Super Bowl Diversion: "QB Rating" is a crock of you-know-what (updated below)

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Super Bowl Diversion: "QB Rating" is a crock of you-know-what

On a lighter note, if you pay any attention to the Super Bowl this weekend, you may hear a lot about the “passer rating” or “quarterback rating.” For example, you may hear that the Bears’ Rex Grossman has the “worst” regular season rating (73.9) of a Super Bowl quarterback in almost 20 years, or that Peyton Manning’s 2006-7 Playoffs rating is actually quite a lot lower than Grossman’s.

If you want to be in the know, you should know that it’s all a crock – that is, the passer rating is all a crock. It was concocted in a quick moment, more or less on an envelope in an airport or somewhere, by someone who was headed generally in the right direction but had not fully thought it through. Former NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle, upon being shown it as an idea for rating quarterbacks on something more than yardage gained, said, “What the hey, let’s do it.”

And ever since, it has been the “official Passing Efficiency Rating of the National Football League.”But it’s a crock nonetheless – not a total crock, mind you, but a big crock. Consider this: in the First Quarter of an important playoff game – let’s say a Super Bowl – both teams get two complete possessions of the ball. In his first possession, Quarterback Gunslinger marches his team 80 yards to a touchdown, completing 4 of 7 passes attempted for 50 yards, including a 23-yarder to the one-yard-line and converting two third-and-long situations into first downs. From there, All-Pro Running Back Crusher banged the ball into the end zone for the first TD.

Quarterback Dinker then leads his team onto the field, starting his possession after the kickoff on the 38 yard line – good field position, as they say, because it's a lot easier to drive 62 yards than 80 or 90. Dinker completes the two passes he attempts, but only for a total of 8 yards. Because the one running play gained nothing, it’s fourth down and two, so Dinker’s team has to punt. “Three-and-out,” as they say, pretty punk.

After a fine punt that goes out of bounds at the 7 yard line, Gunslinger starts his team marching again, this time for 93 yards in 13 plays. Besides the 6 running plays for 37 yards in the drive, Gunslinger goes 4 for 8, this time for 56 yards total, including a 13-yard completion to the two yard line and two more third down conversions of 7 yards or more. Once again, Crusher bangs it in, this time on First Down.

With the score now 14-0 Gunslingers, Dinker starts again, this time on the 28 after the kickoff runback. His first pass is a screen that is completed but is sniffed out by the outside linebacker and stopped with a loss of 6 yards. The second is a completed pass to the slot receiver cutting across the middle, but he is stopped after a gain of 9 yards. Dinker’s third-down pass is tipped by a Gunslinger lineman and almost intercepted by the free safety, but falls incomplete.

Three-and-out again, and if the the Dinkers can’t stop Gunslinger this time, the game will almost be over barely after starting. As the punt bounces around near the Gunslinger’s 20 yeard line, the First Quarter gun goes off. For the quarter, then, the Gunslingers have scored two touchdowns, gained a total of 173 yards. QB Gunslinger is 8 out of 15 passing for 105 yards. He was not intercepted, converted 4 third-and-long situations into first downs, averaged over 13 yards for each completed pass and a fine 7.5 yards per attempt. Dinker, on the other hand, although he completes 3 out of his 4 passes, totals a paltry 16 yards of passing offense (which equals the team’s total offense), a puny 4 yards per pass attempt (and 5.3 yards per completion). He does not get a single first down for his team, and, of course, gets zero points.

So guess who was the better quarterback in the First Quarter of this Super Bowl. Obviously, Gunslinger, right? ‘Fraid not. Despite what almost anyone would consider a dismal performance, Dinker is the higher-rated passer for the period: 81.3 (anything over 80 is generally considered a good rating), compared to a mere 81.0 for Gunslinger. How could that possibly be? The NFL’s Quarterback Rating is based on Completion Percentage, Yards per Pass Attempt, Percentage of Passes resulting in Touchdowns, and Percentage of Passes Intercepted. A formula gives equal weight to each category.

The shrewd numbers person will recognize one immediate theoretical problem: by making the second category Yards per Attempted Pass, it means the completion percentage, the whole of the first factor, is given additional weight in the second factor as well. The general result is that quarterbacks who play in a so-called “West Coast Offense” that is geared towards short, high-percentage passes, like Dinker who complered 75% of his passes (vs. 57% for Gunslinger) tend to be rated more highly, while the “gunslingers” who like to play a “vertical” passing game – send the ball more down the field, whether it’s more really long passes, or the 15-to-20 yarders generally considered to be “intermediate” passes – tend to be penalized by the rating formula. They are more high risk-high reward quarterbacks, and will generally have a lower completion percentage and somewhat more interceptions. The “dinkers” will average closer to 10 yards per completion, sometimes even lower, the gunslingers more like 12 or 13 yards per completion.

Take your pick, but I say the gunslingers are a lot more fun.

And by the way, that “worst” 73.9 rating for Grossman? The last Super Bowl quarterback who was lower was – John Elway (Hall of Fame) in 1989. Others? Let’s see, there was, umm, Bart Starr, Packers, 64.4 (Super Bowl II, Hall of Fame); Johnny Unitas, Colts, 65.1 (Super Bowl V, Hall of Fame); Bob Griese, Dolphins, 71.6 (Super Bowl VII, Hall of Fame); Broadway Joe Namath, Jets, 72.1 (Super Bowl III, Hall of Fame); Terry Bradshaw, Steelers, 55.2 (Super Bowl IX, Hall of Fame); Len Dawson, Chiefs, 69.9 (Super Bowl IV, Hall of Fame). In addition, there were Jim Plunkett, Raiders, 72.9 (Super Bowl XV); Vince Ferragamo, Rams, 49.0 (Super Bowl XIV); David Woodley, Dolphins, 63.5 (Super Bowl XVII), Tony Eason, Patriots, 67.5 (Super Bowl XX).

I wouldn’t vote against a winner based on a QB rating.

posted by KISSWeb 5:26 PM

Update: In case you wondered, the Super Bowl record of these “worst-rated” quarterbacks in their season of despair? Seven (7) wins, four (4) losses.

Bye Biden

I'm not even going to blog about our resident plaigarist entering the fray for Prez. You see. I didn't!

Freezing the Faux

I'm glad to see this. Obama has apparently "frozen out" Faux News by refusing interviews with their reporters since they aired the lie about his attending a madrassa. It's about time.

CEO Compensation, Part V

Somehow, I doubt that Bush and I agree about this, despite these comments of his today:

NEW YORK - President Bush took aim Wednesday at huge salaries and bonuses for corporate executives, going to Wall Street to say compensation packages should hinge on how good a job a CEO does for the shareholders.

And, as you read on, you find this is simply posturing to head off a bill in Congress to force companies to put their CEO's pay to a vote of the shareholders.

The White House statement appeared aimed in part at legislation that Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has said he will push, requiring shareholder approval of executive compensation plans.

Israel to annex more Palestinian territory

Israel is planning to annex more Palestinian territory by moving the "Wall" deeper into the West Bank than originally planned:

The Israeli government is considering moving its separation barrier deeper into the West Bank, leaving about 20,000 Palestinians stranded on the Israeli side of the fence.

The new route would encompass two Jewish settlements. Palestinian officials have condemned the plan as an attempt to annex territory.

The office of Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, denied a report in Haaretz, the Israeli daily newspaper, that the new route had already been approved, saying Olmert had only ordered officials to look into the possibility.

The theft of Palestinian land continues and grows. This is not unlike what we did to the Native Americans. The difference, however, is that (so far, at least) the Palestinians are not massively dying off of diseases. In fact, they are multiplying rather rapidly. So the population continues to grow even as the land they are left with continues to shrink. Sooner or later, something will have to give.

It's your money

It certainly comes as no surprise that the latest audit of Iraq reconstruction spending finds massive waste and incompetence:

WASHINGTON - The U.S. government wasted tens of millions of dollars in Iraq reconstruction aid, including scores of unaccounted-for weapons and a never-used camp for housing police trainers with an Olympic-size swimming pool, investigators say.

The quarterly audit by Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, is the latest to paint a grim picture of waste, fraud and frustration in an Iraq war and reconstruction effort that has cost taxpayers more than $300 billion and left the region near civil war.

Find me something, just one little thing, that this government hasn't screwed up.

Innocents in Guantanamo

Today's Washington Post details one more atrocity in the long list of atrocities committed by our Dear Leader:

Chinese Uighurs who have been imprisoned for the past month at a new state-of-the-art detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are being held around the clock in near-total isolation, a circumstance their lawyers say is rapidly degrading their mental health, according to an affidavit filed in federal court yesterday.

The lawyers' complaint is the latest step in their efforts to force an expedited review of the Uighurs' confinement by the U.S. Court of Appeals, a review that the Bush administration opposes and that Congress made more difficult in legislation it passed late last year.

The Uighurs' (pronounced weegurs) detention by the U.S. military, after being sold for bounty by Pakistanis in early 2002, has long attracted controversy. The men had just arrived from Afghanistan, where, they said, they had received limited military training because they opposed Chinese government control of their native region. But they said they never were allied with the Taliban or opposed to the United States, and had fled to Pakistan only to escape the U.S. bombing campaign.

By 2005, U.S. military review panels determined that five of the 18 captured Uighurs were "no longer enemy combatants," but they continued to be held at the Guantanamo Bay prison until their release last year. The panels did not reach that conclusion about the other 13, though all had given similar accounts of their activities during the reviews, according to declassified transcripts of the sessions.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson ruled in December 2005 that the government was unlawfully imprisoning the Uighurs who were found not to be combatants.

Because China views Uighurs as members of a rebellious ethnic minority, the U.S. government declined to return the five men to China, where they faced retribution, and dozens of other nations refused to accept them. Ultimately they were sent last year from Guantanamo Bay to Albania, where they are housed in a compound run by the United Nations.

Lawyers for the remaining 13 Uighurs say the men were moved in December to Guantanamo Bay's Camp 6, a high-security facility at the base completed last August at a cost of $37.9 million. The lawyers say the government provided no explanation for the move, which came shortly after they filed a court petition in Washington seeking the expedited review.

In Camp 6, the Uighurs are alone in metal cells throughout the day, are prohibited for the most part from conversing with others, and take all their meals through a metal slot in the door, lawyer P. Sabin Willett said in his affidavit, which was based on what he was told during his visit Jan. 15-18. They have little or no access to sunlight or fresh air, have had nothing new to read in their native language for the past several years, and are sometimes told to undertake solitary recreation at night, he said.

"They pass days of infinite tedium and loneliness," according to Willett's court filing. One Uighur's "neighbor is constantly hearing voices, shouting out, and being punished. All describe a feeling of despair . . . and abandonment by the world." Another Uighur, named Abdusumet, spoke of hearing voices himself and appeared extremely anxious during Willett's visit, tapping the floor uncontrollably, he said.

The account matches another offered by Brian Neff, a lawyer who in mid-December visited a Yemeni imprisoned in Camp 6. "Detainees in Camp 6 are not supposed to talk to others, they are punished for shouting, and if they talk during walks outside they will be punished," Neff said in an e-mail yesterday. "We are extremely concerned about the . . . conditions of Camp 6 -- in particular, the fact that the detainees there are being held in near-total isolation, cut off from the outside world and any meaningful contact."

Some other "high-value" detainees are being held at a CIA-run camp at Guantanamo Bay that officials say is reserved for the most dangerous and important suspects, but virtually no information has emerged about their treatment.

Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand, a spokesman at Guantanamo Bay, confirmed that Camp 6, which houses 160 detainees, has no communal living spaces. Its design originally included them, but they were omitted after detainees attacked guards at Camp 4 in May 2006. Detainees eat and pray in their cells, he said.

Najaf a massacre?

The battle the other day near Najaf smelled fishy from the start, but it's getting fishier and fishier. Today, the UK's Independent says it was an unpremeditated massacre of innocent civilians:

There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre.

A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect. The involvement of Ahmed al-Hassani (also known as Abu Kamar), who believed himself to be the coming Mahdi, or Messiah, appears to have been accidental.

The story emerging on independent Iraqi websites and in Arabic newspapers is entirely different from the government's account of the battle with the so-called "Soldiers of Heaven", planning a raid on Najaf to kill Shia religious leaders.

The cult denied it was involved in the fighting, saying it was a peaceful movement. The incident reportedly began when a procession of 200 pilgrims was on its way, on foot, to celebrate Ashura in Najaf. They came from the Hawatim tribe, which lives between Najaf and Diwaniyah to the south, and arrived in the Zarga area, one mile from Najaf at about 6am on Sunday. Heading the procession was the chief of the tribe, Hajj Sa'ad Sa'ad Nayif al-Hatemi, and his wife driving in their 1982 Super Toyota sedan because they could not walk. When they reached an Iraqi army checkpoint it opened fire, killing Mr Hatemi, his wife and his driver, Jabar Ridha al-Hatemi. The tribe, fully armed because they were travelling at night, then assaulted the checkpoint to avenge their fallen chief.

Members of another tribe called Khaza'il living in Zarga tried to stop the fighting but they themselves came under fire. Meanwhile, the soldiers and police at the checkpoint called up their commanders saying they were under attack from al-Qai'da with advanced weapons. Reinforcements poured into the area and surrounded the Hawatim tribe in the nearby orchards. The tribesmen tried - in vain - to get their attackers to cease fire.

American helicopters then arrived and dropped leaflets saying: "To the terrorists, surrender before we bomb the area." The tribesmen went on firing and a US helicopter was hit and crashed killing two crewmen. The tribesmen say they do not know if they hit it or if it was brought down by friendly fire. The US aircraft launched an intense aerial bombardment in which 120 tribesmen and local residents were killed by 4am on Monday.

Let them really fillibuster

When I read the NY Times article telling us this morning that the GOP plans to try to filibuster the anti-surge resolutions making their way through the Senate, I had the same reaction as Joe in DC at Americablog. If we can't get cloture then force them to actually filibuster the bills. Let them hold up the Senate with continuous speeches day and night, on and on against the bills. See how long that will last.

It's been a long time since there's been any real filibuster that I can remember. But, if we forced the Bushies and their friends to hold one, I think the president's ratings would fall even faster than they have been.

Note: Senate Rule 22 gives discretion to the Majority Leader to demand an actual filibuster notwithstanding alternatives designated in the Rule.

The case against Iran?

The U.S. was planning to release a dossier of specific accusations and evidence against Iran, but decided to hold it up. Why? Because people might ask questions about it. Even Faux News can't quite hide it:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A plan by the Bush administration to release detailed and possibly damning specific evidence linking the Iranian government to efforts to destabilize Iraq have been put on hold, U.S. officials told FOX News.

Officials had said a "dossier" against Iran compiled by the U.S. likely would be made public at a press conference this week in Baghdad, and that the evidence would contain specifics including shipping documents, serial numbers, maps and other evidence which officials say would irrefutably link Iran to weapons shipments to Iraq.

Now, U.S. military officials say the decision to go public with the findings has been put on hold for several reasons, including concerns over the reaction from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — as well as inevitable follow-up questions that would be raised over what the U.S. should do about it.

Of course, Faux News can't quite bring itself to say the follow-up questions might challenge the truthfulness of the "evidence." But, we all remember the uranium from Niger and the aluminum tubes clearly enough to know what to look for now.

And, by the way, who the hell cares how Ahmadinejad reacts?

The New Anti-semitism

Matthew Yglesias concludes he's not an anti-semite:

The New "Anti-Semitism"

As if on cue, The New York Times reports "Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor". The essay is by David Harris. The publisher is the American Jewish Committee. To be flip about it, the defining characteristic of the "new" anti-semitism seems to be that it isn't anti-semitism...

At any rate, when you think about it, things like this essay or Jonah Goldberg's little McCarthyite smears aren't really about convincing people that I'm an anti-semite, or that Tony Judt or Adrienne Rich or Tony Kushner is. The idea, basically, is to scare the goyim who figure that while liberal Jews can take the heat, they probably can't, and had best just avoid talking about the whole thing. And based on my observations of the blogosphere, it works pretty well as a tactic.

This tactic has worked very effectively for a long, long time, and, as Matthew says, it continues to do so. If I were still in business (and were not posting semi-anonymously) I wouldn't dare voice some of the criticisms of Israel that I have included in this blog. I often fear that the knee-jerk accusation whenever Israel is criticized will cause some of my Jewish friends (who know my real identity) to believe I'm an anti-Jewish bigot. I assure you I'm not. But, as Matt says, it's a lot easier to protect yourself from these accusations if you're Jewish than if you're not, and I'm not. For this reason, I have often thought twice about posting something critical of Israel, but I do believe in calling the plays as I see them.

To any who are offended, I apologize for the imagined offense, but I won't stop calling the plays.

Gulf of Tonkin, deja vu

Josh Marshall is developing a list of the key requirements for the fake Iranian atrocity that Bush will create to justify our war with Iran. Here are some:

1. Despite being fake, the incident must seem reasonably credible.

2. It must appear serious enough that discounting its importance or questioning its veracity appears the height of unseriousness.

3. It must place the majority of us in the odd and unexpected position of granting to President Bush the unfettered discretion to launch a war against Iran at the time and place of his choosing, despite our desire that he start it right now.

Josh posted this before he saw the morning headlines, but his updated post includes them:

BAGHDAD, Jan. 30 — Investigators say they believe that attackers who used American-style uniforms and weapons to infiltrate a secure compound and kill five American soldiers in Karbala on Jan. 20 may have been trained and financed by Iranian agents, according to American and Iraqi officials knowledgeable about the inquiry.

When I read this article this morning, my first reaction was to think it's all part of the hype being trumped up to justify our invasion or Iran. That's also my second, third and fourth reaction.

I wonder if anyone will believe this government ever again.

Super Bowl Diversion: "QB Rating" is a crock of you-know-what

On a lighter note, if you pay any attention to the Super Bowl this weekend, you may hear a lot about the “passer rating” or “quarterback rating.” For example, you may hear that the Bears’ Rex Grossman has the “worst” regular season rating (73.9) of a Super Bowl quarterback in almost 20 years, or that Peyton Manning’s 2006-7 Playoffs rating is actually quite a lot lower than Grossman’s. If you want to be in the know, you should know that it’s all a crock – that is, the passer rating is all a crock. It was concocted in a quick moment, more or less on an envelope in an airport or somewhere, by someone who was headed generally in the right direction but had not fully thought it through. Former NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle, upon being shown it as an idea for rating quarterbacks on something more than yardage gained, said, “What the hey, let’s do it.” And ever since, it has been the “official Passing Efficiency Rating of the National Football League.”

But it’s a crock nonetheless – not a total crock, mind you, but a big crock. Consider this: in the First Quarter of an important playoff game – let’s say a Super Bowl – both teams get two complete possessions of the ball. In his first possession, Quarterback Gunslinger marches his team 80 yards to a touchdown, completing 4 of 7 passes attempted for 50 yards, including a 23-yarder to the one-yard-line and converting two third-and-long situations into first downs. From there, All-Pro Running Back Crusher banged the ball into the end zone for the first TD.

Quarterback Dinker led his team onto the field, starting his possession after the kickoff on the 38 yard line – good field position, as they say. Dinker completes the two passes he attempts, but only for a total of 8 yards. Because the one running play gained nothing, it’s fourth down and two, so Dinker’s team has to punt. “Three-and-out,” as they say, pretty punk.

After a fine punt that goes out of bounds at the 7 yard line, Gunslinger starts his team marching again, this time for 93 yards in 13 plays. Besides the 6 running plays for 37 yards in the drive, Gunslinger goes 4 for 8, this time for 56 yards total, including a 13-yard completion to the two yard line and two more third down conversions of 7 yards or more. Once again, Crusher bangs it in, this time on First Down.

With the score now 14-0 Gunslingers, Dinker starts again, this time on the 28 after the kickoff runback. His first pass is a screen that is completed but is sniffed out by the outside linebacker and stopped with a loss of 6 yards. The second is a completed pass to the slot receiver cutting across the middle, but he is stopped after a gain of 9 yards. Dinker’s third-down pass is tipped by a Gunslinger lineman and almost intercepted by the free safety, but falls incomplete. Three-and-out again, and if the the Dinkers can’t stop Gunslinger this time, the game will almost be over barely after starting. As the punt bounces around near the Gunslinger’s 20 yeard line, the First Quarter gun goes off.

For the quarter, then, the Gunslingers have scored two touchdowns, gained a total of 173 yards. QB Gunslinger is 8 out of 15 passing for 105 yards. He was not intercepted, converted 4 third-and-long situations into first downs, averaged over 13 yards for each completed pass and a fine 7.5 yards per attempt. Dinker, on the other hand, although he completes 3 out of his 4 passes, totals a paltry 16 yards of passing offense (which equals the team’s total offense), a puny 4 yards per pass attempt (and 5.3 yards per completion). He does not get a single first down for his team, and, of course, gets zero points.

So guess who was the better quarterback in the First Quarter of this Super Bowl. Obviously, Gunslinger, right? ‘Fraid not. Despite what almost anyone would consider a dismal performance, Dinker is the higher-rated passer for the period: 81.3 (anything over 80 is generally considered a good rating), compared to a mere 81.0 for Gunslinger. How could that possibly be? The NFL’s Quarterback Rating is based on Completion Percentage, Yards per Pass Attempt, Percentage of Passes resulting in Touchdowns, and Percentage of Passes Intercepted. A formula gives equal weight to each category.

The shrewd numbers person will recognize an immediate theoretical problem: by making the second category Yards per Attempted Pass, it means the concept of completion percentage, the whole of the first factor, is given additional weight. The general result is that quarterbacks who play in a so-called “West Coast Offense” that is geared towards short, high-percentage passes, like Dinker who complered 75% of his passes (vs. 57% for Gunslinger) tend to be rated more highly, while the “gunslingers” who like to play a “vertical” passing game – send the ball more down the field, whether it’s more really long passes, or the 15-to-20 yarders generally considered to be “intermediate” passes – tend to be penalized by the rating formula. They are more high risk-high reward quarterbacks, and will generally have a lower completion percentage and somewhat more interceptions. The “dinkers” will average closer to 10 yards per completion, sometimes even lower, the gunslingers more like 12 or 13 yards per completion.

Take your pick, but I say the gunslingers are a lot more fun. And by the way, that “worst” 73.9 rating for Grossman? The last Super Bowl quarterback who was lower was – John Elway (Hall of Fame) in 1989. Others? Let’s see, there was, umm, Bart Starr, Packers, 64.4 (Super Bowl II, Hall of Fame); Johnny Unitas, Colts, 65.1 (Super Bowl V, Hall of Fame); Bob Griese, Dolphins, 71.6 (Super Bowl VII, Hall of Fame); Broadway Joe Namath, Jets, 72.1 (Super Bowl III, Hall of Fame); Terry Bradshaw, Steelers, 55.2 (Super Bowl IX, Hall of Fame); Len Dawson, Chiefs, 69.9 (Super Bowl IV, Hall of Fame). In addition, there were Jim Plunkett, Raiders, 72.9 (Super Bowl XV); Vince Ferragamo, Rams, 49.0 (Super Bowl XIV); David Woodley, Dolphins, 63.5 (Super Bowl XVII), Tony Eason, Patriots, 67.5 (Super Bowl XX).

I wouldn’t vote against a winner based on a QB rating.

It's Iran, stupid

Max Sawicki tells us that the whole object of Bush's surge is war with Iran, but it's not just Bush:

This is not a new war. It is the same war. It has waxed hot and cold for decades. The consistent policy implemented by the U.S. government, sometimes through its proxy Israel, is to prevent national economic, social, and democratic development anywhere in the region that is not on U.S. terms. The object, a pillar of U.S. strategic interests, is control -- not literal possession -- of petroleum resources.

That pretty well summarizes it, and I'm afraid the Dems will buy in once again. After all, nobody can resist AIPAC.

Better minimum wage is good for business

Here’s some good information at Tom Paine.com (Slapping The Invisible Hand, Chuck Collins, January 29, 2007) to counter the “Chicken Littles,” as Collins rightly call them, who shout wrongly that a raise in the minimum wage will hurt the economy. These are business people who support the raise. Why would they do that? Well, as citizens they know that this seemingly common-sense cause-and-effect claim is false – that attempts to show the dire result predicted have come up negative – often quite the opposite, in fact -- and that the benefits of a more productive work force with more money to spend and more need to do it quickly – thus pumping the economy with a bottom-up multiplier effect -- far outweigh any immediate increase in labor costs.

But how about as business owners or leaders? Besides the beneficial macro effects of more money sloshing around to buy their products or services – remember the supposed Henry Ford dictum that Ford workers needed to make enough to afford a car if the industry was to grow -- they also argue the benefits of a happier work force, with its members more willing to play their part in being more productive and reducing turnover.

Many of these business leaders supporting a minimum wage increase are known for not pushing labor costs as low as they can go.

For many business owners, paying their workers well is common sense. "Trying to save money by shortchanging my employees would be like skimping on ingredients,” said Kirsten Poole, a petition signer and co-owner of Kirsten's Cafe and Dish Caterers in Silver Spring, Md. “I'd lose more than I saved because of declining quality, service, reputation and customer base. You can't build a healthy business or a healthy economy on a miserly minimum wage."

The skeptic will say, “So, nobody’s stopping them from making the decision to pay better than minimum wage, but why force it on everyone through the law?” Well, some of them, with certainly Costco as an example, must compete against companies like Walmart that are reputed to squeeze their workers as much as possible and battle unionization wherever the slightest embers start to glow. Thus, as with many laws that regulate business, there is a “level-playing-field” benefit for the most reputable businesses. That’s the loose end that’s tied when anyone can compete by racing to the worst possible treatment of workers without restriction.

Does that camel have his nose in the tent again?

Well, I guess it's no surprise, but as soon as they claim to turn off one illegal program, it seems we learn about another. This time it's massive tapping of internet e-mail by the FBI.

"The FBI appears to have adopted an invasive Internet surveillance technique that collects far more data on innocent Americans than previously has been disclosed," according to a story posted Tuesday on ZDNet, a technology news website.

Agents engaging in investigations appear to be amassing huge databases of data on thousands of Internet users, rather than eyeing the activities of particular suspects -- similar to the sweeping approach employed by the National Security Agency. The NSA wiretaps program drew congressional uproar after it was revealed the program was taking place without supervision by a court.

"Such a technique is broader and potentially more intrusive than the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system, later renamed DCS1000," ZDNet's Declan McCullagh writes. "It raises concerns similar to those stirred by widespread Internet monitoring that the National Security Agency is said to have done, according to documents that have surfaced in one federal lawsuit, and may stretch the bounds of what's legally permissible."

McCullagh calls it "the vacuum-cleaner approach," a technique used when police have obtained a court order but the suspect's Internet provider can't isolate an individual by their IP address -- the series of digits that identify an individual computer.

"That kind of full-pipe surveillance can record all Internet traffic, including Web browsing -- or, optionally, only certain subsets such as all e-mail messages flowing through the network. Interception typically takes place inside an Internet provider's network at the junction point of a router or network switch," McCullagh writes.

Wrong again!

President Bush speaking yesterday about the battle near Najaf:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, I think it's an indication that there are murderers who will kill innocent people to stop the advance of a form of government that is the opposite of what they believe. You know, we can debate terms, but what can't be debated is the fact that Iraq is violent, and the violence is caused by Sunni Arabs like al-Qaida, who have made it clear that they want to create chaos and drive the United States out so they can have safe haven, and then they could launch attacks against America. No question the attack on the Golden Mosque of Samarra, which is a Shia holy site, caused Shia extremists to retaliate. [Emphasis added]

Hmmmm. I guess he didn't know that this was a Shi'a on Shi'a battle. It's truly amazing what "can't be debated" in this idiot's view.

[Hat tip to DailyKos]

Will the real Democrats please stand up?

Kevin Drum hints a bit at one of the fears I've voiced openly on this blog several times before, i.e., that even Democratic presidential candidates may be reluctant to roll back the extraordinary powers that Bush has claimed because they too will want to be powerful.

This move [to place political operatives at the head of every regulatory agency] has prompted the usual withering scorn, most of it undoubtedly well deserved. But let's not stop at scorn, people. After all, Bill Clinton was no slouch at consolidating White House control of cabinet agencies himself. Bush has taken this to stratospheric heights -- mainly in a backdoor attempt to gut laws that are too popular to get repealed in a straight-up fight -- but it's hardly an exclusively Republican preserve. What's more, there's a pretty reasonable argument that an elected president should have greater policy control over the rulemakers in our farflung executive bureaucracy.

So let's find out. Are we really opposed to this? This is an executive order, after all, and that means the next president can rescind it at will. So let's get all the Democratic presidential candidates on the record: if you're elected, will you rescind this order? Who's up for this?

What, me worry?

Here's a good one. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ruled that the operators of nuclear power facilities are not responsible for protecting them from terrorist attacks. Hmmm. So, who is?

Simple answer to simple question: No one.

Despite the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's insistence Monday that nuclear power plant operators not be responsible for protecting plants from airborne terrorist attacks, state officials say New Jersey's four nuclear facilities still must consider what the possibility of such an attack would mean to the environment.

Especially contentious is the ongoing license-renewal attempt by the Oyster Creek nuclear generating station in Lacey Township, which is about 30 miles north of Atlantic City. That facility stores about 375 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel in a pool 119 feet above the ground. Although this pool — and the reactor below — is enclosed in a corrugated steel structure, critics say it is not enough to protect the facility from an attack by a determined terrorist.

The state Department of Environmental Protection is trying to force the nuclear facility, which is owned by Exelon, and the NRC to include the possibility of an attack in the plant's attempt at a license extension. The Oyster Creek plant is the nation's oldest operating nuclear facility. Its license is due to expire in 2009, but Exelon has applied for a 20-year renewal of that license.

Typical Bush approach. If things go okay, the business interests will get wealthy. If things go poorly, the public will pay.

US Support for Iraqi refugees

In USA Today, Adam Goodheart and John Bohrer calculate the massive amounts the U.S. is paying to support Iraqi refugees. It's a mind boggling fourteen cents per year per refugee:

Compared with occupation costs of about $300 million per day, the money Sauerbrey spoke of allotting to the refugee crisis seems laughable. She boasted that in 2006, the U.S. provided $400,000 to support U.N. refugee resettlement efforts, a figure it proposes to increase to $500,000 this year. (If you divide $500,000 by the 3.4 million Iraqi refugees, you get a commitment of about 14 cents per refugee.)

[A hat tip to Steve Clemons]

Global what?

Thirteen percent of Americans have never heard of global warming:

OSLO (Reuters) - Thirteen percent of Americans have never heard of global warming even though their country is the world's top source of greenhouse gases, a 46-country survey showed on Monday.

That's probably because 40% of the government's scientists say they have been told not to mention it:

WASHINGTON - Two private advocacy groups told a congressional hearing Tuesday that climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report.

With Bush appointing political gatekeepers to head every regulatory agency, we'll undoubtedly see much more of this.

Justice at work, Florida style

A rape victim was arrested and jailed for a minor juvenile offense committed years earlier after reporting the rape to police. Then, they denied her the morning after pill which had been prescribed by the hospital because it was against their religion.

TAMPA - A young woman was walking back to her car after the Gasparilla parade on Saturday when she says a man dragged her behind a building and raped her near the intersection of Howard and Swann.

She managed to get away and called 911. Police took her to the hospital and began a routine rape investigation.

When they started checking the victim's background, they discovered she had an arrest warrant out for her.

It was from an arrest when the woman was a juvenile and she was accused of not paying restitution. The woman says she was not aware there was a warrant out for her, and her attorney says it appears to be a paperwork error.

"They were more interested in prosecuting her for something that's a paperwork snafu from four years ago, that was juvenile. They were more interested in working on that than finding an experienced rapist," stated the victim's mother.

Still, the woman was put in handcuffs and taken to jail. She was not allowed bond, and the medical staff at the jail refused to give her the Morning After Pill even though it had been prescribed at the hospital.

"The medical supervisor would not allow her to take the pill because she said it was against her, the supervisor's, religion. So, here we have a medical supervisor imposing her beliefs on a rape victim," claimed the victim's attorney Virlyn Moore. "As a human being, how someone could be so violated by this monster and then the system comes along and rapes her again psychologically and emotionally - it's outrageous and unconscionable."

Given that this took place in Florida it doesn't surprise me very much. After all, that's the state where you can shoot anyone you please as long as you think there's some chance they might harm you, but you can't pull the plug on a brain-dead woman. It's called a "pre-emptive strike." It's sort of like what Bush did to Iraq.

Home vacancy rate at all time high

Dean Baker, at the American Prospect, comes up with a very important finding. The housing vacancy rate in the U.S. is not only at an all time high, its more than 35% (that's percent, not percentage points) higher than it's ever been before:

This is another one of my preemptive strikes. Perhaps the most under-reported release of economic data is the quarterly data on housing vacancy rates from the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau just released the data for fourth quarter of 2006. This showed the vacancy rate for owner occupied housing hitting 2.7 percent. This is up 50 percent from the 1.8 percent rate of two years ago.

This is big news. The vacancy rate for ownership units has hovered near 1.5 percent for 50 years. It had never previously crossed 2.0 percent. The most recent Census Department estimates means that there are more than 2 million ownership units sitting vacant. In most cases, this means that an owner is paying a mortgage on a home for which they are collecting no rent. Few homeowners can afford to pay a mortgage on a house in which they don’t live for very long.

The industry has been trumpeting the increase in sales of new single family homes as a sign that the real estate slump is nearing its end. This certainly doesn't seem to indicate that's the case. If anything, this is a big overhanging threat, since you'd think most of these unoccupied homes will eventually have to be brought to market.

Faulty memory or something else?

Updated below:

It seems there is a serious discrepancy between Ari Fleischer's testimony yesterday in the Scooter Libby trial and reporter John Dickerson's recollection. Ari testified he had told a group of reporters, including Dickerson, that Wilson's wife had sent Wilson to Niger. Dickerson says Ari only dropped hints that the reporters should go find out who sent Wilson. You can see details at the links offered by Josh Marshall below:

Late Update: Then there's the discrepancy which some have noticed between Ari's testimony and that of John Dickerson, which Booman discusses.

Later Update: Here's Dickerson's side of the story.

As I understand it, Scooter's defense team have not included Dickerson on their witness list, which ordinarily means they won't be able to call him. That's a big loss, it seems to me, since Dickerson could both impeach Ari's testimony and simultaneously prove that memories can be faulty -- a key element of Scooter's defense.

Update:

In the comments, anonymous says, "I assume you meant a 'good' loss." I certainly didn't mean to imply that I was rooting for the Libby team, but there's no question in my mind that it's a "big" loss for their team. I'm actually a bit surprised, given the vaunted reputation of the Libby defense team.

If it smells fishy, it probably is

There's still much to be learned about the battle yesterday near Najaf, but we're already learning that the initial reports were as fishy as they smelled:

BAGHDAD, Jan. 29 —Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle near the holy city of Najaf and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed, American and Iraqi officials said Monday.

Doesn't bode too well for that old "standing up and standing down" schtick, does it?

Another day, another power grab by Bush

The New York Times informs us that Bush has now issued a directive requiring a politically appointed director of ideology to head every regulatory agency in order to make sure that no ideologically impure regulations escape through the bureaucracy.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

Naturally, the business world loves this and those concerned with protecting the minorities, the evironment, and the average citizen despise it.

Those who live in glass houses ...

Marc Cooper makes a good point:

Just for the record: Back in October 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, making regime change the official policy of the United States. The Senate passed the measure unanimously and Democrats in the House waited patiently in line to approve. So, actually, this whole idea of getting rid of Saddam didn't begin in 2002, not did it wholly originate with Republicans. nor has the Clinton family been an innocent bystander.

Two months later in December 1998, purely coincidentally as Congress took up his impeachment Clinton, ordered Operation Desert Fox and began a four-day bombardment of Iraq (overlapping the onset of the holy Ramadan season). As the cruise missiles slammed into Iraq, ambien-addled U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) took to the House floor and argued that criticizing Clinton for the Lewinsky matter at that moment might be giving aid and comfort to the enemy -- suggesting that Congress seek prior permission from the CIA before going ahead with impeachment debate! It was almost word-for-word the same scurrilous language used in 1966 by LBJ when Kennedy's uncle Bobby spoke out against Vietnam and got his patriotism questioned.

We should probably keep that in mind when we criticize the right for their "you're a traitor" accusations. They should be criticized, but equally so should be our own.

A hat tip to Max Sawicki, who adds this:

And I will usefully remind you it was Clinton and Mad Albright who instituted sanctions against Iraq and affirmed the acceptability of the resulting hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent Iraqi children.

Today the litmus test of an anti-war candidate and the "netroots" is where they stand on attacking Iran.

ACS

NBC's Crossing Jordan has named a new disease. ACS. It's an acronym for "Ann Coulter Syndrome," werein the afflicted gain strength through the hatred of others. Crooks and Liars has the video.

Marching hairy-chested onto the stage

Digby on the substance of U.S. strategy in the war on terror:

Their "strategy" is just what Bush and Cheney have always said it was --- prove to the world that nobody can push the US of A around. Invade Iraq and show that we're mad as hell and we won't take it anymore. Then the terrorists will run for cover. That's it. Strategery 101, just like on Saturday night Live and Junior's college "Risk" days.

It's stupid, it's puerile it's completely absurd. But that is all there is to the Bush administration's War On Terror strategy. Nothing that happens on the ground matters. All that matters is that we are there and we aren't leaving until Al Qaeda cries "Uncle."

U.S. Policy on Science

Larry Sommers on the future of science in the United States:

The 20th century was shaped by developments in the physical sciences. Issues of national and international security were transformed by the revolution in solid state physics that allowed mankind to take flight and split the atom. Advances in our understanding of physics also led to the development of the transistor, the semiconductor and ultimately to the information technology explosion that transformed economic life.

The 20th century was an American century in no small part because of American leadership in the application of the physical sciences. While the foundational ideas of relativity and quantum mechanics were developed in Europe, the practical application of these ideas occurred in the US.

If the 20th century was defined by developments in the physical sciences, the 21st century will be defined by developments in the life sciences. Lifespans will rise sharply as cures are found for chronic diseases and healthcare will come to be a larger share of the economy than manufacturing. Life science approaches will lead to everything from further agricultural revolutions to profound changes in energy technology and the development of new materials. The “drugs that help you study” that are now pervasive on college campuses are just a precursor of developments that will make it possible to alter human capacities and human nature in profound ways.

It is natural to ask whether the US will lead in the life sciences in this century as it did in the physical sciences in the last. It is a profoundly important economic question, but one whose implications go far beyond to embrace issues of national security and moral leadership. At present, if one looks at levels of investment or at research output or at the prestige of leading institutions, the US is clearly leading in the life sciences. But past performance is no guarantee of future success. In the first third of the 20th century, Europe and Europeans were the dominant source of discoveries in physics. Yet, for various reasons, Europe became less dominant as America asserted its leadership. If America is to maintain its leadership in life sciences in the 21st century, important steps must be taken.

Read on:

What Hillary, Edwards should say: the Iraq resolution worked, Bush violated it

It seems to me the candidates who voted for the resolution that Bush used to go to war have a simple, simple explanation that they are all missing. It was October 2002, almost six months before Bush actually launched the war, and before the weight of news reports showing, one by one, that the confident declarations of this or that evidence of WMDs were shaky at best – with the final pieces being the real-time dismantling in February of the “knowledge” Colin Powell expounded in his UN speech, accompanied by the obviously Bush/Cheney-orchestrated trashing of Blix and the UN. At the point the resolution came to a vote, October 2002, the intelligence the Congress was being allowed to see said Saddam had WMDs. President Clinton’s administration had believed it, too. The Republicans had the control necessary to force the vote.

The declared purpose of the vote was to raise the threat level to force Saddam to accept the inspectors without restrictions. It worked. Saddam let in the Blix inspection team in December 2002, although with unsatisfactory restrictions, but Blix reported in February 2003, a month before the launch of the war, that those restrictions had finally been lifted and the team was receiving appropriate cooperation.

In other words, George Bush violated the resolution because he went to war anyway in March. Yes, those who voted to give Bush the power should have recognized, as did Russ Feingold, that the shifting justifications called the administration’s credibility into serious question. But the bottom line is, in October 2002, Saddam was in violation of his UN obligations (even if he did not actually have any WMDs) because he was not permitting the required inspections under the UN resolutions. The resolution was directed not at authorizing the war whenever Bush felt like it, but as a last resort only if Saddam refused to comply with Iraq’s obligations to permit inspections. The still-popular Bush gave his personal assurances that war would be used as a last resort, and only with genuine UN involvement unless unilateral action was absolutely necessary. When Blix reported Iraq’s cooperation in February 2003, it was Bush’s obligation under the resolution at the very least to stand down until that cooperation could be confirmed. He did not, but used the resolution as a pretext. Bush flat-out violated the resolution that Clinton, Edwards, Kerry et al voted for.

Progressives negative or lukewarm on Clinton describe her vote on the resolution as a “pro-war” vote, or as a “vote to go to war.” They are basically doing the Republicans’ job for them by putting her in the same camp with the ardent Bush-supporters, the rah-rah people. We can elide the facts with hindsight, but it was not a vote to go to war. I do not see any reason to challenge the assertion made by Clinton (or Kerry, or Edwards) that it was a vote intended to avoid war by forcing Saddam to comply with the inspections regime. Call it parsing, naïve or whatever – even Feingold and Byrd were unwilling to verbalize an accusation of bad faith against the administration -- it was a far cry from being the cheerleaders that the Republicans were. It may be a digital world, but we need to eliminate the binary categorization of all Senators and Representatives as either pro-war or anti-war. There were three distinct camps : (1) pro-war or oblivious to war – mostly Republican Bush flunkies; (2) anti-war, mostly Democrats, and (3) anti-war but pro-resolution in the belief it could avoid war – mostly or entirely Democrats. Yes, especially Democrats who expected someday to consider running for President.

So there is the simple narrative: at the time, Saddam was not letting in the inspectors. The sole purpose of the resolution was to force Saddam to comply. This would help avoid war. It worked, but Bush violated the resolution because he went to war anyway after Iraq started cooperating with the inspectors. The explanation certainly will not satisfy everyone on the left, but it's better than being pigeonholed with Bill Frist and Tom DeLay.

Scott Ritter: Democrats will own the war with Iran if it comes

Scott Ritter, on the upcoming war with Iran:

If I were to address a Democrat Theme Team equivalent, I would focus my effort on trying to impress them with the issue that will cost them political power down the road. This issue is Iran. While President Bush, a Republican, remains Commander in Chief, a Democrat-controlled Congress shares responsibility on war and peace from this point on. The conflict in Iraq, although ongoing, is a product of the Republican-controlled past. The looming conflict with Iran, however, will be assessed as a product of a Democrat-controlled present and future. If Iraq destroyed the Republican Party, Iran will destroy the Democrats.

I would strongly urge Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to hold real hearings on Iran. Not the mealy-mouthed Joe Biden-led hearings we witnessed on Iraq in July-August 2002, where he and his colleagues rubber-stamped the President's case for war, but genuine hearings that draw on all the lessons of Congressional failures when it came to Iraq. Summon all the President's men (and women), and grill them on every phrase and word uttered about the Iranian "threat," especially as it has been linked to nuclear weapons. Demand facts to back up the rhetoric.

Summon the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or any other lobby promoting confrontation with Iran, to the forefront, so that the warnings they offer in whispers from a back room can be articulated before the American public. Hold these conjurers of doom accountable for their positions by demanding they back them up with hard fact. See if the US intelligence community concurs with the dire warnings put forward by these pro-war lobbyists, and if it doesn't, ask who, then, is driving US policy toward Iran? Those mandated by public law and subjected to the oversight of Congress? Or others, operating outside any framework representative of the will of the American people?

If a real case, based on facts as they pertain to the genuine national security interests of the United States, can be made for a confrontation with Iran that leads to military conflict, so be it. America should never shy away from defending that which legitimately needs defending. The sacrifice expected of our military forces, while tragic, will be defensible. But if the case for war with Iran is revealed to be as illusory as was the case for war with Iraq, then Congress must take action to stop this conflict from occurring. This is the Democrats' issue now, the one that will make or break them in 2008 and beyond.

It's the lie that counts

Josh Marshall weighs in on the Najaf story:

The latest I'm hearing on the cable is that the plan was to disrupt the Ashura commemorations and perhaps assassinate Ayatollah Sistani. Now we hear that the attack was the work of a Messianic cult -- one with "links to Saddam Hussein loyalists and foreign fighters [and] hoping the violence it planned would force the return of the 'hidden imam,' a 9th-century Shiite saint who Shiites believe will come again to bring peace and justice to the world."

'Foreign fighters' in this context usually refers to Sunni extremists, with al Qaida sympathies. Saddam loyalists, if secular, are almost all Sunni as well. So these guys were mounting an attack on Najaf in order to realize the central eschatological hope of the Shia? I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Other reports say alternatively that the attack was Sunni-backed or Shia-backed.

Look, under Bush the U.S. military is trained to lie first and think later. The fact that it makes no sense doesn't matter. It's the lie that counts.

Beating the drums of war

Bush continues his incessant campaign to go to war with Iran, just as Iran announces it's intention to assist in rebuilding Iraq:

WASHINGTON - Deeply distrustful of Iran, President Bush said Monday "we will respond firmly" if Tehran escalates its military actions in Iraq and threatens American forces or Iraqi citizens. Bush's warning was the latest move in a bitter and more public standoff between the United States and Iran. The White House expressed skepticism about Iran's plans to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq.

And, from this morning's NY Times:

The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, said Iran was prepared to offer Iraq government forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called “the security fight.” In the economic area, Mr. Qumi said, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for Iraq reconstruction, an area of failure on the part of the United States since American-led forces overthrew Saddam Hussein nearly four years ago.

“We have experience of reconstruction after war,” Mr. Qumi said...

Americans may find this perfectly reasonable, but I doubt many people elsewhere will.

Panderer-in-chief

Watch this video that takes St. John McCain to the cleaners, all in his own words and only his own words.

Bolton bolts

From the International Herald Trib:

Former U.S. envoy to the United Nations John Bolton said in an interview published in France that the United States has "no strategic interest" in a united Iraq.

... Bolton suggested in the interview that the United States shouldn't necessarily keep Iraq from splitting up. The Bush administration and the Iraqi government have said they don't want Iraq divided.

"The United States has no strategic interest in the fact that there's one Iraq, or three Iraqs," he was quoted as saying. "We have a strategic interest in the fact of ensuring that what emerges is not a state in complete collapse, which could become a refuge for terrorists or a terrorist state."

The comments marked the second time in less than a week that Bolton had criticized the Bush administration's policy. On Fox News last week, he said the United States may not be able to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons because it was following a flawed diplomatic strategy.

Housekeeping

For weeks, Blogger has been pestering me to switch Scatablog to the "New" Blogger, but everytime I tried, it would not allow me to do so. Today the switch finally took place. I don't think anyone should notice any difference from the reader's perspective, and, frankly, the differences from this writer's perspective don't seem very great either. However, I'm keeping my fingers crossed. So far, so good.

The importance of dissent to a Democracy

Glenn Greenwald has a great post calling the Bush supporters on the carpet for simultaneously calling all opponents traitors while calling themselves Churchillian. He offers this quote from Churchill in support of his case:

From time to time in the life of any Government there come occasions which must be clarified. No one who has read the newspapers of the last few weeks about our affairs at home and abroad can doubt that such an occasion is at hand.

Since my return to this country, I have come to the conclusion that I must ask to be sustained by a Vote of Confidence from the House of Commons. This is a thoroughly normal, constitutional, democratic procedure. A Debate on the war has been asked for. I have arranged it in the fullest and freest manner for three whole days.

Any Member will be free to say anything he thinks fit about or against the Administration or against the composition or personalities of the Government, to his heart's content, subject only to the reservation, which the House is always so careful to observe about military secrets. Could you have anything freer than that? Could you have any higher expression of democracy than that? Very few other countries have institutions strong enough to sustain such a thing while they are fighting for their lives. . . .

We have had a great deal of bad news lately from the Far East, and I think it highly probable, for reasons which I shall presently explain, that we shall have a great deal more. Wrapped up in this bad news will be many tales of blunders and shortcomings, both in foresight and action. No one will pretend for a moment that disasters like these occur without there having been faults and shortcomings.

I see all this rolling towards us like the waves in a storm, and that is another reason why I require a formal, solemn Vote of Confidence from the House of Commons, which hitherto in this struggle has never flinched. The House would fail in its duty if it did not insist upon two things, first, freedom of debate, and, secondly, a clear, honest, blunt Vote thereafter. Then we shall all know where we are, and all those with whom we have to deal, at home and abroad, friend or foe, will know where we are and where they are. It is because we are to have a free Debate, in which perhaps 20 to 30 Members can take part, that I demand an expression of opinion from the 300 or 400 Members who will have sat silent.

I am not asking for any special, personal favours in these circumstances, but I am sure the House would wish to make its position clear; therefore I stand by the ancient, constitutional, Parliamentary doctrine of free debate and faithful voting.

I know it's downright laughable to ask the question, but can you see Bush giving a speech like that?

Chalabi was against de-Baathification before he was for it

Steve Clemons tells us that Ahmed Chalabi has joined John Kerry in the flip flop room:

Ahmed Chalabi has surfaced after a long period of silence in Iraq. He appeared at a news conference to announce that some of those "purged" from government positions have been allowed back into Iraqi government staff jobs. This is a couple of years too late in my view -- but it's a start.

What is odd is that Chalabi was a top tier advocate of extreme de-Baathification. Her is the clip:

Also on Wednesday, Ahmed Chalabi, the former exile who helped the United States build the case for invading Iraq and who heads a committee on de-Baathification, appeared at a rare outdoor news conference in the Green Zone to announce that more than 700 Baathists have returned to their old government jobs. Smiling grandly behind a bank of television microphones as bombs and gunfire interrupted his speech, Chalabi said the government's roster of rehired workers will continue to grow.

Promoting the worthy

Harpers Magazine informs us that the new station chief of the C.I.A. in Baghdad was formerly deeply involved in the extraordinary rendition program.

Given the desperate situation in Iraq, the CIA's Baghdad station chief needs to be an exceptional manager who can marshal the agency's forces and work closely with the U.S. armed forces. Unfortunately, several sources have informed me, the CIA has nominated a man who is widely criticized within the agency and seen as ill-fitted to the role. Furthermore, the new station chief is said to be closely identified with detainee abuses, especially those involving “extraordinary renditions”—the practice by which terrorist suspects are covertly delivered to foreign intelligence agencies to be interrogated.

Secrecy taken beyond the limit

David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo points out that not only will Dick Cheney's office not reveal the names of those employed there, it will not even reveal the number. As David makes clear, these are our employees, not Cheney's. Obviously, this must be a critical state secret. Revealing it would provide aide and comfort to our enemies, I'm sure.

Meanwhile, Adam Liptak at the NY Times informs us that the Bushies are trying to destroy the First Amendment in Court. The Court may well rule that anyone who happens unknowingly to come across a state secret and pass it on may be charged with a violation.

So, if you happen to find out how many employees there are in the OVP, don't pass it on to anyone.

Will the real Najaf please stand up?

Juan Cole points out that there is more than one story out there about what happened in yesterday's raid on a group of so-called "insurgents" near Najaf. The stories are rather at odds with each other, so it's not clear which is the truth. But, you can bet the one the U.S. military and the Iraqi military are telling is it.

Krugman on ethanol

It's a good thing that Paul Krugman isn't teaching at one of those land grant colleges out in the midwest that started out as agricultural colleges. He'd be stripped of tenure and thrown out on his can faster than he could say "Jack Robinson" after today's column in the NY Times [behind subscription wall] on ethanol.

In the United States, ethanol comes overwhelmingly from corn, a much less suitable raw material. In fact, corn is such a poor source of ethanol that researchers at the University of Minnesota estimate that converting the entire U.S. corn crop — the sum of all our ears — into ethanol would replace only 12 percent of our gasoline consumption.

Still, doesn’t every little bit help? Well, this little bit would come at a very high price compared with the obvious alternative — conservation. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that reducing gasoline consumption 10 percent through an increase in fuel economy standards would cost producers and consumers about $3.6 billion a year. Achieving the same result by expanding ethanol production would cost taxpayers at least $10 billion a year, based on the subsidies ethanol already receives — and probably much more, because expanding production would require higher subsidies.

What’s more, ethanol production has hidden costs. Even the Department of Energy, which is relatively optimistic, says that the net energy savings from replacing a gallon of gasoline with ethanol are only the equivalent of about a quarter of a gallon, because of the energy used to grow corn, transport it, run ethanol plants, and so on. And these energy inputs come almost entirely from fossil fuels, so it’s not clear whether promoting ethanol does anything to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

So why is ethanol, not conservation, the centerpiece of the administration’s energy policy? Actually, it’s not entirely Mr. Bush’s fault.

To be sure, at this point Mr. Bush’s people seem less concerned with devising good policy than with finding something, anything, for the president to talk about that doesn’t end with the letter “q.” And the malign influence of Dick “Sign of Personal Virtue” Cheney, who no doubt still sneers at conservation, continues to hang over everything.

But even after the Bushies are gone, bad energy policy ideas will have powerful constituencies, while good ideas won’t.

Subsidizing ethanol benefits two well-organized groups: corn growers and ethanol producers (especially the corporate giant Archer Daniels Midland). As a result, it’s bad policy with bipartisan support. For example, earlier this month legislation calling for a huge increase in ethanol use was introduced by five senators, of whom four, including presidential aspirants Barack Obama and Joseph Biden, were Democrats. In a recent town meeting in Iowa, Hillary Clinton managed to mention ethanol twice, according to The Politico.

Meanwhile, conservation doesn’t have anything like the same natural political mojo. Where’s the organized, powerful constituency for tougher fuel economy standards, a higher gasoline tax, or a cap-and-trade system on carbon dioxide emissions?

Can anything be done to promote good energy policy? Public education is a necessary first step, which is why Al Gore deserves all the praise he’s getting. It would also help to have a president who gets scientific advice from scientists, not oil company executives and novelists.

But there’s still a huge gap between what obviously should be done and what seems politically possible. And I don’t know how to close that gap.

The Problem with Hillary

Despite her intelligence, Frank Rich (NYT 1/28) has put his finger on the problme with her as Presidential candidate.

"The issue raised by the tragedy of Iraq is not who’s on the left or the right, but who is in front and who is behind. Mrs. Clinton has always been a follower of public opinion on the war, not a leader. Now events are outrunning her. Support for the war both in the polls and among Republicans in Congress is plummeting faster than she can recalibrate her rhetoric; unreliable Iraqi troops are already proving no-shows in the new Iraqi-American “joint patrols” of Baghdad; the Congressional showdown over fresh appropriations for Iraq is just weeks away.

This, in other words, is a moment of crisis in our history and there will be no do-overs. Should Mrs. Clinton actually seek unfiltered exposure to voters, she will learn that they are anxiously waiting to see just who in Washington is brave enough to act."

Dem VP wind blowing from Kansas, of all places?

Devilstower, a contributor to Daily Kos, has an excellent run-down on Kathleen Sebelius, the Democratic governor of Kansas who is on the VP short-list. In a state with roughly a 20-point Republican advantage, she won by 17 points while apparently sticking to Democratic basics. Think of that: it’s almost a 40 point swing from the expected. Sebelius is very attractive, has been acclaimed as one of the best governors in the country, and besides all that, is from Cincinnati, Ohio originally – i.e., she would give the ticket a better shot at that always-troublesome state. Keep an eye out. Not with Hillary, I cannot imagine, but with Edwards or Obama she could round out a killer ticket.

On anti-Muslim bigotry

Glenn Greenwald has a good post on the growing biogotry against Arabs and Muslims which I wholeheartedly endorse. Go read it here.

Unfortunately, mockery of Arabs and Muslims is becoming de rigeur in many social circles. Not too surprisingly, much of this is occurring among those who fifty years ago called adult black males "boy" or "nigger" and black children "pickaninnies," but unfortunately it is expanding way beyond that group to many otherwise decent, well-informed individuals. It's a disgusting and very dangerous development, and it certainly doesn't reflect well on us as Americans. Given our history, we should know better.

Fair trade

So, Lieberman says he might support a Republican in 2008. But, as Hounddog in KC said to me on the phone last week, "that's a fair trade. They get Lieberman, we get Hagel.

The single unnamed F.I.S.A. judge

Corrente asks whether the reason Bush was able to get a single unnamed F.I.S.A. judge to authorize his NSA wiretapping program is that he got something to hold over the judge's head by wiretapping.

The right response

I'm not usually a great fan of our resident plaigarist, Joe Biden, but he did come up with the right response to the "emboldening the enemy" accusation:

WASHINGTON - The Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman on Sunday dismissed criticism that a resolution opposing a troop buildup in Iraq would embolden the enemy and estimated perhaps only 20 senators believe President Bush "is headed in the right direction."

"It's not the American people or the U.S. Congress who are emboldening the enemy," said Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, a White House hopeful in 2008. "It's the failed policy of this president — going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely."

Is the Libby case the end of Fitzgerald's investigation?

Looseheadprop at Firedoglake speculates that the Libby case is not the end of Fitzgerald's investigation. The possibility is raised by the seemingly strange way that Fitzgerald offered Ari Fleischer immunity without knowing what he had to offer:

Maybe I have lost my mind or am just high from WAY too much popcorn, but I think that this means that Team Fitz gambled that Ari had something huge to tell. The fact that whatever it is that PatFitz is saying he does not have to turn over to the defense even exists, to the extent it may exist, suggests to me that the investigation is not over and that maybe, just maybe, that gamble has paid off.

Please understand, this is ONLY tea leaf reading, but no other explanation suggests itself that accounts for all factors. I think maybe there is something out there, that came from Ari, that is NOT part of the proof relating to the crimes Libby is charged with (does this also explain why Libby's charges were so narrowly drawn?) that Team Libby is dying to know about and Pat is fighting hard to keep a secret. If it was all going to be over after the Libby trial, why fight so hard to keep this info secret?

The Impending War with Iran

Soccerdad at the Left Coaster tells us the "surge" is simply a deliberate feint to take our eyes off the impending war with Iran. Unfortunately, I suspect he's right. Most experts believe March is the target month:

It seems pretty clear that from a military point of view that the surge cannot achieve its stated goals. It is also likely that the number of troops being sent to Baghdad is limited by the supply of available troops. None the less, the surge has provided news material and discussion to divert America’s attention from the upcoming attack on Iran.

... Any attack on Iran will almost certainly involve the use of nuclear weapons. Although called “bunker busters” to make them sound more palatable, there will be significant amounts of fallout and deaths. Bush has been working hard to divide the Middle east see Lebanon and the Palestinian situation, pitting Shia versus Sunni and trying to draw other countries such as Saudi Arabia into the conflict. The whole process could easily spiral out of control ending a complete conflagration of the Middle East.

I submit in all seriousness that Bush/Cheney does not see this as a problem but rather see this as an inevitable process that must run its course in order for the US to seize control of the most energy rich region in the world. Dead Iraqis, Iranians, or even American soldiers have no weight in the cost-benefit analysis. Any policy that keeps the energy in the ground and away from China and other non-European/American users is a success, if not a final one.

So lets strip away all the BS and get to the core facts. The United States is willing to kill millions of innocent men, women and children to insure its supply of energy and exert its geopolitical supremacy throughout Eurasia. That’s it. Its that simple.

Iran nuclear program in shambles?

The Observer tells us that knowledgeable specialists believe Iran's nuclear program is in a state of chaos.

Iran's efforts to produce highly enriched uranium, the material used to make nuclear bombs, are in chaos and the country is still years from mastering the required technology.

Iran's uranium enrichment programme has been plagued by constant technical problems, lack of access to outside technology and knowhow, and a failure to master the complex production-engineering processes involved. The country denies developing weapons, saying its pursuit of uranium enrichment is for energy purposes.

I have no independent evidence, but it seems to me that this is exactly what our own intelligence experts were saying up till a few months ago, when the Bushies decided to launch their propaganda war on Iran.

Frankly, I'm inclined to believe anyone who disagrees with the position our government takes on almost anything. Bush and his buddies have proven time and time again that whenever there is a choice between lying and telling the truth, they will lie.

Obama's Harvard Law Days

For those interested, the NY Times has a fairly interesting piece on Obama's days at Harvard Law. By and large it's a rather laudatory article, although it does raise the question whether an "on the one hand and on the other hand" approach to problem solving will play well in a world looking for decisive leadership.

Calling a spade a spade

Yesterday, I read with some surprise the NY Times' article saying that some maverick economists claim Americans are saving too much for retirement. I concluded the whole thing was a crock, but, since I hadn't actually read any of the underlying research, I didn't comment on it. Kevin Drum, however, finds more than enough in the Times' article itself to destroy it thoroughly:

If you read through it, it presents a grand total of three pieces of evidence for this view. Here they are:

• A study of the generation born between 1931 and 1941 "revealed that at least 80 percent had accumulated more than enough wealth for retirement."

  This is absurd. This cohort is one of the most singular generations in American history: they were born during the Depression, had famously high savings rates, came of age during the go-go 60s, often had generous pensions, and had a very high Social Security payout compared to the taxes they paid in. Of course most of them had enough wealth for retirement. This is like studying the NBA and reporting back that Americans are taller than you think.

• Another study found that "88 percent of retirees age 51 and older had adequate wealth."

  Again, this means nothing. Almost by definition, retirees between the age of 51 and 65 are those who have saved enough to retire comfortably. The ones who haven't (the vast majority) aren't retired yet and are automatically excluded from this study. As for the retirees over age 65, they're part of an older generation that we already know had high savings rates.

• Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University economics professor, thinks people save too much.

  Why? The article doesn't really say, except to tell us that Kotlikoff has invented his own retirement planning software that he's trying to market. His selling point is that his software produces different results than the calculators used by most financial planning firms.

I have no more than casual anecdotal evidence on this, but from the people I see around me, I don't see much savings going on, and most fear they will have to work well into their "retirement" years just to keep afloat.

Leadership wanted

Frank Rich really rakes Hillary over the coals in his piece today in the NY Times [behind subscription wall], but, on the whole I think he's right. We need leaders, not triangulators.

HILLARY CLINTON has an answer to those who suspect that her “I’m in to win” Webcast last weekend was forced by Barack Obama’s Webcast of just four days earlier. “I wanted to do it before the president’s State of the Union,” she explained to Brian Williams on NBC, “because I wanted to draw the contrast between what we’ve seen over the last six years, and the kind of leadership and experience that I would bring to the office.”

She couldn’t have set the bar any lower. President Bush’s speech was less compelling than the Monty Python sketch playing out behind it: the unacknowledged race between Nancy Pelosi and Dick Cheney to be the first to stand up for each bipartisan ovation. (Winner: Pelosi.)

... Few Americans know more than Senator Clinton about health care, as it happens, and if 27 Americans hadn’t been killed in Iraq last weekend, voters might be in the mood to listen to her about it. But polls continue to show Iraq dwarfing every other issue as the nation’s No. 1 concern. The Democrats’ pre-eminent presidential candidate can’t escape the war any more than the president can. And so she was blindsided Tuesday night, just as Mr. Bush was, by an unexpected gate crasher, the rookie senator from Virginia, Jim Webb. Though he’s not a candidate for national office, Mr. Webb’s nine-minute Democratic response not only upstaged the president but also, in an unintended political drive-by shooting, gave Mrs. Clinton a more pointed State of the Union “contrast” than she had bargained for.

To the political consultants favored by both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bush, Mr. Webb is an amateur. More than a few Washington insiders initially wrote him off in last year’s race to unseat a star presidential prospect, the incumbent Senator George Allen. Mr. Webb is standoffish. He doesn’t care whom he offends, including in his own base. He gives the impression — as he did Tuesday night — that he just might punch out his opponent. When he had his famously testy exchange with Mr. Bush over the war at a White House reception after his victory, Beltway pooh-bahs labeled him a boor, much as they had that other interloper who refused to censor himself before the president last year, Stephen Colbert.

But this country is at a grave crossroads. It craves leadership. When Mr. Webb spoke on Tuesday, he stepped into that vacuum and, for a few minutes anyway, filled it. It’s not merely his military credentials as a Vietnam veteran and a former Navy secretary for Ronald Reagan that gave him authority, or the fact that his son, also a marine, is serving in Iraq. It was the simplicity and honesty of Mr. Webb’s message. Like Senator Obama, he was a talented professional writer before entering politics, so he could discard whatever risk-averse speech his party handed him and write his own. His exquisitely calibrated threat of Democratic pushback should Mr. Bush fail to change course on the war — “If he does not, we will be showing him the way” — continued to charge the air even as Mrs. Clinton made the post-speech rounds on the networks.