy-nilly anti-aircraft fire during the first Iraq war, though an Israeli ship was hit and damaged.While this military distraction has been going on, violence in Iraq has continued to escalate, with report of militants streaming into Baghdad as if to prepare for an even larger offensive.All of this has nothing to do with Hezbollah, kidnapping, Israel, rocket attacks, self defense, terrorism or anything else.The Bush administration, who is green lighting Israel's every action, is manipulating public opinion at home to escalate this into a nuclear first strike on Iran, to try to regain the dominance lost in Iraq. Until you understand this nothing else will make sense. And in this they have the willing cooperation of Hezbollah and their supporters, who believe they will win the whole game if we do so, and they have our misadventure in Iraq to give them confidence.They are both wrong. Such a conflagration in the Middle East will end human civilization as we have previously known it. BOTH sides will exchange nuclear weapons strikes. The restraint which has kept the nuclear monster in check since 1945 will be vaporized. Perhaps the other side will only be able to muster dirty bombs, or perhaps a revolution in Pakistan will put fully operational warheads in the hands of Islamic militants at once, and this is assuming they have not already acquired some of the many loose nukes out there, or maybe it will take them a while longer to acquire them. But it will happen.That is all unless we find a way to break the cycle of revenge and insanity. So what will the United States do? Bush apparently believes that all he has to do is smirk his way through the next couple weeks and he'll be back on top as something even bigger and better than a war president. Now he wants to be a "nuclear war president". He will not willingly save us. But if we can get Congress to act there is still hope.There are two resolutions before Congress. The first, H. Res. 921, introduced by John Boehner (R) sides with Israel completely, condemns Hezbollah only, and excuses Israel from any fault or blame in their response to the provocation. The only thing it doesn't do is demand Hezbollah surrender in pink dresses. It is in essence a declaration that the U.S. will support Israel in ANY war of THEIR choosing, much like the kind of pacts that precipitated the cascading declarations of war in World War I.The second, H. Con. Res. 450, introduced by Dennis Kucinich (D) calls on both sides to immediately end hostile actions and to engage international cooperation to mediate the crisis. The prime minister of Lebanon, a democracy, is pleading for a cease-fire. The U.N. Secretary General is demanding a cease-fire. And only the passage of this second resolution, and a cease-fire, can disrupt the spin of the wheel at the hand of George Bush.The testosterone-fed macho types on Fox news, along with too many of their bar fight mentality supporters, are all gung ho to unleash the nukes. But let us address their primary contemptuous argument, that you can't have a cease-fire because the "terrorists" won't respect it.At an emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo this last Saturday, moderate Arab governments, some publicly and some privately, were prepared to condemn Hezbollah for the provocation. They might be in a position to pressure Hezbollah in various ways, but they are being undermined by the graphic images of wanton killing and devastation coming out of Lebanon.Though not to minimize the 30 or so Israelis who have been killed so far, most of the actual destruction raining down is by Israel's hand. If this continues much longer there won't be a Muslim population in the Middle East not screaming for Israeli blood.Only a cease-fire can save Israel from itself. They have demonstrated they can launch a military strike any time they choose, and could presumably with impunity resume hostilities any time they would wish. But if moderate Arab governments start falling like dominos to militants in their own populations, any opportunity for diplomacy will be lost forever.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Dr. Seussism

I got this from a friend. It was too good not to pass on:

Subject: Dr Seussism

Several weeks ago, our commander in chief, responding to questions from
the press regarding the future of Don Rumsfeld, said, "I hear the
voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm
the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don
Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."

This entry from the [original sender's] blog, had to be shared "It took
me awhile, but I finally realized what "I'm the decider" reminds me of.
It sounds like something a character in a Dr. Seuss book might say.

So with apologies to the late Mr. Geisel, here is some idle speculation
as to what else such a character might say:

I'm the decider.
I pick and I choose.
I pick among whats
And choose among whos.

And as I decide
Each particular day
The things I decide on
All turn out that way.

I decided on Freedom
For all of Iraq
And now that we have it,
I'm not looking back.

I decided on tax cuts
That just help the wealthy...
And Medicare changes
That aren't really healthy.

And parklands and wetlands
Who needs all that stuff?
I decided that none
Would be more than enough!

I decided that schools
All in all are the best
The less that they teach
And the more that they test.

I decided those wages
You need to get by
Are much better spent
On some CEO guy.

I decided your Wade
Which was versing your Roe
Is terribly awful
And just has to go.

I decided that levees
Are not really needed.
Now when hurricanes come
They can come unimpeded.

That old Constitution?
Well, I have decided
Is "just goddam paper,"
It should be derided.

I've decided gay marriage
Is icky and weird.
Above all other things,
It's the one to be feared.

And Cheney and Rummy
And Condi all know
That I'm the Decider -
They tell me it's so.

I'm the Decider
So watch what you say
Or I may decide
To have you whisked away.

Or I'll tap your phones.
Your e-mail I'll read.
`cause I'm the Decider -
Like Jesus decreed.

Yes, I'm the Decider
The finest alive
And I'm nuking Iran.
And that ain't no jive!!

Security is an issue only when it suits us

WallDon has already spoken to the Prez's personal intervention to block a DOJ investigation into warrantless NSA eavesdropping. And if you are like me, you will have also learned the irony of the fact that DOJ investigators had no problem with security clearances for looking into the leaks that led to the story of NSA actions coming out in the press. As such, I was not particularly surprised, and hardly even offended-- what else was there to expect? Concern for, ugh, facts?

But Glenn Greenwald has put his finger on the real asininity of the matter:

. . . Bush followers will argue . . . that the Commander-in-Chief was simply trying to limit knowledge of this critical, illegal program to as few people as possible, but this paragraph from the Associated Press, by itself, dispenses with that excuse:

Yet, according to OPR chief Marshall Jarrett, "a large team" of prosecutors and FBI agents were granted security clearances to pursue an investigation into leaks of information that resulted in the program's disclosure in December. . . .

When it comes to criminally prosecuting those who alerted Americans to the existence of this illegal eavesdropping, these alleged security concerns disappear, and all sorts of investigators are given full access to the details of the program to enable them to conduct an aggressive investigation. But when it comes to investigating whether the President and his legal advisors acted properly with regard to the same program, the President blocks any such investigation from occurring on the grounds that not even DoJ lawyers can be trusted to investigate.

Got that? Security requires no investigation of NSA wiretapping: not too many should know too much. Security is not a problem when investigating who leaked information about that wiretapping: the more the better!

Remember all the bravado after 9/11-- "these colors don't run", and so forth? Wrong. We have already surrendered. If the "terrorists hate our freedoms", it looks to me like they have succeeded in taking them away after all. The Regime is still running as fast as it can from democracy.

Oh well, Lincoln's brave words at Gettysburg,
we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth,
were well intended. But that government is no more: it perished shortly after 9/11/2001. The soldiers at Gettysburg only put off the reckoning.

Pleading State Secrets not (yet) the 5th

Well, well, well. After having observed that The Regime's claim that state secrets prevented the courts from hearing a complaint about AT&T--a complaint about a very public and certain set of actions-- we see news today thay the courts just might agree. At least at the level of the circuit court.

Glenn Greenwald reports (no sign in the media generally-- the original story wasn't covered much either) that the court took public statements by The Regime and AT&T as the basis of its decision and found:

"the very subject matter of this action is hardly a secret. As described above, public disclosures by the government and AT&T indicate that AT&T is assisting the government to implement some kind of surveillance program" . . . [and] "significant amounts of information about the government's monitoring of communication content and AT&T's intelligence relationship with the government are already non-classified on in the public record."

Duh. Of course, there is an immediate appeal out (not of any verdict, mind you, but of the decision just to hear the case), which will probably wind up before the Supreme Kangaroos, so don't count any eggs, yet-- certainly not over the phone.

Idiots

Idiots.

Until the U.S. can be seen as an honest broker in the Middle East, there's going to be ever increasing recruiting opportunities for the terrorists. Right now, we're not even close.

Bush frat house party

"Get your effing mits off of me!"



















Couldn't resist.

A childish rant requires adult intervention

It is not at all clear to me what Israel thinks it is doing in Lebanon. As Kevin Drum points out, they occupied the country for many years and couldn't root out Hizbollah then. Why would they think they could now? Yes, maybe they can reduce the most dangerous imminent threats from Hizbollah, but do they really need to bomb the hell out of the entire country to do that? Or, is this merely outright revenge? If it's that, why extract your pound of flesh from the people who had nothing to do with it? Maybe this is like kicking the dog because you're mad at your wife, but it certainly seems a bit childish -- and, when scores of innocent people are being killed by a childish rant, some adult needs to step up and intervene.

Ah, but there's the problem. There are no adults available -- certainly not in Washington.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Bush Censure Movement Needs to Resume Speed

President Bush should be censured for breaking the law by illegally wiretapping American citizens. In 1974, Congress took responsibility for holding the President, then Richard Nixon, to the law. This Republican Congress would be showing the world that party loyalty and nest feathering is more important than their responsibility to uphold the Constitution should they not measure up to the 1974 Congress that saw its duty and rose above next feathering by performing its duty.

Regarding the proposal to censure President Bush, Republicans are on the attack, running ads accusing Senator Feingold of being "more interested in censuring the President than protecting our freedom." They can't defend President Bush's lawbreaking, so they're trying to stifle dissent by changing the subject.

Of course, this isn't about terrorism. The president already had the authority to wiretap suspected terrorists and get a warrant days later. But he went around the court set up to protect innocent Americans.Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham have acknowledged that the president acted above his authority but now they're discussing plans to retroactively make his program legal. When the president misleads the public and the Congress and willfully and repeatedly breaks the law, there need to be some consequences --that's how the law works for everybody else. Censuring the president is a reasonable first step in condemning his actions.

Coulter: Add hypocracy to felony

Recently on this blog, Ann Coulter's character was taken to task for her white powder stunt with the NYT. Here's another hole in her constitution as revealed in a recent AOL news interview.

Bethanne Patrick: It's very creepy to read an entire book (Godless) that has so much anger in it, but at the same time is written by a smart woman. What has no one asked you that you would like to answer? All this last week there's been this swirl about plagiarism and then not plagiarism, and on and on. What would you like to say?

Coulter: don't think I'm angry at all. I make points, I make a few jokes. I think I write it in a way that amuses me and my friends. I don't think there's any anger there, and in fact, one of my comedy-writing friends has an idea for a sketch where you'd have a calm, happy conservative being interviewed by a liberal, brow-beating and yelling at the conservative, and continuing to say, 'She's so angry! There's so much anger here!'

If her style amuses her and her friends, it speaks volumes to her hypocrisy and poor taste. Her tactics of misrepresentation (if not wanton disregard for the facts) and attempted humiliation of liberals are as anti-Christian as it gets. Furthermore, to mask incivility as promulgation of Christians fighting for converts is a bastardization of the Christian tenants of "do unto others," show mutual respect and kindness. For Coulter, her principle M.O. is a considerable deviation of the Christian tenant taking the form of "do unto others, do it quick, and with complete disregard for facts or reality." Essentially, she is a reincarnation of the fellow travelers of the vintage '60's John Birch Society who penned such completely discredited hubris as "None Dare Call It Treason" below which all of Coulter's books have fallen.

More Middle Class crunch from Bush policies

Brookings analysis of census data uncovered an accelerated decline in middle class communities living in and around cities during the 2000-05 period. It far outpaced the 7% decline between 1970 and 2000 plunging by more than 10% in Baltimore, Chicago, LA and Philadelphia and by 21% in Indianapolis. In LA, poor neighborhoods are down 10% while rich neighborhoods are up 14%. Part of this decline is the lure of the increasing number of upscale houses built in the suburbs that are becoming progressively more unattainable for the traditional middle class. In Indianapolis, between 2000 and 2004, 27, 500 new houses were build while the population grew by only 3000. By contrast, a chronic undersupply of housing on the west coast has contributed to a decline in middle class neighborhoods there. Between 1990 and 2002 in LA population grew 11% while the number of housing units grew 5%.

At last, a Republican turns honest on Iraq

Salon ($) picks up a report of a Minnesota Republican Representative who just turned. This looks big:
A congressman's surprise discovery: Iraq isn't going so well
Just last month, Rep. Gil Gutknecht, a Republican from Minnesota, was admonishing his colleagues to "give victory a chance" in Iraq. "Members," he said, "this is not the time to go wobbly."
Well, maybe that wasn't. But apparently this is.
Gutknecht is just back from a weekend in Baghdad, and he says that conditions there are "worse than I expected." His solution? The same one he opposed so vigorously just a month ago: Start bringing home some troops.
According to a report in the Mankato, Minn., Free Press -- no, we don't usually read it, but Raw Story does -- Gutknecht learned during his visit to Iraq that Baghdad is a "serious problem" and "worse today than it was three years ago." Another of Gutknecht's breaking-news discoveries: "We learned it's not safe to go anywhere outside of the Green Zone any part of the day."
It shouldn't take a trip to Baghdad to learn these things; anyone reading any reputable newspaper over the past year would have already known everything that Gutknecht just found out. So why didn't he? Gutknecht says he has been at the receiving end of faulty "spin" from the Bush administration, including claims that the violence in Iraq was being caused by just a few hundred insurgents. "All of the information we receive sometimes from the Pentagon and the State Department isn’t always true," he says.
Well, good morning and welcome to the show.


There are a lot of cheerleaders, Republicans in particular, who need to think, and take themselves to the woodshed. Political suicide? Well, it should be. So many of them are such warriors with other families’ kids. Well, wouldn’t Samurai warriors commit political hara kiri at a minimum for blunders so monumental? Where is the honor?

Protecting innocent life?

Well, well. The first veto. And all in such a good, moral cause too: opposing funding for the use of human embryonic stem cell research. ''This bill would support the taking of innocent human life of the hope of finding medical benefits for others,'' says the Prez.

I might not agree with the particular moral judgment here (embryo=human life), but I would not argue with the principle of protecting innocent human life. I will be happy once the Prez takes even one minor action toward protecting any, already-born innocent human life. As it is, he is simply a hypocrite, choosing this one abstract arena of medicine, while as commander-in-chief he is responsible for 1000s of deaths of the innocent in his made-up war, without a trace of shame or regret.

More of same from the same article & same event:

''As science brings us every closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity. Our conscience in history as a nation demand that we resist this temptation."
Don't "manipulate human life". Don't "violate human dignity". Let's talk some more about Guantanamo and torture techniques, shall we?

"Strain out a gnat and swallow a camel". Woe is us.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

No apologies, please, for showing the truth about war

There is something really bothersome about this whole business of Democrats using pictures of flag-draped coffins, followed by outrage by either the Republican opponent or a member of the military for using the pictures “for political advantage,” followed by the Democrat sheepishly apologizing and pulling the material.

Since when is running for public office something of insufficient gravity to justify showing important information to the public? This is supposed to be serious business, not a game. Sending the country to war is serious business, and deciding who will get to vote on matters of such importance is serious business. A candidate has the right as well as an obligation not only to inform the public, but to force it to ponder the implications of what is going on now. There is nothing “un-civil” about doing that. It is one thing to expect a level of civility that minimizes personal attacks to those necessary for the voters to make an informed judgment, another to insist that a candidate for public office not force the other candidate to face up to the terrible results of his or her position.

What really is bothersome, though, is the lack of anticipation and preparation on the part of the Democratic candidates and their staffs. Perhaps it is Monday morning quarterbacking, but we have seen how the current Republican Party operates. It seems obvious that such emotion-laden information would induce a counter-attack, and that they would have their offensive ready for immediate deployment. So why don’t the Democrats have their response – and counter-response, and counter-counter-response – ready? There should be an entire game-plan anticipating every possible avenue of attack in place and ready for immediate use before the material is ever launched. That amateurism in advertising and communications permeating the Democratic Party allows the business-backed Republicans to gain a communications advantages they do not deserve from their actual beliefs.

So how should these Democratic candidates respond? Either (1) do not do it if you do not have the resources in place to follow the game plan, but if you do, (2) be ready with something like this. Whether it is perfect or not, I don’t know, but I am certain it is better than distancing yourself from the people running your campaign -- i.e., demonstrating you are a weak leader -- and apologizing with your tail between your legs (i.e., a wimp who can't even defend himself, much less you):

No, I am not going to stop the ad. This is supposed to be serious business, not a game. My opponent can denigrate doing something “for political advantage” all he/she wants, but remember, we are running for public office. It’s an important public office that can influence the future of the country. In saying that Americans should not be allowed to see and think about what is really happening due to the dead-end policies he/she supports, my opponent is suggesting this is just a game. Sending the country to war is serious business, and deciding who will get to vote on matters of such importance is serious business. Americans need to think about all the death this war has caused and will continue to cause without any end in sight, all because this administration refuses to admit it has made a terrible mistake. They need to think about the fact that only some Americans are paying the ultimate price, too.


The response is a bit more delicate when a military surrogate does the attacking, as apparently happened to Jim Webb in the Virginia Senate race. Still, the answer is essentially the same. If it is a member of the military decrying a picture of his or her comrades who have been killed (presumably on some new form of sensitivity that apparently did not exist among American soldiers who fought in World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War), even if in fact the soldier is actually a surrogate for the other candidate (which I would think is usually the case, but for which proof usually will not be handy), you need to avoid attacking the messenger:

No, I am not going to stop the ad. This is supposed to be serious business, not a game. It is common today to denigrate running for public office and doing something “for political advantage,” but the fact is that “politics” means running for public office and helping to determine the future of the country. Saying that Americans should not be allowed to see and think about what is really happening due to the dead-end policies my opponent supports is suggesting this is just a game – a game of politics. Sending the country to war is serious business, and deciding who will get to vote on matters of such importance is serious business. Americans need to think about all the death this war has caused and will continue to cause without any end in sight. They need to think about the fact that only some Americans are paying the ultimate price, too.


Not much different. This version could work when it’s the candidate or the candidate’s acknowledged spokesperson who is doing the attacking. The main theme is seven (7) ordinary words long: “This is serious business, not a game.”

Ann Coulter sent fake anthrax to the NY Times

I don't know anything about this publication, but if there is any truth to the allegation, Coulter should be in jail.
FAN MAIL: If you falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and everyone tramples each other to death, you get sent to jail. So what should be done with Ann Coulter, who has argued that The New York Times should have been blown up by Timothy McVeigh and that Times executive editor Bill Keller should be executed by firing squad?

This was the question one Times source asked on Friday after an employee at the paper of record received an envelope with an X scrawled through it and a suspicious powder inside. "This thing makes all of Ann Coulter's comments a little less funny," said the source. "I wonder if she considers herself at all responsible when lunatics read her columns and she says that we should be killed."

So Memo Pad went and asked her, sending an e-mail to her AOL account. And guess what? She not only responded, but claimed to be the sender of the mysterious powder.

"So glad to hear that The New York Times got my letter and that your friend at the Times thinks I'm funny," she wrote back. "Good luck in journalism and please send me your home address so we can stay in touch, too.

"P.S. If we get hit again, don't forget to ask the NYT if they consider themselves responsible since they have repeatedly exposed classified government programs designed to prevent another terrorist attack."

Light blogging

Have houseguests, so blogging on my part will be light for about a week. Have fun in the sun!

Bush personally blocked Justice Department investigation

Gonzales admitted today that Bush had personally blocked the Justice Department investigation into his warrantless eavesdropping program. This reminds me of Nixon firing the special counsel, Elliot Richardson. Only, this time Bush will get away with it because of the patsies in Congress who are his yes men.

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that President Bush personally blocked Justice Department lawyers from pursuing an internal probe of the warrantless eavesdropping program that monitors Americans' international calls and e-mails when terrorism is suspected.

The department's Office of Professional Responsibility announced earlier this year it could not pursue an investigation into the role of Justice lawyers in crafting the program, under which the National Security Agency intercepts some telephone calls and e-mail without court approval.

At the time, the office said it could not obtain security clearance to examine the classified program.

Under sharp questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, Gonzales said that Bush would not grant the access needed to allow the probe to move forward.

This guy will stop at nothing. That's why I fear he may just choose to cancel elections and remain in power. The only thing that may stop him is the fact that he is rated so low in the polls today may convince him the public wouldn't stand for it. But, have you ever seen Bush look at a fact before?

Monday, July 17, 2006

73% of Americans weak on terrorism

I don't know much about the polling organization that did this poll, but if it's correct, 73% of Americans believe terrorist detainees should have due-process rights.

When will the press and the politicians get it? Upholding humanitarian values is not being weak on terrorism.

The WPO Survey was conducted in the United States by Knowledge Networks, which interviewed 1,059 Americans June 27 to July 2. A similar poll was conducted in Great Britain, Germany, Poland and India.

Americans, whether Republican or Democrat, show high levels of support for giving detainees due-process protections whether they are captured outside or arrested inside U.S. borders. They also believe that the legal protections accorded terrorism suspects should be the same for U.S. citizens and non-citizens.

Respondents were asked about terrorism suspects captured outside of the United States who are not ordinary soldiers and were told that such prisoners had a number of rights according to international treaties, but that “some people say when someone is suspected of planning or committing terrorism, and is not a regular soldier, the person should not have certain rights.” Nonetheless in every case, support for legal protections was robust: 73 percent said such suspects should have the right to request and receive a hearing; 66 percent said their home government and families should be informed of their capture and location; 73 percent said their treatment should be monitored by the Red Cross or another international organization; 75 percent said they should not be tortured and 57 percent said they should not be threatened with torture.

Sunday, July 16, 2006

More idiocy at the NY Times

Atrios takes Anne Kornblut of the NY Times to task today for claiming that Hillary Clinton has been criticizing Democrats when, in fact, she's been criticizing Republicans.

Her article in today's Times begins:

ROGERS, Ark., July 15 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, returning to her red-state ties, chastised Democrats Saturday for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects.
That paragraph sets the stage for the entire article. In fact, however, all of the criticism that Clinton is quoted as having for Democrats is actually aimed at Republicans.

You get the feeling that all the reporters simply copy Republican talking points, and all the editors sleep all day long.

As Brad DeLong always says, "Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?"

Computer chaos

I haven't done much blogging for the past 24 hours or so because of a computer meltdown here. Yesterday morning, I came down to my study to find my printer sitting in a pool of ink. After throwing it out and cleaning up the mess -- what a mess, I went out to buy a new printer, brought it home and installed it. After some difficulty with firewall conflicts, I finally got the thing running -- I thought.

Then, I pulled out my DOS-based software which I use to do my personal accounting and proceeded to enter data for an hour or so. Then, I went to print it out. Nothing! The new printer is on my network and, hence, is not connected (and cannot be connected) to printer port LPT1:, which is the only printer port my DOS software can write to. So it appears there is no way to print directly from my DOS-based software to my new printer. HP technical help confirmed that.

I came up with a patch-around fix by re-writing the software to print to a file instead of a printer, and I then use Windows-based software to read the file and print it. Aaaarrrrrgh!

The miracles of modern technology!

By the way, if anyone knows any way to re-direct output designated for LPT1: to another port, let me know. I vaguely remember doing something like that in the early days of the PC (1980), when we had a printer that only attached to the serial port, but I don't have any recollection of how to do it. I think it was some command that you had to place in the autoexec.bat file.

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Congressional surrender

The Washington Post editorial board gets it right for a change. Specter's bill signs away all Congressional and Judicial Review of domestic spying. It annoints the President as King.

SENATE JUDICIARY Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has cast his agreement with the White House on legislation concerning the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance as a compromise -- one in which President Bush accepts judicial review of the program. It isn't a compromise, except quite dramatically on the senator's part. Mr. Specter's bill began as a flawed but well-intentioned effort to get the program in front of the courts, but it has been turned into a green light for domestic spying. It must not pass.
Read the whole thing.

Democrats wimping out again

The DCCC had an ad up showing flag-draped coffins to emphasize how the country was moving in the wrong direction. Republicans complained loudly that Democrats were inappropriately using the deaths of Americans for political purposes. The Democrats wimped and pulled the ad:

ROCK HILL, S.C. (AP) - Democrats pulled an Internet ad that showed flag-draped coffins Friday after Republicans and at least two Democrats demanded it be taken down on grounds the image was insensitive and not fit for a political commercial.

The ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called for a "new direction" and displayed a staccato of images, including war scenes, pollution and breached levees as well as a photograph of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay doctored to look like a police mug shot.

The campaign committee replaced the ad with a radio commercial that targets Rep. John Hostetler, R-Ind., for opposing an increase in the minimum wage. Democrats have made a minimum wage increase a central theme of this year's election.

Democrats had featured the video ad for nearly two weeks on the DCCC Web site where it had gone largely unnoticed until Republicans began objecting to it this week. On Thursday, more than a dozen Republicans, many with military backgrounds, called on DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., to apologize. Democratic Reps. John Spratt of South Carolina and Chet Edwards of Texas asked Emanuel to pull or alter the ad.
Meanwhile, Republican Mike DeWine unleashed an ad using vivid images of smoke pouring from the Twin Towers to charge his opponent, Sherrod Brown, with being soft on terrorists:

WASHINGTON – Using vivid images of smoke pouring from one of the towers of the World Trade Center, Republican Sen. Mike DeWine unleashed a commercial yesterday that charges Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown with casting votes in Congress that could have weakened America’s response to terrorism.

And, you ask why Republicans continue to beat Democrats at the polls.

The Democrats should be running ads daily with Bush in front of his "Mission Accomplished" sign alternating with shots of American troops being blown to smitherines. A second ad should feature Bush when he said, "It would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship -- just as long as I'm the dictator," interspersed with shots of Cheney claiming that Bush is above the law.

If the Dems had the guts to run ads like that, they would win. But, no. They wimp out at the first criticism by a Republican. It's like the little kids running from the school yard bully. No wonder people think they're weak.

WW-III?

This report makes it sound as though Israel is preparing to attack Syria:

The London-based Arabic language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Saturday that “Washington has information according to which Israel gave Damascus 72 hours to stop Hizbullah’s activity along the Lebanon-Israel border and bring about the release the two kidnapped IDF soldiers or it would launch an offensive with disastrous consequences.”

The report said “a senior Pentagon source warned that should the Arab world and international community fail in the efforts to convince Syria to pressure Hizbullah into releasing the soldiers and halt the current escalation Israel may attack targets in the country.”

Al-Hayat quoted the source as saying that “the US cannot rule out the possibility of an Israeli strike in Syria,” this despite the fact that the Bush administration has asked Israel to “refrain from any military activity that may result in civilian casualties.”

Is Iran next? And, if it is, will the US be far behind?

Looks to me as though we're not too far from WW-III.

What is Bush smoking?

According to CNN, Bush told Putin that Russia should adopt an Iraqi style democracy:

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (CNN) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin has rejected a suggestion from U.S. President George W. Bush that his country should emulate democracy in Iraq.

During a joint news conference Saturday in St. Petersburg, Bush said he raised concerns about democracy in Russia during a frank discussion with the Russian leader.

"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same," Bush said.

To that, Putin replied, "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly."


Let's just hope he doesn't want to bring Iraqi style democracy to America.

Meanwhile, al Sadr is urging his militia to attack Americans because they support Israel.

Bush America closing in on Nazi Germany

Walldon wrote today, “Unfortunately, I'm afraid this period of life in our country will go down in history with that of Nazi Germany in its level of disregard for human rights. And, we don't even have the excuse of believing in a "master race" ... or do we? I said early in the year that we do have an aspiring one: the Bush coterie following the path of Nazi Germany. It is worth a reminder.

Third Reich Redux

In winter 2001, some friends scoffed at my observation that the Bush Administration possessed the uncomfortable trappings of Hitler’s Third Reich (TR). The events since have induced several to concur with my observation. Consider the following Third Reich axioms to power and the parallels to the Bush Administration (BA):

Exaggerate an existing threatTo validate the claim of global terrorism as an imminent threat to the U.S.,

The BA manufactured evidence, i.e., WMD, Al Qaeda link to Hussein and Nigerian Uranium to Iraq, all proven false by credible sources, i.e. UN, 911 Commission, and, the claim that Terrorists were under every other rock reminiscent of the TR propaganda that communists and French agents were nefariously crawling about Germany, borrowing heavily from a previous mentor, Otto von Bismarck.Create a Madison Ave slogan to symbolize the threat.To build a brand image for the threat, the BA borrowed (see Now below) again from the TR (see Then below)

Then -Lebensraum -the future belongs to you
Now -We are at war –they want to kill us -Axis of Evil

Underpin the slogan with a divisiveness message.

Again, borrowing heavily from mentor von Bismarck, BA orchestrated by Karl von Rove, BA implemented a political campaign to turn factions of U.S. society against each other in order to put a collage of extremist groups into the GOP camp. TR on the ground enforcement was used as an implementation aid, i.e. voter harassment (2000 in FL and 2004 in OH). The result was that values (gays) with cult trappings fanned by extreme factions of the religious right trumped issues of survival (health care).

FACTIONS ACTIONS

Then -Jews, gypsies -Glassnacht
Now -gays, anti-abortionists -GOP FL 2000 election goon squad

4. Undermine voting public commitment to underlying values of democracy.

Several key values were targeted.

a. Separation of church & state.The first blow was BA proposal of a Constitutional Amendment v. gay marriage served the dual purpose of 1. challenging separation and 2. reinforcing the divisiveness strategy. To aid implementation, $2 Bill tax money diverted to religious organizations.

b. Separation of powers.The second blow was a campaign by the GOP right wing in Congress to override the Judiciary, exemplified by the meddling by Congress in the Scalvo case and the discredited Tom DeLay threatening to take over the judiciary. and outlaw abortion That has proceeded to appraoching 800 violations of the Constitution via NSA bypassing the courts by pleading "state secrets"-- the new 5th (ChiTom, 7/14/06).

Friday, July 14, 2006

Conservativism Unmasked

The importance of today's piece by Kissweb deserves more than a mere comment section note. In “Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon.," the phrase “If yesterday's conservative was a liberal mugged by reality, today's is a free-marketer fattened by pork” is so on the mark in unmasking the phony conservatives. Behind the mask we find the hypocrit who overtly distains government and ungenuously claims to be a free market entrepreneur, but sub rosa sucks tax dollars from the government trough to further his/her entrepreneural ends that would otherwise fail or underperform without “corporate welfare.” Look no further than the free market expousing corporations ripping off federal dollars allocated to rebuild the Iraqi industry and infrastructure which is has not been performed, i.e.oil production and infrastructure value still below the pre-US invasion level.

The Other 1% solution: 99% of economic gains to the upper 1%

The great Krugman again strips the clothes off the Emperor with the following in NYT today. If this doesn't get the message across to the 99% of American's left out of U.S economic growth to vote for Democrats, we suggest political choice on grounds of insanity.

"Here’s what happened in 2004. The U.S. economy grew 4.2 percent, a very good number. Yet last August the Census Bureau reported that real median family income — the purchasing power of the typical family — actually fell. Meanwhile, poverty increased, as did the number of Americans without health insurance. So where did the growth go?

The answer comes from the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, whose long-term estimates of income equality have become the gold standard for research on this topic, and who have recently updated their estimates to include 2004. They show that even if you exclude capital gains from a rising stock market, in 2004 the real income of the richest 1 percent of Americans surged by almost 12.5 percent.

Meanwhile, the average real income of the bottom 99 percent of the population rose only 1.5 percent. In other words, a relative handful of people received most of the benefits of growth.

There are a couple of additional revelations in the 2004 data. One is that growth didn’t just bypass the poor and the lower middle class, it bypassed the upper middle class too. Even people at the 95th percentile of the income distribution — that is, people richer than 19 out of 20 Americans — gained only modestly. The big increases went only to people who were already in the economic stratosphere.

The other revelation is that being highly educated was no guarantee of sharing in the benefits of economic growth. There’s a persistent myth, perpetuated by economists who should know better — like Edward Lazear, the chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers — that rising inequality in the United States is mainly a matter of a rising gap between those with a lot of education and those without. But census data show that the real earnings of the typical college graduate actually fell in 2004."

“Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon. . .

"If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.” That's the rest of this great quotation.

The shorter but less memorable version: a candidate who hates government will be incompetent (or, per your audience, "do a poor/crappy/shitty job") running it. We’ve made this comment before (see http://scatablog.blogspot.com/2006/03/inherent-incompetence-of-right.html and http://scatablog.blogspot.com/2006/03/republicans-incompetent-by-nature-or.html ), as have others, especially in the context of approaching voters with the right message: it’s not just about Bush and his arrogance and incompetence, or Cheney and his arrogance and fascistic tendencies, or Rumsfeld and his arrogance and incompetence – actually, his incompetence arising from his arrogance.

Democrats get taken down the wrong path when they are tricked into making it a contest of character, intelligence, charisma or any other personal characteristic. Thus, an extremely capable candidate, Al Gore, had to contend with earth tones, lies about his supposed lies, and a press that preferred the beer-drinking buddy and was more than willing simply to make up stuff – and that refused to see any policy issue, like preserving Social Security or progressive taxation as anything other than boring. Another capable candidate who annihilated his opponent in every respect in the debates, John Kerry, had to contend with wind-surfing as an elite pastime, and questions about his military service. Understanding the danger in a contest of personalities is more critical than ever when an apparently likeable, charming and courageous hero, McCain, but one who in fact is very, very conservative, is likely to be the GOP candidate in 2008.

If you haven’t seen it already, an article in the Washington Monthly, “Why Conservatives Can't Govern,” by a Boston College Poli Sci professor, Alan Wolfe, is a superb, terrifically-written review of conservatism as an ideology that inherently is incapable of governing competently. That’s the message we must keep pounding on every hour until November 2008: John, you’re a great guy, a true American hero, but your political philosophy is simple wrong for America. George Bush – actually, take your pick of George Bush’s for this purpose – proved that Republicans simply cannot govern competently.

Here are excerpts, but go and read the whole thing.

Search hard enough and you might find a pundit who believes what George W. Bush believes, which is that history will redeem his administration. But from just about everyone else, on the right as vehemently as on the left, the verdict has been rolling in: This administration, if not the worst in American history, will soon find itself in the final four. . . .
Eager to salvage conservatism from the wreckage of conservative rule, right-wing pundits are furiously blaming right-wing politicians for failing to adhere to right-wing convictions. . . . Through all these laments there pulsates a sense of desperation: A conservative president and an even more conservative Congress must be repudiated to enable genuine conservatism to survive. Sure, the Bush administration has failed, all these voices proclaim. But that is because Bush and his Republican allies in Congress borrowed big government and foreign-policy idealism from the left.

The collapse of the Bush presidency, in other words, is not just due to Bush's incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent beyond belief). . . . This conservative presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but because of it.

Contemporary conservatism is first and foremost about shrinking the size and reach of the federal government. This mission, let us be clear, is an ideological one. It does not emerge out of an attempt to solve real-world problems. . . . One thought, and one thought only, guided Bush and his Republican allies since they assumed power in the wake of Bush vs. Gore: taxes must be cut, and the more they are cut--especially in ways benefiting the rich--the better.
But like all politicians, conservatives, once in office, find themselves under constant pressure from constituents to use government to improve their lives. This puts conservatives in the awkward position of managing government agencies whose missions--indeed, whose very existence--they believe to be illegitimate. Contemporary conservatism is a walking contradiction. Unable to shrink government but unwilling to improve it, conservatives attempt to split the difference, expanding government for political gain, but always in ways that validate their disregard for the very thing they are expanding. The end result is not just bigger government, but more incompetent government. . . .


Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.
Political parties expend the time and grueling energy to control government for different reasons. Liberals, while enjoying the perquisites of office, also want to be in a position to use government to solve problems. But conservatives have different motives for wanting power. One is to prevent liberals from doing so. . . Conservatism will always attract its share of young idealists. And young idealists will always be disillusioned by the sheer amount of corruption that people like Gingrich and DeLay generate. If yesterday's conservative was a liberal mugged by reality, today's is a free-marketer fattened by pork. . . .It is a characteristic trope of political journalism to blame both parties equally for any malfeasance. But the partisan zealotry of the current U. S. House of Representatives has shocked such fair-minded, long-term observers of Congress as Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann; their book, The Broken Branch, is a lament for a time when Congressmen put the needs of their institution before those of their party . . . . [I]t is worth asking where their approach came from. And the answer is the same place where bad governance comes from: Partisanship this vindictive is part and parcel of what it means to be a conservative today.


Behind the surge in right-wing criticism of the Bush presidency is the hope that après le deluge, Americans will give conservatism another chance. But even if Americans were inclined to do so, what kind of conservatism could be offered to them? If it somehow defied all laws of political gravity and carried through on its promise to shrink government, conservatism would add considerably to the level of misery at home and abroad--and lose whatever majorities it may have had in the process. . . . The conservative dilemma, omnipresent in the past, looms over conservatism's future. It can reveal its true face and consign itself to oblivion or it can govern without conviction and produce unending incompetence.
There are ways out of the conservative dilemma. American conservatives could, for example, take away from the Bush years the lesson that they must change their ideology if they are ever again to make the Republican Party a serious party of governance. This is not beyond the realm of possibility. . . . There exists . . . a modernizing version of conservatism in contemporary Europe, where conservatives recognize the inevitability of government but try to tailor its objectives and improve its competence. . . .
Admittedly, not much evidence exists in America today that conservatives are prepared to move in such a direction. If anything, they seem to have reinforced and strengthened their determination to govern as incompetently and unfairly as they can. The fact that they will leave behind a public sector in roughly the same condition that strip miners leave hillsides would cause nothing but pain to yesterday's patricians, for whom ideals such as responsibility and soundness were watchwords. But today's conservatives have no problem passing on the costs of their present madness to future generations. Governing well would require them to use the bully-pulpit of office to educate and uplift their base. But since contemporary conservatives get their political energy from angry voices of rage and revenge, they will always blame others for the failures built into their ideology. That is why conservatism so rarely makes for a good governance party. As far as conservatives are concerned, it is always someone else's government, one reason they can be so indifferent to their own mismanagement.

Pleading "state secrets"-- the new 5th

God bless Chicago Tribune reporters:

U.S. secrets privilege invoked
Dismissal sought of phone-records suit against AT&T

By Tribune staff reporter
Published July 14, 2006

Justice Department lawyers invoked a rarely used "state secrets" privilege Thursday in seeking to have a lawsuit against phone giant AT&T tossed out of federal court.
The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Chicago author Studs Terkel among others, claims AT&T has improperly turned over millions of phone records to the government without a court order.
Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Carl Nichols argued that the suit should be thrown out because the Bush administration has decided to invoke the state secrets privilege, effectively shutting down any confirmation or denial of key allegations in the suit.
If AT&T or the government were to confirm the collection of phone records through a domestic surveillance program, it would give aid to terrorists and damage national security, Nichols said.

. . .

Like terrorists don't know by now. Or even like they didn't know before the story first came out. No, there is only a small set of reasons to invoke "state secrets", none of them very good nor actually relevant to national security. One is to cover The Regime agaianst official recognition of its illegal activities. Or to protect The Regime's Good Buddies in industry. Or, well, just because they can.

Invoking state secrets now is sort of like pleading the fifth amendment (Mr. Scalia hasn't gotten that ruled unconstitutional yet, has he?) in some cases: the government is incriminated by refusing to risk incriminating itself. But AT&T is protected, as is NSA snooping, legal or not. Tell me again who it is that "hates our freedoms"?

Intellectual property or just sheer stupidity?

We learn from Time Magazine, via DailyKos, that scientists at the WHO are keeping genetic information on bird flu strains secret because it is considered the property of the countries, and presumably the scientists, that collected it.

More importantly, the article touches on an increasingly controversial question in the world of influenza research: should the genetic sequences of H5N1 viruses, most of which are currently circulated only within a small group of scientists connected to the WHO and CDC, be posted publicly for all to see?

It should be a no-brainer—the more scientists allowed to look at the H5N1 sequences, the thinking goes, the more likely someone will generate a fresh insight. But as is often the case with bird flu, politics are at least as important as public health. The WHO says that the sequences are the property of the member states that supply them—in this case Indonesia—and if those countries want the data kept confidential, there's nothing the UN body can do.


In the grand tradition of capitalism and free markets, I say let the best multinational company win the prize. Whoever gets there first should be able to patent the vaccine, restrict it's supply on the market, price it through the roof, and walk away with the profits. To hell with the millions of people who might have been saved if they had received the vaccine. Profits make the world go around. Keep the info secret and profit from it guys. Good going.

More US war crimes

An article in Salon points to US kidnapping of the families of Iraqi detainees as a way we have tried to gain intelligence.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has until 5 p.m. Friday to hand over a raft of documents to Congress that might shed new light on detainee abuse in Iraq. The documents could substantiate little-known allegations that U.S. forces have tried to break terror suspects by kidnapping and mistreating their family members.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid this period of life in our country will go down in history with that of Nazi Germany in its level of disregard for human rights. And, we don't even have the excuse of believing in a "master race" ... or do we?

Democracy kidnapped by free and fair elections

Tom Friedman is really a piece of work. For the past four years he has done nothing but call for democratic elections throughout the Middle East as the only way to peace and prosperity (for Israel) in the region. Then, we get elections which even he agrees were comparatively "free and fair" that resulted in a Hamas government in Palestine and two Hizbollah representatives in the Lebanese government. Today, in his regular column in the NY Times (behind subscription wall), he complains that the evil Islamists have "kidnapped" democracy by winning the elections.

As a result, the post-9/11 democracy experiment in the Arab-Muslim world is being hijacked. Yes, basically free and fair elections were held in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Iraq. Yes, millions turned out to vote because the people of the Arab-Muslim world really do want to shape their own futures.

But the roots of democracy are so shallow in these places and the moderate majorities so weak and intimidated that we are getting the worst of all worlds. We are getting Islamist parties who are elected to power...

That's the spirit of democracy, Tom. If your favorites win, democracy is great. If your favorites lose, democracy has been kidnapped.

Happy Bastille Day!

Iran? Syria?

The word seems to be seeping out everywhere through the woodwork that Iran and Syria are masterminding the Hizbollah and Hamas attacks on Israel, but there seems to be little factual basis for the claim. Here's Matt Yglesias' take:

It all looks to me like a story we've seen before. If you've been paying attention, a lot of people have been agitating for the United States to commence more active efforts to overthrow the Syrian and Iranian governments for some time now. Then some stuff happened and -- miraculously and without real evidence -- that stuff's occurence is suddenly the reason we need to implement the very same policy that was being pushed for previously. I'd like to see some proof.

In this case, I'm guessing the Israeli government (or its supporters) is pushing the story. The Bushies, of course, will happily climb on board.

Electing the president king

Kevin Drum has some further insights into the Specter plan to "rein in" the President's domestic spying program that I blogged about last night:

Arlen Specter has completed "tortuous" negotiations with the White House on a new bill that will require the president to submit the NSA's domestic spying program to the FISA court for review. That might be a welcome smidgen of progress except for one thing: it turns out that "require" isn't actually the right word.

An administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the bill's language gives the president the option of submitting the program to the intelligence court, rather than making the review a requirement.

The official said that Bush will submit to the court review as long the bill is not changed, adding that the legislation preserves the right of future presidents to skip the court review.

Let me get this straight. Specter's bill gives Bush the "option" of submitting the NSA program to the FISA court for review, and Specter has a handshake agreement with the White House that Bush will, in fact, submit it. What's more, it's a one-time deal that affects no other program and no future president.

What's the point of this? The president already has the "option" of submitting the NSA program to the FISA court for review. He can do it anytime he wants. I'm a little mystified about exactly what this legislation is supposed to accomplish.

UPDATE: CNN reports some additional details:

In addition, the legislation would give the administration greater flexibility in making emergency applications to the FISA court, expanding its window for doing so from three to seven days. Currently, applications must be made by the attorney general or a deputy; the bill would allow a designee to make an application, Specter said.

The measure would allow for roving wiretaps instead of taps of a phone at a fixed point, he said, and spells out that monitoring a telephone call between two overseas locations that is transmitted through a U.S. terminal would not be subject to FISA approval.

So the bill loosens requirements for wiretaps, thus giving the president more authority than he already has, and in return requires nothing new in the way of judicial review. Those must have been some truly tortuous negotiations, all right.

It didn't take a genius to figure out this would be a bad bill -- and we still haven't actually seen the language of the bill. They'll probably vote on it before the language has been made public.

David Sanger has a "news analysis" piece in today's NY Times that addresses this. Sanger seems to think that no matter what happens with the legislation, this has been a big step in the direction of Constitutional balance since Congress (and the Courts) are playing a big role in deciding what happens.

But in both cases [domestic spying and Hamdan] something dramatically different will have happened: Congress will have played a major role in setting the rules. White House officials on Thursday played down their concessions. “We’ve said all along that we are willing to work with the legislative branch after the Supreme Court ruling,” Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, said in a telephone conversation from Germany, where he is traveling with Mr. Bush. “And I think you are seeing our sincerity in doing exactly that.”

I wish I could be that optimistic, but frankly I'm not. If Congress elects the president king, he's just as much king as if he appointed himself king. There's not much balance there -- and, will the king love the Congress that appointed him king? Not likely. He'll simply laugh about how easy it was to dupe the dummies.

Our Regime, Middle-Eastern Regimes, Disasters and Death

Only time to point friends to two great columns, summarizing a lot of reporting and commenting on the current debacle between Israel and Gaza, Israel and Lebanon. Oh, and on the absolute absence of any real push or position by The Regime-- cut-and-run?: Done!

First column: Attention, at Mahablog (Thursday morning).
Second column: Where's George, also at Mahablog (Thursday evening).

She also points to a Newsweek article, "Passing the Buck", by Michael Hirsch.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Specter at it again

Specter is trying to sell a new bill as a way to bring spying on Americans by Bush and the White House back under control of the courts.

WASHINGTON - The White House has conditionally agreed to a court review of its controversial eavesdropping program, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter said Thursday.

Specter said President Bush has agreed to sign legislation that would authorize the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's most high-profile monitoring operations…

Specter said the legislation, which has not yet been made public, was the result of "tortuous" negotiations with the White House since June.

I'm not prepared to get too excited just yet. If Bush is willing to go along with this bill, it probably includes all the give aways that Specter has repeatedly obfuscated; i) amnesty for prior violations of the law, ii) restrictions on what the courts can rule, etc., etc. It's going to be a bad bill if Bush accepts it. That, of course, is why it's being kept secret.

Blind, knee-jerk support

In it's typical idiotic fashion (regardless of which party is in power) the US has vetoed a UN resolution condemning Israel for a disproportionate use of force.

UNITED NATIONS - The United States cast the first U.N. Security Council veto in nearly two years Thursday, blocking an Arab-backed resolution that would have demanded Israel halt its military offensive in the Gaza Strip.

The draft, sponsored by Qatar, accused Israel of a "disproportionate use of force" that endangered Palestinian civilians, and it demanded Israel withdraw its troops from Gaza.
The blind, knee-jerk support for Israel in this country no matter what it does is one of the greatest causes of continuing violence in the middle east and of terrorism directed at the US. That's not to say that we shouldn't support Israel when she's right, we should. But, far too often, Israel takes unjustifiable steps in the full knowledge that America will stand by her no matter what.

Unfortunately, this is one of those problems that won't go away even if the Democrats ever regain power. They're just as bad as the Thuglicans on this one.

Just another day

Oil hit a new high, near $77 a barrel. Stocks took a dive with the DOW down over 167 points. Israelis blew up the airport in Beirut. Insurgents murdered more Iraqis. The Afghan minister in charge of defense said he didn't have anywhere near enough troops to control the Talaban. More children starved in Darfur.

Just another day in the wonderful world of Bush.

More than one ways to skin a rat

If the criminal justice system won't work, perhaps the civil system will. Valerie Plame has filed suit against straight shooter Cheney and his team of crooks:

WASHINGTON - The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.

Got enemies? Bomb your friends.

It seems as though Israel has learned its lessons about war from King George the Wth. When attacked by one group, go bomb somebody else -- like the tourists in the Beirut airport. Sounds alot like Iraq to me.

And, speaking of Iraq, it's certainly becoming clear how prescient Bush and his able assistants were in starting this war to bring peace, prosperity, and democracy to the middle-east. You can see peace breaking out everywhere.

Back from the north woods

I returned from a relaxing visit to friends in northern Wisconsin yesterday, but I have not yet caught up on the news. Meanwhile, here's a piece on Canada's immigration problem from Simoneyzd in Ontario:

The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration.

The unflinching arrogance of the Bush Administration is prompting the exodus among liberal citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray, and agree with Bill O'Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists, and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. "I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. "He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left. Didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields. "Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk"

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves. "A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a drop of drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though."

When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about the Bush administration establishing re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR.

Liberals have turned to sometimes-ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers. "If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age," an official said.


Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies. "I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors does one country need?"

In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada, Vice President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the administration would take steps to reassure liberals, a source close to Cheney said. "We're going to have some Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we might put some endangered species on postage stamps. The president is determined to reach out."

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Iraqis also call it Imploding

GOVERNMENT REPORT CRITICIZES BUSH'S NATIONAL IRAQ STRATEGY:

Saleh al-Mutlak, a leading Sunni legislator, said sectarian rivalries are tearing apart the seven-week-old Maliki government. "This is a hopeless government. It has not done one good thing since it started, and things are getting worse, not better," he said. "The parliament cannot reach practical solutions because their minds are concerned only with their sect and not the interests of the nation. It looks like this government is going to collapse very soon." The country’s largest Sunni Arab bloc only recently ended its 10-day boycott of parliament. Sunni legislators had suspended their participation on July 2 after a colleague, Tayseer Najah al-Mashhadani, was kidnapped. The Iraqi police force is marked by rampant "brutality and corruption," undermining public confidence in the government. The inability of the Iraqi forces to "stand up" poses major problems to the Bush strategy. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released yesterday asserts that the Bush administration's National Strategy for Victory In Iraq "is inadequate and was poorly planned, backing up some politicians' charges that a prolonged stay in the country is only fueling sectarian violence." The GAO report recommends that the National Security Council outline a comprehensive strategy for Iraq with "milestones" and "metrics" so Congress can assess the progress and the problems on the ground. "We still don't know how long we're going to be there," GAO chief David Walker said. While in Baghdad, Rumsfeld refused to entertain a possible drawdown. "We haven't gotten to that point," he said.

Hah, I'm George Bush..Vote for me. I'll bankrupt ya

ECONOMY -- BUSH CELEBRATES THE FOURTH LARGEST DEFICIT IN HISTORY:

Yesterday, the Office of Management Budget projected a $296 billion federal deficit for fiscal year 2006. President Bush held a press conference arguing that this announcement is a vindication of his economic policies: "The projected budget deficit over -- of over $420 billion is now assumed to be $296 billion. See, what happens is when you grow the economy by cutting taxes, more tax revenues come into the Treasury, and that's what we're seeing here." But in reality, the projected 2006 deficit would be the fourth largest in American history. In fact, the top four largest deficits have all been under Bush's tenure; the highest was $413 billion in 2004. When Bush came into office, he inherited a surplus of $284 billion. At that time, the administration predicted a $516 billion surplus for 2006. The fact that Bush now considers a $296 billion deficit an occasion to celebrate shows how far we've fallen.

Following Iraq, U.S. Economy next to Implode?

From NYT, July 8, 2006
Jobs Data Indicates Economy Is Slowing
By EDUARDO PORTER

Employers added only 121,000 jobs in June, the government reported yesterday, indicating that the economy was slowing under the combined weight of high energy prices and rising interest rates.

But the government also reported that hourly wages rose at their fastest pace in five years, while the unemployment rate remained at 4.6 percent. This suggests that the labor market remains tight and may yet spur higher inflation.

The disparate data underscored the uncertain economic situation facing the Federal Reserve as it ponders whether to continue raising interest rates over the summer to cool the economy further or whether it is time to pause. Over the last two years, the Fed has steadily increased the benchmark federal funds rate from 1 percent to 5.25 percent.

"Today's numbers only tighten the vise the Fed finds itself in," said Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist of LaSalle Bank in Chicago. "The challenge is not to be overly restrictive as growth slows and still attentive to inflation risk."

Financial markets' reaction to the news was mixed, underscoring the difficulty in parsing an uncertain situation that seems poised between a cooling and an overheating economy.

Most Wall Street economists had been expecting considerably higher payroll growth. So, the price of Treasury bonds rose and the dollar fell against major currencies as the weaker job growth supported the view held by some investors that a slowing economy would allow the Fed to pause in its monetary tightening. (But, a falling dollar will press the Fed to raise interest rates to protect US global borrowing status).

Noting that the data suggested both that demand would slow and that the forces pushing inflation could intensify, Mr. Tannenbaum said, "There's a fine line between stagflation and a soft landing." With consumer prices rising at an uncomfortable rate of around 4 percent, the Fed and its chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, have been expecting the economy to slow from the torrid pace of 5.6 percent growth recorded in the first quarter. A slowdown would help damp the inflationary pressures that have been strengthened by rising energy prices.

The weak payroll growth recorded in June by employers surveyed by the Labor Department appears consistent with this view, pointing to a cooling economy, weighed down by a slower housing market and moderating consumer borrowing and spending.

Added to lackluster job growth in April and May, the weak hiring pattern in June brought the pace of job creation to about 108,000 a month in the second quarter, down from 176,000 in the first three months of the year.
Employment in the construction sector remained essentially flat — declining by 7,000 jobs as a contraction in residential building was offset by growth in construction of factories and other nonresidential structures. Employment fell at temporary-help agencies while the retail sector shed jobs for the third consecutive month.

The three months of very modest employment growth, and momentum that doesn't look like it is building would suggest, some economists argued, that the Fed's string of 17 interest rate increases since 2004 is starting to do its job. The Fed could thus leave interest rates at 5.25 percent at its next meeting in August, rather than raise them by another quarter of a percentage point. Still, some economists noted that other indicators pointed to tightness in the labor market. In particular, hourly wages grew by 3.9 percent compared with June 2005, the fastest pace in five years. Moreover, the index of weekly hours worked, the broadest measure of labor use in the economy, increased by 0.4 percent in June. However, it may be that low unemployment has left fewer people to hire, so instead employers are paying their existing workers more and are working their work force for longer hours."
To be sure, since the economy emerged from recession in 2001, wages have been merely trying to catch up with inflation, not spurring it. Consumer prices rose by 4.1 percent in the 12 months to May — dwarfing wage gains. Though the inflation figure for June is not yet known, it could well overshadow the 3.9 percent annual gain in hourly wages last month. Moreover, labor productivity has been growing rapidly, keeping a lid on the rise in employers' spending on labor. Wages should have already accelerated more than they already have in light of the strong economy and the low unemployment rate and the way headline inflation has constrained real wages," said Mickey D. Levy, chief economist at Banc of America Securities.

Still, several analysts observed that the overall employment data does not support an optimistic view of inflation prospects, and do not let the Fed off the hook. With unemployment at its lowest since July 2001, wage pressures could build up more.
"I expect the Fed will continue to go," said Richard Yamarone, chief economist at Argus Research. "The only part that supports a pause by the Fed is the headline payroll number. But on balance, the strength is still seen in the numbers."
Other indicators also suggest that the labor market remains tighter than the payroll numbers might suggest. Some 387,000 jobs were created in June, according to the survey of households, released by the Labor Department in tandem with the employer survey used to calculate payroll growth.
While the employer survey is considered a more reliable indicator of the strength of the labor market, the household survey is thought by some economists to better capture jobs created by small and newly formed companies.
And other unofficial indicators pointed to relatively strong hiring. This week, Automatic Data Processing said that its payroll data suggested that employment increased by 368,000 in June. The index of the online job search firm Monster.com — a leading indicator of job growth, based on help-wanted postings — recorded a solid increase in June, driven by demand for white-collar workers. Some skilled occupations, like accounting, auditing, information technology, health care and transportation, appeared to be facing worker shortages.

"Our employer customers continue to report concerns over turnover, particularly in occupations with acute skill shortages," said Steve Pogorzelski, president of Monster Worldwide. He added that the index showed growth in 18 of the 23 occupational categories used by the government and declined in only 2: personal care and services, and farming forestry and fishing.

Imploding Iraq gives Dems more leverage for key Contract 2 tactic

This from Progessive American:

The Boston Globe reported Monday that conservatives, "on the defense over the unpopular war in Iraq, are hoping this week to shift the national security debate to the North Korea missile crisis and to countering terrorism."(Standard Administration tactic: when you blunder, divert attention to some upcoming but unconfirmed blunder, then iterate, iterate). While much of the recent media and administration attention has indeed been focused on the North Korean missile tests, violence around Iraq has spiked and "politicians across the country's political spectrum said months of sectarian killings have turned into civil war." Events in Iraq cannot be ignored for long. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made an unannounced visit to Iraq on Wednesday morning, acknowledging "there certainly has been an upsurge in sectarian violence." Shortly after he arrived in the capital city, a suicide bomber walked into a Baghdad restaurant and blew himself up, killing seven people and wounding twenty. A recent attempted security crackdown on Baghdad has instead inflamed tensions. "Sectarian violence has escalated as rival Shiite and Sunni militias have turned entire neighborhoods into no-go zones." The Washington Times reported, "The formation of Iraq's new government and the elimination of terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi have failed to produce the hoped-for decrease in violence in Baghdad, as officials try to deal with increasingly deadly Shiite militias." President Jalal Talabani warned that the nation stood "in front of a dangerous precipice." PLAN TO INCREASE BAGHDAD SECURITY HAS INSTEAD FUELED TENSIONS: Among the main topics Rumsfeld said he wanted to discuss on his trip was security in Baghdad, where the three-day death toll has risen well above 100. Yesterday, "about 200 yards outside civilian entrances to the heavily guarded Green Zone government compound in Baghdad, two suicide bombers blew themselves up, followed shortly by an explosion of another bomb, killing 15 civilians and an Iraqi police officer and wounding four other people." Abdul Rahman, a local Baghdad merchant, said, "The scene was terrifying and tragic. ... After I saw this terrible incident, I closed my shop and I went home." There have been many horrifying scenes in recent days around the Iraqi capital, including an account by CNN's Nic Robertson that "a 15-year-old girl had been beheaded and a dog's head sewn on her body in its place; and of a young child who had had his hands drilled and bolted together before being killed." Coinciding with Bush's surprise visit to Iraq in mid-June, Maliki announced Operation Forward Together, a plan to specifically improve security conditions in Baghdad. Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell acknowledged recently that the crackdown has been ineffective. Ambassador Khalilzad said it had not "performed to the level that was expected." And Kurdish legislator Mahmoud Othman simply stated, "The security plan did not succeed." Baghdad has instead bore witness to the increasing brazenness of the attackers. "This is a new step. A red line has been crossed," said Alaa Makky, a Sunni member of parliament. "People have been killed in the streets; now they are killed inside their homes."

RAPE ACCUSATIONS MAKE A BAD PROBLEM WORSE: "In the past month, new cases in Iraq have led to charges against 12 American servicemen who may face the death penalty in connection with the killing of Iraqi civilians." Military officials are warning that "the total of American servicemen charged with capital crimes in the new cases could grow substantially." In the most recent case, Pfc. Steven Green was charged with raping and killing a 14-year old Iraqi girl and three members of her family and then burning down the house, according to FBI and military investigators. Four other soldiers from the Army's 101st Airborne Division have been accused of participating in the rape and murders. A fifth soldier was charged with dereliction of duty for failing to report the crimes. The incident, which is different from the recent atrocities against unarmed Iraqis in Haditha and "deserves a category all to itself," has brought outrage from all corners of Iraq. Iraqi Justice Minister Hashim Abdul-Rahman al-Shebli said, "The ugliness of this crime demands a swift intervention of the U.N. Security Council to stop these violations of human rights and to condemn them so that they will not happen again." Maliki responded by suggesting "the immunity given to members of coalition forces encouraged them to commit such crimes in cold blood. That makes it necessary to review it." That demand "could widen a rift between U.S. and Iraqi authorities." The top U.S. commander in Iraq and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq apologized for the incident and explained that damage was done "to the Iraqi people as a whole." Bush pledged that "absolute justice" would be delivered against the soldiers who committed the crimes. The allegations have unfortunately given insurgents an excuse for their murderous violence. An insurgent group linked to al Qaeda recently released a video showing the mutilation of two U.S. soldiers, "asserting that the soldiers were killed in retaliation" for the rape and murders.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Richard III Redix

Courtesy of a DC amigo:

Look at this crazy quote of Cheney's in Ron Suskind's amazing and terrifying new book , that appears to be guiding this administration's response to events:

"It's not about our analysis, or finding a preponderance of evidence. It's about our response."

Another way of saying "madness" in this context is "ideological fanaticism and imperviousness to reality," but John Judis opts for the former in his piece "The Madness of George W. Bush" in describing this administration's modus operandi, and writes:

Isn't it conceivable, for instance, that Vladimir Putin secretly desires the downfall of the United States and that under extremely strained circumstances —perhaps a previously undetected brain tumor— he might resort to weapons of mass destruction to effect it? It's not likely, but it is conceivable. And if it is conceivable, shouldn't we do something about it before it's too late? Ah, but Bush looked into his soul.

The point is, the most powerful nation in the history of humankind is being led by a guy just doesn't recognize reality. He (Cheney, Bush's Bible,) is right. Reality is wrong. The experts are wrong. The Constitution is wrong. It's like the Soviet politboro all over again.

Want another? Look at what the guy told those tough questioners at People.

People: "Do you think Gore is right on global warming?"
Bush: "I think we have a problem on global warming. I think there is a debate about whether it's caused by mankind or whether it's caused naturally, but it's a worthy debate. It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline."
In the first place, "he's in the process of solving the debate?"

More evidence he's "mad," I'd say. Second, "a debate about whether it's caused by mankind?" Not that Bush cares a whit about evidence, but here's Philip M. Boffey writing for Times Select, with references:

The leading scientific organizations with relevant expertise have overwhelmingly adopted the view that human-induced global warming is a serious problem. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has mobilized hundreds of scientists to analyze the evidence, has gotten progressively more concerned; it now holds humans responsible for most of the warming observed over the past 50 years. The science academies of the United States and 10 other industrial nations issued a joint statement last year citing "strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring" and calling for "prompt action" to combat it. The American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Geophysical Union have all chimed in with similar statements. Only the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, with deep ties to the fossil fuel industry, has demurred.

Bush won't care, though. Nothing's gong to happen on his watch and anyway, God speaks through him. The "madness," dishonesty and incompetence of the president has revealed many of his supporters to be mere courtiers, rather than honest critics and intellectuals. Little Roy, to be fair, has done better than most. He writes:

In the last few years, I have gone from lionizing this president's courage and fortitude to being dismayed at his incompetence and now to being resigned to mistrusting every word he speaks. I have never hated him. But now I can see, at least, that he is a liar on some of the gravest issues before the country. He doesn't trust us with the truth.

Here. What is missing from Andy's little history is the reason he's earned the nickname "Little Roy"; specifically, the role he's played in demonizing as treasonous the people who figured out the truth about Bush years before he did. We were "decadent coastal elites" who could not be trusted to support the war on Al Quada, as I recall. Turns out we were right and the country has paid a horrific price for listening to the likes of Little Roy

Dems strategy to retake the Senate: Ralistic or Wishful?

This from Sen. Schumer (NY). Yesterday, leading conservative pundit Robert Novak surveyed the electoral landscape and concluded:
"Rick Santorum remains far behind in Pennsylvania. Conrad Burns is in trouble in Montana. Jim Talent trails in Missouri. Mike DeWine is threatened by a noxious Republican atmosphere in Ohio. Lincoln Chafee is endangered in Democratic Rhode Island. John Kyl faces a surprisingly tough race in Arizona. Despite excellent candidates in Minnesota and Washington State, no Republican challenger for a Democratic-held Senate seat is in the lead. Thus, a six-seat takeover, capturing the Senate, is possible."
And Novak didn't even mention Tennessee, where Harold Ford is making a strong play for Bill Frist's open seat, and Virginia, where Jim Webb is nipping at the heels of George Allen.

Is Sen .Schmer overly optimistic given all these races (save PA) are very close and worst case (save PA) could be lost?
More focus from the Dems on thier message including the Contract 2 previously cited is needed to make the probability of retaking the Senate convincing. We have communicated this view to the Senator.

The Costco Way

Businessweek.com (1/2/06) shoots another hole in the already porous conservative argument for keeping labor down. Costco Wholesale Corp. handily beat Wall Street expectations posting a 25% profit gain for 2004, 1st quarter. That Costco pays its worker much better than Wall-Mart Stores Inc puzzles Wall Street The market’s rewarding of Costco is a lesson for Wal-Martising advocates who applauded Wal-Mart’s practice of paying poverty-level wages and covering less than half its 1.2 mil. employees with health insurance. Costco’s high wage approach beats Wal-Mart’s counterpart-Sam’s Club at its own game. Good compensation motivates and retains good workers at Costco, 1/5 of who are unionized. Costco gets lower turnover (6% vs. 21% at Sam’s) and higher productivity. Costco’s 2004 profit per employee was $13647 v $11, 039 at Sam’s Club. Cheap labor policy turns out to be costly. The low-wage approach cuts into consumer spending and economic growth. Sam’s $11.52 hourly wage pales in comparison to Costco’s $15.97. Costco’s workers sell more: $7895/Sq.Ft. vs. $516 at Sam’s.

Another GOP soft spot for Dems to punch

It cannot be overmephasized that Dems chances for taking the House of Representative in the '06 elections depend in no small part on showing that the GOP is totally united on a failed policy in Iraq. Dems need to say “if you believe the Iraq war is a success, vote Republican; if you believe it’s a failure, vote Democrat.” As Fareed Zakaria (Newsweek, (7/10/06) demonstrated, Bush foreign policy on Iran only shifted from unilateral to half hearted multilateral when failure in Iraq became a most likely scenario. Dems need to point out that only under Bush (not under Lincoln, FDR, or Clinton) has criticizing the war been deemed unpatriotic so its OK, even critical, to hold Bush accountable for failures.. Dems need to change their “it’s about us” mantra to “it’s about the Republicans.” in order to neutralize the Rove “cut and run” tactic.

Monday, July 10, 2006

Keep it real if we want to be the reality-based community

The Daily Howler has some important things to say about liberals (if you prefer, progressives) not going off half-cocked with unsupportable accusations -- in this case about reporters and pundits who say something not to our liking while trying to stay in the mainstream:

Increasingly, our politics is going to feature battles between the haves and have-nots. For progressives, the other side will increasingly be better-connected and more powerful. In these future debates, the most powerful tool we’ll have on our side will be an insistence on traditional standards of fact and logic. We will never be able to out-bullroar the tribunes of the rich and the powerful. Our view? When we head down that tempting road, we commit ourselves to future defeat. . . .

. . . . On the liberal web, we often brag that we represent the “reality-based” community. In the future, progressives will continue to find themselves at war with well-funded dissemblers—tribunes of powerful upper-class interests. Our view? Aggressive embrace of “reality”—of the traditions of fact and logic—will constitute our best hope for success. It’s always tempting to overstate—and being human, we all end up doing it. But for progressives, it’s a road to defeat. There they go again, we should say, when tribunes of the powerful do it.


I have one major disagreement with this, however. The emphasis on the future is completely misplaced in my view. We already are facing right-wing extremism that is extraordinarily well-funded, and have been for at least a decade. We see it in the way we liberals and progressives are ready to regurgitate right-wing talking points about candidates who get voted in (or who might get voted in) to represent the only hope for any countervailing force against right wing dominance, which happens to be the Democratic Party. Don't think we aren't susceptible to being swayed by what the mainstream media decide is news, too, whether it's Gore's "problems" with the truth, or Gore "going over the top," or Kerry's windsurfing (as if it's some elite pastime, which strikes me as totally weird), or Hillary's marriage or her "ambition." Friends, when you find yourself bemoaning the lack of "excitement" in any of such candidates, each of whom is light years more competent than George Bush (who somehow became the candidate you could drink beer with), you are under the influence of the powerful right-wing message machine. It may be filtered through the supposedly liberal media, but that only makes it even more insidious. When you see it, attack it!

Saturday, July 08, 2006

Contract with America 2 a la Democrats

Based on David Shribman’s "Contract with America of their Own," Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 6/25/06

The Dems are taking a page out of the Gingrich book on Contract with America 1 by proposing Contract with America 2. The main tenants are:

Enact 9/11 Commission recommendations
Raise minimum wage scooped by GOP
Reform healthcare with prescription drug focus
Cut school loan interest rates in half
tax breaks for alternative energy and roll backs for oil companies
pay as you go Congress
No new deficit spending

But, there is a difference. Contract 1 focused on both changing the structure, (i.e. cutting the number of committees and requiring a 3/5 majority to raise taxes), and the way the government does business, (i.e. setting goals like crime reduction and job creation and meeting them). Contract 2 is focused on changing the way government does business, bringing to an end (as Rep. Pelosi put it) “Congress as an auction house where legislation goes to the highest bidder.” To make this resonate with the operative majority (defined as majority plus the margin of stolen or trashed by GOP votes) the Dems must show their resolve to enact the main tenants of Contract 2 by closing ranks and getting in the face of the GOP. The Dems must pound on the frustrating experience of U.S. troops in Iraq that has (for those few paying attention) undermined the moral authority of the Bush Administration initially gained by tackling the war on terror. To take back the House of Representatives, the Dems must connect the rising economic uncertainty with the fate of the pension funds of the effective majority. The Dems must use the Abramoff and other scandals as well as the Bush Chaney hollow claim that the war on terror requires their usurpation of the Constitution as a mirror of this government's subjugation of the interests of the people for their own greed and lust for power. Contract 2 is about the way the U.S. is being governed, not the structure of government.

After Mexico’s Election

June 7, 2006 This from American Progressive:

The close and contentious results of Mexico’s recent presidential election should help cast a spotlight on the importance of the United States’ relationship with its southern neighbor. The Americas Project at the Center for American Progress convened a panel of experts to discuss its impact and implications for U.S.-Mexico relations.
Jorge Castañeda, former Foreign Minister of Mexico, gave the keynote address that sparked a lively exchange. Panelists included Arturo Valenzuela, Director of the Center for Latin American Studies in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and James R. Jones, Co-Chairman of ManattJones Global Strategies and former Ambassador to Mexico. Joining them were Joy Olson, Executive Director of the Washington Office on Latin America, and Armando Guzmán, Washington bureau chief for TV Azteca. Dan Restrepo, head of The Americas Project at the Center, moderated the exchange.
Castañeda began by addressing the results of the election. “I don’t think there is any doubt,” he said, “nor should there be any doubt, that [Felipe] Calderón won,” an assessment echoed by the other panelists. He pointed to the already twice recounted votes and the strength of Mexico’s electoral system as reasons for considering the election results final. Valenzuela supported that assessment, calling Mexico’s electoral system “one of the best in the world.”
Castañeda used the controversy surrounding the election, particularly the protests of second-place candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador, to make a case for a fundamental change in Mexico’s political system. The other panelists supported him in his analysis. “The problem,” he said, “is not the size of the mandate. The problem is the nature of the institutions.” He pointed out the inherent tensions in a non-parliamentary system that has three parties, as well as the difficulties of a weak president working with a divisive legislature that has little institutional incentive to cooperate with the executive branch. Castañeda also observed the absence of a run-off system, which would help immensely in building national consensus in the face of such a split election. Most importantly, he emphasized that the outcomes of the official electoral system must be respected because building the rule of law is critical for Mexico’s future.
Overhauling Mexico’s democratic institutions is important, Castañeda said, because without a better governance structure the crucial questions facing the country cannot begin to be answered effectively. Like the others on the panel, he said that poverty is the most pressing issue facing Mexico, but in the current system potential solutions are lost in a swirl of political infighting. “It’s not enough to do it with just good intentions,” Castañeda said. “The country cannot be governed under these circumstances.”
For the short term Castañeda said that, “Calderón’s victory will mean a great deal of continuity with U.S. relations.” For the long term, as the other panelists emphasized, the lessons for the U.S. to take away from the election point to a broader shift in U.S.-Mexican relations.
“The U.S. has vital interests with Mexico,” said Valenzuela, as evidenced by its status as the second largest trade partner and oil supplier. This election was the most recent step in what he called Mexico’s “complex and difficult transition” from a rural economy to an industrial power. Yet despite these forces at work, Valenzuela said, “We don’t think about Mexico strategically.” Rather than a comprehensive framework with Mexican stability and growth as a foundation, the U.S. tends to engage Mexico haphazardly over particular domestic and economic issues.
To that end, the panelists called for U.S. strategic interest in an improved, functional Mexico. Olson pointed out that the election controversy and López Obrador’s strong showing, along with elections in other Latin American countries, illustrate “incredibly divided societies” and the need for “hearing the voices of the people.” Poverty, it was agreed, should be a strategic priority for the U.S. because it is at the root of so many other issues, including immigration, trade, and political stability.
U.S. leadership in regional growth was emphasized by Jones. “Canada and the U.S. have a big obligation,” he said, “to have a serious development fund” that would be tied to needed political reforms. Observing that too many people in Mexico have not seen tangible benefits from free markets and democracy, many of whom voted for López Obrador, he said that “a system of hope has to be built in” if those economic and political institutions are going to succeed.
Political leadership and increased awareness are necessary to remaking U.S.-Mexico relations. Right now, as Guzman observed, “You don’t hear about Mexico at all,” except in regards to immigration issues. As the election reminded us, however, a broader and more comprehensive approach is needed for the U.S. to develop a strong and productive partnership with its neighbor.

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Out of town

I will be out of town for about a week, so blogging by me will be light to non-existent, depending upon the availability of internet service where I am going. I suspect there is none.

Have a good time while I'm away.

Cliffhanger

As of this moment, the Mexican presidential election is still undecided with 98% of the vote counted. The latest returns from about an hour and a half ago show leftist Lopez Obrador behind Conservative Calderon by a razor slim margin. It looks as though the remaining ballots come from districts favoring Calderon, so he will probably end up with the vote.

The thing is so close, however, that one is reminded of the importance of vote theft - a la Ohio and Florida.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Bushwhacked

There's no surprise here, but recent findings show that the divide between the incomes of African Americans and others has widened since Bush has been in office:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - African-Americans' share of U.S. national income has narrowed in recent years as a weak job market helped unwind earlier strides, according to a report published on Wednesday.

A black family's median income was 62 percent of the earnings of their white counterparts, down from 63.5 percent in 2000, the Economic Policy Institute said.

In this case, I don't think this is due to a deliberate effort on Bush's part to screw blacks per se (though I won't let many other Rethuglicans off the hook that easily). What I think it is due to is a deliberate effort on Bush's part to screw the poor, among whom are a disproportionate number of blacks -- the obvious result of others' efforts to screw them in the past. Bush's entire administration has been Robin Hood in reverse: steal from the poor to give to the rich.

Does the administration really want peace?

A sobering piece by Robert Dreyfuss in TomPaine.com. Do you think Americans really understand this, and how many think it’s a good idea?

Although the Jordanian government prefers to maintain the polite fiction that Iraq’s resistance has no base in Jordan, it does. And Jordan’s rebuff of Iraq means that even this erstwhile American ally is prepared to challenge the U.S.-Iraqi regime of quislings in Baghdad.
Jordan’s stance makes it even clearer that no end to the fighting can occur until and unless an international conference is convened to involve Iraq’s neighbors (including Iran), the Arab League, and the United Nations (including Russia and China) in helping to stabilize Iraq politically. Part One of ending the war is a deal with the resistance, and Part Two is the internationalization of the peace. So far, there is not the slightest hope that the Bush administration is prepared to accept either. “We will stay. We will fight. And we will prevail,” Bush told troops at Fort Bragg on Sunday.
And if the leaked audio from an encounter between Secretary of State Condi Rice and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is any indication, the United States is stonewalling any international role in Iraq, too. When Lavrov suggested an international effort to help stabilize Iraq, Rice explicitly rejected the idea of other countries getting involved. . . . Rice . . . (like her boss) rejects anything that undermines U.S. primacy in Iraq. That, as President Bush indicates, means continued war. In a rare moment of candor, an American military man declared last week what continued war means. “It’s my belief that we are going to be in Iraq for a long time,” said Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey. “It’s open-ended.”


The most important element here? “[No] end to the fighting can occur until and unless an international conference is convened to involve Iraq’s neighbors (including Iran), the Arab League, and the United Nations (including Russia and China) . . . .” People may not like the idea of “cutting and running,” but do they think that means preventing international support for peace when it is the only possible way to achieve victory?

A House Divided

Billmon has a rather frightening July 4th. post entitled "A House Divided" in which he likens the divisions in America today to those in Spain just before the Spanish civil war. He goes on to describe the bloodbath that Spain endured during its civil war, and then returns home:

The problem is not so much that there are two Americas, but that each of them -- particularly "red" America -- believes they constitute the only true America. Thus all the talk on both sides about "taking back the country." The only way to reach a property settlement in a divorce like that would be to wade though an ocean of blood.
I'm not sure I agree with all his reasoning, but it's a thoughtful piece that's worth the read. You'll find it here.

Ken Lay dies

Updated below

I'm a bit disappointed that he didn't get to enjoy life in prison, but what can you do?

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Enron Corp. founder Ken Lay, who was convicted in May of fraud and conspiracy for his part in the Houston-based company's collapse into bankruptcy in 2001, has died of a heart attack at his vacation home in Colorado, a Houston television station reported on Wednesday.
Update:

The early stories on this attributed it to a massive heart attack, but the family is not confirming this, which leaves a lingering question as to the real cause. Not that it matters much, but suicide strikes me as a real possibility under the circumstances.

A leak in the dike?

Once a leak in the dike begins, it grows and grows, doesn't it?

WASHINGTON — A Congressional committee subpoenaed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Friday at the request of U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays.

Shays, R-4, sought the subpoena after the Pentagon refused to answer questions regarding allegations that an Army whistleblower faced retaliation for discussing abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison.

Shays, chairman of the House Government Reform subcommittee on national security, is investigating allegations made by Army Spec. Samuel Provance that his attempts to provide information to investigators about prison abuses were rebuffed and that he then was retaliated against for providing unclassified information to the media.

"The bottom line is it's critical that our oversight inquiries be taken seriously by executive branch departments and that we get timely access to the information we need to do our job," Shays said.

Ramadi: US Plan is to get rid of it

According to the NY Times today:

So it goes in Ramadi, the epicenter of the Iraqi insurgency and the focus of a grinding struggle between the American forces and the guerrillas.

In three years here the Marine Corps and the Army have tried nearly everything to bring this provincial capital of 400,000 under control. Nothing has worked.

Now American commanders are trying something new.

Instead of continuing to fight for the downtown, or rebuild it, they are going to get rid of it, or at least a very large part of it.

I wonder how the locals feel about that.

The Star Spangled Banner

John Avarosis came across this and published it entirely in his Americablog last night. I thought it was worthy of a repeat here:

The American National Anthem - By Dr. Isaac Asimov

Near the end of his life the great science fiction author Isaac Asimov wrote a short story about the four stanzas of our national anthem. However brief, this well-circulated piece is an eye opener from the dearly departed doctor...

I have a weakness -- I am crazy. Absolutely nuts, about our national anthem. The words are difficult and the tune is almost impossible, but frequently when I'm taking a shower I sing it with as much power and emotion as I can. It shakes me up every time.

I was once asked to speak at a luncheon. Taking my life in my hands, I announced I was going to sing our national anthem -- all four stanzas. This was greeted with loud groans. One man closed the door to the kitchen, where the noise of dishes and cutlery was loud and distracting. "Thanks, Herb," I said.

"That's all right," he said. "It was at the request of the kitchen staff."

I explained the background of the anthem and then sang all four stanzas. Let me tell you, those people had never heard it before -- or had never really listened. I got a standing ovation. But it was not me; it was the anthem.

More recently, while conducting a seminar, I told my students the story of the anthem and sang all four stanzas. Again there was a wild ovation and prolonged applause. And again, it was the anthem and not me.

So now let me tell you how it came to be written.

In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain, primarily over freedom of the seas. We were in the right. For two years, we held off the British, even though we were still a rather weak country. Great Britain was in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. In fact, just as the United States declared war, Napoleon marched off to invade Russia. If he won, as everyone expected, he would control Europe, and Great Britain would be isolated. It was no time for her to be involved in an American war.

At first, our seamen proved better than the British. After we won a battle on Lake Erie in 1813, the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, sent the message, "We have met the enemy and they are ours." However, the weight of the British navy beat down our ships eventually. New England, hard-hit by a tightening blockade, threatened secession.

Meanwhile, Napoleon was beaten in Russia and in 1814 was forced to abdicate. Great Britain now turned its attention to the United State s, launching a three-pronged attack.

The northern prong was to come down Lake Champlain toward New York and seize parts of New England.

The southern prong was to go up the Mississippi, take New Orleans and paralyze the west.

The central prong was to head for the Mid-Atlantic States and then attack Baltimore, the greatest port south of New York. If Baltimore was taken, the nation, which still hugged the Atlantic coast, could be split in two. The fate of the United State s, then, rested to a large extent on the success or failure of the central prong.

The British reached the American coast, and on August 24, 1814, took Washington, D.C. Then they moved up the Chesapeake Bay toward Baltimore. On September 12, they arrived and found 1,000 men in Fort McHenry, whose guns controlled the harbor. If the British wished to take Baltimore, they would have to take the fort.

On one of the British ships was an aged physician, William Beanes, who had been arrested in Maryland and brought along as a prisoner. Francis Scott Key, a lawyer and friend of the physician, had come to the ship to negotiate his release.

The British captain was willing, but the two Americans would have to wait. It was now the night of September 13, and the bombardment of Fort McHenry was about to start.

As twilight deepened, Key and Beanes saw the America n flag flying over Fort McHenry. Through the night, they heard bombs bursting and saw the red glare of rockets. They knew the fort was resisting and the American flag was still flying. But toward morning the bombardment ceased, and a dread silence fell. Either Fort McHenry had surrendered and the British flag flew above it, or the bombardment had failed and the American flag still flew.

As dawn began to brighten the eastern sky, Key and Beanes stared out at the fort, trying to see which flag flew over it. He and the physician must have asked each other over and over, "Can you see the flag?"

After it was all finished, Key wrote a four-stanza poem telling the events of the night. Called "The Defense of Fort McHenry," it was published in newspapers and swept the nation. Someone noted that the words fit an old English tune called, "To Anacreon in Heaven" -- a difficult melody with an uncomfortably large vocal range. For obvious reasons, Key's work became known as "The Star Spangled Banner," and in 1931 Congress declared it the official anthem of the United State s.

Now that you know the story, here are the words. Presumably, the old doctor is speaking. This is what he asks Key:

Oh! say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
Oh! say, does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

"Ramparts," in case you don't know, are the protective walls or other elevations that surround a fort. The first stanza asks a question. The second gives an answer:

On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep.
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream
'Tis the Star-Spangled Banner. Oh! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

"The towering steep" is again, the ramparts. The bombardment has failed, and the British can do nothing more but sail away, their mission a failure. In the third stanza, I feel Key allows himself to gloat over the American triumph. In the aftermath of the bombardment, Key probably was in no mood to act otherwise.

During World War II, when the British were our staunchest allies, this third stanza was not sung. However, I know it, so here it is:

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The fourth stanza, a pious hope for the future, should be sung more slowly than the other three and with even deeper feeling:

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with victory and peace, may the Heaven - rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause is just,
And this be our motto --"In God is our trust."
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I hope you will look at the national anthem with new eyes. Listen to it, the next time you have a chance, with new ears. And don't let them ever take it away.

ex libris Bush/Rove

From the UK's Independent:

"There is now a real lack of confidence in the Government's commitment to the rule of law ... if the executive has a lack of confidence in the judiciary then I think that lack of confidence is reciprocated."

He added: "Whenever there's an opportunity to stand up to the lynch mob, the opportunity is missed. More often than not, you find ministers behind the lynch mob egging it on."

Last week, Tony Blair repeated his threat to bring in new laws to curb the power of the judiciary after a High Court judge declared the Government's anti-terror legislation to be incompatible with the Human Rights Act. That prompted the former Home Office minister John Denham to warn of a " constitutional crisis".

The source, who only agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, said: " To describe the situation as a constitutional crisis and blame the judges for being responsible is a construct. I think it's a displacement action to deflect attention from ministers' own failings on to someone else. It helps to direct attention away from perfectly legitimate criticism of defects in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Office of the National Censor

I hadn't seen this from last week until Glenn Greenwald pointed to it:

Summary: On June 29, several Fox News media figures suggested that the U.S. government should "put up the Office of Censorship" to screen news reports to determine whether they "hurt the country" or are of "news value," in the wake of a New York Times article disclosing a Treasury Department program designed to monitor international financial transactions.

Their task undoubtedly will be to censor all news that might be harmful to the political interests of the Rethuglican Party.

After all, the Rethuglican Party is the only defense that stands between America and its evil enemies.*
--------------------
* i.e., the Democrats (excluding Jolting Joe, of course), libruls, and other communist pussies who want to destroy America.

Capturing bin Laden

bin Laden, wanted dead or alive (not).

WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

July 4th.

American patriots of yore loudly proclaimed, "Give me liberty or give me death," and they meant it. Would be patriots today whimper, "My civil liberties aren't worth much to me if I'm dead. Please, Mr. King, please protect me from those horrible bogeymen."

Remember the patriots of yore and have a happy 4th. of July!

Monday, July 03, 2006

Lieberman runs as independent: No party loyalty here.

It's all over the blogosphere, so there's no news here, but if you haven't heard it yet, Joe Lieberman essentially admitted he's no Democrat. He started gathering petitions today to run as an independent in case he doesn't win the Democratic primary.

Bush authorized leak in Plame case

Murray Waas has another bomb shell:

President Bush told the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case that he directed Vice President Dick Cheney to personally lead an effort to counter allegations made by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV that his administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq, according to people familiar with the president's statement.

Bush told prosecutors he directed Cheney to disclose classified information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson.

Bush also told federal prosecutors during his June 24, 2004, interview in the Oval Office that he had directed Cheney, as part of that broader effort, to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson, the sources said.

Now, refresh my memory. Didn't Bush say something about firing whoever it was that authorized the leak? I think it's time to do a Nixon.

July 4th. approaching

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

James Madison
Federalist Papers No. 47

Space shuttle doomed?

News on the shuttle:

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - Inspectors found a 5-inch-long crack in the foam insulation covering the shuttle Discovery's external fuel tank, and NASA managers were deciding Monday whether to call off the scheduled Fourth of July launch.

The crack was spotted during an overnight inspection. NASA had scrubbed launch plans Saturday and Sunday because of poor weather and had removed fuel from the tank.

The inspectors found the crack, which was 8 inches deep, in the foam on a bracket near the top of the external fuel tank.

"We don't know if it's a problem or not," NASA spokesman George Diller said Monday.

Sure sounds like a problem to me!

Those evil international rules

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on the Geneva Conventions:

"I don't think we're going to pass something that's going to have our military servicemen subject to some kind of international rules," said McConnell.

Geneva Conventions

Kevin Drum:

THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS....Jonah Goldberg today:

If Democrats want terrorists to fall under the Geneva Convention let them say so. My guess is most won't, if they're smart.

Well, I'm a Democrat, and I'll say it: anyone we capture on a battlefield should be subject to the minimum standards of decency outlined in the Geneva Conventions. That includes terrorists. It's our way of telling the world that we aren't barbarians; that we believe in minimal standards of human decency even if our enemies don't. It's also a necessary — though not sufficient — requirement for winning this war.

I hope other Democrats are smart enough, decent enough, and dedicated enough to beating terrorism to say so too.


I'll second that one!

On science education

Today's NY Times has an editorial on science education, decrying America's loss of standing in the world of science:

The United States could easily fall from its privileged perch in the global economy unless it does something about the horrendous state of science education at both the public school and university levels. That means finding ways to enliven a dry and dispiriting style of science instruction that leads as many as half of the country's aspiring scientists to quit the field before they leave college.
Now, I certainly am not going to come out against enlivening the science classroom, but is that the real problem here? I think not.

First, take a look at the mix of students who actually do make it through the mill and become highly trained Ph.D.s graduating from universities in the United States. Though I don't know the exact numbers, all you have to do is walk up and down the halls of science buildings in academe or look at the names of the authors of refereed academic journals in the sciences, or walk into the emergency room of your local hospital to know that a very large percentage of them are drawn from other countries, notably including many from the sub-continent and from Asia.

I am inclined to think Americans have a difficult time in science classes because learning science requires hard work for most of us. Many foreign students are used to working hard. Their schools are more rigorous than ours, and their culture encourages hard work. By and large, America kids are not used to hard work.

Also, scientific knowledge is prized in many foreign cultures but tends to be scorned in America today -- particularly by the right wing.

In America, one of our principal idols is the self-made man who became CEO of a huge corporation without a high school education -- the Bernie Ebbers type. That's not the kind of outlook that encourages children to buckle down and master a difficult science curriculum.

Yes, enlivening the classroom experience will help, but there's no way to avoid the hard work needed to master these fields.

Republicans, the party of "government in the sunshine" and fiscal discipline

As I was reading this article in today's NY Times entitled "A Push for Openness in Government: on Right and Left", I almost fell off my chair. The article is about an effort to put a searchable database of government spending on the internet that would, for example, allow a surfer to look up how much the government was paying Halliburton. The idea is to keep government contracting honest.

My jaw dropped open as I began to see that the author of the piece was trying to convey the idea that this whole idea of openness in government was a Republican idea, and he appeared almost surprised that a few Democrats were joining in the effort as well.

But for its references to the internet, you would have thought the whole thing came from a different time and place (or an alternate universe) in which the free-spending Democrats controlled an ever more secretive government and the Republicans were the good guys trying to shine the light of day on the self-serving Democratic politicians who were lining their own pockets and and those of their friends with government money.

WASHINGTON, July 2 — Exasperated by his party's failure to cut government spending, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, is seeking cyberhelp.

Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, supports a public database of federal spending. Mr. Coburn wants to create a public database, searchable over the Internet, that would list most government contracts and grants — exposing hundreds of billions in annual spending to instant desktop view.

Type in "Halliburton," the military contractor, or "Sierra Club," the environmental group, for example, and a search engine would show all the federal money they receive. A search for the terms "Alaska" and "bridges" would expose a certain $315 million span to Gravina Island (population 50) that critics call the "Bridge to Nowhere."

While advocating for openness, Mr. Coburn is also placing a philosophical bet that the more the public learns about federal spending, the less it will want.

"Sunshine's the best thing we've got to control waste, fraud and abuse," he said. "It's also the best thing we've got to control stupidity. It'll be a force for the government we need."

But Mr. Coburn's plan, hailed by conservatives, is also sponsored by a Democrat

Hellllooooo. Just who is it that controls the White House? Just who is it that controls the Congress? Just who is it that controls the Senate? Just which party is it that is running the most secretive US government of all time? Just which party is it that has overseen the largest growth in the deficit ever?

Furthermore, as we read a bit further, we learn that the bill creating this data base that passed the House would not include contracts to big business in the data base -- only grants to charities and foundations would be included. So, the largest single arena of waste and mismanagement would be excluded from this oversight.

The House unanimously passed a version of the proposal in late June, though in a form that had drawn outside criticism. The House bill creates a database that would omit contracts, which typically go to businesses, but would include about $300 billion in grants, which usually go to nonprofit groups.
Does the article mention which party controls the House of Representatives? No.

And, what's the excuse for excluding contracts to business?

"Contracts are awarded in a much more competitive environment," said Representative Thomas M. Davis III, a Virginia Republican who was a sponsor of the bill. That makes them more self-policing, he said. Mr. Davis, whose district includes many government contractors, said grants "are more susceptible to abuse."
Yeah, sure. I buy that. Self-policing. Just like Enron was self-policing.

As we move on in the article, we find that the real intended purpose of the legislation is to shrink government spending by making people aware of the magnitude of it -- starve the beast until it's small enough to drown in a bathtub. I guess that's why Jason deParle (the reporter writing the article) seems to assume that Democrats would naturally be against "openness in government."

On the right, support for the plan reflects an old concern about spending and a new faith in the power of blogs. Supporters picture a citizen army of e-watchdogs, greatly increasing the influence of antispending groups in Washington.

"Now that you've got the Internet, you'll have tens of thousands of watchdogs," said Bridgett G. Wagner of the Heritage Foundation, who is leading a coalition of conservative groups that support the Coburn bill. "That's what people see in it."

...A number of blogs popular among conservatives have praised Mr. Coburn's bill. Instapundit, among the most popular, has pushed it. Seeker Blog called it "the best news I've heard out of D.C. this year." Captain's Quarters demanded "Give us the Pork Database," and Porkopolis hailed the measure with the slogan, "Show Me the Money."


Come off it, Jason. Openness in government is not the exclusive property of the right wing. Hell, they have created the most tightly closed government in the history of the country. Get back to the real universe we actually live in. The one where the Democrats are supporters of openness and freedom of information and Rethuglicans shut the door in their faces. Just which party is it that is calling for the NY Times to be tried for treason?

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Sunnis boycott Iraq parliament

Hmmm. Perhaps we should have accepted the Sunnis' offer to cease fire if we agreed to pull out within two years:

Al-Maliki's government, which took office in May, has so far made little progress in healing the rift between Shiites and Sunnis, which widened dramatically after the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra.

On Sunday, the largest Sunni Arab bloc in parliament announced it was suspending participation in the legislature until a Sunni female lawmaker was freed by kidnappers who seized her and seven bodyguards in a Shiite part of Baghdad on Saturday.

Sunni politician Adnan al-Dulaimi called on other lawmakers to join the boycott, saying security officials bore responsibility for the abduction of Tayseer al-Mashhadani.

Pentagon: Attacking Iran would fail

Too bad Cheney-Bush, the military won't follow you into Iran.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Pentagon officers have told the Bush administration that bombing Iranian nuclear facilities would probably fail to destroy that country's nuclear program, the New Yorker magazine reported on Sunday.

The senior commanders also warned that any attack launched if diplomacy fails to end the standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions could have "serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States," the article said, citing unidentified U.S. military officials.

Poor Karl Rove. This probably means we won't be able to attack Iran in October in order to tip the mid-term elections to the Thugs.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil of Republicans

Earlier today, I commented that it seems the Justice Department may only be pursuing Democrats since no high level Rethuglicans have been indicted despite all the allegations and accusations. Now, it seems that we need to make the same comment about the press. John Avarosis asks the key question of the day:

Since the Associated Press was so concerned a month or so ago that Harry Reid was invited to tour a few boxing matches in Nevada, without paying for the privilege, I'm just wondering why AP didn't bother inquiring in today's story whether Dick Cheney paid for his VIP access to the NASCAR race.

We also find out in the article that earlier this year Cheney threw "out the first pitch at the Washington Nationals home opener." Did Cheney pay for the chance to attend that game?

NY Times' Travel Section supports assassination of Cheney and Rumsfeld

If you want to have a good laugh, read this piece by Glenn Greenwald on how conservative columnists claim the NY Times' Travel Section is doing everything possible to enable The Terrorists to assassinate Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld.

I learned today from Michelle Malkin, Powerline's John Hinderaker, Red State, and David Horowitz, among others, that The New York Times not only wants to help Al Qaeda launch terrorist attacks on the United States, but that newspaper also want to do everything possible to enable The Terrorists to assassinate Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. That is the conclusion which these sober leaders of "conservative" punditry drew after reading this article in the Times' Travel section, which features the tiny, charming village of St. Michaels on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, where both Cheney and Rumsfeld have vacation homes.

Birds of a feather

If you want to be really freaked out, watch this short movie clip, showing a rally of the Nazi party in Minnesota that was sent to me by co-blogger Simon in Ontario. It was produced by an Israeli group, so it starts out with some titling in Hebrew that is "Greek to me." However, the film itself is in English (with Hebrew sub-titles).

One of the things I found interesting is that even though the first speaker says that the group stands up for the rights of all peoples to be treated equally in America, he immediately descends into a diatribe against all Jews, and all Jew-lovers like Bush. (Actually, the only thing I can even come close to agreeing with these disgusting trashheaps is their dislike of Bush. If Bush weren't so bad, I might even endorse him in order to distance myself from the Nazis.) Then, other speakers go on to condemn the filthy Mexicans. A KKK spokesperson talks of "White Supremacy." I think I even caught a reference to how our brains are being washed by those who put flouride in our water. And, on and on.

What is noteworthy in my mind is how much these guys sound just like the Rethughlican Congressmen (and the trash to whom they pander) who violently vituperate about the filthy illegal immigrants, the treasonous Times, the horrible hippies who burn flags (all 2 of them last year), the efite French, the coward Kerry, and so on.

As they say, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, ...

Justice serves the political needs of the Thuglicans

Everyday I read in Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo or the related TPM Muckraker new exposées of corruption links to high placed, prominent Republican lawmakers. Today is no different. As a consequence, I keep expecting a deluge of indictments. Yet, as far as I can recall, there has yet to be a single indictment of anyone in Congress or the Senate by the Justice Department (DeLay's indictment, you will recall, is in State Court in Texas). [Correction update: Of course, Duke Cunningham is the hub of much of the activity that I'm talking about, and he has not only been indicted, but is in the hoosegow. That's the only one I recall]. I know it sometimes takes a long time to build an air tight case, but I'm beginning to suspect that Alberto Gonzalez is deliberately delaying the deluge until after the November elections, if not forever.

Meanwhile, of course, I fully expect one or more Democrats to be indicted before November -- Jefferson, for instance, and perhaps Mulholland.

Who pays the bill when Israel bombs Gaza?

Guess who gets to pay to replace the electric plant in Gaza that the Israelis bombed out a couple of days ago... You do:

United States officials said Saturday that U.S. funds would be used to pay for the damages caused by the strike. The power station was insured by a U.S. government agency, according to The Boston Globe.
The bill to the American taxpayer could run $48 million.

[A hat tip to Juan Cole]

The new narrative: the right wing simply does not care about the rule of law

Further to Walldon's post below and my comment, here is the obvious (and totally valid) "meme" for undermining the right wing over the NSA and other spying and anti-terrorism activities. Since its founding, the U.S.A. has always stood for the rule of law. The right wing extremists who control the Republican Party today present us with a straightforward choice: is this country going to continue to stand for the rule of law or not?

The right wing extremists simply don't get that, and they will bring this country down if they are allowed to keep trashing the Constitution with their false "cut-and-run" bravado. Not only can we fight the war on terror by following the rule of law, we must do so. It is the only way to assure we are focusing our resources on the right enemies, and are not being deflected to phony tough-guy tactics with the wrong people -- and letting the real enemies go free.

Why is that so hard to say? Short and simple with a powerful message that fence-sitting Americans need to hear and ponder. How many votes will it lose vs. the number it will gain? And remember, always, these people who could not care less about the rule of law are right wing extremists, right wing extremists, right wing extremists, right wing extremists, right wing extremists, right wing extremists, right wing extremists. . . . Not conservatives, because they are not conservatives in any reasonable formulation of that term emphasizing the importance of careful and organic change from past practice and evolved wisdom. They are true radicals who basically despise every bit of progess that came out of the Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton Presidencies designed to protect ordinary citizens and ordinary workers from abuses of entrenched power. They are right wing extremists, and we cannot say that too many times to everyone possible.

Saturday, July 01, 2006

Frightened by their own shadow

It's not at all surprising that the Republicans are climbing all over themselves in the wake of the Hamdan decision to re-write the laws to allow Bush to do everything he has been doing. Further, they are trying to intimidate the Democrats by, once again, calling them weak on terror. But, really, why are the Dems allowing themselves to be intimidated? Kangaroo trials by tin horned dictators are not that popular, particularly now that the country has soured on Bush and the war. Instead of whimpering in a corner, the Dems should stand up for the rule of law.

Screwed

Barbara O'Brien has an interesting, and depressing, post on why we're screwed over at Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory.

NAS spying started before 9/11?

There is a new allegation in one of the breach of privacy cases claiming that Bush began the NSA spying program BEFORE the 9/11 attacks:

June 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.

The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.


If this allegation is correct, it seems to me to be a really big deal. Whatever thin reed of justification Bush may have claimed for implementing this program after 9/11 completely disappears if it was implemented before 9/11. After all, even Bush's Article II claim to supreme authority as Commander-in-Chief at time of war fails completely if the program was started before 9/11, since nobody claimed we were at war then. If the allegation is true, then Bush is certainly a deliberate, pre-meditated criminal without even having the excuse of holding a mistaken view of his constitutional powers that made him think his actions were legal.

New Jersey Closed

Jon Corzine, the governor of my State, shut down the government today because he can't reach an accord with his fellow Democrats in the legislature over a budget. Corzine wants to raise the sales tax and his fellow Dems see that as political suicide.

If this continues for any length of time, it will be a huge problem for a whole lot of people. The Atlantic City casinos have to shut down because the State inspectors are not available. The DMV is closed, so those needing to renew or obtain drivers' licenses will be locked out. The liquor licensing commission is closed, so many bars and restaurants that need to renew their licenses will close. The state parks are about to close on the 5th of July. Welfare checks will not be available, etc., etc.

I don't have a good solution for this, but it sure doesn't bode well for the future of the Democratic Party in this state. It probably won't help Menendez in his Senate race against Tom Kean, Jr., either.

Meanwhile, Tom Kean, Jr. has adopted the Rove strategies. From what I can tell, he's produced a full length movie on Menendez' life that's full of distortions that he plans to have run in local movie theaters. Frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to go see it, but who knows?

Staying the course

I guess when you're on the right track you should stay the course:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A parked car bomb exploded at a popular outdoor market Saturday in a Shiite slum in Baghdad, killing at least 66 people and wounding dozens, authorities said. It was the bloodiest attack to hit Iraq since the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The blast, which occurred around 10 a.m. when the Sadr City market was packed with shoppers, destroyed the stalls where food and clothes are peddled and sent up a plume of gray smoke. Flames shot out the windows of several scorched cars.

Who's fault is it?

The reason we're losing the war in Iraq is the media (and, of course, the Democrats).

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US combat commander suggested the United States could lose the war in Iraq if public support for it at home is sapped by negative media coverage.

"My personal opinion is that the only way we will lose this war is if we pull out prematurely," said Colonel Jeffrey Snow, a brigade commander in Baghdad.

"I would hope we get the time and support we need to finish this mission," he said in a video conference from Iraq.

Those are the same guys that caused us to lose the Vietnam War, aren't they? Jeese.