GreyBlog

Back Home and Outta Here

2006-01-10T09:08:00.000-08:00

Well gang, some changes for the greyster.

Starting today, I'm going to begin blogging at a new site and in conjunction with a fellow blogger. I'll be joining with "Lynne" from the blog "Big Fat Liberal" at the new blog site:

Bending the Third Rail

Lynne brings a different perspective, but a nice complement, to what I try to do with blogging. So now you can get the best of both on one site!

Please join us at Bending the Third Rail and enjoy the same pithy, accurate, terrific, fantastic, informative and all-around cosmopolitan posts that you've come to expect from GreyBlog.

Hope to see you there!

Out o' Town

2006-01-08T08:39:00.000-08:00

I'm outta town the next day or so. I'm having a postponed New Year's Eve. We weren't able to get out of Sonoma County (or back in if we had gotten out) on New Year's due to the flooding/slides/storm, so we're doing it today.

Back on Tuesday!

Happy New Year!

They Always Suspected

2006-01-07T09:22:00.000-08:00

Now they know for sure. The Arab world must laugh their asses off when they read a story like this.

It's too bad the Pentagon, or White House, didn't hire me. I would have come relatively cheap. And I could have told them there would be an insurgency and saved a lot of grief.

But then, they wouldn't have listened to me either, now would they?

Happy Anniversary!

2006-01-06T17:41:00.000-08:00

To the Cates! Go to Ms. Jan's and you'll see.

More For Foer

2006-01-06T10:05:00.000-08:00

Eric Alterman let's slip a little tidbit in his Think Again column in The Nation:

The New York Times held its story on domestic spying for more than a year and published it only when it became apparent that it would appear in a book by its reporter James Risen.

Here I was actually going to give the NY Times a teeny bit of credit (well, in my mind anyway) for finally doing the right thing, resisting White House pressure, and publishing the news of Bush's illegal domestic wiretaps....finally. If Alterman has this correct, and there's no reason to believe he doesn't, they only published the story because Risen had a book coming out that would scoop them.

Aside from the obvious reinforcement of the image of the Times as a self-serving co-opted institution, this sorta renders moot Franklin Foer's rant against the negative attitude by the "liberal bloggers" towards the Times good deed, now doesn' it.

Boot on the Ground

2006-01-06T09:44:00.000-08:00

Here's the opinion of someone up close and personal to the Iraq situation:

WASHINGTON (AFX) - Sectarian rivalries and inefficient Iraqi ministries could turn the Iraqi security forces into 'militias or armed gangs,' Lt. General John Vines, the senior US operational commander in Iraq, told The New York Times.

The comments came as it emerged that US forces suffered Thursday their deadliest day in Iraq since August last year.

In what the newspaper called 'perhaps the bluntest public assessment yet by a senior military officer' of Iraq's future, Vines said in an interview published Friday that the security forces were currently better organized than the Iraqi government.

'The ability of the ministries to support them, to pay them, to resupply them, provide them with water, ammunition, spare parts and weapons is not as advanced as the competence of the forces in the field,' Vines said.

It looks like "some" in the military have decided that their spokesman, Jack Murtha, wasn't able to get the job done. Wonder how long this general will have a job? Then again, maybe he's ready for retirement given the situation he's in:

International Hearld Tribune:

As the operational commander for more than 150,000 American troops and 20,000 coalition forces, Vines has day-to-day oversight, along with his Iraqi counterparts, over what troops here call the battle space around the country.

In the weeks leading up to the December election, however, Vines split with his boss, General George Casey Jr., the overall American commander in Iraq, over how and where to assign critical resources to ensure a peaceful and successful election.

According to interviews with several senior army officers, who were granted anonymity to avoid their getting caught in the middle of a disagreement between their two top bosses, Casey wanted to beef up operations along the border between Iraq and Syria, as well as the Euphrates River Valley, to make it harder for suicide bombers to infiltrate and explode themselves in Baghdad during the elections.

But Vines and his field commanders said the center of gravity was Baghdad and its predominantly Sunni Arab suburbs like Falluja, the officers said. Vines wanted to position more forces there to increase the Sunni Arab turnout, a major political goal of the Bush administration but also a means to help reduce the insurgency.

The two senior commanders eventually worked out a compromise to put troops in both places, but there were tense moments before the two generals said they would have to agree to disagree, according to senior officers.

Sounds like two bulldogs fighting over a bone. Not enough troops maybe?

I feel sorry for these guys. Nation-building is not their job. Everybody in Iraq hates them, with a whole bunch of them trying to kill them. There's not enough of them. They can't trust the Iraqi's who are supposed to take over from them. Political leadership at home is miserable. And who knows when it will all end.

Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place. It's a wonder they're not tearing each other apart.

Faux Outrage

2006-01-06T09:20:00.000-08:00

Mike over at Born at the Crest of Empire (a great blog btw) updates us on the outrage of Senators Warner, Graham and McCain (aka the usual suspects):

When Bush signed the defense bill containing the torture amendment, it was hailed as a significant moment, but, at the same time, Bush also quietly signed an "interpretive signing statement" which states how the president intends to enact the law he just signed.

...

The problem is that this bill was overwhelmingly passed, spearheaded by Warner, Graham, and McCain specifically to stop Bush from torturing under this claim of executive power. So, needless to say, those are some angry republican senators.

Ah yes, those pesky "interpretive signings". I wrote awhile back, right after passage of the bill in fact, that there was no way Bush was going to allow himself to be constrained by the anti-torture legislation. Whether it's field manual changes, ignoring the legislation, or "interpretive signings", Bush see's Presidential power as unfettered during "time of war". That's his rationalization. That's how Bush can believe he's following the Constitution. If we didn't have this "War on Terror", then he'd consider checks and balances. But because we're "at war" then he can do whatever he wants. After all, isn't that what Lincoln did? (no, he didn't, but don't try and tell any wingnut that).

So back the the usual suspects. Frankly, the outrage of any Republican legislator is ridiculous. We've heard it before....many times. Graham saying that he wasn't going to allow the torture investigation to stop at some sergeant, McCain's outrage at torture, and Warner being .. well Warner. It's all window dressing to try and save the 2006 and 2008 elections. Any serious attempt to check Bush would result in a disaster for the Republican party, much more so than Bush. Bush knows it. The Senators know it. So they play this kabuki dance of outrage and Bush just goes about his dictatorial business.

Don't believe any legislative attempts to rein in Bush unless a) it happens after the 2006 elections and is instigated by a Democratically dominated house of Congress, or b) these "outraged" Congress folks actually like, do something.

NY Times In Jail?

2006-01-05T17:46:00.000-08:00

So apparently there is some legal standing to consider prosecuting the NY Times for "leaking" the NSA illegal domestic wire tapping story according to a story by Harvey Silvergate:

A variety of federal statutes, from the Espionage Act on down, give Bush ample means to prosecute the Times reporters who got the scoop, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, as well as the staff editors who facilitated publication. Even Executive Editor Bill Keller and Publisher Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr., could become targets — a startling possibility, just the threat of which would serve as a deterrent to the entire Fourth Estate.

Legal means are one thing, but political will is another

First there's the obvious, and well-written about, irony of Bush going tooth-n'-nail after this leaker vs. the Plame leaker. And there's the obvious differences that any moron can see between a whistle blower and a dirty trickster. But other's have spoken to this in detail. I want to ask something else.

Would Bush actually go after the Times?

I hope he does. Maybe something like a crisis between the fourth estate and the government needs to occur to give the media gang the message that they're in danger. The crisis that occurred between the Nixon administration and the media over the Pentagon Papers release/publication galvanized the media in defense of itself. Silvergate speculates about the possibility of such a trial:

Such an indictment could be brought in short order. It would be unnecessary for the DOJ to complete the leak investigation before indicting media defendants, since the mere publication of the story would be the alleged crime regardless of the identity of the leakers. Nor would the Times’ publisher, editors, and reporters be able to claim ignorance of the top-secret nature of the information published: surely the president and his aides made that very clear at a meeting held with Keller and Sulzberger in the Oval Office last year. Besides, the Times’ voluntary postponement of publication for a year prior to that meeting could readily be spun as indicating knowledge that harm to national interests was possible.

Silvergate thinks that there's legal standing to indict, and that an indictment might not be too difficult to acquire. But then there's this:

Defense lawyers would doubtless argue, probably effectively, that their clients performed a public service by exposing official wrongdoing at the highest levels of government. Bush would, in effect, be placed on trial, along with the New York Times. One can imagine defense counsel quoting Thomas Jefferson that "between a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I would surely choose the latter." It would be one helluva fight — the fight that we never got to see between Nixon and the media.

Publications like the Times have been trying appeasement for years to try and manipulate their relationship with politicians and have only ended up being tools of the government. That's not how it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be war. Government and media are not supposed to get along. That's what makes it work as the media is another check on government abuse. And frankly, government has upheld their part. It's the media that has become overly solicitous, flabby, and ineffective.

For those who may argue that such an attack by the government might have a "chilling" effect on the media, I say so what? Can it really get much worse at this point? Perhaps an attack by the government and a spirited legal defense by a prominent media outlet would amplify/clarify some of the law around the first amendment and educate the American public to the abuses on both sides. And I specifically distinguish such a legal action from the sham that was Judy Miller's stand to protect sources due to Miller being de facto on the governments side.

So as Bush might say, "Bring it on!"

A Little Humor Please

2006-01-05T14:31:00.000-08:00

Our national religious nutbar, Pat Robertson is at it again!

Balls

2006-01-05T09:39:00.000-08:00

Sometimes blogging is a particularly frustrating experience.

You sit out here in the internet hinterlands writing a gazillion words that a few brave souls dare to read. But once in awhile, you actually get ahead of the conventional wisdom. Once...in...awhile. You're certainly not the only one out front. But you're one who gets out in front of the mainstream.

This is one of those times.

I've been writing about messaging. A lot. You don't have to go far into the archives to find me ranting about the importance of Democrats de-wimping themselves. My support of Paul Hackett over Sherrod Brown is almost entirely based on the fact that Paul Hackett "gets it". I'm leaning toward Russ Feingold right now for the same reasons. Americans are afraid (you could write a book about this topic) and are desperatly looking for reassurances and bravery. Bush and the Republicans have been fueling that need, albeit on purely political grounds while Democrats have played "me-too". By that I mean, the G.O.P.'s not promoted bravery, they've exploited fear for personal gain, while the Democrats have been largely silent.

The liberal blogosphere is finally starting to promote the theme of bravery. Atrios has a post today promoting a piece by Glenn Greenwald and mentioning a post by Digby and Kos about the whole "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" thing.

Aside from my "told ya" moment. I wonder why it's taken so long (Digby excluded)? 9/11 is now nearly five years old. Patriots are just now starting to stick their heads out of their hidey holes and saying, "hey, let's stop being such frady cats and be like our forefathers.....brave". The blogosphere is usually way out front of the media on such issues. And yet, the mainstream bloggers are just now starting to push this theme.

Makes me wonder?

Dripping Again

2006-01-05T09:30:00.000-08:00

Here's NBC's statement about removing Andrea Mitchell's referral to Christian Amanpour (via AmericaBlog):

Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry.

A non-denial denial. As John says, it's a virtual confirmation that NBC has information that Amanpour has been tapped.

For context, Christian Amanapour is an international correspondent for CNN. She is also married to Jaime Rubin, former Clinton administration spokesman for the State Department and Democratic party activist.

Don't ya just love it? Andrea spills the beans accidentally. I never thought of her as the brightest bulb in the package and this does nothing to change that view. Wonder what else the media knows that it's not reporting?

Undrip, Undrip, Undrip

2006-01-04T14:31:00.000-08:00

At least if NBC News has it's way regarding Andrea Mitchell's little "slip" in her interview with James Risen. Here's the transcript before cleansing:

Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net?

Risen: No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that

Mitchell: You don't have any information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon?

Risen: No, no I hadn't heard that.

Here's what it says now:

Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net?

Risen: No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that

Mitchell: You are very, very tough on the CIA and the administration in general in both the war on terror and the run up to the war and the war itself Â? the post-war operation. Let's talk about the war on terror. Why do you think they missed so many signals and what do you think caused the CIA to have this sort of break down as you describe it?

Risen: I think that, you know, to me, the greater break down was really on Iraq. It's very difficult to have known ahead of time about these 19 hijackers. They were, you know, probably lucky that they got through and they did something that no one really assumed anybody would ever do. And I think that made 9/11 a lot like Pearl Harbor. That even when you see all the clues in front of you that it's very difficult to put it together.

Guess the White House called to cancelled those cocktail party invites unless NBC got out the white-out.

Wonder if Franklin Foer thinks we should defend NBC News due to their journalistic ethics.

Whatever.

Making It Real

2006-01-04T14:18:00.000-08:00

MsJan makes the Sago mining disaster real.

Drip Drip Drip

2006-01-04T12:22:00.000-08:00

The drip drip drip of revelations continues. Andrea Mitchell, asking such a question, would likely only do so if she'd "heard" something. Via AmericBlog:

From NBC News:

New York Times reporter James Risen first broke the story two weeks ago that the National Security Agency began spying on domestic communications soon after 9/11. In a new book out Tuesday, "State of War," he says it was a lot bigger than that. Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell sat down with Risen to talk about the NSA, and the run-up to the war in Iraq....

Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net?

Risen: No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that

Mitchell: You don't have any information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon?

Risen: No, no I hadn't heard that.

Let's see. The government illegally wire-tapping journalists.

Nothing to see here...move along...

Illegal Tapping Before the Illegal Tapping

2006-01-04T09:46:00.000-08:00

So, now it appears that the NSA sorta, on it's own initiative, decided to start the illegal domestic wire tapping before Bush ordered the illegal domestic wire tapping. WaPo

Even before the White House formally authorized a secret program to spy on U.S. citizens without obtaining warrants, such eavesdropping was occurring and some of the information was being shared with the FBI, declassified correspondence and interviews with congressional and intelligence officials indicate.

On Oct. 1, 2001, three weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was running the National Security Agency at the time, told the House intelligence committee that the agency was broadening its surveillance authorities, according to a newly released letter sent to him that month by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). Pelosi, the ranking Democrat on the committee, raised concerns in the letter, which was declassified with several redactions and made public yesterday by her staff.

"I am concerned whether and to what extent the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting," Pelosi wrote on Oct. 11, 2001. The substance of Hayden's response one week later, on Oct. 17, 2001, was redacted.

This brings up a few other questions, like who did order the initial illegal taps? This smells like Cheney to me. Maybe his "undisclosed" location after 911 was a bunker with headphones in his ears. Pay attention as further details of this story dribble out. Bolton is involved in this somewhere spying on Bill Richardson and who knows who. We are still only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

As I've said before. Osama bin Laden has to be surprised and amazed beyond his wildest dreams at just how fragile we Americans are, and just how effective the his terrorist operations have been.

Congressman/Judge/Preznit Bush

2006-01-03T13:33:00.000-08:00

I sent this around today via the famous "greymail", but decided it was just too important to not elaborate.

I ran across a piece this morning in Slate's "Today's Paper":

And what's not in the papers … Yesterday's Post noted President Bush's penchant for "signing statements," which give the White House interpretation of a law being, well, signed. The idea is to have challenges to a law on paper and thus give the administration a potential leg up in future court cases. The signing statements are an attempt to "address specific provisions of legislation that the White House wishes to nullify," said one presidential historian. He added that they are "also in an effort to significantly reposition and strengthen the powers of the presidency relative to the Congress."

The Post did a great job burying the above trend: "ALITO ONCE MADE CASE FOR PRESIDENTIAL POWER." Also, what the WP didn't pick up on—and what nobody else seems to either: The White House issued just such a signing statement—an apparent attempt at nullification—for Sen. McCain's anti-torture amendment. The statement says:
The executive branch shall construe [the amendment] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President ... of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.
The president acceded to the McCain amendment just a few weeks ago and ended up praising it. Anybody care to ask the White House whether, given the above language, it considers the government absolutely bound by McCain's ban?

So now Bush has these little formal "signing" ceremonies which include his own legal findings on laws he's to sign, designed to bolster Presidential power in the courts and clarify exactly what he thinks the law should do. And the Bushies apparently use these "signed findings" with a force of law. Cool. By arranging a neat table and a few pens, and then signing whatever Velma was told to type up, Bush becomes a legislator and a judge, all in one swoop of the pen.

Beyond the obvious abuse of power and unconstitutional nature of this. I have another "issue" with this practice. Why hasn't the media covered this more thoroughly? These actions are nothing short of further attempts to grab more dictatorial power. His style as President has been to assume it's ok unless and until a terminator-like character comes to the White House door, beats it in, puts his foot on the Preznit's chest and says, "no Mr. President, you can't do that". And given a Republican Congress, that just hasn't happened. I guess our press, who is so deserving of our respect and protection just thought this one wasn't worth of paper/ink. Or maybe they were too busy at the holiday cocktail circuit to be bothered with a measley separation of powers problem.

Anyway, Bush just keeps making it up. Here's yet another instance where we'll see if there are any honest Republicans left.

A Hammer Instead of Tweezers

2006-01-03T10:38:00.000-08:00

Here's what the American presence in Iraq is more likely to look like in 2006:

BAIJI, Iraq, Jan 3 (Reuters) - A U.S. air strike killed several members of a family in the oil refining town of Baiji in northern Iraq, Iraqi security forces said on Tuesday.

The U.S. military, responding to an inquiry, said aircraft had targeted a house after three men suspected of planting a roadside bomb were seen entering the building late on Monday.

The military statement made no mention of casualties and said Iraqi police had handled the scene after the attack.

Local people at the scene of the blast said seven bodies were recovered from the rubble, including at least two children.

...

A statement from the U.S. 101st Airborne Division in response to an inquiry about the deaths said soldiers monitoring video footage from a reconnaissance drone [likely from a facility in Nevada] spotted three men apparently digging a hole around 9 p.m. (1800 GMT) "following the common pattern of roadside bomb emplacement".

Bomber pilots were alerted, the military statement said: "The individuals left the road site and were followed from the air to a nearby building. Coalition forces employed precision guided munitions on the structure."

The statement did not say whether a roadside bomb was found.

We're going to see a withdrawal of ground troops and increase in air strikes. And who will be calling in those strikes? Probably Iraqi's ... maybe with an axe to grind.

Even when done well with quality intelligence and appropriate targeting, using air power to fight an insurgency is madness. Can you just picture it? Some kid sitting at console screen outside of Vegas eating a mustard dog spots some Iraqi's "digging a hole" and then orders air strikes.

But the U.S. doesn't care. We've routinely killed so many civilian innocents that using airpower makes sense. With fewer American casualties, the pressure on the administration will diminish because the American public just doesn't give a damned about the deaths of a bunch of "them".

Remember, no matter what the press reports. The study published in Lancet in 2004 (now over a year old) conclusively proved that there had been over 100,000 Iraqi's killed. The press continually spits out the 30,000 number, based on "media reports" that the tabulator freely admits are wrong. Of course our stellar media, in an attempt to remain "fair", trumpets the smaller number despite the evidence to the contrary. Besides. It's obvious the 30,000 number is wrong. I know this because Bush uses that same number.

The United States. Winning hearts and minds one bomb at a time. But hey, those Iraq children have some swell new paint jobs on their schools!

Foer What?

2006-01-02T14:31:00.000-08:00

Why do I read The Plank? Why do I daily cause a stress induced blood pressure increase?

I guess because I generally like Michael Crowley. But the other folks who write on the blog are not my cup of tea. Reading the likes of Jason Zengerle and Franklin Foer remind me of exactly why I abandoned "The New Republic" some time back.

Anyway, Franklin Foer expands on his bitch-a-thon about liberal blogs today. He's just dumbfounded that everyone isn't fawning over the NY Times after they revealed Bush's illegal domestic wire taps .... a year after they got the story. Well Franklin, yes, they finally did break the story. But given the consequences of their hesitation due to the cozy whore-like relationship with the administration, I can't get too worked up in praising the Times. It's a bit like the old saying, "other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"

Foer specifically mentions Atrios with a snarky comment about Atrios not having broken any big stories like the NY Times. Huh? Is that a stupid statement or what? Let's see. And individual blogger using a free blogging program and his own time/effort is supposed to be equivalent to the NY Times? Note to Foer. Trying saying that to Josh Marshall or any number of bloggers who specifically hold themselves out as investigative blogs (which Atrios does not), and who regularly beat the "press" to new stories using far, far less resources.

Remember, Foer is supposed to be writing from a liberal perspective. Here is Foer's second paragraph comment in it's entirety:

These attacks [by liberal bloggers on the NY Times] should be meaningless, except they're not.The administration has now launched an investigation into the leak that produced the Times story. This is a dangerous case that could seriously threaten the ability of reporters to do their jobs. And liberals should be apoplectic about the threat it represents. But instead of apoplexy, many in the MSB are sitting on their hands. The Bush administration has opened a new front in its war on the press, and the press has no defenders. Thanks to the MSB's sweeping, reckless criticisms, the Times has lost much of the credibility and authority that it needs to mount a robust defense. For this, the bloggers deserve some credit. Well done, guys.

I want to take excerpts a little at a time:

These attacks [by bloggers on the NY Times] should be meaningless, except they're not.

The NY Times has degenerated into neither fish nor fowl. It can't decide to be a tabloid yet, but it won't invest in quality journalism. So, just what should the blogging public do when the Times is incompetent while still holding itself out as "the paper of record"? And is the Times so incapable of defending itself? And if the criticisms are without merit, who cares what bloggers say? Unfortunately, attacks by bloggers have only worked because the Times has been the poster-child for incompetent journalism.

The administration has now launched an investigation into the leak that produced the Times story. This is a dangerous case that could seriously threaten the ability of reporters to do their jobs.

Ohhh....kayyy...... This is nothing new by the administration. They've been after the press since day one. I can guarantee you that liberal bloggers did not elect George Bush preznit.

And liberals should be apoplectic about the threat it represents. But instead of apoplexy, many in the MSB [my emphasis] are sitting on their hands. The Bush administration has opened a new front in its war on the press, and the press has no defenders.

This paragraph is an example of the new "journalist" reporting, and why bloggers go ape shit over "stories" written in this way. Who says that liberal bloggers aren't concerned about the administration going after whistle-blowers? Who exactly are the "many in the MSB (mainstream bloggers) that he refers too? I read any number of posts criticizing the administration. But I also know that the administration released this bit of news during the holidays, a time when all news is muted. Let's see where the investigation goes. And the press having no defenders? Defense against what? Nothing has happened yet. This falls into the famous "some say" category of spin used by the administration and press when they have no sources.

Thanks to the MSB's sweeping, reckless criticisms, the Times has lost much of the credibility and authority that it needs to mount a robust defense. For this, the bloggers deserve some credit. Well done, guys.

Oh pleeeeze.... The government abusing it's power is a problem for the citizens of the country. The press has at it's disposal any number of tools to inform the citizenry, if they choose to do the legwork, be willing to piss off power, and spend money on resources. Ask Sy Hersh about journalism. I bet ya he's never been invited to a inside the beltway cocktail party.

Loss of credibility? Yep. Jason Blair, Judy Miller, Bill Keller, Arthur Sulzberger, Bob Woodward, "Steno" Sue Schmidt, Michael Isikoff, Bob Novak (yes, he still has a column), not even mentioning the cable news hacks, if they count as "the press".

It appears to me that publications such as the Times and the WaPost don't need any help from bloggers to render themselves irrelevant, incredible, and vulnerable. They've done that to themselves quite nicely thank-you-very-much. Maybe someday Franklin Foer will get out of the 1970's an, like, actually understand what's happening in journalism.

Personism

2006-01-02T10:39:00.000-08:00

Linda Hirschman, who retired as the Allen/Berenson Distinguished Visiting Professor at Brandeis University, has written an article in this month's American Prospect. It's a very thorough, well-written perspective on modern feminism that I think contains much important information.

Hirshman notes that the advances of women in the workplace have stalled in the late 1990's. She believes that this stall has been created by renewed emphasis on homemaking and child-rearing, with the default cultural response being that women perform the task. She cites abundant data to back up what is happening. What she lacks, is abundant data as to why it's happening.

The premise of her article can be summarized by the article heading:

“Choice feminism” claims that staying home with the kids is just one more feminist option. Funny that most men rarely make the same “choice.” Exactly what kind of choice is that?

An interesting thought. I can think of many reasons for the "choices" made by both men and women. But Hirshman has some specific thoughts.

Hirshman's article goes on to examine why, postulating that it never really has been a choice and that women are forced into their roles as homemakers. Further, she claims that when the homemaking role is chosen, it's a bad choice:

Here’s the feminist moral analysis that choice avoided: The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust. To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said, “A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read.”

Ok. So housework can be mind numbing. And I agree that it is a better choice to pursue a rounded existence that includes involvement outside the home. And I also think it's better for society when women are equally involved and representated in our institutions. But just how and why is the "assigning" done?

Women who want to have sex and children with men as well as good work in interesting jobs where they may occasionally wield real social power need guidance, and they need it early.

This statement is the crux of Hirshman's point. Throughout the article, Hirshman's implication is that having a choice is not a good approach. And I can totally agree that those women who want to expand outside the home need support and encouragement. She evens outlines a detailed plan for how to reach women, encourage them, and promote equal involvment of women in our decision-making society. She further elaborates:

The privileged brides of the Times [an article written some time back about well-educated women staying home as homemakers] -- and their husbands -- seem happy. Why do we care what they do? After all, most people aren’t rich and white and heterosexual, and they couldn’t quit working if they wanted to.

We care because what they do is bad for them, is certainly bad for society, and is widely imitated, even by people who never get their weddings in the Times. This last is called the “regime effect,” and it means that even if women don’t quit their jobs for their families, they think they should and feel guilty about not doing it. That regime effect created the mystique around The Feminine Mystique, too.

Again, I agree with the second part. But how does Hirshman know that the interviewed wives only "seem" happy? There are two areas about which I'm unclear in Hirshman's arguments, or with which I disagree.

First, I just don't see how you get the "choice" out of it. Force young mothers to work? What of women who proclaim their honest desire to be stay-at-home moms? There's a premise to Hirshman's article that there is an enormous pool of women staying at home who really really don't want to. I don't know, perhaps she's correct. But maybe she's not. Maybe with the feminist movement of the 70's women (particularly wealthy women) were really freed to make a choice. And many have made it. And isn't it possible that many have happily chosen to stay home? Could there be biology at work here, a tug stronger for women than men in early childhood rearing? And what of the economics of the situation? Aren't there people (of both sexes) who may prefer to stay home and child-rear rather than work, but work out of economic necessity? Hirshman might argue that a "requirement" to work is a good, fulfilling element of a quality life. But what of individual liberty ... to be able to choose a more limited existence? It seems to me that this choice is not one limited to one sex or the other.

Next, Hirshman paints a glorified image of life outside the home that makes one think that everyone, absolutely anyone with half a brain would want to be in the working world. Perhaps that's just not true. Certainly since the feminist movement, many men have chosen to be stay-at-home dads while wives are the primary bread-winners. From a masculine standpoint, couldn't it be argued that for a lot of men, there's the tyranny of "having to be the breadwinner" while women retain the "choice" to work? While Hirshman admittedly is talking about "elite women", what of the vast majority of the rest of femaledom? Unlike the picture painted in Hirshman's piece, most jobs in the economy are not glamorous decision-making positions where individuals achieve enormous self-esteem and personal satisfaction from being a part of the working world. In fact many, maybe most, jobs can be as mind numbing as housework.

Of course, Bobo (David Brooks) had a response column in the NY Times, expressing the neandrathal point of view. I agree with much of the takedown done by Pandagon on Bobo's article. But because Bobo criticizes Hirshman also doesn't mean that Hirshman is therefore correct.

I have no doubt that there remain a large group of woman who feel stigmatized to stay home, who feel guilty when they have careers and families, who do double duty as workers and homemakers with little help from husbands. Support for these women to assert themselves into lives of personal satisfaction is a fantastic goal. But make no mistake about it, achieving that goal is something not given. It requires these women step outside themselves and to take the equality of choice. Power of this sort is never given. It's to these women that Hirshman's article is valuable.

I also have little doubt that many, many people, in the final analysis, pretty much do what they want or need to do. On evaluation, I think most of us look at our choices, weight the consequences, and live the life we choose. Sure, we all grumble, bitch, and complain about whatever choice we make. That's de rigeur . But most of us are right where, for a variety of reasons, we've chosen to be. And in a free society, that's our right. For those who aren't (btw, both male and female), support should be given to their honest efforts to change and better their lives. This is an issue that I see as being a personist issue, not just feminist.

Databases

2006-01-02T09:36:00.000-08:00

In reading my morning paper, I found this AP report:

STAMFORD, Conn. - Jessica Smith thought she was a shoo-in for a cashier's job at an Office Depot in Minnesota this past summer.

The store manager was encouraging, saying he just needed to run a criminal background check.

But a week later, Smith received a rejection letter that cited a lengthy rap sheet, including drug convictions in Washington.

"I have no record," Smith, 19, said as she flipped through court documents. "They all say felony and guilty. I've never even been to Washington."

Smith, who fought for six weeks to clear her name before eventually landing the job, was a casualty of one of the latest trends in business hiring. Companies increasingly rely on pre-employment background checks to ease security concerns and protect against costly lawsuits.

I'm an unabashed civil libertarian. How many cases like this occur where an individual is actually damaged and doesn't pursue it, or where the damage is not revealed? Or perhaps you pop up on a screeen and get an FBI tail (with a record)?

The proliferation of databases, private and governmental, represents and incredible threat to the right to privacy. That's really not news. And those who argue that giving up some privacy for protection would disagree with my focus on privacy.

But let me add this.

I've worked on databases all my life. Most recently, I've been working on a campaign database for a candidate for which I'm volunteering. And like past experiences, the errors in data input and maintenance are enormous. Even after many hours of "clean-up", I wouldn't be surprised to find a data error rate of 10%. As the old saying goes, "shit in, shit out", databases are only as good as the input and the maintanence. And make no mistake, the larger the database, the more likely the errors.

Creating and maintaining databases is a very laborious and therefore expensive endeavor. A governmental database, usually mined and compiled from many sources, becomes a herculean task perhaps involving thousands of individuals (or varying skill sets) to keep accurate. And no one who works with this information will guarantee it's accuracy. So anytime anyone tries to sell the "efficiency" of using information to catch bad guys, or screen for terriorist, or for any other purposes of security, just remember that for every possible catch, there may be hundreds if not thousands of false hits, resulting in enormous inconvience if not damage to those involved.

Databases have an incredibly weak link.

People.

Computers are stupid and depend on people for efficiency and accuracy.

Did I Miss Something?

2006-01-01T17:12:00.000-08:00

Here's Kevin Drum's take on the politics of the illegal wire tapping done by Bush. Remember, Kevin is on our side:

This whole thing is kind of depressing, isn't it? I don't mean in just the obvious sense, but also in the sense that this issue seems like such a clear loser for Democrats. Once again the president will be allowed to paint this as an issue of either wholeheartedly supporting the fight against terrorism or else being one of those whiny liberals who's allied with Osama in all but name. That the real issue is that Bush secretly broke the law instead of getting congressional authorization for it — which would have been a slam dunk for any remotely reasonable program — will end up lost in a whirlwind of the jingoistic bloviating we've come to expect from Fox News and Dick Cheney.

Huh?

Let's see. The President performs an impeachable offense and the best Kevin Drum can see is that Dems will be painted as whiny? Granted, at times the Dems have been quite adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But isn't Kevin pretty much repeating, in fact expanding, on G.O.P. talking points? And excuse me Kevin, but isn't your response just the type of analysis that leads to the outcome you predict?

When are "centrists" Democrats gonna get it. It's not the issue. It's how you message the issue. Sure, if Democrats go around citing federal code in cool analytical tones, they'll come across like wimps. But what happens if we let Paul "Bush is a son-of-a-bitch" Hackett give the Democratic response? Suppose Dems spend some pundit time incensed at the Constitutional violations, outraged at the breaches on privacy for ordinary Americans. Just suppose the Dems respond aggressively to Bush's illegal activities?

I know this may be outside the DLC/Bob Shrum playbook. But then again, it's time for a new team anyway.

Meds and Suicide

2006-01-01T12:29:00.000-08:00

Over the past several years, there have been lots of stories, and some weak studies, claiming to show a link between anti-depressants and suicide. Specifically, the family of anti-depressants called "SSRI's" has been implicated in increasing suicides.

I've always thought these claims were nonsense. But the media, defense attorney's, and some patients have continued the drum beat. Now there's this study from Health Central:

SUNDAY, Jan. 1 (HealthDay News) -- Contrary to what has been feared, the antidepressants known as serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are initially effective in as many as one-third of depressed patients and don't appear to increase the risk of suicide, two new studies claim.

...

The suicide findings seem to challenge a 2004 advisory by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that warned that suicidal behavior may increase after treatment with SSRIs. However, the study did find that suicide attempts were higher among teens than adults, a finding borne out by other research.

...

"This study, when it is all finally published, will give us a very good idea of how to treat treatment-resistant depression, and what the next step is after the SSRI fails," said Dr. David L. Dunner, director of the University of Washington's Center for Anxiety and Depression.

In the second study, researchers found the risk of suicide attempts and of successful suicides actually dropped in the weeks following the start of SSRI therapy.

"The risk of a serious suicide attempt in people who start taking antidepressant medication is, fortunately, quite low -- less than one in 1,000," said lead author Dr. Greg Simon, a researcher at the Group Health Cooperative, in Seattle. "The risk actually goes down after people start antidepressant medication."

Every ... single ... brand ... new ... therapist-in-training learns a very important lesson, right out of the chute. When a patient is severely depressed and suicidal, the most dangerous time for suicide is right when the individual begins to recover. The reason for this is quite simple. At the depths of a suicidal depression, individuals simply do not have the energy needed to carry out the suicide. However, once that individual's energy begins to improve (but not necessarily their mood), suicide then becomes a larger possibility. And a larger danger. Well guess what happens in the most initial phase of medication treatment?

I hope this puts some of the hysteria to bed. But somehow, I doubt it.

What It Says

2005-12-31T19:27:00.000-08:00

Soggy Is Right

2005-12-31T19:25:00.000-08:00

The wife and I live in Sonoma County, about 20 miles from the flooding of the Russian River in Guerneville.

MsJan has a nice article on a drive we took with a couple of picks. We couldn't get very close. But things were sure a mess.

Just Go Read

2005-12-31T08:53:00.000-08:00

Here.

What have we wrought?

The Plot to Seize the White House

2005-12-30T17:48:00.000-08:00

Anyone aware of a plot to take over the U.S. government in the 1930's? Well, there's a book about it. And apparently the book is rare and out-of-print. Tinfoil-hat types are pretty serious about it.

Haven't read it myself. I did download it an plan to read it. But given the times (the 30's), it wouldn't surprise me.

Oppressive Thoughts

2005-12-30T17:27:00.000-08:00

As I begin this tome, I want to make something clear. I am not a socialists. And I'm not a capitalist. My belief is the optimum economic model for our country is a seamless blending of the two. Capitalism is important in providing incentive and innovation. Socialism offers fairness and equal opportunity. Since the Depression, the United States has done a relatively fine job of blending the two, creating the first world-wide middle class in history, and affluence beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

Onward....

The past decade or so of politics has been particularly fasinating for me. As a total political junkie, I've watched the unfolding events with great interest. Through it all, one question has kept popping up in my mind (over and over and over):

How can voters support Republican policies, and specifically George Bush? The case against Bush is so incredibly crystal clear, I'm continually confounded by his supporters. Why?

On Perps and Tribes

Two of my favorite bloggers, Digby and Arthur Silber, have through various posts addressed this question. I'm going to briefly summarize my understanding of their positions here. Please go read them. (Note: Silber may be closing his blog down so links may be termporary). My clumsy summaries will do no serious justice to their thoughts which are spot on.

Arthur Silber has written a series of posts which he is fortunately recreating on his new site. One of them is here, containing many links to his others posts. In short, Arthur examines the Bush policies and support for those policies through the prism of childhood abuse. He contends (and I certainly agree) that the brutality of our society and current leadership is rooted in the integration of, and acceptance as normal of the pain, dissociation, and disillusionment of abused children who have grown into adulthood. His perspective is certainly one I've personally confirmed in the sphere of individuals, families and small organizations.

Digby has (through various posts like this one) discussed the unreasonable adherence to self-defeating politicians in terms of tribalism. In short Digby discusses how the need to affiliate with individuals who share common values leads to the ability to rationalize policy positions consistent with the tribe. He shows how the old south (geographically and emotionally) is one such large tribal unit, and how current politics is a continuation of the fight over the original sin of the United States slavery.

I'd like to take a look at this voter behavior from a very similar, but slightly different perspective.

The Economics of Oppression

I've been reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, A Team of Rivals . On pg. 133 she quotes from a speech given by William Henry Seward in 1850:

"There are two antagonistical elements of society in America", Seward had proclaimed, "freedom and slavery. Freedom is in harmony with our system of government and with the spirit of the age, and is therefore passive and quiescent. Slavery is in conflict with that system, with justice, and with humanity, and is therefore organized, defensive, active, and perpetually aggressive". Free labor, he said, demands universal suffrage and the widespread "diffusion of knowledge". The slave-based system, by contrast, "cherishes ignorance because it is the only security for oppression". [emphasis added] Sectional conflict, Seward warned, would inevitably arise from these two intrinsically different economic systems, which were producing dangerously divergent cultures, values, and assumptions.

Seward lays out an economic principle that stands today despite the civil war, civil rights movement, labor movement, and various Constitutional amendments. He also identifies an underlying principle for the current ideology war between Democrats and Republicans.

A portion of the United States was built on the economics of oppression ... slavery as free labor to build wealth in the south. The only way for slave holders to rationalize owning slaves is to internalize the value of seeing slaves as "unequal", or to take a "the end justifies the means" attitude towards their own economic well-being. In contrast, a portion of the United States was built on the idea of freedom/equality, with workers seen as citizens who are paid for their works. Citizens of this portion of the country/economy internalized the values of equality and freedom into their daily work lives, and into their culture.

The underlying premise of each approach to the split regional economics revolves around the acceptablity of oppression for economic gain. Beginning with the founding father's constitutional compromises, the idea of oppression as an acceptable economic principle has been ingrained in a portion of the United States psych since inception, nevermind the hypocrisy associated with these same Americans roundly hating to be oppressed themselves.

Before I continue, allow a disclaimer. I have no illusions about the quality of life for the 1850's working man in the north. There were abusive conditions, indentured servants, lousy wages and all manner of attempt to maximize the use of human capital. Still, the underlying premise of the worker was different. It's one thing to abuse a worker, it's another to own a worker. And progressives have led the fight ever since to improve the workers rights and condition throughout the United States.

Despite the issue of slavery technically being settled with the civil war, the underlying competing views of human capital continues today. And throughout our history and the many compromises to try and reconcile these two views, none has held and we continue to fight over it to this day. But ironically, the political parties that represent each side have switched 180 degrees since then. In 1850, it was the Democratic party representing the slaveholders, rural interests, and monied (the oppressors). The Whigs, later the Republicans, were the party of abolition, the growing industrial interests, and the north (freedom/equality).

A Tale of Two Towns

I want to tell you a brief story to illustrate the differences in northern vs. southern values. A book came out a year or so ago, "The King of California". This book alone could justify and series of blog posts, but I want to focus on just one aspect brought out by the authors.

In a nutshell, "The King of California is about the Boswell family. The Boswell family relocated from Georgia in the early 1900's to the small, and thriving, community of Corcoran California. The Boswell's brought with them the technology for growing cotton, and the penchant for using oppressive labor, political and cultural techniques to build the largest farm business in the world. Long story very short, the Boswell family has significanlty influenced U.S. and California politics while dominating Kings County and the town of Corcoran ever since, essentially making it a company town. The modern day legacy is a virtual ghost town of few merchants, few businesses, a few mega rich who occasionally visit, and many poor farm workers. The residents are surrounded by over 100,000 (yes thousand) acres of cotton which is grown in a former lakebed, now desert, that is irrigated with water brought from the Sierra Nevada (incidently, brought at tax payer expense). The Boswell company is still privately held and is one of the largest, most influencial political forces you've never heard of. Again, the story of the development of the Boswell empire is fasinating and worth the read. As a side note for your southern Californians, it's estimated that Boswell can, and likely will, ultimately sell it's water rights to southern California for over $3 Billion (with a B).

In contrast, the town of Reedley California is located approximately 50 miles from Corcoran. It, too, is a small farming community with a long history. It derives it's water and labor from the same sources. However in Reedley, no single family, crop, or cultural entity has ever gained a dominating foothold. Instead, the area is riddled with a number of competitive family farms or small farming businesses. No farm labor is luxuriously paid, but laborers have many more options in Reedley. The result of a more diverse, and free labor oriented environment is a thriving downtown community with many competing small businesses, a growing population, an attractive community, and a middle class.

So What About George?

George Bush won the election of 2004 by cobbling together a voting block anchored by the wealthy, the white upper middle-class, the religious right, and corporate interests. Bush's campaign was well funded and strongly supported with grassroots action by true believers. What is it that all these groups share? And why would those of less economic means, the oppressed themselves, blithely support Bush?

Belief in oppression. And this includes an ingrained belief that being oppressed is the normal state of affairs. Silber would call it the perpetrators abusing without cognizance, and the traumatized accepting their lot (trauma-bond). Digby would call it the members of the tribe who share common experiences and beliefs, hanging together (literally). Whether it's the affluent "I've got mine" attitude, the corporate "what's good for corporations is good for America" or the pious "we're right" religious right. All are based on the oppression of others and the denial of their perpetration.

Take the religious right. They don't want co-existence with other dissparate groups. They want it their way because it for "your own good".

Sounds like a slave holder to me.

How about Wal-Mart's terrible working conditions, poor pay, and poor benefits that are really little more than indentured servants in communities where workers have few choices. And Republican legislation? Let's see, the Patriot Act, tax cuts, deficit spending, energy policies, Terry Schiavo, NSA spying, and on and on. At the root of the legislative agenda is to oppress others in a paternalistic way for personal economic gain among the powerful.

Take a look at Democratic policies. Whether it's health insurance, social security, government budgets, labor laws (to name a few), the legislative agenda is different. Democratic policies are, in general, about trying to help the greater number lift themselves economically rather than be oppressed. Indeed, the modern Democratic party born during the New Deal was all about creating a middle class in a country made up of haves, and have nots.

And as far as business? Well all know that there are dramatic differences in treatment depending on your employer. Contrast the WalMart employee with the Costco employee. Costco is a company that delivers a capitalist dream of massive amounts of goods across the nation at very competitive prices while still paying it's employees well, including a benefits package that's the envy of many workers, nevermind the envy of retail workers.

So?

Arthur Silber points out the importance of confronting our abusive society as a way toward progressivism. Digby notes that appealing to our tribal instincts is important in messaging and organizing our politics. I would like to add another element to these astute observations.

I contend that the United States has reverted since the Reagan years to the domination of oppressive values that were common in the pre-civil war, and pre-depression periods. In both instances, it took economic abuses at unprecedented levels by those in power to energize populist uprisings. Progressives need to re-energize any and all movements that strengthen the economic rights and positions of our population. We need to message these movements in a way that point out our positive heritage of freedom, individuality, and equality .... the patriotism of individual freedom vs. oppression. The general population needs to be disabused of the well-sold messages of "trickle-down" economics and "what's good for (fill in the corporate blank) is good for America". And most importantly, we need to dispute the other well-sold GOP idea that government is the problem, not the solution.

One particular instrument that needs focus is the renewal of the labor movement. Unionize those businesses that refuse to act responsibly with their employer responsibilities while crafting/supporting legislation that continues to advance workers rights.

Finally, the left also needs images that convey the corruption of oppression, and virtue of freedom. For example, how about the patriotic portrayal of James Stewart in the 1939 classic, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington , a dramatic and patriotic story in which a naive local is appointed to the Senate where he finds corruption, even by his mentor. Throughout the movie, Stewart, a heroic Mr. Smith, repeatedly hammers home the virtues of being in support of real American ideals and fighting against the corruption of power. Compare this to the common scenes in the recently popular television show, "24", in which the hero routinely uses an "end justifies the means" approach to problem solving, including torture, to rescue the free world from the scrouges of terrorists. Where are our media portrayals of hero's who fight against corruption such as that epitomized by the Bush administration? All The Presidents Men is the last such portrayal that comes to mind (ironically).

I hope we don't require a civil war or economic collapse to energize the average person to move away from the domination of that half of our economic roots that was allowed to survive by the founding fathers. I think history has shown not only that economic oppression is wrong, but that it also does not work as a successful political/economic model. I believe that in the long run, it's doomed to fail. I simply hope that too much damage isn't done before getting there.

Tropical Storm Warning...On Dec. 30th?

2005-12-30T09:36:00.000-08:00

Via Brad DeLong's blog:

Atlantic SPECIAL TROPICAL DISTURBANCE STATEMENT : WONT41 KNHC 301605
DSAAT
SPECIAL TROPICAL DISTURBANCE STATEMENT
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
1100 AM EST FRI DEC 30 2005

SATELLITE IMAGERY INDICATES THAT AN AREA OF LOW PRESSURE IN THE EASTERN ATLANTIC HAS DEVELOPED INTO A TROPICAL STORM ABOUT 1000 MILES SOUTH-SOUTHWEST OF THE AZORES. A SPECIAL ADVISORY ON TROPICAL STORM ZETA IS IN PREPARATION AND WILL BE ISSUED IN AN HOUR OR SO.

FORECASTER FRANKLIN

Nothing to see here...move along...

CD Sales

2005-12-30T09:29:00.000-08:00

A nice chart of CD sales via The Big Picture:

Care to guess which years Napster emerged as a free music shairing service?

Just a thought.

Guess Who? UPDATED

2005-12-30T09:21:00.000-08:00

Who could win less than enough votes to qualify for a single seat in the Iraqi parliament and still get an appointment to the oil ministry?

That's right...Judy Miller's boyfriend!

UPDATE: Swopa reminds us to chill out.

Beating the Drum

2005-12-29T12:23:00.000-08:00

I've been beating the messaging drum for some time. Digby has been doing it much longer, and with a much nicer beat. Here's another must read on how Dem's can effectively message.

OUCH

2005-12-29T12:15:00.000-08:00

It's the biggest one I've ever heard of......

Secular Bulls and Bears

2005-12-29T11:41:00.000-08:00

As a follow-up to the 100 year chart of the Dow, Barry at the Big Picture has provided us with a nifty little chart showing what a "flat" period looks like up close (click to enlarge):

He puts us today at an equivalent to right around 1972. I totally agree with his assessment and think the market will be down next year. Like I said in the previous post, this may not be a good time to "buy and hold" stocks long term.

Quotable

2005-12-29T10:08:00.000-08:00

William Arkin:

... it was the administration's WMD nightmare that led to the war, and it is their conviction that they are barely hanging on saving America from the WMD threat that justifies violations of privacy and civil liberties, renditions, torture, etc. You've heard it all here before.

I can't resist the old Cold War joke: Heard that the Soviets have developed a suitcase nuclear weapons? They have perfected the bomb, now they are working on the suitcase.

Mum Is The Word

2005-12-29T09:39:00.000-08:00

How about this little beauty from Newsday:

In the days following revelations that the Bush administration ordered the National Security Agency to spy on domestic telephone and Internet communications without a court order, one involved party has remained silent.

The nation's telephone giants--which control the data pipelines--have neither commented on nor denied their reported participation, nor have they reacted to the charge that they may have been complicit in violating privacy rights.

But historically the telecom companies have cooperated with the government on wholesale wiretapping, and the Bush administration's anti-terrorism programs appear to be no exception.

Without commenting directly on a classified topic, industry officials--when asked--suggested that they would not stand in the way of a request for help.

"Our members have worked for years with law enforcement with an objective to preserve lawfully authorized surveillance," said Tom Amontree, a spokesman for the US Telecom Association, the industry group representing most phone companies. "We have no comment on national security matters."

The only thing missing in the story is the ubiquitous, "on the advice of attorney's". When it's found that these guys went along with Bush on the illegal wire taps, let the civil suits fly!

The Year Ahead in Economics

2005-12-28T09:43:00.000-08:00

The Big Picture:

Is it possible that an 18 year Bull market could be followed by a 3 year Bear, and then launch into another multi decade Bull? Sure, anything is possible. But as the chart below shows, it would be historically unprecedented.

One other thing worth noting: The steepness of the gains from 1924-1929 are very much parallel to the 1996-2000 moonshot. Both ended with near 80% drops (Dow for 1929, Nasdaq for 2000).

It took 25 years -- until 1954 -- for the Dow to regain its 1929 highs. I don't believe it will necessarily take that long for Nasdaq -- but I am aware of the outside possibility.

If you invest in the stock market, take note. There will likely be brief bull markets, but the "buy and hold" philosophy may be problematic right now.

Also, on the economic front, it should be noted that the bond yield curve officially inverted this week. I'm not going to take the space here to try an explain the technicals of this phenomena. Go here and read if you're really interested. To explain the meaning, I'll simply put this quote up from SmartMoney.com:

Inverted yield curves are rare. Never ignore them. They are always followed by economic slowdown — or outright recession — as well as lower interest rates across the board.

It's only slightly inverted and only for a short time so far. The longer and deeper the inversion, the more significant.....definately something to watch.

Tidal Wave

2005-12-28T09:19:00.000-08:00

Get ready for a tidal wave of litigation since our fearless leader decided to break the law and spy on U.S. citizens. TalkLeft outlines the specific cases here and ReddHedd has a good take here.

The fact this is happening is no surprise. Any good defense lawyer will gladly jump on government misconduct to get their client freed. It's unlikely Congressional Republicans will do anything to hold Bush accountable. But there are many judges throughout the nation that will gladly smack down the feds due to the illegal searches.

What should be particularly interesting to watch is how the Supreme Court rules. Some of these cases, plus many others, inevitably will make it to the Supremes. What a wonderful opportunity for Roberts et. al. to demonstrate their loyalty to fearless leader......or not?

Remember.......

2005-12-28T09:08:00.000-08:00

Remember after 911 when anthrax was sent to all those offices?

Haven't heard much about that investigation lately, have we?

Unmerging the Peshmerga

2005-12-28T09:00:00.000-08:00

If they do this, get ready for some serious problems including Turkey.

By Tom Lasseter
Knight Ridder Newspapers

KIRKUK, Iraq - Kurdish leaders have inserted more than 10,000 of their militia members into Iraqi army divisions in northern Iraq to lay the groundwork to swarm south, seize the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and possibly half of Mosul, Iraq's third-largest city, and secure the borders of an independent Kurdistan.

Five days of interviews with Kurdish leaders and troops in the region suggest that U.S. plans to bring unity to Iraq before withdrawing American troops by training and equipping a national army aren't gaining traction. Instead, some troops that are formally under U.S. and Iraqi national command are preparing to protect territory and ethnic and religious interests in the event of Iraq's fragmentation, which many of them think is inevitable.

The soldiers said that while they wore Iraqi army uniforms they still considered themselves members of the Peshmerga - the Kurdish militia - and were awaiting orders from Kurdish leaders to break ranks. Many said they wouldn't hesitate to kill their Iraqi army comrades, especially Arabs, if a fight for an independent Kurdistan erupted.

"It doesn't matter if we have to fight the Arabs in our own battalion," said Gabriel Mohammed, a Kurdish soldier in the Iraqi army who was escorting a Knight Ridder reporter through Kirkuk. "Kirkuk will be ours."

The opening shot in a civil war?

Quote of the Day

2005-12-27T12:47:00.000-08:00

"Let the student decide."

-- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), quoted by the Arizona Daily Star, summing up his view on the teaching of "intelligent design" along with evolution in public schools.

That's ok with me. As long as we also let the student decide about sex education, gay education, ethical relativism and any number of other issues that the right hates.

Oh, and let's not forget things like that pesky math. Whenever an algebra student gets a question wrong, I think they should now have the option of philosophically challenging the correct answer in favor of their own answer on grounds of "theory".

Right All Along?

2005-12-27T09:29:00.000-08:00

I've always been skeptical. Their reputation has not been good. But in this article, he definitely makes his point.

Breaking News

2005-12-25T08:33:00.000-08:00

Accounting Mogul Repudiates GOP

By Claire N. Balanced
Published: December 26, 2005

NEW YORK, Dec. 25 - Yesterday the accounting titan Ebenezer Scrooge held a press conference repudiating his past ties to the Republican Party. Scrooge, known for decades as one of the largest contributors to conservative causes, announced that he had undergone a "revelation" and that he now believes that Republican principles are mean-spirited and "flawed".

"I've seen the future under the Republicans and I don't want any part of it People deserve an even break and we all are responsible human beings to all humanity". Wearing a large overcoat, Scrooge displayed an unusual degree of merriment and mirth as he took questions from reporters.

"I used to be a big supporter of prisons and work houses, but they just don't work. Ordinary citizens need a fair wage, good working conditions and to be able to provide appropriate health care for their children and families. The scourge of illness that affects children, particularly small children with crutches, is something we can and must overcome".

Ebenezer Scrooge, the chief partner in the accounting partnership of "Scrooge and Marley", the company that was instrumental in helping the global giant "Wal-Mart" set up it's merchandising plan, has historically been the "go-to" fundraisers for the Republican elite and are well known figures in the Republican corridors of Capitol Hill. Last year, rumors circulated that Scrooge was the funding behind payoffs made by Jack Abramoff to various Republican House Members.

As recently as last month, employees of "Scrooge and Marley" had filed two class actions suits charging the company with not allowing employees heated offices, breaks, time off for holidays, and paying employees below minimum wages. Scrooge attorneys announced this morning that they expect those suits to be settled out of court. "Mr. Scrooge has definitely changed his mind on company policies and we believe employees will be pleased with the results".

Mr. Scrooge's announcement sent company stock (SM) on a downward spiral. Stock market officials halted trading briefly due to order imbalances. "You can't just come out and change company positions 180' without scaring shareholders. We're very concerned about the 1st quarter results now given the companies CEO positions" said stock analyst Mackin Muney of Prudential.

When contacted for comment, Republican leaders were dismayed. Scott McClellan, White House Press secretary said "Scrooge has always been an eccentric, but we never thought he would go off the edge into the deep end. President Bush is saddened by Mr. Scrooges defection from core American values".

Senator Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader said, "as a doctor, it appears to me like Mr. Scrooge is suffering from the early stages of alzheimers. No one in their right mind would turn their back on solid American values that Americans died for in the 9/11 attacks. It's tragic to see a great American patriot turn away from his country this way. He must be ill".

Tom DeLay, who is linked to the Abramoff scandal, refused to comment on advice of his attorney. But one of his closest friends, Sam Dimwiddy of Sugarland Texas was appalled. "We have brave soldiers dying over in Eye-raq this very day. It's a callous disregard of America for Scrooge to announce his near-traitorous behavior at this time. Scrooge used to be someone that we in the business community could look up to, leading the way in using the legislative agenda to improve business conditions in the United States. Now? You've just got to wonder".

Anonymous sources close to those in the Scrooge and Marley leadership reported that Scrooge has been complaining of gastrointestinal difficulties of late after having eaten excessive bits of beef, pieces of cheese and undercooked potatoes. However, they reported bizarre "unscrooge-like" behavior recently indicating that he seemed "haunted". Many have worried that since Mr. Marley's death, Mr. Scrooge is not well and that his most recent announcement may be the result of mind control tactics of those vying for control of the company.

Democratic leaders were contacted for a response to these developments but were unavailable.

You Better Watch Out

2005-12-24T09:27:00.000-08:00

HealthCentral Special Report:

SATURDAY, Dec. 24 (HealthDay News) -- A "Naughty or Nice" machine based on Santa's special ability to detect which children have been bad or good has been developed by researchers at the University of Mississippi Medical Center's Santa Institute.

The researchers used specially designed Santa Claus Emission Tomography (SCET) to scan Santa's brain. They then discovered that the jolly old elf has a special lobe. It's this "frontotemporoperiotaloccipital lobe" that enables Santa to determine children's behavior over the previous year.

"If a child has been nice, a special part of Santa's brain will become active. If a child has been naughty, we have noticed that a different part of his brain lights up. As a result of this study, we think we've figured out how Santa knows who has been naughty or nice," Santa Institute member Dr. David J. Dzielak said in a prepared statement.

He and his colleagues used that information to create a prototype "Naughty or Nice" detector - a wireless silver headset that uses Bluetooth technology to connect to a shiny silver box. The box has a green light that signifies "good" and a red light that signifies "naughty."

The Santa Institute scientists recently tested the machine on 100 first graders at Jackson Academy. All the students registered "nice," although there were a few close calls.

Fellow Santa Institute member Dr. Andrew W. Grady enlisted the children's help in an ongoing study to determine the optimal reindeer snack.

Each child was asked to sprinkle the contents of "Reindeer Test Diet A" or "Reindeer Test Diet B" on their lawns on Christmas Eve. The children have been asked to report back on which treat seemed more popular.

As for the mystery of how Santa's reindeer fly, Grady said he and his colleagues haven't yet found a definitive answer.

"We know the reindeer are very strong, and that they have hollow bones. But another good reason may be Santa's magic. That's perhaps the best explanation I know," Grady said.

Santa's real age is another perplexing matter, noted Santa Institute member Dr. William H. Sorey.

"Nobody really knows. We know he is at least 347 years old, but he may be as much as a couple of thousand years old. The real question is not how old he is, but how does he live so long?" Sorey said.

The secret to that may be Santa's generosity, the researchers said.

"You have to have a lot of love in your heart and a lot of joy to give so many gifts. And that's the secret to a long life," Sorey said.

Tagarino

2005-12-23T12:52:00.000-08:00

Ok, Lynne asked, so I do it. There's probably some kind of karmic consequence if I don't, so I'll just get to it:

7 things to do before I die:

1. Re-learn to play guitar
2. Visit the Normandy beaches of WWII
3. Make a really fine wine
4. See my grandchildren graduate from college
5. Write/video my autobiography
6. Be even more crumudgeonly than I am
7. Bench press 300 lbs.

7 things I can't do:

1. Sing
2. Fix a car
3. Run the 100 yd. dash in under 12 sec.
4. Paint/dry/sketch
5. Play the saxaphone
6. Be a politician
7. Install crown molding

7 things that attract me to blogging:

1. Writing
2. Hating Bush
3. Ineptitude by the Dems
4. The need to know
5. Outlet for emotions
6. Doing more research
7. The arrogance of thinking I have something important to say.

7 things I say most often:

1. Seeya, would wanna beya
2. Swell
3. Pie
4. Pally!
5. Gator!
6. What a dumb motherf#!$%#
7. I'm hungry

7 books I love:

1. The Winds of War
2. Hawaii
3. The Glorious Cause
4. Dr. Seuss (any)
5. Nightwork
6. The Hardy Boys series
7. A Thousand Acres

7 movies I watch over and over:

1. War of the Worlds (the original)
2. Original Sherlock Holmes series
3. Dirty Harry series
4. The Monolith Monosters
5. The Thing (the original)
6. Godfather/Casino/Goodfella's
7. Mildred Pierce
(I only get seven?)

7 people I want to join in too:

1. Mr. B
2. Marla
3. Mikevotes (Born at the Crest of Empire)
4. The Spook
5. Dionysus
6. Gang Bangin' in Little Rock
7. Lugosi

Fundamentalism

2005-12-23T10:59:00.000-08:00

Wanna know who this babe is? Why, it's Wafah Dufour, who's real name is Wafah bin Ladin. Yes, that bin Ladin. This is Osama's niece. She's fighting a little image problem, trying to make a name for herself in America. She has a write-up in GQ Magazine.

Guess going to Mosque was less of an issue on that side of the family.....

Lunch at WalMart

2005-12-23T10:21:00.000-08:00

You've all heard of the WalMart lunch break case? The jury awarded the plaintiffs $172 million in damages because that cheezy WalMart didn't give lunch breaks to it's employee.

I just wanted to add to this that the attorney for the plantiffs was none other than Fred Furth, a San Francisco attorney who lives in Sonoma County and who also owns Chalk Hill Winery.

Good job Fred! Get em....... It's good to live in a liberal place.

Attorney Fred Furth, right, of Healdsburg talks with Wal-Mart attorney Neal Manne on Thrusday after Alameda County Superior Court jury awarded $172 million to the 116,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees he represented.

Closed For Xmas

2005-12-23T09:45:00.000-08:00

I ran across this letter to the editor from the local paper of the town that I used to inhabit:

Church closure is one version of a nightmare

I had a dream the other night. In this dream I was standing in front of a church and on the front door of this church was a simple sign of three words, "Closed for Christmas." I shook my head sadly, turned, and as I walked away Satan laughed.

This brief was interesting to me for two reasons. First, it's just the kind of letter you'd find in this part of the bible-belt of California. But second, this reader apparently doesn't get around much. It's been reported widely that many of the "mega-churchs" around the country have opted to close for Christmas day.

I guess Satan has invaded the thinking of those local pastors.

Good Question?

2005-12-22T17:41:00.000-08:00

Josh Marshall asks a good question. When was the last time we had a terrorist alert? They were like every five minutes in the run-up to the election. But lately?

Fitting

2005-12-22T09:34:00.000-08:00

This, is a very fitting ending to the story of Linda Tripp:

Weihnachts Markt is a traditional German Christmas market plunked down along the Middleburg's main drag.

Middleburg resident Linda Tripp (yes, of Clinton scandal fame) and her husband, German architect Dieter Rausch, are serving up bratwurst and other German delights to hungry, if not curious, passersby.

Longtime sweethearts Tripp and Rausch were married last year. They split their time between Middleburg and Germany, where they also have a home.

The couple opened their "magical" little house of treats three years ago. They took last holiday season off, much to the chagrin of many loyal patrons, and reopened for a second season this year.

...

"People love it," Tripp said, peeking out from under a wide-brimmed hat. "They come from far and wide."

She added that customers have traveled all the way from New York for a taste of their authentic German bratwurst, which comes directly from a German butcher.

You know, you just can't make this s**t up. Linda Tripp, rich German Bratwurst vendor. Something that only John Madden could love.

Correction: Middleburg is NOT in Germany, but rather in Virginia (thanks spook!)

Su-prise, Su-prise!

2005-12-22T09:20:00.000-08:00

Well, another "fact" shot down. Remember the old canard (repeated over and over) that we tracked down bin Laden via a satellite phone he was using, and that the leaking of this fact blew and intelligence operation? WaPo:

President Bush asserted this week that the news media published a U.S. government leak in 1998 about Osama bin Laden's use of a satellite phone, alerting the al Qaeda leader to government monitoring and prompting him to abandon the device.

The story of the vicious leak that destroyed a valuable intelligence operation was first reported by a best-selling book, validated by the Sept. 11 commission and then repeated by the president.

Well, on cue, it turns out that this "fact" is a myth.

Why would we think that a terrorist operation that uses box cutters to take down the twin towers, would use technology to communicate. Undoubtedly, bin Laden communicates with his people by something like carrier pigeon, indigenous birds, that go undetected when flying overhead.

Opacity

2005-12-21T14:35:00.000-08:00

Well, is it any wonder that I stopped taking The New Republic some time ago? Jason Zengerle from The Plank:

After all, liberal bloggers have been heaping almost as much scorn on the New York Times as they have the Bush administration. Atrios is calling for Keller and Sulzberger to resign over their handling of the NSA story. The folks over at DailyKos are demanding a fuller explanation of the Times's internal decision-making.

...

First of all, is it really the Times's duty to reveal in its pages that Bush summoned its editor and publisher to the Oval Office to try to talk them out of running the [NSA] story? In its original article, the paper reported that the "White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny." Why does the paper have to go into more detail than that? Indeed, why does the paper have to go into any more detail than it already has about the decisions it made regarding the NSA story--beyond saying that the White House asked the paper not to publish the piece, the paper delayed publication for a year, and, after concluding that the administration's concerns were unwarranted, it finally went ahead with publication?

Well Jason. That's all swell and good. But it's when newspapers forget their jobs and take an over-inflated view of themselves that they get in trouble.

Tell me. What is the first job of a newspaper? That's right Jason, (said very very slowly) to inform the public, to act as a fourth estate in our system of governance.

When is it ok to not fulfill that prime directive? Almost never. It better be a damned good reason, and you should be held accountable when you don't do your primary job properly ..... again.

The publishing of the story, despite Bush's appeals, is proof that a re-evaluation of their earlier judgement yielded a change of mind. Why publish now if it was such a nifty decision?

And what about resignations for this past poor judgement? This isn't like Keller took a cab from a little old lady. This was a decision by the "paper of record" in the United States, to assist the President of the United States, and then current candidate for President of the United States, to violate the Constitution and to break criminal law.

And none of this happens in a vaccum. The New York Times has given up it's right to the benefit of the doubt a long time ago. With it's numerous, continuing, and ongoing screw ups, it seems to me to be completely appropriate for the blogosphere (and NYTimes readers btw) to be asking for an examination into the ethics of the paper and to be demanding a new management.

Breaking Story

2005-12-21T08:47:00.000-08:00

Accounting Mogul Repudiates GOP

By Claire N. Balanced
Published: December 17, 2005

NEW YORK, Dec. 16 - Yesterday the accounting titan Ebenezer Scrooge held a press conference repudiating his past ties to the Republican Party. Scrooge, known for decades as one of the largest contributors to conservative causes, announced that he had undergone a "revelation" and that he now believes that Republican principles are mean-spirited and "flawed".

"I've seen the future under the Republicans and I don't want any part of it People deserve an even break and we all are responsible human beings to all humanity". Wearing a large overcoat, Scrooge displayed an unusual degree of merriment and mirth as he took questions from reporters.

"I used to be a big supporter of prisons and work houses, but they just don't work. Ordinary citizens need a fair wage, good working conditions and to be able to provide appropriate health care for their children and families. The scourge of illness that affects children, particularly small children with crutches, is something we can and must overcome".

Ebenezer Scrooge, the chief partner in the accounting partnership of "Scrooge and Marley", the company that was instrumental in helping the global giant "Wal-Mart" set up it's merchandising plan, has historically been the "go-to" fundraisers for the Republican elite and are well known figures in the Republican corridors of Capitol Hill. Last year, rumors circulated that Scrooge was the funding behind payoffs made by Jack Abramoff to various Republican House Members.

As recently as last month, employees of "Scrooge and Marley" had filed two class actions suits charging the company with not allowing employees heated offices, breaks, time off for holidays, and paying employees below minimum wages. Scrooge attorneys announced this morning that they expect those suits to be settled out of court. "Mr. Scrooge has definitely changed his mind on company policies and we believe employees will be pleased with the results".

Mr. Scrooge's announcement sent company stock (SM) on a downward spiral. Stock market officials halted trading briefly due to order imbalances. "You can't just come out and change company positions 180' without scaring shareholders. We're very concerned about the 1st quarter results now given the companies CEO positions" said stock analyst Mackin Muney of Prudential.

When contacted for comment, Republican leaders were dismayed. Scott McClellan, White House Press secretary said "Scrooge has always been an eccentric, but we never thought he would go off the edge into the deep end. President Bush is saddened by Mr. Scrooges defection from core American values".

Senator Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader said, "as a doctor, it appears to me like Mr. Scrooge is suffering from the early stages of alzheimers. No one in their right mind would turn their back on solid American values that Americans died for in the 9/11 attacks. It's tragic to see a great American patriot turn away from his country this way. He must be ill".

Tom DeLay, who is linked to the Abramoff scandal, refused to comment on advice of his attorney. But one of his closest friends, Sam Dimwiddy of Sugarland Texas was appalled. "We have brave soldiers dying over in Eye-raq this very day. It's a callous disregard of America for Scrooge to announce his near-traitorous behavior at this time. Scrooge used to be someone that we in the business community could look up to, leading the way in using the legislative agenda to improve business conditions in the United States. Now? You've just got to wonder".

Anonymous sources close to those in the Scrooge and Marley leadership reported that Scrooge has been complaining of gastrointestinal difficulties of late after having eaten excessive bits of beef, pieces of cheese and undercooked potatoes. However, they reported bizarre "unscrooge-like" behavior recently indicating that he seemed "haunted". Many have worried that since Mr. Marley's death, Mr. Scrooge is not well and that his most recent announcement may be the result of mind control tactics of those vying for control of the company.

Democratic leaders were contacted for a response to these developments but were unavailable.

To Good To Excerpt

2005-12-20T18:52:00.000-08:00

Maiming, decapitation and being put in the microwave oven are just some of the tortures that Barbie dolls are subjected to by young girls, say researchers at Bath University in the U.K.

They found that the doll provoked rejection, hatred and violence among many girls, aged seven to 11. The researchers attributed the girls' feelings and actions to the fact that Barbie is a feminine icon, "plastic," and an unwelcome reminder of their childhood, BBC News reports.

"It's as though disavowing Barbie is a rite of passage and a rejection of their past," Dr. Agnes Nairn said. "The types of mutilation are varied and creative and range from removing the hair to decapitation, burning, breaking and even microwaving."

The Barbie findings are part of research by Nairn and her colleagues into children's attitudes towards branded goods and marketing. Among their other findings - children seem to be more engaged by celebrities than toys.

"We were surprised to find that the most resonant discussions among the children did not center around toys and games, but on sports celebrities, pop stars and TV shows," Nairn told BBC News

I knew that.

IIWSTIWBF

2005-12-20T18:40:00.000-08:00

From a NY Times story via Needlenose:

The Victorious Army Group, a [Iraqi] band of guerillas, issued two Internet statements on Monday clarifying rules for a Web design contest, according to the SITE Institute, which tracks militant postings. The group said contestants should simply submit their designs rather than making comments to each other over the Internet. The group also reminded contestants that the deadline is Jan. 5, already a one-month extension over the original deadline.

The winner gets to fire three long-range rockets at an American base in Iraq. "May Allah reward you," the group said.

I wish it were a joke. But it's not.

With a few changes here and there, it could become a new ABC reality series.

Shocking

2005-12-20T18:27:00.000-08:00

Richard Engel, blogging for NBC from Bagdad had this to say about the election results thus far:

Instead, the Shiite Islamic list, despite the horrible performance of the Shiite-led government led over the past eight months, did much better than generally anticipated.

Sunni Arabs faired a bit worse than experts had predicted, and far worse than the unrealistic impression they had of themselves; many Sunnis believe they are the majority in this country.

One insider said Allawi ended up competing with Sunnis for seats, instead of taking power from the Shiites.

In the end, it looks like we can expect a Shiite prime minister from the Islamic bloc close to Iran. The big battles will be over the defense and interior ministries.

Bush's guy is getting killed (not literally....yet). The group closely affiliated with Iran is taking more than expected. Sunni's are not doing as well as their over-inflated ego's suggested they should. And everyone has plenty of firepower.

Any guesses about what's next?

(BTW, that's not the Iraqi flag above :)

NSA Update

2005-12-20T18:19:00.000-08:00

I think a conventional wisdom that makes sense is developing regarding Bush and illegal spying. Kevin Drum lays it out in some detail, but the short version is that Bush avoided the FISA courts because of new technology. None of his public statements have made any sense. But the use of a new, sweeping, data mining technique that is very secret, and probably very invasive, would explain the need for a P.R. story. It would also explain the unwillingness to go to Congress for a change in the FISA law because it would a) take too long, b) be unacceptable to more than a majority.

Crux of the Issue

2005-12-20T14:28:00.000-08:00

I heard an interview on PBS last night whereby Senator John Cornyn tried to defend Bush's illegal spying. He was "debating" Russ Feingold. Today, there's a quote from that interveiw on Political Wire:

“None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead.”

-- Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), quoted by The Hill.

“Give me liberty or give me death.”

-- Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), responding to Cornyn with the quote made famous by Patrick Henry during the American Revolution.

Now tell me.

Doesn't that just get to the crux of the matter? Bush and his supporters see their lily-white asses as the single most important thing in the whole wide world. More important than country. More important than ideals. More important than the Constitution.

Let's just suppose for a moment, just a moment, that there really is a serious threat. Mind you, I'm not convinced there is any larger threat now than there's ever been and that you are in far more danger getting into your car than from al Qaeda. But, Ok, suppose there is a real threat as envisioned by the fear-mongering Bush. The way I learned it, Americans should be willing to die for their beliefs. When there were real threats, i.e. World War II, the sacrifice of death was not only expected, but sought when necessary.

Mind you. I don't want to die in a terrorist attack. No one does. But do I want to sell out this greatest of human government experiments called the United States of America because a very few religious fanatics are willing to die for their belief? I got news for Bin Laden. I'm just as willing to make sacrifices, yes including my own life, if necessary to show these bastards that the Constitutions means something important. If the battlefield is on civilian turf. So be it.

It's incredibly ironic to me that the GOP, the party of "patriots", advance an argument that is in actuality quite cowardly. Unfortunately, they have a lot of equally cowardly voters behind them who have forgotten what it means to have something more important than your personal well-being.

And Bin Laden is counting on it.

Impeachment? Ah huh

2005-12-19T18:09:00.000-08:00

I'm reading all the froth over the internets about Bush having violated the constitution. I don't think there's any doubt that he violated the Constitution, and FISA.

The first is impeachable.

The second is subject to civil and criminal penalties.

But these aren't the first offenses. And probably won't be the last. Wait until we get more information about who and how many were being survailed. It's going to be worse than you think. I suspect it's going to include spying for other reasons than terrorism, which is the only (other) explanation for Bush foregoing FISA

There are a number of folks pushing the impeachment meme, including Barbara Boxer. And I support anyone in contacting their representatives and demanding accountability (something that everyone should have been doing for years). And any campaign that comes along to push impeachment gets my support.

But does anyone actually believe it's gonna happen? Set aside the good politics of trumpeting Bush's dictatorship and building on it. Just looking at likelihood, I have to conclude that nothing will come of it. The Republican party is too disciplined, the American public too short sighted, the media too cowed. The conditions that led to an accountability moment for Nixon no longer exist.

What worries me more than anything is the precedent. No President, no matter what party, is going to want to give back power. In an interesting essay, John at AmericaBlog says it better than I did in postulating about a President (a liberal future President?) unilaterally declaring, via Homeland Security laws, that guns are illegal. It's a good read. And the wingnuts just don't get it.

Any power for rebalancing will have to be taken. That may happen with a split government or not. It certainly won't happen unless Americans begin to fear their government. And so far, that just doesn't seem to be happening....... still. This apathy, above all, is what depresses me most. Actually, it's enough to make me drink.

Off to the Cabernet to drown my BushBlues.

OMG

2005-12-19T17:54:00.000-08:00

Take a second and good read Jay Rockefeller's letter back to Cheney after he was "informed" of the White House domestic spying actions.

There's no doubt it proves that the White House didn't give a flying f*&k what Congress thought...and that Rockefeller had his hands tied but knew it was illegal and did a good job of covering his behind.

How many impeachable offenses do we have piled up now?

Get a Clue

2005-12-19T14:35:00.000-08:00

I had to laugh when I read this:

According to Barrons, there "has been a mutiny by West Coast donors" unhappy with the Democratic party's leadership, "and it may be spreading to other parts of the country."

"This fracturing of the Democratic Party is a piece of good luck for Republicans, who are low in the polls because of profligacy and scandal by their members in Congress and policy blunders in Iraq and at home by the Bush presidency. Unless it can coordinate with the upstarts, the DNC's funding disadvantage will mitigate against an electoral upset. Money is the mother's milk of campaigns and the GOP already has a significant cash advantage."

Markos disagrees: "Hogwash, it means funders are taking their money out of an ineffective establishment and building the institutions to challenge the VRWC [vast right wing conspiracy]. That's not a party divided -- that's a party re-prioritizing its spending."

Looks like Barrons has a Democratic establishment source for their story.

When are these guys, particularly the DLC, gonna get a clue. There are a lot of people in the Democratic party who are very unhappy about how our party has been run, how our money has been spent. Thanks to the internets, we can now directly spend our money as we please, eliminating the Bob Shum's of the world.

Chait Gets Taken

2005-12-19T11:06:00.000-08:00

I didn't watch Bush's speech last night. Nor did I watch his news conference today. I just can't stomach watching the man. Besides, I read incessiantly so I get the content without the nauseating image of Scrub.

Anyway, I guess the media spin is that Bush's speech was a bit of "fresh air". The content looked no different to me. But, The New Republic's Jonathan Chait may be representative of some reactions:

I am not, to say the least, a fan of President Bush. But a portion of his speech tonight genuinely moved me and made me think more highly of him. It was the part where he addressed opponents of the Iraq war, said he understand their passion but asked that they think of the stakes of defeat now that the war had happened and asked that they not give in to despair. I cannot remember this president ever speaking to his political opponents except to mischaracterize their views and use them as a straw man. (His post-Florida speech did to some extent, but it was so vague and struck me as so patently disingenuous that it didn't produce any similar reaction in me.)

Some people never learn.

P.T. Barnum (or more correctly, David Hanum, a circus rival) had it right, "there's a sucker born every minute". Despite nearly six years of the message NEVER equaling the behavior, there are still some on the left who just don't get it.

Bush will say absolutely anything, anytime, with as much sincerity as his horse sized brain can muster in order obscure the fact that he is going to do exactly what he wants to do....no matter what. It's really quite distrubing to find out just how many people are prey to con men.

Boiling Frogs

2005-12-19T10:35:00.000-08:00

No, not Tom DeLay (although it's an enticing thought)

No, I'm talking about the old parable:

They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water,it will leap out right away to escape the danger.

But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant,and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling, the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late. The frog's survival instincts are geared towards detecting sudden changes.

Well, like many such stories, it turns out that a frog will jump out no matter what. But for just a moment, suspend literal interpretation and focus on the lesson of the parable.

I think of this little story many times when thinking of public policy, the Democrats, Republicans, and the voting public. It seems to me that of late, the Democrats have been in the unenviable position of pointing out that we, the frogs, are in the pot. The water hasn't gotten very hot, but the burner is definitely on. However, due to our collective short attention span, the slow heating of the pot of water is not very sexy news, not very sexy politics.

Take peak oil. Many on the left have been pointing out that petroleum depletion is a problem for literally thirty years. It's been pointed out that dependency on foreign oil will only get worse and will have negative consequences on the American economy and foreign policy. Lo and behold, these predictions have come to pass. But it's taken thirty years of gradual, incremental changes for us to get to this point. And we have further to go. We know that oil availability will inevitable get worse, and with worse consequences. But it may occur slowly, gradually. How do you mobilize the voting public on an issue like peak oil when the consequences are like very, very slow Chinese water torture?

You can look at many other issues that the left screams about in the same light. Global warming, health care, deficits, a declining middle class, perscription medication and many other core Democratic issues are slow boiling concerns.

Compare this with the Republican "blow-torch issues" such as gay-marriage, tax cuts, fighting terrorism and tax reform. These are issues with immediate impact that people can visualize and experience within their lives. An ordinary citizen may not be able to detect changes in global temperatures, but they can cash a tax cut. Ordinary citizens can deny the impact of petroleum dependence on our culture, but they are easily appalled by two men getting married. Just exactly why do you think the administration has announced the capture of al Qaeda's "number 3 man" on about ten different occasions? We used to be a culture that could delay gratification for the greater good over the long haul. That trait is quickly disappearing as the voting public gets ever more immediate gratification oriented.

It's incumbent on the Democrats to find a way to make their core issues have "immediacy". Conservation, as a public value, became important when Iron Eyes Cody made some thirty second commercials with a tear in his eye as idiots driving along the highway threw trash out the car window. The caption, "people start pollution, people can stop it" was the commercial message. Messaging such as this made conservation a "here and now" issue, not a frog in a slow boiling pot. A recent missed opportunity is Polar Bears. The increase in drowning polar bears due to global warming can mobilize public opinion around the need to reduce greenhouse gases. People can relate to that impact immediately, personally. Seen any liberal media polar bears lately?

Like the frog, we can't wait for the water temperature to reach boiling and have these problems become crisis. It's incumbent on all of us, but particularly our leaders in the liberal movement, to create images and messages that speak to the need for immediate action in concrete, tangible terms. Throwing up a global temperature chart and screaming that the sky is falling is effective when preaching to the choir, but is useless when messaging to voters.

Iron Eyes

2005-12-19T09:20:00.000-08:00

I heard something on the radio the other day that absolutely broke my heart.

Anyone of my generation will remember "Iron Eyes Cody", the native born actor who starred in a number of westerns. Additionally, he was the poster boy in all the 1970-71 commercials on pollution. Remember the line? "People start pollution, people can stop it" as a tear rolled down his cheek.

Well, it turns out that his tear was glycerin, and that Iron Eyes is Italian:

Iron Eyes Cody was born Espera DeCorti on 3 April 1904 in the small town of Kaplan, Louisiana. He was the son of Francesca Salpietra and Antonio DeCorti, she an immigrant from Sicily who had arrived in the USA in 1902, and he another immigrant who had arrived in America not long before her. Theirs was an arranged marriage, and the couple had four children, with Espera (or Oscar, as he was called) their second eldest.

I guess we were being played then as well as we're played now.

A Rose By Any Other Name

2005-12-19T09:00:00.000-08:00

dictatorship

n : a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) [syn: absolutism, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, monocracy, one-man rule, shogunate, Stalinism, totalitarianism, tyranny]

Are we there yet?

Wingnutofsphere

2005-12-18T09:55:00.000-08:00

One very entertaining aspect of blogging, and reading blogs, is to read wingnut blogs. The right wingers have been twisting like pretzels lately to justify the illegal wiretapping of Americans by Bush. Firedoglake has a message for them:

What you have in this life is your own integrity. If you are willing to sell it so cheaply for a fleeting moment of power, that is your choice. But don't come crying to me the next time someone wiretaps your phone, searches your house and business without a warrant while holding you at gunpoint, hauls you off to an undisclosed location without any access to legal representation, applies coercive interrogation methods to get you to confess to a crime you didn't commit in the first place, and holds you for years before letting you go without ever actually charging you with a crime, all because you fit a certain profile based on your ethnic background or political beliefs.

If you think it can't happen in America, think again. We have laws in place for a reason, and when you allow the President to start selectively ignoring them, it sets a precedent for every other law enforcement official in the nation. We fought a revolution in this country to prevent just this sort of behavior -- we are a nation of laws, and not of imperial whim.

I think one of the reasons the right-wing is so willing to sell their souls to the devil is that they don't really believe it can happen to them. Keeping power = staying safe, remaining immune from such abuses by "collegues".

What they miss is something that I think is very very important. Abuse of power is not a right-wing phenomena. It's a human phenomena. There have been examples in history of brutal left-wing governments. The Soviet Union for example, or Red China. Who do you think was rounded up and killed by Stalin? It wasn't liberals.

Sure, Bush and the Republicans are currently in power. And Bush is setting all kinds of precedents of Presidential fiat and abuse. Will the next President roll back this new power? It's unlikely. So who gets wiretapped in a Democratic Presidency that has a Democratic Congress?

These issues of civil liberties are not about politics. They are about checks on natural human tendencies to abuse power. Remove those checks and anyone can end up being the victim......eventually.

Narcissistic Sociopathic Alcoholic

2005-12-18T09:11:00.000-08:00

Gee. Who could I be about to speak about?

:)

Anyway, one of the hallmarks of these seriously flawed individuals is that they lie when they don't need to. TalkLeft has an excellent analysis of the FISA laws. In case you don't know it, FISA stands for Federal Intelligence Security Act. It's a law that's been around for awhile that makes provisions for collecting clandestine intelligence while protecting civil liberties. One of the main provisions is to allow government officials to survail U.S. citizens after going through a subpoena procedure with a secret court.

FISA is obscene enough. In the history of these secret courts, the government has been denied what they've requested four times (out of thousands of requests), and those four instances were ultimately approved with modification. Bush sees even this rubber stamp as a limitation to his "power". He ignored it, signing an illegal executive order to require NSA to spy on U.S. citizens. Mind you, he didn't really even need to violate the law to accomplish his goal. He did so capriciously. A true hallmark of a sociopath.

Looking at the FISA numbers, there have been a total of over 20,000 requests since the law was enacted in 1979. Four have been denied (and later approved). The twenty six year average of FISA requests is 738/year. The FISA request average since Bush came into office is nearly double, 1330/year. And these numbers do not include the illegal spying done by Bush.

As a side note. Several NSA employees refused to participate in the intelligence gathering, citing it's illegality. Patriots...each one.

Attaturk Writes

2005-12-17T14:04:00.000-08:00

Attaturk has written a letter to President Cheney, making it easier to find him for survelliance purposes.

He pretty much expresses what I feel too.

I May Go Crazy

2005-12-17T13:27:00.000-08:00

This latest revelation of domestic spying on U.S. citizens by the administration has me all wound up...... again..... still.

Each one of the arguments for Bush's actions by his wingnut friends has been roundly discounted. It's plain and simple. Bush openly and repeatedly (over 30 times he is reported to have ordered tapping) violated the Constitution as well as criminal and civil statutes. Again...... still.....

And make no mistake. We don't know it all. The Bush administration is like an iceberg. What you see is only the top 1/3 of what's really going on. Again ..... still....

This whole administration can only result in two possible scenarios:

1). The voters come to their senses, vote out the Republicans whenever they have the opportunity, and the Democrats repeal the damage done. The country returns to some sense of adherence to it's roots.

2) The voters, with the help of the fourth non-estate, continue to hibernate with their Paris Hilton video's and Bibles. The GOP stays viable as a party and keeps control of one or both houses of Congress. The presidential contest in 2008 is hotly contested, with the Democrat adopting GOP tactics and values in order to compete. The Bush administration leaves as a legacy a new concept of government that is much, much closer to a dictatorship.

What will happen?

I ..... just ..... don't ..... know ......

But I am afraid.

Double Back Flip

2005-12-17T12:52:00.000-08:00

Sometime back, I had an inkling that Bush would make some wholesale administration personnel changes at the beginning of the year. Now this comes out:

"Senior Defense Department officials say Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has told them nobody should stay for just another year; he wants them for the rest of President Bush's second term. That is read as a signal that Rumsfeld intends to serve out the next three years," Robert Novak says.

"By finishing his term, Rumsfeld would contradict wide speculation that he will quit soon after Iraqi parliamentary elections. That is now considered unlikely even if he does not complete the full term.

"A footnote: White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has said flatly there is no truth whatsoever to reports he is about to move to the Treasury to replace Secretary John Snow."

I should know better. Anything. I mean anything, that is good politics, good leadership and good management is exactly NOT what Bush would do. So if it's a good idea to turn staff over periodically, or to get rid of problems, Bush specifically WON'T do it. Besides, it was already decided that Rummy has to stay as long as he's incompetent. I should know that that means he'll never leave.

You really have to think stupid when you try to predict Bush.

But then again, look at the source of the above story. I may end up doing a double, double back flip.

Nilsson Schmilsson

2005-12-17T08:36:00.000-08:00

I ran across this story of the greatest artist/songwriter you probably never heard of:

NEW YORK (Billboard) - A documentary focusing on the life and career of late singer/songwriter Harry Nilsson will be released next year.

"Who is Harry Nilsson (And Why is Everybody Talkin' About Him?)" features interviews with Yoko Ono, Randy Newman, Micky Dolenz, Eric Idle, the Smothers Brothers, Brian Wilson and Robin Williams, as well as home videos, portions of Nilsson's recently discovered oral autobiography, and more than 60 songs.

...

Nilsson is perhaps best known for his 1969 hit "Everybody's Talkin'," which served as the theme song for the film "Midnight Cowboy." He also wrote Three Dog Night's classic "One" and scored a No. 1 pop hit in 1971 with "Without You," written by Badfinger's Pete Ham and Tom Evans.

But after years of hard partying in Los Angeles (including a famous incident when he and John Lennon were ejected from a club for heckling the Smothers Brothers), Nilsson damaged his voice and was never subsequently able to match his earlier achievements. He died of a heart attack in 1994, aged 52.

During the heyday of rock music (IMHO), the 1960's to early 1970's, Harry Nilsson had his finger in all the pies. He was most well-known as a songwriter, but also had several albums that were quite good.

I look forward to this documentary.

Post the List

2005-12-16T18:20:00.000-08:00

I completely agree with Steve Clemons.

Post the list of everyone the NSA listened in on.

Bush Takes Question From God

2005-12-16T13:53:00.000-08:00

Via Big Fat Liberal..... see it here.

I do have a beef with the piece. Thirty thousand Iraqi's dead is just propoganda according to Lancet.

Pain Management

2005-12-16T13:45:00.000-08:00

Edna discusses a topic that is a big one...pain management.

It's a difficult and complicated treatment made much much more complicated by the Feds. Seems there's not enough for DEA folks to do, so they have to go around targeting pain management doctors.

Shhhh...They're Listening UPDATE

2005-12-16T13:19:00.000-08:00

We now know that Bush signed a secret executive order for the NSA to spy on U.S. citizens. We also know the NY Times held the story for one year at the administrations request. We also know that this executive order violates the 4th amendment of the Constitution of the United States. We also know that domestic spying carries criminal and civil penalties. We also know nothing will happen because of it.

Is it any coincidence that the NY Times decided to release the story just as the Patriot Act renewal was coming before the Senate? Steve Clemons thinks the long knives are out:

There is momentum now behind those who want to clip the wings of the Bush White House. A genuine battle is breaking out. . .finally.

In the past, those who would preserve our system of checks and balances, our system of justice, and civil society have been too weak compared to a White House that had become intoxicated with a passionate belief in its own infallibility.

Are the patriots emerging? It seems the NY Times is trying for some redemption after holding the story for a full year. Too little, too late? I just don't know. I wish folks would get it..... you can't negotiate with BushCo.

Clemons closes with this:

The White House is being handed one defeat after another, but the President and his team despise being beaten. I suspect that we are entering a dangerous period where the White House feels trapped and prone to excess to try and get back in control.

Well...at least on paper they're losing. I'm not so sure. You know how you can tell if Bush is conniving and undermining an agreement with you?

If he shakes your hand and agrees.

I do agree that our country is in for a very dangerous three years. The more institutions step in to counter BushCo, the more they will undermine secretly.

UPDATE: The story is getting some legs. But will it last?

Novakula Gone From CNN?

2005-12-16T10:30:00.000-08:00

Hall-a-freakin-luya:

"After 25 years of serving as a CNN commentator and program host, our colleague Bob Novak's tenure on the network will come to a close (effective 12/31). Through the years, Bob has offered incisive analysis for much of CNN's programming, including Crossfire, The Capital Gang, Inside Politics, Evans and Novak, The Novak Zone, and Novak, Hunt and Shields. Bob has also been a valued contributor to CNN's political coverage. We appreciate his many contributions and wish him well in future endeavors," said Jon Klein, president of CNN/U.S.

Seeya...wouldn't wanna beya.

UPDATE: He's going to Faux. That didn't take long. It's where he belongs anyway....

Torture Agreement Part Deux

2005-12-16T09:35:00.000-08:00

I wrote about the big agreement between the White House and John McCain regarding torture. I also warned of the slithery, slippery Bushies who will find a way to lie and cheat their way out of adherence to any actual intent to change their policy on torture:

As a WP editorial reminds, there are still potential loopholes to McCain. For one thing, the administration has a minimalist approach toward what constitutes "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment. And as Slate's Emily Bazelon details, an amendment set to be approved along with McCain's contains a "big, fat exception" on detainee treatment. Namely, it specifically allows military tribunals to use testimony gained through "coercion."

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. And to be sure to beat a dead horse, let's not forget about those pesky field manual changes that are still in the works. I suspect that it's McCain who really caved...or at least took the bait. A "victory" for him means a boost to his Presidential ambitions, which means that he would be quite willing to be baited.

It is impossible to reach agreement with any party that has contempt for the basics, and a lack of conscience. In this case, the basics include respect for the law, respect for the Congress, and respect for principles. BushCo is quite simply sociopathetic:

Glibness/Superficial Charm
Language can be used without effort by them to confuse and convince their audience. Captivating storytellers that exude self-confidence, they can spin a web that intrigues others. Since they are persuasive, they have the capacity to destroy their critics verbally or emotionally.

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." Craves adulation and attendance. Must be the center of attention with their own fantasies as the "spokesman for God," "enlightened," "leader of humankind," etc. Creates an us-versus-them mentality

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion, it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love
While they talk about "God's love" they are unable to give or receive it. Since they do not believe in the genuineness of their followers' love, they are very harsh in testing it from their devotees and expect them to feel guilt for their failings. Expects unconditional surrender.

Need For Stimulation
Living on the edge, yet testing the beliefs of their followers with bizarre rules, punishments and behaviors. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. Their skills are used to exploit, abuse and exert power. Since the follower cannot believe their leader would callously hurt them, they rationalize the behavior as necessary for their (or the group's) own "good" and deny the abuse. When devotees become aware of the exploitation it feels like a "spiritual rape" to them.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. The followers only see them as near perfect.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blame their followers or others outside their group. Blame reinforces passivity and obedience and produces guilt, shame, terror and conformity in the followers.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Totalist leaders frequently practice promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. This is usually kept hidden from all but the inner circle. Stringent sexual control of their followers, such as forced breakups and divorces, removal of children from parents, rules for dating, etc.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future. Many groups claim as their goal world-domination or other utopian promises. Great contrast between the leader's opulent lifestyle and the followers' impoverishment. Support by gifts and donations from the followers who are pressured to give through fear and guilt. Highly sensitive to their own pain and health.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image and that of the group as needed to avoid prosecution and to increase income and to recruit a range of members. Is able to adapt or relocate as needed to preserve the group. Can resurface later with a new name, a new front group and a new twist on the scam.

Is there really any doubt that this describes our Preznit and his administration? I know this description has floated around awhile. But anyone watching BushCo must remember this at all times. And what really concerns me is that this personality type is becoming the norm for Presidents. Says something about the voting public, eh?

There is no way that BushCo will adhere to the intent of the McCain anti-torture amendment. The only way that administration policy is going to change is if Bush is removed. Just like serial killers, who are also sociopaths, you can only jail them. You can't negotiate. You can't reason. You can't expect empathy.

They don't know how.

Iraqi's Vote

2005-12-16T09:15:00.000-08:00

All the papers are tut-tutting the huge turnout in the Iraq elections. This is good news as most of the improvement in turnout was Sunni's. In fact, I ran across this interesting tidbit in today's news roundup:

The Post also has a tidbit from Ramadi, where there were some particularly persuasive get-out-the-vote workers: "Masked guerrillas of the anti-U.S. Iraqi Islamic Army movement, wearing tracksuits and toting AK-47 assault rifles, went out among houses to encourage people to vote. Witnesses said the guerrillas told them: 'Do not be afraid, we will protect you.' "

I've worked in GOTV efforts, but never with an AK-47. Bet that would work though when you have those stubborn voters who don't answer the door when you knock!

Why would guerrillas be part of a get-out-the-vote effort?

They want us out. All of them.

Every major candidate and slate of candidates ran on an agenda of expelling the Americans. The Iranian backed Shiites have successfully used Bush and the Americans to remove Saddam and the Baathist. Why do Baathist want the U.S. out? Because Baathist have been the leaders, technocrats and military in Iraq for several generations. They believe that once the Americans are gone, they will be free to regain control. Why do the Kurds want us out? Because they want a partitioned Iraq with Kurds controlling the north and expanding into Turkish Kurdish areas.

I wonder if the neocons have figured this out yet? What about all those American bases being built for permanent occupancy?

No matter what happens in the future, one thing stands out. The neocon ideal of "Democracy in the Middle East" that would be more moderate towards the west in general, and Israel in particular, is a failure. The U.S. will not be allowed a permanent presence in Iraq and Iraq will not be friendly towards Israel.

One other thing is sure. The dead and wounded of this war will still be dead and wounded.

No Holocaust

2005-12-15T19:35:00.000-08:00

Franklin Foer of "The Plank" has a question in light of Iran's President's most recent outrageousness:

My question is this, where is the outrage over Iran? Strangely, I hear Europeans reacting with greater anger and fear than the American right--or the left, for that matter. (Big ups to Matthew Yglesias for continuing to trumpet the issue.) Iran represents as good a reason as any to be pissed with Bush. Under his watch, the world's leading anti-Semite is poised to get nukes. There doesn't seem to be anything we can say to talk Ahmadinejad out of the bomb. And given his ideological/religious disposition, the odds of him using it against Israel are far greater than zero. What's worse, a wide swath of neocons and other foreign policy hawks seem to agree that these weapons are too dispersed and too hardened to be vulnerable to a preemptive attack. So, I ask again, where's the outrage? And more to the point, does anybody have a plan?

In the run-up to the war I contended that there is a canary in the mineshaft of the Middle East....Israel. If Israel worries, then whatever Middle Eastern beligerent is in question is probably a threat. Israel was largely silent on Iraq as a WMD threat.

But what will the U.S. do when Israel starts bombing Iran? Or worse, launches a ground war?

Another irony of the neocons ideological push to protect Jews in Israel.

Nixon and Bush

2005-12-15T19:13:00.000-08:00

Digby reminds me of something I hadn't thought about given Bush's recent pronouncement that Tom DeLay is innocent:

Tom Delay and Charlie Manson

by digby

Matthews mentioned the fact on his show today that Nixon got in trouble for saying that Charles Manson was guilty while he was still on trial. It's true. It was a big brouhaha because it used to be considered very inappropriate for a president to weigh in on the guilt or innocence of a defendent because of the possibility he might taint the Jury Pool.

It was a very big deal. Nixon was attacked roundly for influencing the jury pool.

Don't think I've seen much of an uproar about Bush with DeLay. But then, IOKIYAR*

*It's OK if you're a Republican

Librul Media

2005-12-15T19:01:00.000-08:00

My rear-end.

The NPR ombudsman:

Tallying the Think Tanks

NPR often calls on think tanks for comments. But NPR does not lean on the so-called conservative think tanks as many in the audience seem to think.

Here's the tally sheet for the number of times think tank experts were interviewed to date on NPR in 2005:

American Enterprise - 59

Brookings Institute - 102

Cato Institute - 29

Center for Strategic and Intl. Studies - 39

Heritage Foundation - 20

Hoover Institute - 69

Lexington Institute - 9

Manhattan Institute - 53

Eric Alterman does the addition for us:

The score to date: Right 239, Left 141.

Oops.

And NPR is considered the liberal of the liberal.

Bush Caved?

2005-12-15T10:00:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure I'm willing to believe it yet.

AP is reporting (via here) that Bush has caved on McCain's amendment regarding torture. It would make sense given the House vote yesterday which was overwhelmingly in favor of McCain.

McCain's original amendment would have prohibited "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held. It also would have required that service members follow procedures in the Army Field Manual during interrogations of prisoners in Defense Department facilities.

That's all well, and good. Except for this story yesterday:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 - The Army has approved a new, classified set of interrogation methods that may complicate negotiations over legislation proposed by Senator John McCain to bar cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees in American custody, military officials said Tuesday.

The techniques are included in a 10-page classified addendum to a new Army field manual that was forwarded this week to Stephen A. Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence policy, for final approval, they said.

So let's recount the bidding.

The McCain amendment requires adherence to the field manual. Rummy has had the manual changed to allow torture. So why not support the McCain amendment?

I'm not holding my breath that the administration has really given up on this issue.

Santa Gone?

2005-12-15T09:57:00.000-08:00

Un-huh.

Other Side of the Tracks

2005-12-14T21:38:00.000-08:00

The not-so subtle racism of the United States.

WaPo Dust-Up UPDATED

2005-12-14T10:39:00.000-08:00

UPDATE BELOW

Posting has been, and will likely be, sporadically. Not feeling too swift, traveling, shopping, bla bla bla..... You know the drill.

Anyway, in case you haven't been following it, there's been a dust-up at the Washington Post. Apparently the White House WaPo correspondents are cheesed about Dan Froomkin's blog. Seems they think we ignorant folk mix up Froomkin's work with their real journamalism from the White House. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that Froomkin get's the story right, and routinely scoops the WH cocktail crowd more often than not. But anyway, there's been some back n' forth about Froomkin's blog and it's place in the WaPo heirarchy.

I read Froomkin daily. Usually first thing. My only criticism of Froomkin is that it sometimes takes him a long time to get his piece up on the internets. But I also realize it's not his first priority.

I think there's a more important story below the surface of this itty bitty cat-fight. The so-called "journalists" have brought alot of ca-ca-do-do down on themselves of late. Woodward, Miller, Novak, Novak, Isikoff, Cooper, along with Jayson Blair, Howell Raines, all of Faux News and any number of administration paid P.R. folks posing as journalists have hurt the fourth estate (what fourth estate would be an honest question). That's all obvious.

But there's even more. Take a look at this stock chart for Gannett. Gannett, btw, is the largest of the media conglomerates and the largest newspaper holding in the United States:

How about WaPo?

And Knight-Ridder. Note, the only reason Knight has a spike up is because it is the subject of being sold, another symptom of a troubled business:

And finally, the vaunted GreyLady, the New York Times Co.:

Gee whiz. But I'm confused you say? Isn't this the greatest expansion in economic history? Isn't big business reaping windfall profits and such? A booming economy results in lots of advertising, want-ads and newspaper profits. Right? If so, why do these holdings stink?

It's quite simple. The dispersal of information via the internet as well as the complete loss of credibility in the large journals has hurt the newspaper business....bad. And interestingly, the more desperate the big newspapers become, the more mistakes they make, and the worse they do.

As a small example. The NY Times recently put the op-ed folks behind a subscription, an obvious move to boost revenues. And indeed, the op-ed folks of the New York Times used to be some of the go-to folks for opinion. But as predicted, since the Times put those writers on a pay basis, I hardly hear of them anymore. Of course, those who have subscriptions still read. But there are fewer and fewer subscriptions readers all the time. And anyone half-way familiar with the internets can get an particular op-ed piece for free ..... anyway.

There's an old saying. "Opinions are like assholes....everyone has one". Witness 10,000 new blogs per week. The newspapers value lie in credibility and the "rareness" of what they sell. As it gets less rare, they're feeling the heat. And they really have no one to blame but themselves.

I suspect this dynamic is behind the recent desperation of journalists to be in-the-know, to be willing to be treated so contemptuously by the White House, the movement towards more tabloidism, and the lousy journalistic standards. And I suspect that the brewing war between newspaper reporters and blogs stems from pressure felt by reporters to deliver readers. Froomkin delivers. The WaPo White House correspondents deliver GOP talking points.

Will newspapers go away? I don't think so. But they will have to find a niche' that makes them worth an ad or a subscription. That's going to mean an overhaul in how they do business, how they approach journalism, and how they approach the internet.

We were all warned about this as the FCC deregulated and concentrated ownership. The resulting corporatization has intensified the risks and results of losing the most important newspaper commodity ..... independence and objectivity.

You reap what you sow.

UPDATE: Not surprisingly, the whole flap appears to have been coordinated by the GOP. I'm shocked!

MsJan

2005-12-11T18:53:00.000-08:00

There is simply no blog picture I have ever seen that is as representative of the essence of an individual as this one.

Another Novak, Just Like the Other Novak

2005-12-11T17:52:00.000-08:00

Well, Viveca Novak wrote her story today. It's about her involvement in PlameGate, specifically her interactions with Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney.

I won't spend a lot of space recounting the story. There are a million blogs writing (and speculating) about the impact of Novak's testimony on Rove. Some say it helps Rove....some say it makes no difference.

What I do want to do is echo the criticism throughout the blogosphere about the state of political journalism in this country. We now have three confirmed, top-o-the-line political "journalists" who have confused sources with friends, kept critical newsworthy stories to themselves, written pieces about other's involved in the story without disclosing their role, not told their editors, and then come forth with a mea-culpa. And then. To top it all off. Reading Novak's account of her role one is impressed with the sheer sloppiness of her work. There are many key details to which she has no notes, no recollection. Excuse me. SHE'S A REPORTER! HELLO! She's either incompetent or lying.

Finally, this series of journalistic idiocy has revealed something about the companies for which they work. No one's yet been fired. In fact, Judy Miller has received a six figure severance and Woodward continues to do as he pleases. Novak's has been put on administrative leave. Wow, such a penalty. The periodicals involved are part of the elite club where protecting one's ass is all important.

No wonder the Bush administration has shown nothing but total contempt for the media. They appear to be contemptuous.

Freight

2005-12-11T09:38:00.000-08:00

Rising Hegemon says all that needs saying about the military shipping soldiers bodies home as freight!

Image via Jesus General

Please please please please

2005-12-11T08:56:00.000-08:00

Bring em' on!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Sunday he is prepared to strip Democrats of their to ability to filibuster if they try to stall Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.

"The answer is yes," Frist said when asked if he would act to change Senate procedures to restrict a Democratic filibuster. "Supreme Court justice nominees deserve an up-or-down vote, and it would be absolutely wrong to deny him that."

I've written before why I think this is good politics and good policy for the Democrats to filibuster. It's a no-lose that I think the Dems should push to the max.

Will they?

Probably not.....for the usual reason.

Arrogance

2005-12-11T08:47:00.000-08:00

One of the many arguments used by the administration to justify the United States occupation of Iraq is that "we need to fight the terrorist there so we don't have to fight them here".

I admit to being quite dense at times. And it didn't really strike me (like most Americans I suspect) the real meaning of this statement until I read an article describing interactions among riders of a bus in Bagdad. During that ride, an argument broke out about the politics of Iraq. On participant had this to say:

Before he stepped down, Abbas turned to a visitor. "I thought we'd be like Germany or Japan. They were rebuilt after their wars," he said. "Bush called for a war on terrorism, but he fought it on our soil, not his. He protected his people but destroyed Iraq."

He shook his head as he walked away, toward his home. "Is this justice?" he asked

It's like, duh!

Talk about winning hearts and minds! One of the prime reasons for attacking Iraq is to destroy it for our own good!

If only we Americans could see ourselves a little bit like the international community sees us.

Stuck With the SOB?

2005-12-10T17:48:00.000-08:00

So let me get this straight. As long as he's incompetent he stays. If things get better, he goes?

Huh?

Froomkin:

Chris Matthews had DeFrank and Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank on his MSNBC show last night:

"MATTHEWS: Is Rumsfeld in trouble?

"MILBANK: Well, he should be by any normal standard, but I think as Tom [DeFrank] correctly points out, that this president is not one to push somebody out when he is in a difficult spot, that's why they are just waiting for something to make a little bit of a turn here, whereby he could be eased out."

Indeed, Duct Tape Is Useful

2005-12-10T09:32:00.000-08:00

In so many ways!

How Men and Women Think

2005-12-10T09:30:00.000-08:00

We needed a study to tell us this?

Picture of the Day

2005-12-10T09:00:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Firedoglake

House of Card-Board

2005-12-10T08:34:00.000-08:00

Can anyone guess what is the leading export out of the Port of Los Angeles?

LA Times:

Thousands of the corrugated containers filled with Chinese-made vinyl dolls, plastic action figures, electronic gadgets, video games, clothing and die-cast cars pour daily into wholesale and retail toy shops in a dozen-block area on the eastern edge of downtown Los Angeles.

When they're empty, the boxes are flattened, trucked out of Toytown and shipped back to China, where the cycle begins all over again.

...

At the Port of Los Angeles, wastepaper is by far the leading export. At the next-door Port of Long Beach, it's third, behind petroleum coke and petroleum. At both shipping centers, the Chinese demand for scrap paper far outpaces that for other recycled American exports: scrap metal and empty plastic soda bottles.

"I've probably seen this cardboard three or four times, maybe more," joked Javier Ramirez as he tossed a flattened box labeled "Made in China" into the back of his 1999 Chevrolet stake-bed truck. Ramirez, 39, of South Los Angeles has been recycling corrugated boxes along Toytown's Winston Street for seven years.

...

Woo said the cardboard recycling trade that has sprung up on Toytown streets is a miniature example of the global economy at work.

Among the box collectors are street people who prowl alleys to gather cardboard tossed out by shopkeepers. One, who declined to give his name unless he was paid $2, said he earns about $20 a day. He uses a box cutter to slice them open and stacks the flattened cardboard on a cart. He serves as something of a subcontractor to a main box collector who consolidates loads and takes the cardboard to recycling trucks such as the one operated by Ramirez.

Truly a sign of the times. Poor people going around collecting used cardboard boxes for a living. And those recycled boxes are the largest export out of the port of L.A. And all those boxes going to China in order to be filled up with more junk to pawn off on Americans.

Swell.

Withdrawal Conventional Wisdom

2005-12-09T15:30:00.000-08:00

As usual, Digby has an excellent post reviewing the movie "Syriana".

In his post, he postulates about precipitous withdrawal by Americans from the entire Middle East and the impact on oil supplies. We've been having a spirited discussion in the comments section and this spurred me to do a little research.

The conventional wisdom, as I read it around the web and hear it from politicians, is that the United States would be FUBAR if we abandon Iraq and the entire Middle East. Fundamentalist who gain control in Iran, Iraq and perhaps even Saudi Arabia could/would use their control of oil exports to hurt the United States severely.

While this is an important consideration, I intuitively began to question that conventional wisdom. Here's what I found:

The first piece of the puzzle is oil reserves, and it's indeed daunting:

No question about it, the largest resevoir of oil resides in the Middle East. Interestingly, North America is second, although I suspect that much of those reserves are more difficult to retrieve/refine. But the there are reserves there.

Next, I tried to find out exactly where our oil imports originate (pdf warning):

Click to enlarge

Here's an additional view of where U.S. oil originates:

Click to enlarge

Nearly half of our imports come from "North America", which includes Mexico, Canada, Venezula. However, it's important to remember the domestic U.S. production still meets 50% of our national petroleum needs. Of the imported 50%, roughly half of that comes from North American sources. Roughly a quarter of imports, or one-eighth (~13%) of our total usage comes from the Middle East.

Here's another dandy chart showing where imports originate over time:

There are two important elements I tease out of this chart. One is that while oil imports continue to grow (and domestic production continues to drop), our reliance on the Middle East is relatively stable. But more importantly, take a look at the period from 1979 to 1988. We cut oil imports by nearly one-half! And despite an "embargo" by OPEC, we still imported oil from the Middle East.

Wow.

American adaptation to the oil shocks of the 70's is dramatic with an incredible improvement in conservation and efficiency. These years were sometimes difficult economically, but not devastating. Since this period, the CAFE standards have been relaxed, everyone drives a multi-ton vehicle to be "chic", and we're back to driving ten miles just to get a loaf of bread. And the growth in imports reflects that prolifigecy.

And make no mistake, transportation is the BIG sector for oil usage:

I suspect there's an enormous amount of slack in the U.S. economy in terms of energy usage. Remember Katrina? As I wrote back then, gasoline usage drop a full 5% during that "crisis".

A final piece of the puzzle for me was to try and determine just how much "they need us". That is, how much revenue does Saudi Arabia derive from oil revenue from the United States? The best I could find was this table:

Saudi Arabian Exports:

(in SR millions)

Country /Exports
U.S./ 39,891
Japan /34,221
South Korea /23,931
Singapore /13,656
Holland /9,725
France/ 9,033
India/ 7,804
U.A.E./ 6,779
Italy/ 6,640
Bahrain/ 6,581

I wish I could find better data on Saudi exports, but I don't want to take any further time with it. I think it's safe to say that Saudi income is very dependent on the west in general, and the United States in particular:

The petroleum sector [of the Saudi economy] accounts for roughly 75% of budget revenues, 40% of GDP, and 90% of export earnings.

Saudi citizens pay no income tax, and there are no corporate taxes. Saudi economic development is entirely dependent on oil revenues. To think that Saudi Arabia could cut off oil exports would be economic suicide on their end. As I said in the comments of the Digby post, the relationship between the U.S. and oil producers is that or an addict and pimp. Both need each other. And frankly, I think it would be easier for the U.S. to lose 13% of it's oil imports than for Saudi Arabia to lose roughly 40% of it's national income.

So what's the bottom line?

Here's my take:

1. A precipitous withdrawal of United States troops may..or may not..result in a super-Islamic theocratic state including Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

2. If it did. This entity may...or may not... cease oil exports to the United States.

3. If these states cut off all oil supplies to the U.S., it would result in an approx. 13% drop in oil supplies. Yes, it's alot. And there would be economic pain. But is it crippling? And is it likely that there would be the will and discipline to turn off the spigot given the income needs of the countries in question? And if, via ideological stupidity they actually did move exports to the U.S. to zero, what impact would that have on internal stability of such a government. I think it's highly unlikely any such government would risk such a dramatic economic change.

4. The United States largest oil using sector is transportation....cars. There is a lot of slack in energy usage in that sector.

6. When challenged in the past with crisis, the United States citizens have responded with the ability to severely cut oil imports.

7. The addict/pimp relationship is relatively even. BUT. The advantage is shifting to the pimp. Given the enormous reserves of the Middle East, and the depleting reserves in the West, it's incredibly important that the United States do something NOW about energy usage, and alternative energy sourcing for our economy. Collapse might not be at risk right this minute. But eventually, total economic collapse will be at risk for the United States.

8. I personally don't believe the United States will adapt, changing the oil economy without crisis. It's politically untenable (ask Jimmy Carter) to ask Americans to voluntarily sacrifice, and it seems that politicians are thus far unwilling to use government as an instrument to spur change. What has worked to create energy change, historically, has been the need to adapt based on crisis.

9. None of this discussion takes into account global warming.

Another concern posed by some with regards to a crisis in the Middle East is if these dissident countries trade out of dollars, and it's impact on the U.S. economy. This is indeed a concern. But again, it cannot happen without a reciprocal impact on them. Countries invest into dollars for a reason. And to a large degree, any effects on the United States can be ameliorated with a decrease in the budget deficits.

The main lesson I learn from this experience is this. I think BushCo put the United States in a no-win position when we invaded Iraq, accelerating an inevitable choice on our economy and energy. No solution is going to be easy or painless. We are spending over $5 billion per month in Iraq. We are exhausting our military. We are destroying our standing in the world which also carries consequences. Any continuing presence in the Middle East will continue to carry these negative consequences forward at unsustainable levels. Our entire relationship with the Middle East will have to be rebuilt, over an extended period of time.

I believe an immediate withdrawal offers the best opportunity to repair our world standing, begin to address our energy problems, and to do so without an economic collapse. I don't believe the Middle Eastern countries can or will cut off oil due to their economic dependence. The 80's taught foreign oil suppliers an important lesson. When cornered, we can cut the fat our of our energy abuse more easily than they can do without the income. But as time goes forward, and as international energy demand grows, that dynamic will reverse.

Just imagine if we had taken energy independence seriously from the 1970's?

Tick tock....

Surfin' USA

2005-12-09T14:37:00.000-08:00

Anyone remember the surfing craze? When I was in Jr. H.S. (yes, they had schools then), we used to buy surfer magazines, pin up surfing pictures on the wall, and of course listen to the Beach Boys ad naseum. But then I grew up about 20 miles from Santa Cruz.

Well, looks like one of the oldie but goodies is biting the dust:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The southern California company that helped turn surfing into a mass popular sport has closed for business, marking the end of an era immortalized by The Beach Boys and Baywatch.

Gordon "Grubby" Clark, who with surfboard pioneer Hobie Alter invented the foam and fiberglass process that made surfboards lighter, faster and more responsive, stopped production and sales from his Laguna Niguel factory on Monday after 44 years in business.

In a seven-page letter to suppliers seen by Reuters on Wednesday, Clark cited weariness in a lengthy battle with environmental regulators over the manufacture of the foam blanks, or rough surfboard shapes, that go inside about two-thirds of U.S.-made surfboards.

"For owning and operating Clark Foam, I may be looking at very large fines, civil lawsuits, and even time in prison," Clark, 73, said in the letter.

Clark said authorities in California and Orange County, where his factory is located, were waging an ever tougher crackdown on the company's use of a toxic chemical called TDI, which can cause breathing problems.

When I hear a business-person moaning about environmental regulations, I think of the numerous other manufacturers who comply and make money. I suspect this guy was relying on premium prices due to the name on the board. The newest generation of suffers may not care if the board is from Clark or China. I think that if there was a buck in it, he'd deal with the regulations.

Ground Temps

2005-12-09T09:31:00.000-08:00

What would I do without "The Big Picture":

Click to enlarge

Yep, those ground temps are steady and on course....aint' no global warming around here...right?

Sigh

2005-12-09T08:12:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure whether to laugh...or cry...at this headline out of the NYTimes:

Qaeda-Iraq Link U.S. Cited Is Tied to Coercion Claim
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Officials said an inmate in Egyptian custody made up details about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda in order to escape abuse.

This guy was handed over to Egyptians for "interrogation" and to get that oh-so-important intelligence that we needed after 9/11. Oh the irony......

Quote of the Day

2005-12-08T15:23:00.000-08:00

Via "The Burned Over District":

“Undermining his credibility? What has he said that would give him credibility?”

Rep. Jack Murtha responding to Joe "The Yenta" Lieberman's comments on Our Dear Embattled Leader.

Gold Bugs UPDATED

2005-12-08T14:22:00.000-08:00

Yes, another chart.

Again, this chart is via The Big Picture. Barry Ritholtz discusses the technicals of gold trading.

What I found interesting is the historical perspective offered by the chart. I remember back in the 70's and 80's when I first became aware of gold as an investment option. The headlines of "gold hits new high" were not uncommon then...as the economy was not doing well. Generally, gold is seen as a safe investment, a hedge against inflation, and a hedge against bad economic times. Look at the flat, uninteresting, trading activity during the Clinton boom.

If that's so, what do you think the recent trading in gold says about traders thinking for the future?

UPDATED: The Cunningrealist Realist expands on what I'm trying to say, and does so quite eloquently.