300 Dollar Wonder

Votes that Define Careers

2007-05-23T08:49:00.000-05:00

Every person that votes for this funding bill is saying, in a clear, strong voice, that they support President Bush's war, the way it has been executed, the continuation of the current "strategy" and are declaring their support for this President's ability to wage war without oversight, transparency, or accountability.

It's that simple.

Many Democrats will take the 'high ground' and not vote for this bill. Enough of them will, though, to allow the Republican 'dead enders' to give George W. Bush a blank check to continue to destroy our military in a war that is making us more hated and less safe. And the only explanation for the Democrats allowing this bill to come to a vote is cowardice.

The majority of voters agree with the Democratic position, but they allowed themselves to be bullied by a President who's approval rating is so low that it's plumbing depths Richard Nixon didn't see.

Steny Hoyer, Democrat from here in Maryland, said, "The president has made it very clear that he is not going to sign timelines. We can’t pass timelines over his veto."

Fine. That's not your problem. If Bush wants to keep getting funding for his war, he'll eventually have to sign an appropriations bill with timelines if the only ones that you will pass is ones with timelines.

But you caved. You buckled. You reinforced the Republican meme of Democrats being weak. You doomed more American men and women to death and grievous injury. More people will hate America and embrace violent Islamic Fundamentalism.

This vote counts. You can vote against the bill and pretend that you stood up to Big Bad Bush, but you let it come to the floor. It's results are on your hands.

War in Iraq Funding Democrats

Escalating Our Way Out of Safety

2007-05-22T10:53:00.000-05:00

The San Francisco Chronicle:

(05-22) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.

The little-noticed second surge, designed to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq, is being executed by sending more combat brigades and extending tours of duty for troops already there.

The actions could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year if the Pentagon overlaps arriving and departing combat brigades.

Separately, when additional support troops are included in this second troop increase, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 -- a record-high number -- by the end of the year.

I'm no military expert, but it seems to me that expecting our already stressed (broken) military to come up with an additional 40,000 troops to send to Iraq might be a bit of a problem. More stop-loss, more extended tours, more quick turn around. These things are strategically devastating to our national security.

Think about it.

If every single unit that the United States can muster is either in Iraq or on a quick rotation back to Iraq, we have no reserve. There is, literally, no slack in the system to address any unexpected disaster/emergency around the world where our military would be need to protect our interests or our security.

And there are no shortage of flash points that could erupt. If President Musharraf in Pakistan is over thrown, what would happen to our troops in Afghanistan? And there's the possibility of a humanitarian mission a la Bosnia that could require American forces.

And don't think that nations around the world have missed the fact that every ounce of American military might is busy trying to dig George W. Bush out of a hole in the Middle East. Everybody knows that America is weak right now. We are literally unable to respond to crises that would legitimately require our military. Think Taiwan or North Korea.

America is losing it's ability to control situations by threat of force. Big-time strategic problems arise when 'deterrence' is the primary strategy for managing a problem and the force behind that deterrence suddenly disappears.

Nobody steals the lunch money from the toughest kid on the playground, but when he's got both of his hands firmly stuck in a briar patch, it's a lot easier to pick his pocket...

War in Iraq Escalation Surge Military Readiness

News to Nobody

2007-05-22T08:47:00.000-05:00

Gas is expensive. In fact, when adjusted for inflation, it's as expensive as it's ever been.

VIENNA (Reuters) — U.S. retail gasoline prices set another record and matched the inflation-adjusted peak reached in 1981, the government said Monday, as concern about low supplies pushed up pump prices.

The average price for regular unleaded gasoline soared 11.5 cents the past week to a fresh record of $3.22 a gallon, according to the federal Energy Information Administration's nationwide survey of 800 service stations.

The much larger AAA Fuel Gauge survey of up to 85,000 self-serve stations said the national average for regular gasoline stood at $3.196 a gallon Sunday.

The latest EIA pump price equals the all-time high gasoline price in March 1981, when a gallon cost the equivalent of $3.22 in today's dollars. Prices then were pushed up as war broke out between Iran and Iraq.

What's old is new again. Only this time, we're at war with Iraq and Iran instead of the two fighting each other.

Check your tire pressure (manufacturer's recommendations are usually on the inside of one of the door frames but 30psi is a good rule of thumb) Put in a new air filter if yours is old, take the bike rack off, get the crap out of your trunk and get your car tuned up if it's been a while. Or better yet, don't drive. Car-pool, bike to work, ride the bus or, if you can, walk.

Don't forget to make fun of your neighbor with the Chevy Suburban and 'W' sticker.

Gasoline Prices

God-Damn-Mother-Fuckers!

2007-05-22T08:27:00.000-05:00

AP:

WASHINGTON - In grudging concessions to
President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an
Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.

The legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added.

While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

That's fucking ducky. Democrats have staked out a (relatively) strong position supported by the majority of Americans, slugged it for a few months with the President and his 'dead-ender' allies, and what do they do in the end? Cave. That's a great. Thanks. And it's not just your base that you're pissing on - its the moderates, swing voters, and independents that voted you into power specifically because they wanted the Madness of King George brought to an end.

The Carpetbagger Report seems to think that this isn't set in stone, but my guess is that our party is about to sell us out for... nothing.

The Democrats get a minimum wage increase that they could have gotten anyway. Big Deal. In the end, the Democrats end up looking scared of a President with an approval rating that can barely boot-strap itself out of the 20s. Great way to show confidence. The Republicans are like dogs. As soon as they detect fear, they'll tear you apart.

Our leadership has made great strides, but they've got a long way to go.

War in Iraq Funding Democrats Republicans

Friday Link-Dump

2007-05-18T08:54:00.000-05:00

Paul Wolfowitz will 'resign' as head of the World Bank at the end of June. Turns out at least one person wasn't surprised. A "former colleague who served with Wolfowitz in four administrations said that 'the kinds of problems he got into were predictable for anybody who really knew Paul.'" The ex-colleague also "voiced admiration for his intellect but said Wolfowitz 'couldn't run a two-car funeral.'". A current colleague at the World Bank reports that upon learning of his departure, "[e]veryone ran into the hallways and were clapping and hugging each other." Needless to say, the source wanted to remain anonymous.

John McCain "missed another vote today on a resolution related to the Iraq war, skipping a procedural move on a war funding measure in favor of hitting the campaign trail in New York." It was his 42nd missed roll call in a row. If he misses three more, he will have missed half of the roll call votes so far in the 110th Congress.

Alberto Gonzales looks like he'll be facing a no-confidence vote soon. And the number of U.S. Attorneys that were slated for firing has risen to thirty - a full third of all U.S. Attorneys.

Illinois, according to census analysis by the AP, is the "Most American State" as defined by "21 demographic factors, including race, age, income, education, industrial mix, immigration and the share of people living in urban and rural areas." That must scare the shit out of the GOP since Illinois elected that Obama guy...

Iowa, (in the bottom ten of the "Most American States") sees "Sen. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards locked in a tight race for the Democratic presidential nomination, 28% to 26%, with Sen. Barack Obama at 22% and Gov. Bill Richardson at 7%."

George W. Bush may need his veto pen again soon. "Shrugging off a possible veto from President Bush, the House demanded that the administration develop a plan to transfer detainees from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 220 to 208 vote came on an amendment to a bill authorizing defense programs that the Democratic-led House passed overwhelmingly."

Dick Cheney, or rather his lawyers, argue in court "that Cheney is legally akin to the president because of his unique government role, and has absolute immunity from any lawsuit." The judge asked, "so you're arguing there is nothing -- absolutely nothing - these officials could have said to reporters that would have been beyond the scope of their employment [whether it was] true or false?" Answer: "That's true, your honor."

And finally...

The White House squaks endlessly about how it 'supports' the troops but says nothing about not supporting a pay raise for them.

Gore '08?

2007-05-17T09:24:00.000-05:00

I hope this prediction turns out to be more accurate than the one I made yesterday about Paul Wolfowitz...

From the New York Times (subscription required):

When I asked Gore why he hasn't dismissed all the speculation by issuing a Shermanesque refusal to stand, as he did in 2002, Gore said, "Having spent 30 years as part of the political dialogue, I don't know why a 600-day campaign is taken as a given, and why people who aren't in it 600 days out for the convenience of whatever brokers want to close the door and narrow the field and say, 'This is it, now let's place your bets' — If they want to do that, fine. I don't have to play that game."

It's a good strategy. We're so far out from the election that voters are bound to get tired of candidates. Even candidates that they like. If Gore (the post '00 election Gore) can come on the scene as a breath of fresh air, a known quantity, especially if there's been some excitement around the whole 'will he / won't he' question, he could be a player. And did I mention that he's got another book coming out?

I'm not ready to pick a 'horse' for '08 yet, but Gore would definitely be on my list.

Al Gore 2008 Election

Last Thoughts on Jerry Falwell

2007-05-17T07:18:00.000-05:00

Alen Wolfe at Salon sums up my thoughts on Rev. Falwell.

One never wants to speak ill of the dead, but in the case of Jerry Falwell, how can one not? Falwell will always be remembered for his "700 Club" comment in the wake of Sept. 11: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" Even though Falwell later apologized, the damage had been done: A sacred moment had been used for profane purpose.

And that, really, is Falwell's legacy. To the religious life of the United States he made no significant contribution. But to the political life of the country, he made one: He founded the Moral Majority. In so doing, Falwell managed to take something holy — one does not have to be a Christian to admire the life and teachings of Jesus Christ — and turned it into something partisan and divisive. Falwell, the quintessential conservative Christian, was always more conservative than Christian. To the extent that history will remember him, it will be as a politician, not as a preacher.

[…]

Instead of pondering Jerry Falwell's legacy, we would be better off asking how this man ever become a public figure in the first place. America has had more than its share of religiously inspired demagogues — Dr. Fred Swartz, Billy James Hargis, Carl McIntyre come to mind — but they are forgotten figures, marginal even to the times in which lived. One would like to believe that the United States has become a bigger and better country since the days when men like them preached about captive nations and denounced the pernicious influence of rock 'n' roll. But then there is Jerry Falwell. In death, as he did in life, he reminds us that demagoguery never dies; it just changes its form. Jerry Falwell expressed great hate for a lot of his fellow Americans. It is no wonder that so many of them will greet his death with something less than love.

What he said.

Oh, and a little bit of what Christopher Hitchens has to say too...

Jerry Falwell Alen Wolfe Christopher Hitchens

Ron Paul Attracts Attention

2007-05-16T14:29:00.000-05:00

When nobody takes your campaign seriously, nobody does background research. When Paul called out Rudi he inadvertently brought on a bit of scrutiny he might not have wanted.

From the Houston Chronicle:

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

[...]

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote.

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

One would think that being on record expressing views like this would be a liability but then you remember he's running as a Republican. Being a racist will probably get you a sizable portion of the Republican vote.

Ron Paul Republican 2008 Election Racism

Wolfowitz Out?

2007-05-16T13:59:00.000-05:00

ABC's The Blotter:

World Bank officials say the bank's board is completing an "exit strategy" that will allow World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz to resign this afternoon and "still save some face" over the issue of his efforts to seek a promotion and pay raise for his girlfriend at the bank.

The officials say the bank's board will accept Wolfowitz's resignation but will also acknowledge that the World Bank's Ethics Committee bears "some responsibility" for giving him bad advice on the issue of his girlfriend.

The decision is likely today, officials say, because Wolfowitz had been scheduled to leave tonight for a European trip.

The World Bank decides to leave him a shred of dignity in return for getting rid of him.

If he does get fired (and even if he doesn't go today, he will soon) the kicker of this whole thing is that one of the principal planners of the worst military disaster in modern U.S. history was never fired for the debacle that is the War in Iraq - just kicked out as head of the World Bank for getting his girlfriend an undeserved raise.

It hardly seems fair.

Paul Wolfowitz World Bank

The Great Unraveling

2007-05-16T13:34:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post's editorial page isn't exactly a hotbed when it comes to calling for thorough investigation of the various (and numerous) scandals that have unfolded in the Bush White House. The Post goes so far as to remind us that this is an "account of Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source" right in the opening sentence. Here's the meat of the editorial:

The dramatic details should not obscure the bottom line: the administration’s alarming willingness, championed by, among others, Vice President Cheney and his counsel, David Addington, to ignore its own lawyers. Remember, this was a Justice Department that had embraced an expansive view of the president’s inherent constitutional powers, allowing the administration to dispense with following the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Justice’s conclusions are supposed to be the final word in the executive branch about what is lawful or not, and the administration has emphasized since the warrantless wiretapping story broke that it was being done under the department’s supervision.

Now, it emerges, they were willing to override Justice if need be. That Mr. Gonzales is now in charge of the department he tried to steamroll may be most disturbing of all.

The Post is, of course, reacting to the testimony of James B. Comey, "the straight-as-an-arrow" Deputy Attorney General under Alberto Gonzales.

Think Progress has compiled these high-lights of Comey's testimony:

– The high-speed pursuit that took place when Comey learned that Card and Gonzales were on their way to see Ashcroft at the hospital;

– The hospital meeting, in which the seriously ill Ashcroft “stunned” Comey by lifting “his head off the pillow and in very strong terms” rejecting Card and Gonzales’ effort to have him reauthorize the spying program;

– Comey’s admission that he believed he had “witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me”;

– Andrew Card’s subsequent “very upset” call to Comey, in which Card claimed that he and Gonzales had visited Ashcroft “just…to wish him well”;

– The White House’s eventual agreement to suspend the warrantless spying in the face of a threat of mass resignations, including from FBI Director Robert Mueller and Attorney General Ashcroft

The New York Times has a full account.

This scandal is setting up to be a long, drawn out unraveling of the Bush Administration. The fact that Alberto Gonzales was deeply involved in 'unsavory' activity at the White House before being put in charge of the Justice Department means that the subject of his constant testimony before congress will become more far ranging - and more damaging - as time goes on.

One would assume that the Bush White House would 'encourage' Gonzales to resign simply to stop the bleeding. They haven't. It doesn't appear likely that they're going to any time soon.

Why?

If there's one thing (only thing?) that the Bush Administration is good at, it's at playing the political 'game.' You could argue that Bush doesn't want go through the confirmation process for a new Attorney General right now. It's a legitimate reason to hold onto Gonzales but I think the real reason Gonzales is still in the Administration is to protect Rove.

As long as Gonzales is in between Congress and Karl Rove, 'Bush's Brain' feels safe.

The Bush White House has decided that damage of the slow bleed resulting from keeping Gonzales around for the next 18 months is better than what can only be assumed to be catastrophic damage that would result from any sort of investigation getting near Karl Rove.

This tells us a couple of things. First, it tells us that Bush has given up on regaining any kind of positive standing in the polls. There will be no attempt to 'dump' the scandal and move on. That means that the Republicans will go into the 2008 elections burdened with a President whose approval ratings are struggling to stay out of the twenties. If congressional GOPers don't feel like they're going to be getting any help from the White House, they're unlikely to feel any great loyalty to the person that may cost them their seats. As long as Bush's numbers continue to slip away, expect Republican support for his agenda in the congress to slip away as well. Lastly, the fact that Gonzales is still running the Justice Department tells us that things within the Bush Administration must be bad. BAD. The Nixon kind of Bad. No administration would make these kinds of political sacrifices to keep people from seeing inside a clean, even clean-ish, administration.

Alberto Gonzales Karl Rove Bush Administration Attorney-gate Republicans 2008 Elections

GOP Debate: These Guys are Scary - UPDATED

2007-05-16T08:17:00.000-05:00

Last night the GOP had their debate on - you guessed it - FoxNews. A couple of downright frightening quotes:

MITT ROMNEY: I am glad [detainees] are at Guantanamo. I don’t want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo.

Candidates were asked whether they would support the use of waterboarding — a technique, defined as torture by the Justice Department. Two said they would.

Rudy Giuliani: "every method [interrogators] could think of and I would support them in doing it."

Tom Tancredo: "I'm looking for Jack Bauer"

ThinkProgress has video of the applause those comments drew.

And these guys want to run our country.

UPDATE: Youtube Video

The Washington Post has a pretty decent run-down of the inter-candidate goings on at the debate.

Republican Debate Guantanamo Mitt Romney Tortue Rudy Giuliani

Thoughts on Jerry Falwell's Death

2007-05-16T06:25:00.000-05:00

My post yesterday on Jerry Falwell's death was more of an announcement of fact that an examination of either Jerry Falwell or my thoughts and feelings on his passing. This was due to the fact that I was having a great deal of trouble figuring out what, exactly, my thoughts and feelings were on his passing.

Just a few hours after I learned that Rev. Falwell was dead, I learned that two very good friends of my in-laws were involved in a terrible car crash just three miles from their son's graduation ceremony in Connecticut. The mother was killed and the father will never walk again.

When death comes after a long illness or at great age, it doesn't decrease our sorrow even if it does decrease the shock. Just like my all those who knew my family friends traveling to Connecticut, the friends and family of Rev. Falwell were undoubtedly shocked and profoundly saddened to learn that Rev. Falwell was gone.

Many people around the Liberal Blogosphere rejoiced upon hearing that Jerry Falwell was dead. Many illusions to the movie "The Wizard of Oz" were made. I get that. This man harbored great hatred for people like me and people I love. He was a hateful bigot. People had no problem calling him out on that and noting that the world was a better place without him. I get that too.

Other people were quick to mumble things about sympathy for the family and left it at that. Some people took a middle ground, noting that the world was a better place without Jerry Falwell but they expressed sympathy for the family.

I don't know which approach is the correct one - let alone the right one.

It is a disservice to history to gloss over the hatred and bigotry that this man brought into politics, society, and religion. At the same time, it is unseemly to be gleeful about this - or any - person's death. Our counterparts on the Right have no problem wishing death on those who they disagree with. They have no problems taking great pleasure in the deaths of their opponents, gleefully telling us how sure they are that all dead liberals go to hell. We should not be like them.

* * * * *
I've had a hard time feeling anything about Jerry Falwell's death. I feel no sadness. I feel no sense of loss. No sorrow, no regret. Nothing. On an intellectual level, I realize that his being gone is a 'good' thing.

In the end, I'm simply going to say this: Jerry Falwell's passing provides us an opportunity to remind people how much of a bad man that he was and how his movement and his allies have poisoned our country.

I'll leave it at that...

Jerry Falwell

Who's Scared of Smart Women?

2007-05-15T15:23:00.001-05:00

One News Now reports on The World Family Conference IV in Warsaw:

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Paige Patterson says families need to be concerned that in America, 60% of college students are female. He predicts that in a few years, men will be increasingly underrepresented among "the intelligentsia" and will gradually cede leadership in many areas to women.

Patterson laments that most of the women ascending to these new roles will maintain a major focus on a career, not on the family and on children.

"Instead of encouraging adolescents to cut the apron strings of mother and venture out into society, we are begging mothers not to cut the apron strings [to] their babies and catapult them prematurely into a menacing world," said the two-time president of the Southern Baptist Convention. "Mom and hot apple pie have been replaced by institutional daycare centers and cold apple turnovers at McDonald's."

Maybe I'm crazy, but if women make up (roughly) 50% of the population, shouldn't they hold (roughly) 50% of the leadership positions? And if having women accurately represented in 'the intelligentsia' is ceding "leadership in many areas to women," let me tell you that your priorities are pretty screwed up.

It amazes me that in 2007 some people still think women are somehow inferior.

Paige Patterson Feminism Antifeminism

Jerry Falwell: 1933-2007

2007-05-15T13:57:00.000-05:00

The AP:

LYNCHBURG, Va. (AP) -- The Rev. Jerry Falwell, the television evangelist who founded the Moral Majority and used it to mold the religious right into a political force, died Tuesday shortly after being found unconscious in his office at Liberty University. He was 73.

Ron Godwin, the university's executive vice president, said Falwell was found unresponsive late Tuesday morning and taken to Lynchburg General Hospital, where he was pronounced dead about an hour later.

"I had breakfast with him, and he was fine at breakfast," Godwin said. "He went to his office, I went to mine, and they found him unresponsive."

Dr. Carl Moore, Falwell's physician, said the evangelist had a heart rhythm abnormality. He said Falwell was found without a pulse and never regained consciousness.

This blog has a long history of opposing Rev. Falwell, his organizations, his goals, and his causes. That said, the man had a wife, children, and other loved ones that will miss him. For them, I express my sympathy. For the Reverend, I hope that his God shows more compassion than he showed others.

Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report has a great retrospective of his career.

More thoughts on Rev. Falwell's passing tomorrow.

Jerry Falwell

Citation du Jour

2007-05-15T10:37:00.000-05:00

"If they fuck with me or Shaha, I have enough on them to fuck them too."

Paul Wolfowitz, according to Xavier Coll, head of human resources at the World Bank.

It seems Mr. Wolfowitz was using all of the legendary Neoconservative tact, diplomacy, and subtlety to try to convince World Bank staff to not reveal the 'sweet heart' deal he gave to Shaha Riza.

The report by the World Bank panel to which Mr. Coll repeated the quote in testimony, states that "Mr Wolfowitz saw himself as the outsider to whom the established rules and standards did not apply," "had a dramatic negative effect on the reputation and credibility" of the bank, and displayed "questionable judgment and a preoccupation with self-interest."

Wolfowitz, who still enjoys Dick Cheney's support, faces a number of possibilities ranging from a reprimand to a vote of no confidence to an outright firing.

As a side note, the Guardian reported the quote exactly as you see it. No examples yet of how the word "fuck" would be quoted by U.S. media (F*ck, F-, @#(&, ?) but I'd imagine that it won't be as 'uncensored' as the Guardian's quote.

Paul Wolfowitz World Bank

Hagel / Bloomber Ticket?

2007-05-15T07:49:00.000-05:00

Two Republicans running together doesn't exactly sound like a 'third party ticket' to me, but...

Via CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Expressing dismay over the Republican Party's trajectory, Sen. Chuck Hagel said Sunday that an independent presidential bid would be good for the nation.

And Hagel, R-Nebraska, did not rule out the possibility that he might be the one to do it, perhaps in alliance with New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

"I am not happy with the Republican Party today," the self-described lifelong Republican from Nebraska told CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's been hijacked by a group of single-minded, almost isolationist insulationists, power-projectors," he said.

Hagel said he would decide by late summer whether to run for president.

"I think a credible third party would be good for the system," he said.

In reality, a Hagel / Bloomberg ticket would be less a 'third party run' and more a sign of the final schism between the two wings of the Republican Party.

While I applaud Hagel for his courage to speak out about the direction of the Republican Party, but his critique is a bit off. "It's been hijacked by a group of single-minded, almost isolationist insulationists, power-projectors."

Power-projectors are unlikely to be isolationists. Isolationists are unlikely to get American bogged down in intractable wars of choice. Insulationists are unlikely to be Republicans for the simple fact that keeping American wages high will cut into profits.

I think that if Hagel had said that the Republican Party had been hijacked by fiscally irresponsible religious interventionists, he'd have been more accurate. And incidentally, a platform of disentangling American from Iraq, fiscal responsibility, and movement away from legislating religion would probably be a pretty fertile platform for a third party - except that the Democratic Party has that pretty well staked out.

Sorry Chuck.

Chuck Hagel Michael Bloomberg Third Party

Deputy Attorney General "Quits"

2007-05-15T07:14:00.000-05:00

From the New York Times:

Paul J.McNulty, the deputy attorney general whose Congressional testimony in February provided a spark that turned a smoldering issue over the firings of federal prosecutors into a raging inferno, announced his resignation on Monday.

McNulty, Alberto Gonzales' second in command, appears to have been "[telling] friends for weeks that he was planning to step aside." Uh-huh. Sure. The fact that this guy got in front of congress and SHOCK! told the truth and made Gonzales and the Bush Administration look like the dirty political hacks that they are had nothing to do with it. I'd imagine that the atmosphere for him at the office was probably pretty noxious.

McNulty blamed himself for failing to resist the dismissal plan when Mr. Sampson brought it to him in October 2006, according to associates. He took one prosecutor off the removal list but acquiesced to the removal of seven others, according to Congressional aides’ accounts of his private testimony to Congress on April 27. […]

Friends of Mr. McNulty said he had tried to be candid about what he knew of the removals. In his private Congressional testimony, Mr. McNulty said he did not realize until later the extensive White House involvement in Mr. Griffin’s appointment or Mr. Sampson’s nearly year-long effort to compile a list.

White House aides complained privately that Mr. McNulty’s testimony gave Democrats a significant opening to demand more testimony from the Justice Department and presidential aides. Several aides said he should have been combative in defending the dismissals.

I thought so. Republicans are pissed because this guy told the truth about the politicization of the Justice Department instead of putting party above country. How dare he take a principled (if belated) stand that would be politically costly for the GOP and the President! Didn't he get Rove's memo that every action that this Administration takes will be with the sole purpose of creating a permanent Republican majority?

We'll probably never know. All of Karl's emails were mysteriously "lost."

* * * * *
While it's nice to see a high level Bush Administration official canned as a result of poor performance, the McNulty saga leaves me feeling empty because it is so typical for BushCo.

First, McNulty wasn't canned because he allowed U.S. Attorneys to be fired for political reasons, he was 'resigned' because he gave the Democrats the in that they needed to expose the fact that U.S. Attorneys were fired for political reasons.

Second, McNulty takes the fall for Gonzales. There are very few things I would work hard to avoid as being a deputy anything in the Bush Administration. I swear, those guys are there specifically to take the fall for their bosses. (Of course Alberto Gonzales is still Attorney General only because it allows Karl Rove to stay out of the cross-hairs for a little while longer.)

Finally, once again we see someone leave the Bush Administration because of a scandal and don't see a single iota of compunction, shame, or remorse.

Paul McNulty US Attorney Firings Alberto Gonzales Justice Department

Manufacturing "Progress" in Iraq

2007-05-14T07:30:00.000-05:00

The AFP:

Iraq's interior ministry has decided to bar news photographers and camera operators from the scenes of bomb attacks, operations director Brigadier General Abdel Karim Khalaf said on Sunday (local time).

His announcement was the latest in a series of attempts to curtail press coverage of the ongoing conflict, which has already attracted criticism from international human rights bodies.

"There are many reasons for this prohibition," he said.

"We do not want evidence to be disturbed before the arrival of detectives, the ministry must respect human rights and does not want to expose victims and does not want to give terrorists information that they achieved their goals.

"This decision does not imply a curtailment of press freedom, it is a measure followed all over the world."

I'm sure that the Bush Administration was completely uninvolved in the nefarious and underhanded attempt to keep scenes of horrific destruction off of American TVs and out of American newspapers.

Between this new ban, the decision to no longer release civilian casualty counts, and removing bomb attack deaths from lists of deaths caused by sectarian violence
, progress in Iraq should be just around the corner.

Oh, and since death squad killings are sky-rocketing, we better find a way to get a lid on that problem too...

Iraq Bombings News Media War in Iraq Death Squads

Torture Memo Authors Feel Bad

2007-05-11T10:54:00.000-05:00

Tara McKelvey, an editor at The American Prospect, discussing the authors of the torture memo in an interview by Ken Silverstein in Harper's:

Guys like [John] Yoo and Timothy Flanagan, who was deputy White House counsel under Alberto R. Gonzales, discussed techniques like stress positions and sleep deprivation that were approved for high-level Al Qaeda suspects—and those techniques were used on Iraqi civilians. I had a heartfelt conversation with Flanagan and told him what I had heard from Iraqis: that these techniques had been used on men, women and children in Iraq. He feels bad about it; I know he does.

Good, I hope that his future is as 'sleep deprived' as the Iraqi civilians that experienced the fruits of his labors.

Tara McKelvey continues:

But the fact is that he and Yoo and some of these other people from the best law schools and universities in this country were the ones who came up with the legal definitions that allowed for the abuse to happen.

[...]

Thousands of detainees have gone through U.S.-run facilities in Iraq, but thousands more—anyone held for less than fourteen days—were never registered or tracked. Human-rights reports and interviews I conducted show that some of the worst abuses took place at short-term facilities—a police station in Samarra, a school gymnasium, a trailer, and places like that, where individuals were held for up to two weeks.

Read the whole thing for Rumsfeld's role, the lack of consequences and the unexamined roll of contractors in all of this.

Tara McKelvey Abu Ghraib Torture Bush Administration

Bonus Citation du Jour

2007-05-11T10:50:00.000-05:00

Dick Cheney on FoxNews this morning:

"We didn't get elected to be popular."

Mission Accomplished, Mr. Vice President, mission accomplished.

Dick Cheney FOX News
Thanks to Mustang Bobby at Shakesville for pointing that one out.

Citation du Jour

2007-05-11T10:22:00.000-05:00

From Glenn Greenwald we get this gem from John Yoo (who worked in the Bush Administration's Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel) at an April 18 Civil Liberties debate:

[Since 9/11] we have had outpourings of new political speech through new methods and means, for example, uh, people I wish never existed -- bloggers.

'God damned well informed citizens reading and thinking and writing and having opinions. Don't they know their place?'

Just so you know, John, the feeling is mutual.

John Yoo Bush Administration Bloggers

Happy Friday

2007-05-11T08:30:00.000-05:00

Assembled, from data between January and April 2007 by dreaminonempty.

George W. Bush Approval Rating

The Ad That Got Gen. Batiste Fired

2007-05-11T07:37:00.000-05:00

That ad for Vote Vets got Batiste fired from his consultant job at CBS.

As Shakespeare's Sister notes, it took a national furor and loss of advertisers to get CBS to fire Don Imus after he called the Rutger's Women's basket ball team "nappy headed hos" on a CBS broadcast. I guess Batiste's sin must have been much greater...

Gen. Batiste CBS Vote Vets War in Iraq

Bill O'Reilly vs. Wesley Clark

2007-05-10T11:46:00.000-05:00

Clark said "That's character assassination", and O'Reilly, wide-eyed now, replied "You bet it is!" Realizing what he just said, he started shouting, "No! It's facts!"

Which is it, Bill?

Bill O'Reilly Wesley Clark George Soros Character Assassination

Nine is the new Eight

2007-05-10T09:42:00.000-05:00

To every body's absolute SHOCK, the list of fired U.S. Attorneys is growing. The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, May 9 — The former United States attorney in Kansas City, Mo., said Wednesday that he was pushed to resign last year after disagreements with the Justice Department over politically sensitive cases. That would make him the ninth federal prosecutor forced out by department officials in Washington.

The prosecutor, Todd P. Graves, who held the office in Kansas City from 2001 until March 2006, was the subject of a complaint in 2005 from a staff member for Senator Christopher S. Bond, Republican of Missouri, a spokesman for Mr. Bond confirmed.

Failure to sue to purge voter rolls, failure to prosecute 'voter fraud.' Blah, blah, blah... Giving Claire McCaskill (D) a letter before her attempt to unseat Jim Talent (R) "saying there had been insufficient evidence to file charges in a case from the 1990s that involved her office manager." Move along. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along...

Todd Graves US Attorney Christopher Bond

Bush Must Be Feeling Lonely

2007-05-10T08:59:00.000-05:00

From the BBC:

Tony Blair has announced he will stand down as prime minister on 27 June.

He made the announcement in a speech to party activists in his Sedgefield constituency, after earlier briefing the Cabinet on his plans.

He acknowledged his government had not always lived up to high expectations but said he had been very lucky to lead "the greatest nation on earth".

He will stay on in Downing Street until the Labour Party elects a new leader - widely expected to be Gordon Brown.

Blair's approval rating, much like George W. Bush's, is hovering around 30%. How Blair is regarded, beginning in the next two years, might be an indicator of the way that President Bush may be viewed by history. Unlike Bush, however, Blair is lucky enough to have a number of domestic achievements to augment Iraq as the center piece of his legacy. Even in his speech announcing his stepping down, Blair acknowledged that his decision to involve British troops in Iraq is deeply unpopular:

"And so Afghanistan, and then Iraq - the latter bitterly controversial," ... "And removing Saddam and his sons from power, as with removing the Taliban, was over with relative ease.

"But the blowback since, with global terrorism and those elements that support it, has been fierce and unrelenting and costly and for many it simply isn't and can't be worth it. For me, I think we must see it through."

"I may have been wrong. That's your call. But believe one thing if nothing else, I did what I thought was right for my country."

Can you imagine those words coming out of George W. Bush's mouth?

One imagines that with a change in leadership, there will also be a change in the manner in which the British are involved in Iraq.

As leaders of the 'Coalition of the Willing' fall out of political favor, Bush must be feeling rather lonely.

Tony Blair George W. Bush War in Iraq Coalition of the Willing

Photo: G8Russia

This Really Bothers Me

2007-05-10T07:45:00.000-05:00

The headline from Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman's Washington Post story today:

Bush Told War Is Harming The GOP

Before we delve into the contents of the article, let's examine what's going on here. A bunch of GOP Representatives went to the White House and told the President that he might want to rethink the way he's handing Iraq because the way he's handling it right now may lead to political losses in the 2008 election.

Bush needs to change the way that he's handling Iraq BECAUSE IT'S DAMAGING THE FUCKING COUNTRY!

Apparently the fact that there are American men and women fighting and dying in Iraq to referee a civil war isn't a good reason to change course. Devastating and lasting damage to the readiness of our military isn't a good reason to change course. The damage to America's standing in the world isn't a good enough reason. The fact that the Iraqis want us gone isn't a good enough reason.

But Republicans loosing elections just might work.

The contents of the Washington Post story:

House Republican moderates, in a remarkably blunt White House meeting, warned President Bush this week that his pursuit of the war in Iraq is risking the future of the Republican Party and that he cannot count on GOP support for many more months.

The meeting, which ran for an hour and a half Tuesday afternoon, was disclosed by participants yesterday as the House prepared to vote this evening on a spending bill that could cut funding for the Iraq war as early as July. GOP moderates told Bush they would stay united against the latest effort by House Democrats to end U.S. involvement in the war. Even Senate Democrats called the House measure unrealistic.

But the meeting between 11 House Republicans, Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, White House political adviser Karl Rove and presidential press secretary Tony Snow was perhaps the clearest sign yet that patience in the party is running out. The meeting, organized by Rep. Charlie Dent (Pa.), one of the co-chairs of the moderate "Tuesday Group," included Reps. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), Michael N. Castle (Del.), Todd R. Platts (Pa.), Jim Ramstad (Minn.) and Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.).

"It was a very remarkable, candid conversation," Davis said. "People are always saying President Bush is in a bubble. Well, this was our chance, and we took it."

You cannot imagine how much this disgusts me. It is one more example of this Administration putting party before country.

THAT'S being un-American.

George W. Bush War in Iraq Republicans Party Before Country

I Do Not Want To Hear It

2007-05-09T13:17:00.000-05:00

The next Republican (or Democrat) that starts spouting crap about how we're 'making progress' in Iraq or how things are 'getting better' or that we're 'turning a corner' I (preemptively) call bullshit.

From the USAToday:

U.S. Embassy: Wear flak jackets, helmets

BAGHDAD (AP) — The U.S. Embassy has ordered its staff to wear flak jackets and helmets while outdoors or in unprotected buildings following an increase in mortar and rocket attacks against the heavily protected Green Zone.

The order, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, was issued last week after four Asian contract workers were killed during a barrage into the Green Zone, a 3.5-square mile area along the west bank of the Tigris River in the center of Baghdad. The area contains the U.S. and British embassies and many key Iraqi government offices.

U.S. government employees who work outside of a "hardened structure" such as the current embassy building or travel "a substantial distance outdoors" must wear "personal protective equipment," meaning flak jackets and helmets, the order said.

That's right. Things have gotten so good that our embassy employees now need to wear a flack jacket and a helmet to go outside and smoke the cigarette that their bomb and mortar frayed nerves must so desperately need.

War in Iraq Baghdad Embassy Flack Jackets

NRA: Picking & Chosing from the Bill of Rights

2007-05-09T11:31:00.000-05:00

From the AP:

The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

"As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.

The NRA doesn't seem to care that arbitrary denial of constitutional liberties based on suspicions already includes your ability to fly on a plane, do business with financial institutions, expect privacy in your library habits or your phone conversations. 'Suspicion' is all that's needed for Bush's government to pick you up, take you to Gitmo, hold you indefinitely without charges, access to a lawyer, or due process to challenge your imprisonment.

But I guess those 'civil rights' aren't really all that important to the NRA.

NRA Civil Rights Guns Terrorists War on Terror

Pro-Life My Ass...

2007-05-09T09:15:00.000-05:00

From the AP:

The chance that an Iraqi child will live beyond age 5 has plummeted faster than anywhere else in the world since 1990, according to a report released Tuesday, which placed the country last in its child survival rankings.

One in eight Iraqi children died of disease or violence before reaching their fifth birthday in 2005.

Sanctimonious 'Pro-Life' politicians spout off about Abortion being murder, stem cell research as murder. I want to know how these hypocritical bastards square 'saving the (unborn) children' with the fact that their war is killing real live children in Iraq right now. RIGHT NOW.

That any party that has the words 'Pro-Life' tattooed onto their party platform could start a war of opportunity and obviously not care about the implications disgusts me.

War in Iraq Republicans Pro-Life Iraq Child Mortality

Desperate Bleatings of a Fallen 'Star'

2007-05-09T08:13:00.000-05:00

Ann Coulter's latest prattle about Obama is so weak that even Ann must be unimpressed.

After Newsweek released a poll that had Barack Obama leading top Republicans, Ms. Coulter had this to say on Fox News' "At Large:"

"I think this is Newsweek doing more push polling for al-Qaida"

When Geraldo Rivera asked if she thought that Newsweek would falsify the poll results, Ann replied:

"Yes, I do ... In polls where people are actually allowed to vote, Republicans do a lot better.

Just like Florida, right Ann?

Ann is slipping. Sure, she's still saying outrageous things, but they no longer have the (deceptive) appearance of being connected to reality. Attacking Newsweek for push polling for al Qaida? Please. The game has changed. Intimating that Liberals are terrorists isn't working any more. She never bother to explain how Obama's lead in the polls would help al Qaida.

I guess explanations aren't really all that popular on the right...

Ann Coulter Barack Obama Newsweek

I Wondery Why...

2007-05-09T07:20:00.000-05:00

From the Financial Times:

The Bush administration is facing growing difficulties in filling a rising number of high-level vacancies following a recent spate of senior departures.

In the last 10 days alone Mr Bush has lost four senior officials and more resignations are expected to follow. "I wouldn't describe this as disintegration," said one senior official. "But there are worrying large gaps opening up and it is very hard to recruit high-quality people from outside."

One doesn't need to be a genius to figure out why people might be a little leery of joining the most unpopular administration in a generation.

Ignoring the fact that Bush is staggeringly unpopular, why would you decide to take some job for the Bush Administration? Dick Cheney is going to make all the decisions anyway...

Bush Administration

We're in Iraq to Protect (Certain) Americans

2007-05-08T11:22:00.000-05:00

Via Think Progress, the transcript of 'winger Dick Morris on Hannity & Colmes:

MORRIS: I think that withdrawal from Iraq — it obviously gives al Qaeda a huge victory. Huge victory. On the other hand, if we stay in Iraq, it gives them the opportunity to kill more Americans, which they really like.

One of the things, though, that I think the antiwar crowd has not considered is that, if we’re putting the Americans right within their arms’ reach, they don’t have to come to Wall Street to kill Americans.

So let me make sure I understand what Dick just said: We should put certain Americans - young men and women that don't make huge profits and large campaign contributions - in Iraq so that the terrorists can kill and maim them more easily so that certain other Americans - rich ones that rake in huge profits and write fat checks to the GOP to ensure those profits - can go about their lives in safety.

I think I get it, but let's review: Make it easy for terrorists to kill unimportant Americans so that the rich, important ones can keep the gravy train running.

And all this is ignoring the fact that the 'fly paper' strategy has no basis in fact.

Former White House counterterrorism director Richard Clarke:

Of course, nothing about our being "over there" in any way prevents terrorists from coming here. Quite the opposite, the evidence is overwhelming that our presence provides motivation for people throughout the Arab world to become anti-American terrorists.

Even the slightest amount of critical thinking shows the flaws in the 'over there, not over here' argument. The vast majority of the insurgents in Iraq are Iraqis that just want foreign troops out of their country. As soon as we leave, they'll have their hands full as the already present civil war escalates. The longer we stay in Iraq, however, the more angry 'foreign fighters' - the ones that already wanted to fight us over here - we create.

But I guess it's all okay as long as you say that you support the troops...

Dick Morris War in Iraq

On "Believeing" in Evolution

2007-05-04T13:17:00.000-05:00

Who Doesn't Believe in Evolution? According to Crooks and Liars, three presidential candidates: Sen. Sam Brownback, Rep. Tom Tancredo, and Gov. Mike Huckabee..

But I'm not here to make fun of their willful ignorance and arrogant anti-intellectualism. I'm here to critique the way that Democrats, Progressives, Liberals, Scientists, and thinking people in general think and talk about evolution

First, I don't believe in evolution and you shouldn't either. At least not any more than you believe in gravity.

It is not a question of belief. I accept evolution as a scientific fact. For over one hundred years, the scientific community has modified and refined the idea that organisms evolve over time. Every piece of evidence, every experiment or observation has reinforced the basic idea that 'survival of the fittest' is the mechanism by which new species come into being.

Every time we say that we believe in evolution, we put a scientifically demonstrable phenomenon in the same category as religion. This is dangerous. The forces of deliberate ignorance are already trying to have the 'religion' of secular humanism removed from schools.

Fundamentally, while 'belief' may be dictated by authority, knowledge can only be discovered by inquiry. In the pre-rational era, religious institutions could dictate scientific fact through theology and dogma. Ask Galileo. Evolution is not a mystical, un-provable process (like transubstantiation) that must be taken on faith. We shouldn't treat it or talk about it as if it were.

Evolution Belief Framing

The Picture of 'Establishment' Authority

2007-05-04T09:36:00.000-05:00

I cannot imagine a group of men more unsuited to be the pool from which the leader of this nation will be chosen.

And their biggest problem is that these candidates and their party members think that a rich, old, white male is the only image of authority.

Republican Debate Patriarchy

I'm Not Generally Disposed to Glee...

2007-05-03T15:06:00.000-05:00

Especially given the state of the world of late, but today I just could help myself.

From the AP:

President Not Among Time's 100 Most Influential

(AP) Heartthrob Leonardo DiCaprio, talk show host Rosie O'Donnell and comedian Sacha Baron Cohen are among the newsmakers on Time magazine's list of 100 people who shape the world.

The list of 100 most influential, on newsstands Friday, also includes the Queen, presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, YouTube founders Steve Chen and Chad Hurley, director Martin Scorsese and model Kate Moss.

It does not include President George W. Bush, but it does include Canada's Mahar Arar, who became a cause celebre after being deported by U.S. authorities as a possible terrorist to Syria where he was imprisoned and tortured.

The whole list is here. (In the 'Reader's Poll' George W. Bush was rated less influential than Rachael Ray...)

And this from the Houston Chronicle:

Two years after writing a law requiring highway "Welcome to Texas" signs to tout the state as the home of President Bush, state Rep. Ken Paxton today passed a bill that will remove the designation once the 43rd president leaves office.

Paxton, R-McKinney, says after Bush is out of office he "didn't see any reason to leave his name" on the signs.

Sometimes the world manages to make Thursdays feel like Fridays.

George W. Bush Time Magazine Time 100 Texas Highway Signs

More in the 'I Hope Nobody Will Notice' File

2007-05-01T15:30:00.000-05:00

Today's Citation du Jour comes from the distant past our President has chosen to forget because it makes him look bad.

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

- George W. Bush, 4/9/99, criticizing President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo.

"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

- George W. Bush, 6/5/99

Nothing like intellectual honesty from the man who restored dignity to the Office of the President...

George W. Bush War in Iraq Timeline Withdrawal Redeployment Victory

Does He Think We Won't Notice?

2007-05-01T06:34:00.000-05:00

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) on Friday:

Inhofe, speaking to the press before Cheney’s arrival, lambasted Democrats for Thursday’s Senate vote to begin withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1 and the press for "mischaracterizing" the reasons for U.S. involvement.

"The whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was never the issue, yet they keep trying to bring this up," Inhofe said. […]

Pressed for an explanation, Inhofe said weapons of mass destruction were "incidental" to the decision to invade Iraq.

"The media made that the issue because they knew Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in August 2002:

"Our intelligence system has said that we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction — I believe including nuclear. There's not one person on this panel who would tell you unequivocally that he doesn’t have the missile means now, or is nearly getting the missile means to deliver a weapon of mass destruction. And I for one am not willing to wait for that to happen."

Senator Inhofe is 73 years old so maybe he isn't too familiar with the fact that 'the tubes' allow us to fact check his current dishonest, self-serving drivel against the factless, partisan drivel that fell out of his mouth five years ago.

That said, weapons of mass destruction were "incidental" to the reasons for going into Iraq? "Smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" anybody? Is he that contemptuous towards the intelligence of the American People? Did he really think we're so stupid to forget the Bush Administration's arguments about mobile weapons labs, anthrax, and YELLOW CAKE FROM NIGER?

In the end, what shocks me most is that he has the audacity to go on record spouting such obvious lies for self-serving reasons.

James Inhofe Weapons of Mass Destruction Media War in Iraq

The Virginia Tech Massacre, The 2nd Amendment and the Coming Debate

2007-04-16T14:01:00.000-05:00

As of my writing, there are 32 confirmed dead at Virginia Tech in what is the worst act of school violence in American History.

First, let me express my sympathy for all those involved. My thoughts go out to the students at Virginia Tech, both directly involved and those trapped in fear in their dorms - still not knowing if friends are among the dead. I cannot even begin to comprehend the anguish that parents and loved ones of those students at Virginia Tech stuck waiting to hear that their son, daughter, brother, sister, friend, is not among the dead or the wounded.

Second, let me apologize both for myself and on behalf of all of those that will in the coming days and weeks use this bloody backdrop to debate the state of gun laws in our country.

My impetuous for this diary is this statement from the White House:

A White House spokesman said President Bush was horrified by the rampage and offered his prayers to the victims and the people of Virginia.

"The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

I was amazed that even in the wake of this terrible tragedy, the politics of 'stoking the base' trumped humancompassion. Just hours after the shooting stopped, the White House felt compelled to remind 'the base' that the Republican Party supports everything that
the NRA tells them. Could this bit of political posturing not have waited until tomorrow? Could it not wait until parents had been notified?

I guess not. As per Redstate, it seems that Gun Control politics is the main story line of this tragedy.

From Redstate Poster CuttingCougar:

Obviously,
most of the facts are not yet known. Thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families.

But get ready for the nanny-staters and the next round of hand wringing over the second amendment. And get ready for willful ignoring of the fact that these are the same methods theIslamofascists use, and yet the far left wants us to sit out that fight.

Whatever happens, I'm sure it's Bush's fault.

That's right. Thoughts and prayers and all that, but the story her is thatthis'll lead to another effort to take our guns!

Another Redstate poster, David Kirby, had this to say:

Undoubtedly, the left will use this as ammunition for gun control. But I think it's the exact opposite. Put yourself in the situation of the victim in the residence hall. You're sitting in your room, probably just waking up. Someone walks in with a gun. Because of the law banning gun possession on campus, you only have one option: get shot.

Even if the victim had a gun, it's impossible for us to say that he could have reached it on time. But at least he'd have an option.

I don't know about the rest of those on the progressive side of theblogosphere, but my first thoughts (and only thoughts until I read Dana Perino's statement) were for the victims, their families and the students at Virginia Tech.

It seems that the other side of the blogosphere had a slightly different reaction.

I would imagine that this is because they know that every time a tragedy like this happens, it illustrates the complete failure of their position on gun control - yet rather than change their position they reduce human tragedy political problem. Their first reaction isn't sorrow or sadness or outrage or sympathy - it's to man thebarricades to defend their failed policy position.

I'll end with this:

For all those on the right wailing about how the left is subverting the 2nd Amendment, I will immediately drop any attempt to advocate for some sort of sanity in American gun laws - out of respect for the 2nd Amendment - if you immediately drop any attempt to co mingle religion and government, advocate for illegal wire tapping, allow for the unregulated use of 'Letters of National Security', deprive prisoners of the right to counsel or the ability to know the crime for which they are being imprisoned, the right to a jury trial, or the right to a detainment free of torture.

Virginia Tech School Shooting Second Amendment Gun Control

The Widening Divide

2007-02-09T09:47:00.000-05:00

The Pentagon is planning for the failure of 'The Surge.'.

"None of those who are taking part in these exercises, shielded from the public view and the immediate scrutiny of the White House, believes that the so-called surge will succeed."

Generals are telling Congress that questioning the President doesn't undermine the troops.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace: As long as this Congress continues to do what it has done, which is to provide the resources for the mission, the dialogue will be the dialogue, and the troops will feel supported.

Now we learn that the Pentagon has even released a report criticizing its own civilian leadership for misuse of intelligence in the months before the Invasion of Iraq.

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 — A Pentagon investigation into the handling of prewar intelligence has criticized civilian Pentagon officials for conducting their own intelligence analysis to find links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, but said the officials did not violate any laws or mislead Congress, according to Congressional officials who have read the report.

The long-awaited report by the Pentagon's acting inspector general, Thomas F. Gimble, was sent to Congress on Thursday. It is the first major review to rebuke senior officials working for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for the way intelligence was used before the invasion of Iraq early in 2003.

Working under Douglas J. Feith, who at the time was under secretary of defense for policy, the group "developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers," the report concluded.

Inspector General Gimble's assertion that no laws were violated was challenged by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman, John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV). Rockefeller will hold investigations into whether or not the Pentagon's failure to disclose what Gimble called "intelligence activities" violated the National Security Act of 1947.

Pointing out that the White House and it's appointed civilian leadership at the Pentagon 'cherry-picked' intelligence linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq to Al-Queda is unexceptionally. The fact is nearly universally accepted. The 9/11 Commission found "no evidence" of a link between the two. But when condemnations of pre-war intelligence comes from the Pentagon itself, something new is afoot.

When the White House's war effort has lost the Pentagon, change is sure to come soon.

Pentagon Donald Rumsfeld Douglas Feith Thomas Gimble Pre-war Intelligence War in Iraq

Undermining the President, not the Troops

2007-02-08T10:02:00.000-05:00

If you listen to the members of the minority party in Congress, you'd think that holding a debate - any debate - on the 'Surge' in Iraq would lead to unmitigated strategic disaster. The terrible consequences of debate would be to 'undermine the troops' or to send them 'mixed messages' resulting in very bad but unspecified things. How and why this catastrophic failure would happen (or how it would be any different from the current situation in Iraq) remains unexplained by Republicans or their media enablers.

On January 25, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a non-binding resolution stating, "It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq." Asked what would happen if the Senate passed a similar resolution, Dick Cheney is on record saying "it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops."

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) has said, "I do not think you can send a message that is going to raise the morale of the troops while at the same time sending a message that we don’t support the mission."

It's a simple and pervasive talking point, but is it true?

As the Senate debated the non-binding resolution that Dick Cheney so feared, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace had this to say:

"As long as this Congress continues to do what it has done, which is to provide the resources for the mission, the dialog will be the dialog, and the troops will feel supported."

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Congress that the troops understand that debate is an effort to find the best way to execute the war, not an effort to undermine them:

"I think they [the troops] are sophisticated enough to understand that that's what the debate's really about."

So why all the effort to force this false meme upon the public? Why has the White House expended so much energy ensuring that a non-binding resolution supported by the majority of Senators never sees the light of day?

Because questioning the President's plan doesn't undermine the troops. It undermines the President.

The President and his party don't want to have any debate about Iraq just as the 2008 Elections appear on the horizon.

The President isn’t concerned about the psyches of our troops in Iraq. If he were, he wouldn't continue to order more extensions of duty, repeat tours in Iraq, and 'stop loss' measures. The President and his party are only worried about their own political skins.

War in Iraq Surge Senate Debate Undermine the Troops

I'm Still Alive!

2007-02-07T13:20:00.000-05:00

The last three weeks or so have been very busy at work, preventing me from being able to post as much as I would like. Hopefully things will slow down a bit in the near future. Also, getting the internet at home (Gasp! I'm living in the 20th century!) will mean that even if work is busy, I will be able to pound out a few sentences now and again.

I'd be lying if I didn't acknowledge that fatigue has a little bit to do with it. It amazes me that top-tier bloggers can put up quality posts day after day for years. Maybe it's because they get paid to do it...

Anyway, 300 Dollar Wonder should emerge from dormancy and be back up and running again soon. I'm also planning a few changes, so stay tuned.

Thoughts on and an Explanation of "Best Entertained, Least Informed..."

2007-02-07T12:25:00.000-05:00

300 Dollar Wonder's subtitle "Commentary for the best entertained, least informed nation on earth" is essentially a reworking of the Neil Postman quote "We are the best entertained least informed society in the world." As such, I do not take credit for the phrase or the concept.

Neil Postman (1931 — 2003) was a critic and an educator. He was a long time professor at NYU where he published many books and magazine articles examining the way that media and society interact.

His most well known work, Amusing Ourselves to Death, exemplifies the themes he pursued.

From the author of Teaching as a Subversive Activity comes a sustained, withering and thought-provoking attack on television and what it is doing to us. Postman's theme is the decline of the printed word and the ascendancy of the "tube" with its tendency to present everything - murder, mayhem, politics, weather - as entertainment. The ultimate effect, as Postman sees it, is the shrivelling of public discourse as TV degrades our conception of what constitutes news, political debate, art, even religious thought. Early chapters trace America's one-time love affair with the printed word, from colonial pamphlets to the publication of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. There's a biting analysis of TV commercials as a form of "instant therapy" based on the assumption that human problems are easily solvable. Postman goes further than other critics in demonstrating that television represents a hostile attack on literate culture.

Postman didn't just attack TV for dumbing down everything which it came into contact with, he examines how the inherent limitations of TV affect a society in which TV is the primary medium for all public discourses.

Every communication medium has an 'upper limit' to the level of discourse that it can sustain. Postman gives the example of trying to hold a discussion on philosophy using smoke signals to illustrate that the medium itself limits the depth of ideas communicated.

Postman shows that TV's 'upper limit' is far below that of print media. Then, using Aldus Huxley's Brave New World as a jumping-off point, Postman claims that TV acts as a "Soma," a drug that deadens society intellectually while leaving them happy.

* * * * *
I think that Postman's critique of TV media is especially applicable to politics. Trillion dollar budgets, intricate tax laws, far ranging foreign policy, intricate science funding and domestic policy are all forced, at best, to fit within a few minutes coverage. At the worst, debates on war and peace are reduced to 10 second sound bites.

TV's inability to investigate the intricacies and implications of various political initiatives is only compounded by treating news as entertainment. FoxNews' penchant for using TV news to reinforce its audience's pre-existing conclusions destroys what little ability was left.

Neil Postman passed away in 2003. It would have been fascinating to hear his thoughts and opinions on the emergence of the blogosphere, both as a phenomenon, as a means of communication, and as a political power.

I think he would approve.

Annotated State of the Union

2007-01-24T13:04:00.000-05:00

I'm hoping to get back to regular posting soon. Even if I don't have time for a full analysis, I just couldn't let the SOTU go past without at least a 'documentation' type post...

From ThinkProgress and Click.TV:

Altogether, a rather flat speech, though Bush kinda pulled it together at the end. Of course he had to resort to pointing to a guy that demonstrated courage and concern for his fellow citizen - something completely alien to Bush. I'm not really seeing Bush get much more than a point or two out of this speech. First, with his numbers in the tank, I imagine most people avoided watching it. People who did already had firm opinions on Iraq and the Bush Administration. The speech was unlikely to do anything but reaffirm them.

Anybody who did tune in for the SOTU and didn't stick around for the Democratic response missed what was undoubtedly the better speech of the night. even though it was delivered by a newly elected Senator, my guess is that it will be Jim Webb's (D-VA) speech that will be better remembered 10 years down the road.

Speaking of which...

I'm sure Bush is glad he got to speak before Webb. Pitting a man who can barely form cohesive sentences against a well-regarded novelist is almost unfair...

George W. Bush State of the Union Jim Webb

FoxNews: "Obama = Terrorist"

2007-01-20T09:09:00.000-05:00

You knew it was only a matter of time before Fox News did this, but when it happens, it's still makes your head hurt.

Fox News Barack Obama Madrasa Slander

Citation du Jour

2007-01-16T13:48:00.000-05:00

"He has 24 months left in his presidency. I don't think I'm being mean-spirited by saying [that in] the first six years of his presidency, there's been nothing accomplished except the biggest foreign policy fiasco in the history of our country."

- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), in Time magazine.

And don't forget curtailing our freedoms, dragging America's reputation through the mud, engaging in torture in America's name, packing courts with right-wing judges, destroying any semblance of fiscal sanity, and forcing the American Public to listen to him say 'new-kyu-lar' over and over again...

America's Failure in Iraq

2007-01-16T10:39:00.000-05:00

From Richard Cohen's Op-Ed in the Washington Post:

...I could not imagine being a suicide bomber or a member of a death squad -- or killing someone because he was a Shiite or a Sunni. As there was in Vietnam, there is a piece of Iraq -- its culture, it religions, its history -- that we do not understand. This war has lasted longer than we expected not just because we were inept or understaffed or fired the Baathists or discharged the army -- but because we don't understand the country. For instance, an Iraqi government that reacts lethargically to American proposals moved with surprising alacrity to hang Saddam Hussein. Even late in the game, we didn't see it coming.

[...]

I have some questions. When politicians and commentators detail all that the Bush administration did wrong, I wonder whether any of it really matters. Would things have turned out differently if we had done everything right? Was Iraq so "broken" we never could have fixed it? Was Hussein's despotism an avoidable tragedy, or was it, instead, a tragic necessity? I wonder about all these things. I tend to think now we never could have made it work.

Now, of course, everyone looks like an idiot. Bremer was an idiot and Garner was an idiot and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Cheney and all the generals, with the exception of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who called for lots and lots of troops and was sidelined. But these men are not really idiots. They were merely wrong, sometimes on account of arrogance, but they were doing what they thought was the right thing. They simply didn't know what they didn't know. They didn't know a damned thing about Iraq.

"They didn't know a damned thing about Iraq." I would argue that, at least among the civilian leadership, the fault runs even deeper: They didn't care that they didn't know a damned thing about Iraq.

Cohen spends most of his op-ed comparing Iraq to Vietnam. I've learned that as somebody who was born over a decade after the helicopters left the roof-tops, I don't have the expertise to make such comparisons - so I'll only make an observation about Iraq. If you feel it applies to Vietnam as well, feel free to make the connection.

America failed in Iraq because her people and her leaders went into Iraq assuming that the people of Iraq wanted the same things, both personally and geo-politically, that Americans wanted.

This is a monument to ethnocentrism not just because it's true, but because it needed to be pointed out.

After Bush stopped pretending that invading Iraq was about disarming Saddam and/or preventing cooperation between Saddam (the Middle Easts most secular dictator) and terroristic religious extremists, his 'new' goal became turning Iraq into a secular, moderate, pro-western democracy in the middle of the Middle East. Oil conspiracies aside, the CEO president decided that he was going to set up his 'Shining City on the Hill^tm' brand in another location.

But this isn't just your run of the mill 'new location to better serve you!' This is the equivalent of CVS building a new store right across the street from a Rite-Aid. This is about putting your competition out of business.

It's a good strategy.

Or rather, it could have been a good strategy. The problem was that BushCo. thought that they knew what the local population wanted without doing any consumer research.

* * * * *
Getting out of a less and less useful metaphor, BushCo. told us (and themselves) that Iraqis wanted a peaceful, unified, inclusive, secular, pro-western democracy without actually finding out if that was true.

Iraqis do want a peaceful and perhaps a democratic Iraq. It turns out that the pro-western, secular, unified and inclusive parts of BushCo's vision might not be shared by a significant portion of the Iraqi population.

While the vast majority of Iraqis aren't blowing themselves up or engaging in Sunni vs. Shiite killings, enough of the population agrees with the ends (if not the means) to perpetuate the chaos.

America is failing in Iraq because the American vision for Iraq is not the same as the Iraqi vision for Iraq.

20,000 more troops won't change that. More money for reconstruction won't change that. Most importantly, training more Iraqi troops won't change that. It's very simple: Most Iraqi Sunnis want a Sunni dominated Iraq. Most Iraqi Shiites want a Shiite dominated Iraq. And Iraqi Kurds don't really want to be part of Iraq.

That should have been obvious before the invasion but the civilian planners of the war "didn't know a damned thing about Iraq." Perhaps the sectarian divides could have been overcome if it had been taken into account from the beginning. We'll never know. Debating that now is pointless. By proceeding with the invasion without addressing that gaping hole in their strategy, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and every other planner of the War in Iraq attempted to build a nation without a foundation - the endorsement of the governed.

After that colossal omission, even if no other mistake was made, the ability of the United States to create an Iraq that even remotely resembled the Iraq it envisioned is, at best, debatable.

Let's not equivocate. After forgetting to see if Iraqis wanted the Iraq we envisioned, 'success' was - and is - impossible.

* * * * *
Mr. Cohen, if in a round-about way, correctly identifies why America is struggling in Iraq. It would be nice, in the face of thousands of American casualties, to see him have the courage to take that realization to its logical conclusion: Anything other than withdrawal will simply be throwing American blood and treasure into a lost cause.

Richard Cohen War in Iraq Failure

Martin Luther King Day

2007-01-15T13:13:00.000-05:00

Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

When I stop to think about it, I marvel that despite the fact that the likes of Dick Cheney, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, Mitch McConnell, and John McCain voted against its creation, there is a national holiday honoring Dr. King - an honor that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln do not share.

* * * * *
For my generation - and any other generation too young to have been there - there is a need to tell ones self that if they had been alive during the Civil Rights movement, they would have stood shoulder to shoulder with Dr. King on the side of good.

My generation's attitudes about race are certainly more in line with those of Dr. King than Gov. George Wallace's, but does that mean that if you were there then, a product of those times and that culture rather than our own, that you would stand up for civil rights?

I once read, and forgive me for not remembering where, that a very good indicator of where you would stand on Civil Rights if you were alive in the '60s is your stance of Gay rights right now.

Though that statement seems self evident today. It was a revelation when I read it back when I was in high school in the '90s. Though I would have probably self identified as a Democrat and a liberal then, I was far less interested and far less involved in politics and/or social causes at the time.

People on both sides of the debate would probably point out differences between the struggle that Dr. King embarked upon and the one facing so many Americans today. And yes, there are incidental differences, but at the root, both struggles are the same -to ensure that every American, even those in maligned minority groups, is ensured equality.

Anti-gay forces understand that King's stance was the right stand. That's why they are so vocal in their claims that one struggle for civil rights is so different from the other. A realization by the public that they are the same struggle would lend incredible credence to to the efforts to end discrimination, both personal and governmental, against the LGTB community.

When we remember Dr. King, we do best to remember his struggle for equality for all Americans, period. The specific fronts in his battle are different than fronts we face today. Both are invaluable steps towards fulfilling the promise of America.

Martin Luther King

I Knew It.

2007-01-12T14:51:00.000-05:00

I knew there was a reason I hated Simon Cowell. This is it:

One of the show's judges, Simon Cowell, says he has never bought a Dylan record because he "bores me to tears."

The British pop impresario says in the February issue of Playboy that he would "plug my ears and run in the other direction" if he were to see a 21-year-old Dylan singing "Blowin' in the Wind."

[...]

On the other hand, he told Playboy that inaugural champ Kelly Clarkson is "a young Aretha Franklin," and he much preferred her music to Dylan's

If I were Aretha Franklin, I'd sue.

Kelly Clarkson over Bob Dylan? Unbelievable...

The Disaster of Being Unimaginative

2007-01-12T14:19:00.000-05:00

I have slowly begun to form a thesis that, at its core, Conservatism's greatest weakness (and fatal flaw) is that it lacks imagination. Illustration:

From Freedom's Power by Paul Starr, via Ezra Klein:

Far from making the United States stronger, Bush’s policies have dissipated American power. In his speech, the president suggested that if the United States failed in Iraq, Iran would be emboldened. But Iran has obviously already been emboldened because its leaders believe that an America mired in Iraq can make only empty threats.

To use power ineffectually is to destroy it. Conservatives may have believed that the unilateral assertion of American military might is the best way to extend American influence abroad and promote democracy. The experience of the past several years, however, show how limited an understanding of power that is. The Bush strategy has undermined not just America’s soft power--its ability to attract support throughout the world--but its hard power as well.

What I take away from this isn't that Bush consciously squandered America's 'soft power' - he never knew that America had it.

Perhaps Bush (and his ideological brethren) couldn't imagine that power, the ability to get other people/parties/nations to do what you want, could come from anything other than the end of rifle. (Or a multi-billion dollar joint tactical strike force.) Perhaps he couldn't imagine himself as someone that is always the one with less power in any given situation.

Examination: Bush is a white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant male from an elite, monied and powerful family and the son of a President. Never in his life has he been forced into being the less powerful party in a situation. Apply this mentality to international politics...

If all power flows from strength of arms, why wouldn't every nation in the world roll-over in front of America's clear status as the world's only super-power? Nobody can (militarily) stop America from invading Iraq, why worry about U.N. approval? The other nations need to know their place. Until they're in a position to land an army on America's shores, they have no right to tell America how to use it's military strength.

"Nobody has the right to infringe on our rights as a sovereign nation" is a phrase that only somebody who can't imagine being the leader (or citizen) of a less powerful nation would use.

The 'just send in more troops' approach to salvaging The War in Iraq is an equally viable example of lack of imagination. If a strategy isn't working, doing the same thing 'harder' isn't likely to work - but if you can't imagine any other method to achieve your goal 'more troops' it's the only option you have.

* * * * *
This applies to any number of social issues as well. Conservatives deride us as 'bleeding heart liberals.' We are moved to compassion for others because we can imagine ourselves in 'X' situation.

I know, I know. Fascinating idea, but the theory isn't completely developed. I'm sure with a bit of work, I could find more and better examples and articulate what's bouncing around in my head.

Maybe next week...

Conservatives Imagination War in Iraq

A Day Late and a Dollar Short - As Usual

2007-01-12T14:04:00.000-05:00

So, yeah, another day with a meager post count. I'm leaving work a bit early today to head out of town to visit friends, so (of course) work's been crazy. My apologies.

Somehow it's escaped my notice that today marks the end of De-Lurking Week. Being a serial lurker myself, I think the idea of people saying 'hi' sounds like a great idea, so if you happen by here regularly, de-lurkerize yourself if the spirit moves you!

Of course De-Lurking Week has a downside.

This post opens me up to the possibility of a confidence crushing realization that nobody reads my blog. Ever. People just end up here due to google searches that turn up some of my posts about the Foley scandel and run away screaming when they realize that my blog isn't, well, stimulating in the way they expected.

Bloggers, or at least this blogger, likes to pretend that they don't care if nobody reads their blog. They say things like 'the writing helps me organize my thoughts.' But they really do want people to read it. Hell, one of the happiest blog-moments I've had is when I had a troll tell me I was going to hell for siding with 'Abortionists' instead of Jesus and little babies. I had my very own troll!

Sadly, it turned out to be a one time thing...

Anyway, thank you to all (any?) of my readers. If no one de-lurks, I'll just figure you're all shy.

Citation du Jour

2007-01-12T11:27:00.000-05:00

"I would confess I'm no expert on Iraq" and "no expert on military matters."

- New Defense Secretary Robert Gates in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, as quoted by CBS/AP.

Robert Gates Secretary of Defense War in Iraq Surge Congress

Bush's 'Surge' Isn't Popular

2007-01-11T13:14:00.000-05:00

From the AP:

WASHINGTON - Americans overwhelmingly oppose sending more U.S. forces to Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll that serves as a strong repudiation of President Bush's plan to send another 21,500 troops.

The opposition to boosting troop levels in Iraq reflects growing skepticism that the United States made the right decision in going to war in the first place and that a stable, democratic government can be established there. Just 35 percent think it was right for the United States to go to war, a new low in AP polling and a reversal from two years ago, when two-thirds of Americans thought it was the correct move.

Why have half of the people that supported the war 12 months ago turned against it? Because they don't think that a stable, democratic Iraq is possible, no matter how many troops Bush throws in.

Will having seven out of ten Americans on their side be enough for Democrats and a collection of honest Republicans to stand up and resist?

Your guess is as good as mine.

War in Iraq Surge George W. Bush Approval

Fifteen Percent?

2007-01-11T09:27:00.000-05:00

From Bush's Speech:

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.

There are currently 132,000 U.S. Troops in Iraq. Bush has said he will add an additional 20,000 - a 15% increase.

We are failing in the 'decisive ideological struggle of our time' and Bush only musters a 15% increase?

If Bush really believed that Western Civilization was doomed if Iraq descended into chaos (well, more than it already has) and that committing more troops to was the only way to secure our future as a nation, I would hope that he would be aware enough to do something more than squeeze a 15% increase out of an already exhausted military.

World War II, the last 'decisive ideological struggle,' saw every able bodied person drafted into the army, industry retooled for the war effort, civilians making huge sacrifices including growing their own vegetables and using ration books to get staples like sugar and gasoline.

But we're not doing any of those things.

So either this isn't the 'decisive ideological struggle' that Bush is trying to convince us it is or he's the the most derelict president in the history of the Republic.

Escalation or 'Surge' is a bullshit political gesture that does nothing but ensures that American Forces leave Iraq when somebody else is president.

War in Iraq Decisive Ideological Struggle George W. Bush

Not Good. Not Good. Not Good. Not Good.

2007-01-11T09:08:00.000-05:00

Yeah, yeah, the President's speech. The only important parts (at least in Bush's mind) were the ones where he laid the groundwork for this:

From the BBC:

US forces storm Iranian consulate

US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six members of staff.

The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials.

Ok, so if my calculations are correct, if it's 3:00 am in Irbil (GMT +3) when the raid took place then it was 7:00 pm the previous day in Washington (GMT -5) at the time of the raid - just over two hours before George W. Bush gave his speech.

Details are few, but this action changes the forcefulness, if not the nature of a later part of Bush's Speech.

Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.

We will expand intelligence sharing, and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

It also completely changes the way that I read 'The Surge.'

This 'Surge' isn't about securing Baghdad. This (along with the additional carrier group deployed to the gulf) is about showing Iran that despite having both feet firmly stuck in the Iraqi quagmire, we're still willing to bluster and bluff in the hopes of scaring the Iranians into doing what we want.

(More Evidence at Unclaimed Territory.)

Here's the rub - You don't have to be a military expert to know that Iran's standing army isn't the push-over that Iraq's turned out to be. The Iranians know this and aren't likely to just roll over.

Nobody thought that the Neo-cons were this stupid, but it's starting to look that way. Maybe they have decided that the next two years is the last chance they'll get. (The presidential election in 2008 - no matter which party wins - will most likely bring in an executive far less likely to engage in intervention and adventurism.) But then again, maybe they Neo-cons are just unhinged.

Most likely, I think they've realized that they've miscalculated on a grand scale. They selected Iraq as the target instead of Iran back at the beginning. Four years down the road, it's clear that Iraq wasn't a strategic threat to anybody. Iran is. They're trying to turn around a bad situation that Neo-cons themselves made worse by refusing to admit a miscalculation years ago.

They're too proud to admit that they attacked the wrong country. To stubborn to admit that for all the blood and treasure expended, America (and the world) finds itself in a more dangerous position than it was before the invasion not least because it has created an unchecked power, Iran, in the Middle East.

Though the Bush Administration (or at least certain hard-line elements within it) would like to see the next two years shape up as a show down with Iran, my prediction is a show down of a different kind.

Constitutionally, the congress has the means to force a president to curtail a military operation. The congress simply stops allocating money to pay for the guns, fuel, food, and other supplies that the military needs to carry out the campaign while providing money to transport the troops and equipment back to the United States (or anywhere else.)

For congress to do this, exercise the power of the purse to end a war, requires incredible political will. Any congressperson voting to withhold funds will face accusations of a sin second only to Mark Foley's - not 'supporting the troops.'

In the face of these attacks (and you can be sure that BushCo's attacks will be swift and vicious) the only shield is public opinion. There needs to be overwhelming public support for ending the war to allow Senators and Representatives to go back to their constituents with this vote and feel that they can still win reelection.

And because George W. Bush is sure to veto any budget bill that requires he end his Iraqi Adventure, there needs to be a lot of Republicans that are willing to stand up and be counted among those voting to end the war.

Recent polls suggest that the majority of the public is leaning that way:

Most Americans oppose President Bush's call to send additional U.S. military forces to Iraq and just over a third say the new plan makes victory there more likely, an initial public rebuke of the strategy he unveiled last night in a nationally televised address.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted following the President's speech finds broad and strong opposition to his call to send about 21,500 more troops to Iraq: 61 percent oppose the force increase, with 52 percent "strongly" opposing the build-up. Thirty-six percent support the additional troops; only one-quarter of the public is strongly supportive.

That sounds good - but there's a problem. Most of the benchmark numbers - approval of Bush's handling of the war, Bush's approval rating, etc. - are very low, in the 30s, but stable. Among Republicans (and one would think especially among Republican Primary voters) support for the war is still nearly 75%.

As the New York Times notes, Bush has invited an 'epic clash' with congress that could be the most important test of our Constitution since Watergate. Only time will tell how it plays out.

On a separate note, let's examine the timing of this speech.

Democrats have regained power in the House and Senate for the first time in 12 years. They've embarked on a '100 Hour' legislative push to pass many measures wildly popular with the public - enacting recommendations of the 9/11 committee, a minimum wage increase, allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies for better prices, funding for stem cell research, etc. - only to see all their media attention disappear. Bush has again forced Democrats to respond to his actions and forced them to face the most contentious issue in the country and among the Democratic Caucus.

Nobody will be talking to Pelosi or Reid about the stem cell research bill scheduled for a vote today - it will be 'all Iraq, all the time' in Washington.

And all Bush had to do to regain control of the news cycle was send 20,000 Americans into somebody else's civil war...

War in Iraq Iran Consulate Irbil

Tentative Details on 'The Surge'

2007-01-10T12:58:00.000-05:00

The AP has a preview of tonight's upcoming escalation speech:

Ahead of the speech, Bush and senior officials briefed journalists Wednesday morning — among them "NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams, who described the president as "energized" but also recognizing that he faces a tough job in convincing Americans that his strategy is vital to the stability of the entire Middle East.

A breakdown of the additional troops was provided by a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the increase has not been officially announced:

Bush is committing 4,000 more Marines to Anbar Province.

He is committing 17,500 U.S. combat troops to Baghdad, equivalent to five combat brigades. The first brigade will arrive by next Monday. The next brigade is to arrive by Feb. 15. The reminder will arrive there in 30-day increments.

The Iraqis are committing three brigades for Baghdad, the first to be delivered on Feb. 1. Two more will arrive on Feb. 15th.

So those are the facts. Other parts of the AP story give us clues about the narrative that Bush will use to try to sell this unpopular proposal to a skeptical nation:

President Bush will tell the nation Wednesday night he will send more than 21,500 additional American forces to Iraq, acknowledging that it was a mistake earlier not to have more American and Iraqi troops fighting the war.

Seeking support for a retooled strategy to win support for the unpopular war, the president will acknowledge that the rules of engagement were flawed because certain neighborhoods in Baghdad were put off limits by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said. “Military operations sometimes were handcuffed by political interference by the Iraqi leadership,” he said.

So there you have it.

'Things haven't gone exactly as planned in Iraq - but it wasn't our fault. The Iraqi leadership kept meddling in our business and screwed a bunch of stuff up. We'll fix it, but it'll take 21,500 American troops and 6.8 billion dollars.'

Notably absent was the 'six month deployment' that has quietly dropped out of the Bush Administration's discussions of the not-so-secret plan to 'surge' the way to victory. If the President mentions any time frames at all tonight, I expect that it will be closer to 18 months than six.

Remember, Bush has promised that there would be U.S. Troops in Iraq as long as he's president.

A (world-wide) PR 'surge' will begin sooner than the actual 'surge' itself, starting with an appearance in front of Bush's favorite audience - people in uniform that can be ordered to applaud - in this case at Fort Benning, Ga.

The speech itself is tonight in prime-time. Let's see if Dubya can summon up enough communication skills to sell this one...

War in Iraq Surge George W. Bush

That Other Little Detail...

2007-01-10T12:20:00.000-05:00

As we (rightly) focus our concern on the human cost, both American and Iraqi, of George W. Bush's proposed 'Surge,' one other detail has escaped discussion - until now.

Think Progress reports that NBC is putting the cost of the 21,500 addition troops Bush wants to send to Iraq at $6.8 billion.

I'm sure that China would be happy to tack another couple of billion onto what we already owe them...

War in Iraq Surge Cost

Citation du Jour

2007-01-10T10:18:00.000-05:00

"He was a pro-choice, he's anti-choice, he's multiple choice."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), on Hardball, on possible Presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R), who ran against Kennedy in 1994

George W. Bush and the Thinking Man's War

2007-01-10T09:01:00.000-05:00

Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, upon returning to Fort Leavenworth from a tour of duty in Iraq, prepared a new field manual of counterinsurgency warfare. (You can read the whole thing here as a pdf.) After completing the manual without knowing he was headed back to Iraq, Petraeus was chosen by the Bush Administration to command U.S. forces in Iraq.

David Ignatius uses the manual written by the new in-theater commander to evaluate Bush's new "Surge" strategy in his Washington Post Op-Ed.

"Counterinsurgency is not just thinking man's warfare -- it is the graduate level of war," reads a quotation from a Special Forces officer in Iraq that opens the first chapter. And this theme runs throughout the manual: Many of the prescriptions that apply to normal wars don't apply to counterinsurgencies. Indeed, if they are used, they will backfire. In a summary of "unsuccessful practices," here's the No. 1 mistake: "Overemphasize killing and capturing the enemy rather than securing and engaging the populace."

The field manual summarizes some of the lessons that commanders have learned in Iraq: Long-term success "depends on the people taking charge of their own affairs and consenting to the government's rule." Killing insurgents "by itself cannot defeat an insurgency." Local commanders "have the best grasp of their situations" and should have the freedom to adapt and react to local conditions. As many officers ruefully admit, the Army is learning these lessons three years late -- but perhaps that's still in time to make a difference.

My favorite part of the manual, which I suspect Petraeus had a big hand in drafting, is a section titled "Paradoxes of Counterinsurgency Operations." The headings give the flavor of these unconventional ideas: "Sometimes, the More You Protect Your Force, the Less Secure You May Be." (Green Zone residents, please note: "If military forces remain in their compounds, they lose touch with the people, appear to be running scared, and cede the initiative to the insurgents.") "Sometimes Doing Nothing Is the Best Reaction." "Some of the Best Weapons for Counterinsurgents Do Not Shoot." And this military version of the Zen riddle: "The More Successful the Counterinsurgency Is, the Less Force Can Be Used and the More Risk Must Be Accepted." (As the host nation takes control, "Soldiers and Marines may also have to accept more risk to maintain involvement with the people.")

I've never met President Bush, but his public personae does not appear to be one that revels in paradoxes. His famously clean desk as Governor of Texas belies a man that liked his problems (and solution) to be straight forward. Subtlety and stratagem are not words that come to mind when evaluating Bush in general, but they are particularly out of place when describing Bush's conduct of the War in Iraq.

Ignatious implies, and I agree, that the basic strategy implied in 'Surge' are counter to those that Bush's top Commander in Iraq has prescribed for success.

Petraeus' manual is formed around two themes: "Success in counterinsurgency requires a political strategy as much as a military one" and "broad political support back home -- which buys time on the battlefield -- is the crucial strategic asset in fighting such wars."

Bush's 'Surge' runs counter to both of these. Hitting the insurgency with a larger hammer while making no other real changes to the prosecution of the war will, at best, do nothing and will risk increased resentment of a larger occupying army, increasing both the level of public support for the insurgency and the size of the insurgency itself. Pushing what is a token escalation (14,000 troops for 6 months will not be enough to subdue Iraq.) of an unpopular war in the face of a newly elected congressional majority with deep apprehensions about the War in Iraq will do nothing to unite the country.

Bush would do best to listen to his new General. Given that increasing force size will do nothing to combat an insurgency, using the forces you already have there to better effect is the best way forward.

George W. Bush David Petraeus Insurgency Surge War in Iraq

Imperial President of the American Empire?

2007-01-10T07:47:00.000-05:00

From Editor & Publisher:

NEW YORK At his briefing today, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow was naturally peppered with questions about President Bush's upcoming speech to the nation about his plans for (it seems to be an open secret) sending more U.S. troops to Iraq. Snow wouldn't quite admit that this was indeed set in stone but sparred with reporters over why the president thinks the public will find this appealing.

Snow held out hope that the Democrats would come to their senses about opposing this but admitted it could even be a battle royal. But what about calls for the Democrats to halt the build up by denying funding? Snow admitted congress had funding control but also pointed out that the president could ultimately do what he wants. "You know, Congress has the power of the purse," Snow said, then added: "The President has the ability to exercise his own authority if he thinks Congress has voted the wrong way."

I'm sure Tony Snow is alluding to the veto pen. I mean, Constitutionally speaking, that's the only 'authority' that any president has over a congress that has voted 'the wrong way.'

It seems that the man who was divinely inspired to run for President (and divinely selected as president by various people in Florida and the Supreme Court) has decided that he also has a divine right to rule and is unbound by our Constitution.

Say Congress passes a law requiring the President to come to Congress for approval of any increase in troop levels in Iraq. Bush vetoes the law, but Congress over-rides the veto. Bush orders an increase of troops in Iraq anyway because congress 'voted the wrong way.'

What happens? Do the Generals not order the troops to Iraq? Does the Supreme Court order the Generals not to send the troops? This would be a constitutional crisis far surpassing anything we've seen since the Civil War.

Think my example is too extreme? Try this one:

Congress passes a law requiring the Bush Administration to turn over documents about pre-war intelligence efforts to 'sell' the war. Bush Vetoes. Congress over-rides. From here, you can take your pick. Either Bush just doesn't turn over the documents or he issues a signing statement (when he signs the bill into law) stating that he's not really going to obey this law because it interferes with his ~~divine right to rule~~ power as a unitary executive.

While the public might, might notice if the President over ruled Congress, sending more troops into an unpopular war, they're not likely to notice (or care) that he's withholding documents.

But either way, he's circumvented the Constitution, violated his oath of office and committed an impeachable offense - let alone the fact that he's destroyed a system of government that the United States sees as central to its identity for over 200 years and betrayed the trust and the rights of every American.

* * * * *
Ok, calm down. Tony Snow said this, not the President himself. None of these hypotheticals have yet come to pass. Though deep concern is appropriate, it's not time for hysterics. (Yet.)

The next 24 months will be interesting. Bush and his administration have, for the last six years, been able to operate in any way that they liked without fear of investigation, criticism, oversight, or interference from other branches of government. That has changed. And with a President who is accustomed (since birth) to getting exactly what he wants, when he wants it because 'he's George W. Bush, godddamnit!'

Will, when he's pushed, when he's held accountable, George W. Bush be able to stay within the rules of our Constitution? He's played fast and loose with them before, but will a hostile Congress, an unpopular war, abysmal approval numbers and the looming nightmare of a disastrous legacy be too much for him?

If, when the time comes, will the Democratic Congress have the fortitude to call out Bush's crimes? Will the Republicans in Congress have the decency and honesty to take the necessary measures to restrict a president of their own party, should the need arise?

Only time will tell..

George W. Bush Tony Snow Unitary Executive Constitutional Crisis

Coalition of the Not as Willing as They Used To Be *

2007-01-09T13:41:00.000-05:00

From the Daily Mail:

Blair refuses to match US troop 'surge' in Iraq
Last updated at 16:53pm on 8th January 2007

Tony Blair will make clear this week that Britain is not going to send more troops to Iraq even if the US pushes ahead with a "surge" of 20,000 extra soldiers.

The Prime Minister will insist that the UK will stick to its own strategy of gradually handing over to the Iraqi army, as it has been doing with success in Basra and the south.

Escalation repackaged as "Surge" was supposed to be a political boost for George W. Bush. According to a Gallup Poll conducted over the weekend, the American public is about as enthusiastic as Tony Blair is:

For all of the talk about the Bush Administration 'creating its own reality' I'm beginning to wonder if they truly believe that they can. While I'm proud to contrast myself with the Bush Administration by being a self-identified member of the Reality-Based Community, I understood that the original statement, that Neocons could 'create their own reality' wasn't as rediculous as it sounded. The unnamed aide that forever put the Bush Administration outside of "what we call the reality-based community" didn't mean that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney stood around telling everybody that Unicorns and Dragons would be the next additions to the Washington Zoo. In my understanding, what the aide meant was that Bush, Cheney, et. al. believed that they could create any reality that they wanted. The aide believed that Democrats (and those like us) were in the 'Reality-Based Community' because we "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." This was in contrast to BushCo, which didn't think it was important to bother with all that 'judicious study' - you just do it.

Want to remake the Middle East into a region full of Democratic, Pro-American governments? Pick a country with an easily defeatable military, an unterly disgusting leader, enough dirty laundry to justify an invasion and go in and start the place over! (Settling old scores and/or securing vast oil reserves is just a nice side benefit.) America is unrivaled as the most powerful nation that the world has ever seen. To not use that power to ~~find weapons of mass destruction~~, spread freedom and democracy would be a sin!

It's not a good, it's not right, and it's not effective, but it isn't an utter rejection of reality - it's just a rejection of the idea that anything could go wrong when you try to change it.

Well, at least that's what I thought then.

It seems that now it really is about Unicorns and the Toothe Fairy...

Tony Blair War in Iraq Surge Coalition of the Willing

* 'Coalition of the Not as Willing as They Used to Be' now Includes the American Public.

Signs of the Apacolypse

2007-01-09T13:26:00.000-05:00

George! I have a bit of friendly advice for you. When Nancy Pelosi and Oliver North agree that your plan is a bad idea, it's probably a good time to step back and re-evaluate things.

Just a thought.

Apologies for any scarred retinas, bleeding ears and/or exploding heads that Bill O'Reilly may have caused. Next time I'll remember to put up a warning...

Surge War in Iraq Vietnam Oliver North Nancy Pelosi Bill O'Reilly George W. Bush

More Thoughts on Religion

2007-01-09T10:45:00.000-05:00

Once more, a late start. Damn job getting in the way of blogging! But to the point...

On Faith in the Washington Post has a fascinating piece up on the religios affilliations of the new Congress:

The new 110th Congress will, for the first time, include a Muslim, two Buddhists, more Jews than Episcopalians, and the highest-ranking Mormon in congressional history, the Religion News Service's Jonathan Tilove reports. Roman Catholics remain the largest single faith group in Congress, accounting for 29 percent of all members of the House and Senate, followed by Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Jews and Episcopalians.

Following are tables showing the religious affiliation of Congress as a whole, as well as the denominations of individual senators and representatives:

Religion.......................House...Senate....% Congress...% Population
AME (v) ............................... 2 ......... 0 ....... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... (u)
Anglican ............................. 1 ......... 0........ 1 ..... 0.2 .......... (w)
Assembly of God ...............4 ......... 0........ 4 ..... 0.7 ......... 0.5
Baptist ................................60 ......... 7...... 67 ... 12.5 ....... 16.3
Buddhist ............................ 2 ......... 0........ 2 ..... 0.4 ........ 0.5
Christian (x) ......................16 ......... 2...... 18 ..... 3.4 ......... 6.8
Christian Reformed ......... 2 ......... 0........ 2 ..... 0.4 .......... (y)
Christian Scientist ........... 5 ......... 0........ 5 ..... 0.9 ......... 0.1
Church of Christ ............... 1 ......... 1........ 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 1.2
Church of God .................. 0 ......... 1........ 1 ..... 0.2 ......... 0.5
Congregationalist ............ 0 ......... 1........ 1 ..... 0.2 .......... (z)
Congregation.-Baptist .... 1 ......... 0........ 1 ..... 0.2 .......... (u)
Disciples of Christ ........... 2 ......... 0........ 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 0.2
Eastern Orthodox ............. 4 .......... 1........ 5 ..... 0.9 ......... 0.3
Episcopalian ................... 27 ....... 10....... 37 ..... 6.9 ......... 1.7
Evangelical ........................ 2 ......... 0......... 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 0.5
Evangelical Lutheran ....... 1 ......... 0........ 1 ..... 0.2 .......... (u)
Evangelical Methodist ..... 1 ......... 0......... 1 ..... 0.2 .......... (u)
Hindu .................................. 0 ......... 0........ 0 ..... 0.0 ......... 0.4
Jewish .............................. 30 ....... 13...... 43 ..... 8.0 ......... 1.3
LDS (Mormon) ............... 10 ......... 5...... 15 ..... 2.8 ......... 1.3
Reorganized LDS ........... 1 ......... 0........ 1 ..... 0.2 .......... (u)
Lutheran ......................... 14 .......... 3...... 17 ..... 3.2 ......... 4.6
Methodist ....................... 48 ........ 13...... 61 ... 11.4 ......... 6.8
Muslim ............................. 1 .......... 0........ 1 ..... 0.2 ......... 0.5
(Church of) Nazarene .... 1 .......... 0........ 1 ..... 0.2 ......... 0.3
Presbyterian ................... 35 .......... 9...... 44 ..... 8.2 ......... 2.7
Protestant (x) .................. 22 .......... 4...... 26 ..... 4.9 ......... 2.2
Quaker ............................... 1 ......... 0........ 1 ..... 0.2 ......... 0.1
Roman Catholic .......... 130 ....... 25.... 155 ... 29.0 ...... 24.5
Seventh-day Adventist ..... 2 ......... 0........ 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 0.3
Unitarian ........................... 1 ......... 1........ 2 ..... 0.4 ......... 0.3
United Church of Christ .. 2 ........ 4........ 6 ...... 1.1 ......... 0.7
unaffiliated ........................ 6 ........ 0........ 6 ...... 1.1 ....... 14.1

(u) no discrete category exists in the American Religious Identification Survey
(v) African Methodist Episcopal
(w) included with Episcopalians
(x) no denomination stated
(y) less than 0.05 percent
(z) included with United Church of Christ

Sources: Count of religious affiliations of members of Congress compiled from self-identification in Congressional Quarterly profiles of each member.
Percent of population by religion comes from American Religious Identification Survey, Self-Described Religious Identification of U.S.Adult Population, 2001.

Notice anything interesting? Yup, that's right, not a single Atheist. Not one! 'Unafiliated' is not the same as 'Atheist,' (or even 'Agnostic') in America. Most people in the United States are theistic, so much so that even if someone is 'unafiliated' with any specific religion, it's assumed that the persond still believes in God. According to Wikipedia, a 2006 CBS poll found that 82% of Americans "believed in God" and another 9% (for a total of 91%) "some other universal spirit or higher power." In the face of numbers like that, not a single Federal Level elected official is willing to say that she or he is an Athiest, and only a scant 1% of elected officials were brave enough to choose the far more pallatable 'unafilliated.'

Of course this can't possibly be true. There are more than 6 people in Congress that don't believe that God exists - they're just not willing to admit it.

Let's look at who the six members of Congress brave enough to declare themselves 'unafilliated.'

UNAFFILIATED -- 6
6 D, 0 R
Mark Udall, D-CO
Neil Abercrombie, D-HI
John Olver, D-MA
John Tierney, D-MA
Earl Blumenauer, D-OR
Tammy Baldwin, D-WI

WOW! Who would have guessed? They're all Democrats. Both Buddhist Representativess, the one Muslim Reprepsentative, and 39 of the 43 Jewish Congresspersons were also Democrats.

I'm not saying that the Democratic Party has shaken off the yoke of religion (Statistically, 98% of the Congressional Democratic Caucus is self-describingly theistic) but it's nice to know that our party can be broad minded enough to elect non-believrs and/or non-Christians.

Before anybody accuses me of being as intolerant as those on the other side, a strong religious identification, let alone a religious affiliation, does not make someone unfit for Congress. With a few exceptions, the vast majority of religious members of Congress govern responsibly, not letting the various tenets of their religion interfere with their ability to legislate fairly for the entirety of the U.S. population - not just members of their own sect. I just find the fact that a candidate must 'have religion' to get elected a little bit off-putting.

Any thoughts?

Religion Atheism Congress

Warnings Have Gone Out

2007-01-08T14:45:00.000-05:00

I'd like to thank everybody who was thoughtful enough to bring this to my attention. Upon realizing what this meant, I immediately called all of my friends and family members in Pennsylvania and advised them to take appropriate precautions.

They'll all be wearing bright orange and staying indoors because Dick Cheney is duck hunting in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Cheney will be in possession of a firearm within just 20 or 30 miles of where my Aunt and Uncle live. They're taking extra precautions, spending the day in the basement.

The rest of my friends and family, though hundreds of miles removed from 'Dead-Eye Dick's' hunting location will remain vigilant.

You can't be too careful with ~~terrorists~~ Dick Cheney wandering around with a shotgun in his hands.

Surging Opposition

2007-01-08T13:02:00.000-05:00

Bush's temporary escalation plan (also known as the 'surge') is drawing a new, powerful wave of opposition from ... everybody.

Gen Wesley Clark had this to say in an op-ed in The Independent on Sunday:

From the administration's perspective, a troop surge of modest size is virtually the only remaining action inside Iraq that will be a visible signal of determination. More economic assistance is likely to be touted, but in the absence of a change in the pattern of violence, infrastructure enhancement simply isn't practical. And if the President announces new Iraqi political efforts - well, that's been tried before, and is there any hope that this time will be different?

As for the US troops, yes, several additional brigades in Baghdad would enable more
roadblocks, patrols, neighbourhood clearing operations and overnight presence. But how significant will this be? We've never had enough troops in Iraq - in Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of two million. For Iraq that ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops, so adding 20,000 seems too little, too late, even, for Baghdad. Further, in a "clear and hold" strategy, US troops have been shown to lack the language skills, cultural awareness and political legitimacy to ensure that areas can be "held", or even that they are fully "cleared". The key would be more Iraqi troops, but they aren't available in the numbers required for a city of more than five million with no reliable police - nor have the Iraqi troops been reliable enough for the gritty work of dealing with militias and sectarian loyalties. Achieving enhanced protection for the population is going to be problematic at best. Even then, militia fighters in Baghdad could redeploy to other areas and continue the fight there.

What the surge would do, however, is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops are on the streets; we saw this when the brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad last summer. And even if the increased troop presence initially
intimidates or frustrates the contending militias, it won't be long before they find ways to work around the obstacles to movement and neighbourhood searches, if they are still intent on pursuing the conflict. All of this is not much of an endorsement for a troop surge that will impose real pain on the already overstretched US forces.

Collin Powell, according to Robert Novak:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has gone public with criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy, is caustic in private about the proposed "surge" of 30,000 additional U.S. troops.

Powell noted that the recent congressional delegation to Iraq headed by Sen. John McCain heard from combat officers that they wanted more troops.

"The colonels will always say they need more troops," the retired general says. "That's why we have generals."

Novak also points out opposition within the Republican Party:

President Bush and McCain, the front-runner for the next presidential nomination, in pressing for a surge of 30,000 more troops, will have trouble finding support from more than 12 out of 49 Republican senators. "It's Alice in Wonderland," Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, told me in describing the proposed surge. "I'm absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly."

Sen. Susan Collins returned from Baghdad opposing more troops. Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois, the only House member on the trip, is described as skeptical.

[...]

Even in Mississippi, the reddest of red states where Bush's approval rating has just inched above 50 percent, Republicans see no public support for more troops. What is happening inside the president's party is reflected by defection from support for his war policy after November's election by two Republican senators who face an uphill race for re-election in 2008: Gordon Smith of Oregon and Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Coleman announced his opposition to more troops after returning from a trip to Iraq preceding McCain's.

And it's not like Democrats are going to bend over backwards to help Georgie. The President will give his 'New Way Forward' speech on Wednesday at 9:00pm. Expect plenty of commentary on Thursday morning...

George W. Bush War in Iraq Surge Opposition

CBS Poll: Bush @ 30%

2007-01-05T11:27:00.000-05:00

CBS has a new poll. Key findings include:

FEELINGS ABOUT NEW CONGRESS

Optimistic
***************** 68%
Pessimistic
***** 25%

WANT NEW CONGRESS TO CONCENTRATE ON:

War in Iraq
********* 45%
Economy/jobs
* 7%
Health care
* 7%
Immigration
* 6%

DO DEMOCRATS HAVE A CLEAR PLAN FOR IRAQ?

Yes
** 8%
No
******************** 82%

DOES PRESIDENT BUSH HAVE A CLEAR PLAN FOR IRAQ?

Yes
**** 20%
No
*************** 76%

BUSH'S JOB APPROVAL RATING

Approve
****** 30%
Disapprove
************* 63%

BUSH'S JOB HANDLING IRAQ

Approve
****23%
Disapprove
***************72%

I'm not seeing the Republican minorities in either house jumping up to defend this bum's policies...

George W. Bush Approval Rating War in Iraq

Goode To Keep Mouth Shut

2007-01-05T10:59:00.000-05:00

Virgil Goode's Press Secretary has told RawStory that Goode won't be commenting on the fact that George W. Bush has appointed Zalmay Khalilzad, a Muslim, as the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

This is in sharp contrast to the comments that Virgil Goode made about newly elected Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim to be elected to the House of Representatives, placing his hand on a Koran for his ceremonials and non-official swearing in.

I guess he just didn't want this to happen again...

If I ever find out who took the time and money to stencil (in matching gold leaf) "BIGOT" on the window of Rep. Goode's office, she or he will never pay for a drink so long as I'm in the bar.

Virgil Goode Keith+Ellison Zalmay Khalilzad

What Lucky Timing!

2007-01-05T10:16:00.000-05:00

It seems that Gen John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, has said that he plans to retire - just in time for Bush's 'New Way Forward' ::cough:: Escalation ::cough:: in Iraq. George W. Bush must really be blessed by God. There's no other explanation for the luck he has in getting military leaders who disagree with him to retire!

From the LA Times:

WASHINGTON — Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, has submitted plans to retire and will leave his post in March, a step likely to make way for a change in military strategy at a time the Bush administration is seeking a new plan for Iraq.

Abizaid has been the primary architect of U.S. military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan since becoming head of the U.S. Central Command more than three years ago. He has strenuously resisted calls to increase troop levels to quell rising violence in Baghdad, arguing it would increase Iraqi dependence on Americans.

Abizaid's planned departure clears the way for new Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to recommend his own commander, a decision current and former Defense officials say is nearly as important as the new administration strategy expected to be unveiled by Bush in January.

These officials said Gates faces a clear choice between generals who have agreed with Abizaid's push to quickly hand over security responsibilities to Iraqi forces and a small but increasingly influential coterie of officers backing a more aggressive U.S.-led counterinsurgency campaign.

"A small but increasingly influential coterie" you say? I wonder how they came by that new found influence. I'm sure it couldn't be by being sycophantic yes-men willing to tell Bush and/or Cheney exactly what they want to hear. Surely the Bush Administration wouldn't try to 'squeeze out' people who disagree with them or reward kowtowing agreement with increased power and influence.

Rawstory reports:

Admiral William J. Fallon will replace Gen. John Abizaid, US commander in the Middle East, who announced his retirement in December and was expected to leave the post in March. Abizaid was a critic of Bush's efforts to add more troops to Iraq, but the circumstances of his early departure are unclear.

[...]

"Fallon, who is in the Navy, is currently head of Pacific Command; he will be overseeing two ground wars, so the appointment is highly unusual," ABC reports.

According to a Kansas City Star article published December 24, "Commanders have been skeptical of the value of increasing troops. The decision represents a reversal for Casey, the highest-ranking officer in Iraq. Casey and Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East, have long resisted adding troops in Iraq,

David Petraeus will replace General George Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq. Casey originally opposed the President's plan to add troops in Iraq, arguing it could delay "the development of Iraqi security forces and increase anger at the United States in the Arab world."

I don't know about the rest of the world, but to me it seems like George W. Bush cleared out a bunch of senior military leaders that didn't want any part of his politically motivated 'surge' in troop levels.

All those times that Bush said that he was going to 'listen to his Generals' come flashing into my head. But why would he be telling the truth then when lying about every other subject is permitted? Perhaps in Bush's twisted head, he sees himself as listening to the Generals. He just chooses which generals to listen to.

Kinda like picking the 7 scientists that say Evolution is bunk and ignoring the many thousands that know that it's about as close to fact as anything in the scientific world.

To be honest, replacing Abizaid is a step that's over due. (The LA Times story reported that Abizaid wanted to go earlier but Secretary Rumsfeld was blocking his retirement.) I don't really have a problem with Abizaid's replacement. It's the fact that in looking for a replacement, the Bush Administration wouldn't look at any candidate that had reservations about Bush's plans for escalation.

The Bush Administration's military instincts aren't as good as their political instincts. We won't see any real progress until BushCo. admits that and allows the military to do its job without political interference.

War in Iraq John Abizaid George W. Bush Surge

A New Start!

2007-01-04T14:12:00.000-05:00

Today is really a momentous occasion, though work has kept me from blogging as much as I'd like. Republicans find themselves in the minority, Bush loses his rubber stamp, and Nancy Pelosi became the first woman elected Speaker of the House and the first woman ever in the direct line of succession for the Presidency, right behind Dick Cheney, who got kicked out of his Capitol office.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON - Jubilant Democrats on Thursday elected Rep. Nancy Pelosi as the first woman speaker of the House, the crowning celebration of newfound power the party won in the November electoral sweep.

"I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship, and look forward to working with you on behalf of the American people," Pelosi said. "In this House, we may belong to different parties, but we serve one country."

Both Democrats and Republicans pledged cooperation despite years of bitter partisanship and gridlock, to try to get the 110th Congress off on a productive note.

House Democrats also were ready to impose a ban on gifts from lobbyists and a clampdown on travel funded by private interests — measures crafted in response to the ethics scandals that weakened Republicans in last fall's elections.

The first hours of the new Democratic-held House were devoted to Pelosi's election and remarks — for which the Californian received numerous standing ovations, especially from the House's record 71 women lawmakers, thrilled that one of their own had finally ascended to the speakership. Some of the women senators also came to the House side to cheer Pelosi's history-shattering moment.

"This is an historic moment — for the Congress, and for the women of this country," Pelosi said. "It is a moment for which we have waited more than 200 years."

Harry Reid was also elected Majority Leader in the Senate, also promising bipartisanship - something that will be a necessity in the Senate. With Sen. Johnson recovering in the hospital, our vote margin is tiny. We'll have to have some support from the other side of the aisle on many things, though the most important thing about regaining the majority in both houses is Committee Chairs in the hands of Democrats.

The 'Hundred Hours' (which hopefully turns out better than the 'Hundred Days') may or may not have started. Nobody ever really clarified exactly how the literally timing would work. Look to see wildly popular legislation on the minimum wage, stem cell research, and ethical reforms in government to make it into the news soon.

The last two months were a sort of waiting game, knowing that nothing important was going to change. Now we've reached the threshold. Now change can start. Now the real action begins.

I, for one, am looking forward to seeing where this new Congress takes us.

Nancy Pelosi Democrats Congress

War on Science? Not at the Pentagon

2007-01-04T11:08:00.000-05:00

The Republican War on Science is well documented. The fact that America's national security is endangered by that war is certainly less widely. The Pentagon has seen a dwindling in interest in science and of scientific expertise - both vital for our military - and has taken some unorthodox steps to preserve our scientific leadership.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

the triumvirate of Messrs. Gundersen, Barker, and Singer is serious about getting science - and scientific heroes - into the movies. In fact, they see it as vital to the health of American technological prowess, to say nothing of national security.

So what they've done for the past three years is convene a three-to-five-day screenwriting class at the venerated American Film Institute in Los Angeles. Called the Catalyst Workshop, it's a lot like other screenwriting classes that have become a cottage industry across the nation. But here's the twist - all participants in this one are actually scientists. Hardcore, PhD-laden, lab-certified scientists. Here's the second twist - the training was all paid for by the Pentagon.

These screenwriting classes are indeed your Department of Defense tax dollars at work. Egregious example of DOD waste? Some bizarre recruiting promise? The cinematic equivalent of $700 toilet seats? Actually, it's the Pentagon's way of trying to enhance the nation's science-and-technology adroitness.

***

America, it turns out, is suffering from a science and engineering shortage. Students are bypassing the sciences for sexier and more lucrative jobs in law, venture capital, and competitions to be on "American Idol." That means, in addition to national deficits in sleep, fitness, and the federal budget, we have a dearth of particle physicists and electromechanical engineers.

If the Pentagon says we're short on scientists, I'm inclined to believe them. When it comes to engineers, I know we're short on them from personal experience.

I graduated with a degree in Architecture got a good job making a decent salary. Friends of mine, graduating from the same university at the same time with engineering degrees were recruited by multiple companies, and easily make twice as much as I do.

The law of supply and demand doesn't lie.

And, I suppose, it was my choice to pick the sexy profession (architecture) that cost me the money. I never really thought of architecture as sexy, but it really kind of is. Have you ever noticed how many commercials for things completely unrelated to architecture have (physically attractive) architects in high-rise offices with big glass windows locking out over cities? Maybe it's just me...

And being a mechanical engineer is definitely un-sexy. It's like the old joke says: "How can you tell the difference between and architect and an engineer? - The architect's clothes match." The stereotypes aren't flattering.

Anyway, back to the point.

The Republican Party has allowed certain internal elements and interests to degrade science in general (and science education in particular) to such a degree that the Pentagon is sponsoring scientists' screen plays.

Think about that.

I don't think it's a bad idea. It's a sort of 'under the radar' P.R. campaign for science, something many other areas of study and/or professions use all the time.

Of course a sound education and more affordable college educations might be a better way to get similar results...

Science Engineering Pentagon

20,000 More Americans to Risk Lives for Bush Legacy

2007-01-03T13:19:00.000-05:00

From NBC News:

In a guest column in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal President Bush addressed a range of issues. On Iraq he said he'll reveal his new strategy in the coming days.

Administration officials tell NBC News it will involve sending some 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq.

All the generals, the troops on the ground, all the experts, even Republicans like James Baker have said that escalation isn't going to help. But here we are, testing the limits of our military's capabilities and sending out many thousands of Americans into a lost cause.

For what? Truly, for what?

If escalation was a legitimate plan for victory, it would be one thing, but when escalation is nothing more than a 'political decision' it is an unimaginable horror.

War in Iraq Escalation Surge George W. Bush

Ellison's Symbolic Response

2007-01-03T13:06:00.001-05:00

From the Washington Post:

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he'd take his oath of office on the Koran -- especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.

Yet the holy book at tomorrow's ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance. We've learned that the new congressman -- in a savvy bit of political symbolism -- will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

"He wanted to use a Koran that was special," said Mark Dimunation, chief of the rare book and special collections division at the Library of Congress, who was contacted by the Minnesota Dem early in December. Dimunation, who grew up in Ellison's 5th District, was happy to help.

Jefferson's copy is an English translation by George Sale published in the 1750s; it survived the 1851 fire that destroyed most of Jefferson's collection and has his customary initialing on the pages. This isn't the first historic book used for swearing-in ceremonies -- the Library has allowed VIPs to use rare Bibles for inaugurations and other special occasions.

Ellison will take the official oath of office along with the other incoming members in the House chamber, then use the Koran in his individual, ceremonial oath with new Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Keith is paying respect not only to the founding fathers' belief in religious freedom but the Constitution itself," said Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert.

And the real kicker? Thomas Jefferson was born in what is now Virgil Goode's district.

Credit to Shakes for bringing this to my attention.

Keith Ellison Thomas Jefferson Koran Virgil Goode

Karen Armstrong: Why Atheism is in Vouge?

2007-01-03T10:59:00.000-05:00

From the Washington Post's On Faith:

And many atheists could be in revolt from a lazy, facile theology that has far too simplistic a notion of the divine. In recent years, we have seen people committing atrocities or starting wars in the belief that "God" told them to do it. In the Middle Ages, the Crusaders went into battle with the cry "God wills it!" when they slaughtered Muslims and Jews. Obviously "God"
willed no such thing; the Crusaders were simply projecting their fear and loathing of these rival faiths onto a deity they had created in their own image.

And we do not have to be Crusaders to fall into this trap. How often we hear preachers, broadcasters and lecturers claiming that "God" wills this and forbids that -- and it is uncanny how often these opinions of the deity coincide with those of the speaker. All too often people forget that God is transcendent and see him as a being like themselves, writ large, and with likes and dislikes similar to their own. Instead of using the concept of God to go beyond themselves, they use it to give a seal of absolute approval to their own prejudices. They have created an idol.

Monotheists have always warned against idolatry. It may be that the atheism that is taking hold is a rejection of a widespread idolatry which has forgotten that any conception of the divine is bound to be inadequate. In a restaurant, when we have had a strong-tasting first course, the waiter often brings a sorbet so that we can cleanse our palette and taste the next course. Today many feel the need to rinse their minds of inadequate ideas of God, and may have to enter into what the mystics used to call the dark night of the soul or the cloud of unknowing, so that we can all move forward.

This blog has, as a sort of tangential side story, documented my drift towards atheism. Ms. Armstrong identifies a number of the factors that have contributed to that move. That I found her article on the same day that I blogged about Pat Buchanan only makes her points more valid.

On Faith is a panel discussion. Here's a smattering of useful things that some of the other panelists had to say about this week's question:

Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is? Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues?

John Shelby Spong, Former Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark

Atheism, technically, does not mean a denial of the existence of God. It means literally a denial of the theistic definition of God. That is to say, theism is not what God is; it is what human beings have decided that God is. Human definitions of God can die without God dying. Theism means that we perceive of God as “a being, supernatural in power, dwelling somewhere external to this world (usually conceived of as above the sky), who periodically invades this world in miraculous ways.”

This is the God who split the Red Sea to rescue the chosen people and who invaded the world in the person of Jesus to rescue the fallen creation. This is also the deity displaced by Galileo, made impotent by Isaac Newton, ridiculed by Freud and relativized by Einstein.

The theological question that needs to be explored in both church and state is this: Can God be understood in some way other than through these infantile and tribal images? Can Jesus be seen in some way other than as the divinely appointed sacrificial victim who paid the price owed to God for our sinfulness? Because I believe that both God and Jesus are so much more than these distorting images suggest, I am confident that a dialogue with those who call themselves “atheists” would not only be good for the church but it would also allow deep and profound truth to emerge.

Among the issues for discussion between atheists and believers would be: What leads human beings to seek to define God in the first place? Is it the human experience of transcendence? Otherness? Divinity? How then do we conceptualize that experience? If the worship of our God leads us to justify our killing religious prejudices that have throughout history created such things as the Inquisition, the Crusades, religious wars and even the current ecclesiastical attack on homosexual persons, can this God really be anything other than a creature of our own making? Will we remain deluded enough to call this creature God? Since that is what the theistic God has so regularly given us, would not the world be better off without such a deity?

The choice between the theism of the church and the atheism of those who reject the God of the church is to me a sterile and lifeless choice. Such a meeting between believers and atheists might lead us to examine what Paul Tillich called “the God beyond the gods of men and women.” If believers cannot have that conversation because it compromises their God definition, then that is a tip-off that the God they serve is in fact an idol and atheism is always a proper response to idolatry.

And Richard Dawkins

Athorism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Can there be a productive conversation between Valhallans and athorists? Naïve literalists apart, sophisticated thoreologians long ago ceased believing in the material substance of Thor's mighty hammer. But the spiritual essence of hammeriness remains a thunderingly enlightened relevation, and hammerological faith retains its special place in the eschatology of neo-Valhallism, while enjoying a productive conversation with the scientific theory of thunder in its non-overlapping magisterium. Militant athorists are their own worst enemy. Ignorant of the finer points of thoreology, they really should desist from their strident and intolerant strawmandering, and treat Thor-faith with the uniquely protected respect it has always received in the past. In any case, they are doomed to failure. People need Thor, and nothing will ever remove him from the culture. What are you going to put in his place?

Atheism means non-belief in the particular cult that happens to pervade the society under discussion. In America that means the cult of Yahweh, the God of the Jews commandeered by the Christians, Muslims and Mormons. Today, everyone takes it for granted that we are all atheists with respect to Thor and Wotan, Zeus and Poseidon, Mithras and Ammon Ra. If asked why you don't believe in Thor's hammer, you would probably say something like "Why is the onus on me to justify my nonbelief in Thor, given that there is not the smallest positive reason for belief?" You might go further and add that thunder, which was at one time attributed to Thor's hammer, now has a better explanation in terms of electric charges in the clouds. While technically agnostic about all those ancient gods, and about fairies and leprechauns too (you can't disprove them either), in practice we don't believe in any of them, and we feel no onus to explain why.

Today, while almost literally everybody is an athorist, nonbelief in the God of Abraham is the most reviled opinion in America. Professor Anthony M Stevens-Arroyo, one of the On Faith regular panellists, begins his answer to the current question as follows: "I never met an atheist I could like. Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly atheist, but I haven’t bumped into one yet. The atheists who have crossed my path are obnoxious . . ."

As an experiment, try substituting the word 'Jew' or 'woman' for 'atheist', and imagine whether a university professor who said those three sentences would keep his job. Yet in present day America, a professor (of "Latino Studies") can publish such odious remarks about atheists and get away with it.

I know that I cherry picked panelists. I did so because they echo my position. If you want an even handed survey of the answers, go to On Faith's website to read all of the panelists answers.

I do not intend to use this blog to 'evangelize' for Atheism. I will, however, agree with the editor of On Faith that decided to ask a question about the new visibility that Atheism has achieved.

I would say that it's not so much that Atheists are gaining numbers, but that Atheists are no longer staying in the closet. There are a few reasons for this. Authors like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have gained prominence not only because they've articulated what many already believe, but because the religious community has created an environment which is favorable to their ideas.

For your average non-religious American, the decision to self-identify as 'Atheist' is much easier now than it was 10 years ago. Back then, it was fine just to be 'not very religious.' But now look at the world. It seems all religion promotes is hate. Radical Islamicists hate the west. Radical Christianists hate gays. And sex. And liberals. And civil liberties. People like Fred Phelps, people who use their religion to attack people, have become the most visible face of religion.

The Face of religion is no longer people working in soup kitchens, nor people marching for civil rights, nor people collecting food, money or clothes nor providing any sort of assistance to people in need. The face of religion is hate and exclusiveness.

Why wouldn't somebody choose Atheism?

Historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer gods than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Atheism On Faith

Olbermannia

2007-01-03T09:52:00.000-05:00

Keith Olbermann Special Comment Surge Sacrifice George W. Bush

Home State Politi - WTF?

2007-01-03T09:39:00.000-05:00

From UPI:

HARRISBURG, Pa., Jan. 2 (UPI) -- Pennsylvania's House of Representatives, where Democrats have a one-vote majority, elected a Republican as its new speaker Tuesday.

Democrat William DeWeese, a former speaker and more recent minority leader, had hoped to return to the top job. Finding he could not get sufficient support within his own party, he nominated Republican Dennis O'Brien of Philadelphia, preferring him to the departing speaker, John Perzel, also a Philadelphia Republican, the Scranton Times-Tribune reported.

O'Brien defeated Perzel 105-97, getting most of his support from Democrats. There have been persistent rumors that he plans to switch parties, although he denied them last fall.

I'm absolutely dumbfounded.

I'm not really up on Pennsylvania's internal politics anymore, so maybe this O'Brien guy (who seems not to be a Santorum-esque Republican) might be better than John Perzel. Maybe he'll switch parties. Maybe this was good politics.

But I can't help but wonder why a party with the majority couldn't elect one of their own for Speaker. Meet with the caucus, nominate potential speakers, vote. The winner should have Every. Single. Democratic. Vote.

I'm not advocating lock-step party politics. On any legislative issue, a Democrat is free to vote her or his conscience. But on procedural matters, party should always come before personal bickering.

Get it together! You won't be the majority in two years if you can't even manage to do this correctly...

Pennsylvania House of Representatives Republican Speaker Democratic Majority

Funny, This Didn't Make the News...

2007-01-03T09:13:00.000-05:00

From the Military Times:

The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While approval of the president’s war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

The real kicker? Only 41% of respondents think that the Invasion of Iraq was a good idea.

For all the disappointment directed at Chimpy McFlightsuit, the real object of the troops dissatisfaction seems to be located a little south of the White House and across the River:

Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of those surveyed said the senior military leadership has the best interests of the troops at heart. And though they don’t think much of the way he’s handling the war, 48 percent said the same about President Bush. But they take a dim view of civilian military leadership — only 32 percent said they think it has their best interests at heart. And only 23 percent think Congress is looking out for them.

Pentagon = Not Popular

And that Congressional approval was with a REPUBLICAN Congress. You know, the party that's supposed to LOVE all things troop-related. (Except, of course, encouraging their own sons and daughters to become U.S. Troops.) Civilians didn't notice when the GOP screwed all those veterans, but the troops sure noticed. And wearing a flag lapel pin doesn't make up for lost health benefits.

U.S. Troops are also questioning whether the War in Iraq is part of the overall War on Terrorism. 47% of respondents thought it was, 47% thought is was not.

On many questions in the poll, some respondents said they didn't have an opinion or declined to answer. That number was typically in the 10 percent range.

But on questions about the president and on war strategy, that number reached 20 percent and higher. [Professor David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Mil itary Organization at the Univer sity of Maryland] said he was surprised the percentage refusing to offer an opinion wasn't larger.

"There is a strong strain in military culture not to criticize the commander in chief," he said.

One would think that this means that the survey is skewed pro-war, pro-Bush as a result.

I wonder what troops in Iraq think about the coming surge. ::cough:: Unsustainable Escalation ::cough::

War in Iraq Military Approval Poll

Back to My Roots

2007-01-03T08:52:00.000-05:00

In its early days, 300 Dollar Wonder was built around pointing out the idiocy of Pat Robertson. I drifted away from Pat as the months went by and by the time the Midterm elections came around, I had abandoned the Crazy Reverend completely. Here in the new year, a new Robertson story left me feeling nostalgic.

From the AP:

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson predicted Tuesday that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in "mass killing" late in 2007.

"I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network. "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."

Robertson said God told him during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.

Let's recap: From that little story we've learned that not only does Pat Robertson talk to God, when God answers him, Pat is willing to second guess God if he thinks throwing the word 'nuclear' into the sentence will increase his ratings. Also, Pat knows to make his predictions far enough in the future that people will forget about his predictions if they don't come true right away and vague enough that he can pull shit like this:

"I have a relatively good track record," [Robertson] said. "Sometimes I miss."

In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America's coastline in 2006. Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring's heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction.

Yeah, flooding in New England is a lot like a tsunami, Pat.

Though Robertson said that America's 'feigned' friendship with Israel was driving that nation to "national suicide," he made no mention of God striking down George W. Bush in the same way he struck down Ariel Sharon for failing to protect the geographical integrity of Israel.

I guess Pat knows not to bite the hand that ensures his tax breaks either...

Pat Robertson Predictions Christianists

Happy New Year!

2006-12-29T08:40:00.000-05:00

I'm leaving later today for a quick trip to the beach for New Years. Not a tropical beach, mind you, just a regular, dreary, cold, rainy Maryland type beach. But it will be fun anyway. It's always nice to get out of town for long weekends.

So, if you'll forgive me, I'll wish everybody a happy New Year now, though I'm a couple of days early.

Remember, drive safe and all that...

I promise better posting after the first. The holidays have just been to crazy for me to get into a groove.

Anyway... HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Gerald Ford: 1913 - 2006

2006-12-27T11:06:00.000-05:00

Gerald Ford, 38th President of the United States, died last night at 6:45 at his home in California. He was 93.

* * * * *
I wasn't alive during the Ford Administration, so any effort at an obituary is better left to others. I do know that when he is remembered, two things will overshadow all of his other accomplishments: He was the only President to hold office without being elected and he pardoned Richard Nixon.

Perhaps the most timely piece of Ford's history is the primary challenge from Ronald Reagan in 1975-6 that caused Ford to drop his more liberal Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, in favor of Bob Dole. The 'Rockefeller Republican' has been in retreat since then.

Gerald Ford

I'm IT!!!

2006-12-24T14:34:00.000-05:00

Shakes' Magical Mystery Meme has been making the rounds. Here's how it works: I write you five stories. One is a fabrication, the other four are genuine fact.

1. The closest I have ever come to greatness is 'using' the urinal right next to Robert Venturi. To his friends (or at least his wife) the Pritzker Architecture Prize Laureate goes by 'Bob.'

2. I only applied to one University and only applied for one job upon graduating. With the exception of tricking my wife into marrying me, I've used up all the luck that I've been allotted for the rest of my life.

3. I was once spit upon by a pick pocket because I had the audacity to catch him trying to lift my wallet, grab him by the fingers and start yelling at him. There was a police officer in the train car, but, luckily for me, he jumped off the subway just as the doors were closing. In hindsight, I'm sure he would have been much more convincing when he explained to the officer why I had grabbed him by the fingers and bent them back as far as I could - seeing as he and the officer spoke Italian and I did not.

4. I have puked off of the highest balcony on the highest building in State College, Pennsylvania. Alcohol was involved.

5. If, in the comments, you guess the right story and leave you name and address, I'll buy you a pony and ship it to you via American Express.

There you go. Five quality stories, only two of which involve bodily functions. Your guess is as good as mine.

Now, here's the tricky part: I'm supposed to tag five more people. I really don't think I know of five people with blogs that read my blog. In fact, the one person with a blog that I know reads this blog tagged me!

Here's a few bloggers that I'll tag anyway. MissPride @ The Mind of a Sapphic Writer, Knight Errant @ A Little Reality (Who, I discovered tagged me earlier on an entirely unrelated meme-thing which I missed. Sorry, K.E.), Doppelganger @ 50 Books, who runs in an entirely different blogging circle, but writes one of my absolute favorite blogs, and... That's it, I'm out. Cosmic bad luck will be mine forever, I suppose.

Well, I'm willing to chance it.

Happy Holidays to all, I promise I will return to regular blogging soon, though I imagine it will be after the First of the Year before any real regularity returns here. In the meantime, enjoy friends, family, food and the holidays!

Ellison Responds to Goode

2006-12-22T13:22:00.000-05:00

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Virginia lawmaker criticized for writing an "Islamophobic" letter to his constituents would be wise to learn more about Islam, the first Muslim elected to Congress said Thursday.

[...]

"I think the diversity of our country is a great strength," Ellison told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "It's a good thing that we have people from all faiths and all cultures to come here."

[...]

Ellison responded to Goode's sentiments by saying that he would like to meet with Goode to talk about Islam and find some "common ground."

"We all support one Constitution, one Constitution that upholds our right to equal protection, one Constitution that guarantees us due process under the law, one Constitution which says there is no religious test for elective office in America," Ellison said.

Apologies for carving up the article, but since I already covered how much of a bigot Goode is here, I didn't feel like repeating his assinine opinions again.

Now let's consider Ellison's responce. He could have either taken Goode apart for being a bigot and a racist or Ellison could have used to publicity to teach, show the true nature of Islam, and try to gather supporters.

Obviously, Ellison chose the second option. He did quite well too, even going so far as to refuse to call Goode a bigot, even after Wolf Blitzer asked if Ellison thought that Goode was a bigot.

It was, of course, the best way to deal with the problem.

That said, I'd have attacked Goode from every angle I could think of. But I guess that's why I'm not an elected official.

Keith Ellison Virgil Goode

'I am the Escalator'

2006-12-22T08:14:00.000-05:00

Don't forget that 'Surge' is just another word for unsustainable escalation.

From the Washington Post:

The debate over sending more U.S. troops to Iraq intensified yesterday as President Bush signaled that he will listen but not necessarily defer to balky military officers, while Gen. John P. Abizaid, his top Middle East commander and a leading skeptic of a so-called surge, announced his retirement.

At an end-of-the-year news conference, Bush said he agrees with generals "that there's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished" before he decides to dispatch an additional 15,000 to 30,000 troops to the war zone. But he declined to repeat his usual formulation that he will heed his commanders on the ground when it comes to troop levels.

Because George W. Bush is a master tactician with decades of military experience, a feel for the situation on the ground in Iraq, a clear understanding of the enemy (enemies) and, above all, a history of making good decisions.

Bush sought to use the 52-minute session, held in the ornate Indian Treaty Room in a building adjacent to the White House, to sum up what he called "a difficult year for our troops and the Iraqi people" and reassure the American public that "we enter this new year clear-eyed about the challenges in Iraq." Asked about his comment to The Washington Post this week that the United States is neither winning nor losing the war, Bush pivoted forward. "Victory in Iraq is achievable," he said.

The tension between the White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff over the proposed troop increase has come to dominate the administration's post-election search for a new strategy in Iraq. The uniformed leadership has opposed sending additional forces without a clear mission, seeing the idea as ill-formed and driven by a desire in the White House to do something different even without a defined purpose.

"Do something different even without a defined purpose" is Pentagon-speak for 'Deploy more troops for domestic political gain.' And, understandably, the Generals at the Pentagon aren't real keen on the idea of sending more men and women into harms way so that the President's approval numbers go up.

Unfortunately, those same Generals don't seem to have the ability to actually stop this from happening. Every time they say 'this won't happen on my watch' they solve the problem by ending 'their watch' and retiring.

Also notable in Bush's new position of not letting Generals decide how to fight this war. We've gone from Generals deciding how many troops they need in Iraq to The Decider deciding for them.

Bush has traditionally paid public deference to the generals, saying any decisions on moving U.S. forces in the region would depend on their views. At a Chicago news conference in July, for instance, Bush said he would yield to Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Iraq commander.

"General Casey will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there," Bush said, adding: "He'll decide how best to achieve victory and the troop levels necessary to do so. I've spent a lot of time talking to him about troop levels. And I've told him this: I said, 'You decide, General.' "

By yesterday, however, Bush indicated that he will not necessarily let military leaders decide, ducking a question about whether he would overrule them. "The opinion of my commanders is very important," he said. "They are bright, capable, smart people whose opinion matters to me a lot." He added: "I agree with them that there's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before I agree on that strategy."

The problem with this is that George W. Bush seems to think that 'winning' is both a mission and a strategy. More from the article:

A senior aide said later that Bush would not let the military decide the matter. "He's never left the decision to commanders," said the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so Bush's comments would be the only ones on the record. "He is the commander in chief. But he has said he will listen to those commanders when making these decisions. That hasn't changed."[Bolds mine.]

Well, then. I guess that clears Donald Rumsfeld.

This post isn't meant to be (just) and commentary on a Washington Post story. My point is that Bush is incapable of winning this war because he thinks that if he just does what he's been doing a little bit harder he'll be victorious.

Bush's goal to remake the Middle East as a region full of 'freedom and democracy' was doomed as soon as he chose to do it by invading Iraq. It's like saying 'I'm going to remake this piggy bank as a bank vault' and choosing a hammer as your only tool.

Bush's goal to create a stable and secular Iraq was doomed for many reasons, not the least of which was he didn't understand Iraq. (And because he didn't send enough troops for the occupation, because he disbanded the Iraqi Army, because he purged the government of low-level Baathists that had experience in local governing, among a myriad of other reasons.)

Bush's goal to 'win' the fight against insurgents and militiamen in Iraq is doomed because he already failed on all the previous steps.

* * * * *
The only debate left is how to ensure that our troops are redeployed out of Iraq as quickly as possible. As a nation, we're unable to deal with other threats around the world because our entire military is breaking under the weight of a failed invasion. It's better to redeploy and deal with the repercussions now than wait another year, see more soldiers killed, more money spent, more wear and tear on our army, then suffer the same repercussions anyway.

War in Iraq George W. Bush

Third Rail on the Axis of Evil

2006-12-22T07:44:00.000-05:00

From The Guardian:

UN poised to pass Iran sanctions despite threat

· Ahmadinejad warns of immediate retaliation
· US and Britain step up naval presence in Gulf

Ewen MacAskill and Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday December 22, 2006
The Guardian

The United Nations security council is finally expected to pass a resolution today to impose international sanctions on Iran for the first time since the 1979 revolution, a punitive move that will heighten diplomatic tensions and risks a military confrontation in the Gulf.

Iran has threatened immediate retaliation, even though the proposed sanctions have been significantly watered down this week. Tehran's options include withdrawal from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, which would mean Iran would conduct its nuclear programme free from international monitoring, and possible closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the channel for 20% of the world's oil supplies.

You knew that as soon as the elections were over, gas prices were going to go back up, right? There are oil company profits to think about here!

The resolution will impose extremely limited restrictions on international travel on Iranians associated with the nuclear programme, a freeze on their overseas assets and a ban on nuclear-related exports. Western officials yesterday predicted that a draft resolution would be voted on today in New York, bringing to an end six months of negotiations.

Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, who is responsible for nuclear negotiations, was quoted by an Iranian news agency yesterday as saying that Iran would not be deflected by the sanctions. "The nature of this resolution is not capable of pressuring Iran, and Iran will give an appropriate response to it," Mr Larijani said, adding: "This behaviour will just create more problems." He said that Iran would review its cooperation with the IAEA and look at other political, economic and cultural options.

Yet another reason why being trapped in Iraq makes us weaker.

Iran Nuclear Proliferation

No Wonder We're Not Winning

2006-12-21T15:55:00.000-05:00

"Stability in Iraq ultimately depends on spreading the message of Jesus Christ, the message of peace on earth, good will towards men. Everything depends on everyone learning about the birth of the Savior."

- Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC)

That lovely little bit of mind killing drivel brought to your attention via BlueNC.

Robin Hayes Jesus Christ Christianists War in Iraq

Now for Important News

2006-12-21T11:15:00.000-05:00

And a glimpse into one of my guilty pleasures.

The title of the upcoming (and final) Harry Potter book has been revealed. From the BBC:

Author JK Rowling has revealed the title of the seventh and final Harry Potter book.

The book will be called Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

The announcement was made on the writer's official website. Fans must play a game in order to find out what the title is.

This week Rowling, 41, revealed how she has gone back to writing in cafes - as she did 13 years ago when starting to write about the boy wizard.

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows" just doesn't have the kind of ring to it I had hoped for. There's no sense of finality. The Lord of the Rings trilogy had "The Return of the King." Frank Herbert had "Chapterhouse: Dune" which broke the title form of the previous 5 books, giving it authority. Even "Return of the Jedi" had a sense of gravitas, though it basically copied J.R.R. Tolkien's title.

I suppose I shouldn't get to wrapped up in what the title means (Godric's Hollow?) or to upset that the title isn't all that striking.

I will now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Harry Potter Deathly Hollows J.K. Rowling

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you...

2006-12-20T14:18:00.000-05:00

then they fight you, then you win," at least according to Ghandi

From the Wall Street Journal:

The Blog Mob
"Written by fools to be read by imbeciles."

BY JOSEPH RAGO
Wednesday, December 20, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Blogs are very important these days. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has one. The invention of the Web log, we are told, is as transformative as Gutenberg's press, and has shoved journalism into a reformation, perhaps a revolution.

The ascendancy of Internet technology did bring with it innovations. Information is more conveniently disseminated, and there's more of it, because anybody can chip in. There's more "choice"--and in a sense, more democracy. Folks on the WWW, conservatives especially, boast about how the alternative media corrodes the "MSM," for mainstream media, a term redolent with unfairness and elitism.

The blogs are not as significant as their self-endeared curators would like to think. Journalism requires journalists, who are at least fitfully confronting the digital age. The bloggers, for their part, produce minimal reportage. Instead, they ride along with the MSM like remora fish on the bellies of sharks, picking at the scraps.

More success is met in purveying opinion and comment. Some critics reproach the blogs for the coarsening and increasing volatility of political life. Blogs, they say, tend to disinhibit. Maybe so. But politics weren't much rarefied when Andrew Jackson was president, either. The larger problem with blogs, it seems to me, is quality. Most of them are pretty awful. Many, even some with large followings, are downright appalling.

Every conceivable belief is on the scene, but the collective prose, by and large, is homogeneous: A tone of careless informality prevails; posts oscillate between the uselessly brief and the uselessly logorrheic; complexity and complication are eschewed; the humor is cringe-making, with irony present only in its conspicuous absence; arguments are solipsistic; writers traffic more in pronouncement than persuasion . . .

So what you're saying is, effectively, we're just not as good as you are.

I'm willing to accept that not every blog is grammatically correct. Hell, this one has spelling errors! Not every blog engages in perfect logic, but then again neither does any politician. Our prose may not be top flight, but the President can't for sentences.

You're right, we do traffic mostly in pronouncements, we are reliant on the 'MSM' and we are more about opinion than we are about reporting. There's a good reason for that, though. We aren't being paid to blog. Sure, if I was making a good salary from blogging, I could quite my real job and make an effort but because we have other jobs (and no editor or other support staff) our ability to go out and investigate or conduct interviews is practically non-existent.

And Joe, here's the irony you can't find in our pitiful little blogs:

You just spent 1000 words in the Wall Street Journal making sure everybody knew that you were more important than us. You clarified, once and for all, that the writing in a respected daily newspaper (with 29 Pulitzers) is more closely edited, that the range of reporting is far broader, the topics more varied, the language more flowery, and the content more factual and less opinionated.

That's all well and good, but your paper is shrinking the size of its broadsheet to save money and my readership is still growing while my cost remain constant.

You work at the Wall Street Journal, surely you can figure out what that means.

Joseph Rago Blog Mob Blogs Journalism

Abstinence Only is a Crock of Sh!t

2006-12-20T13:34:00.000-05:00

From CNN:

Reality check: 95 percent of Americans had premarital sex

NEW YORK (AP) -- More than nine out of 10 Americans, men and women alike, have had premarital sex, according to a new study. The high rates extend even to women born in the 1940s, challenging perceptions that people were more chaste in the past.

"This is reality-check research," said the study's author, Lawrence Finer. "Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades."

Yikes. That really deflates the whole 'Silver Ring Thing' crowd's argument.

The study, examining how sexual behavior before marriage has changed over time, was based on interviews conducted with more than 38,000 people -- about 33,000 of them women -- in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey of Family Growth. According to Finer's analysis, 99 percent of the respondents had had sex by age 44, and 95 percent had done so before marriage.

Even among a subgroup of those who abstained from sex until at least age 20, four-fifths had had premarital sex by age 44, the study found.

Finer said the likelihood of Americans having sex before marriage has remained stable since the 1950s, though people now wait longer to get married and thus are sexually active as singles for extensive periods.

How does the right-wing, anti-sex crowd react to numbers like that? Just say that the number seemed, according to Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America "a little suspicious." Remember, in Conservo-World, a gut feeling that reinforces a pre-held belief is far more credible than a survey conducted regularly over nearly a quarter of a century interviewing 38,000 people.

"The data clearly show[s] that the majority of older teens and adults have already had sex before marriage, which calls into question the federal government's funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12- to 29-year-olds," [Lawrence] Finer, [the research director at the Guttmacher Institute] said.

Under the Bush administration, such programs have received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding.

"It would be more effective," Finer said, "to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become sexually active -- which nearly everyone eventually will."

The study even showed that this level of premarital sex wasn't a 'generational thing' or caused by 'sexuality in the media.' The incidence of premarital sex among people born in the 1940s was only 7% lower (88%) than it is today (95%).

If 'Evangelicals' (read: Christianists) make up 20-30% of the U.S. population (and 100% of people that still think George W. Bush is doing a good job) and 95% of the population has had sex before marriage, that means that way more than half of self identified 'Evangelicals' were shacking up before they said "I do."

So even though Bush's core supporters can't live up to 'Abstinence Only,' he still spends hundreds of millions in tax dollars preaching it to a population which has, for the past 60 years, shown the ability to have sex before marriage without turning into sex-crazed delinquents.

It's almost like parents want to pass laws codifying morality so that their kids wouldn't do exactly the same thing they did... This would be funny if it weren't so incredibly frightening.

Sex Before Marriage Abstinence+Only Lawrence Finer

Vote Jesus for King!

2006-12-20T13:07:00.000-05:00

From the AP:

Poland proposal would name Jesus king

WARSAW, Poland - Lawmakers have drawn up a resolution naming Jesus Christ as the honorary king of Poland, but have failed to win support from the country's powerful Roman Catholic church.

Lawmakers for the ruling Law and Justice party and League of Polish Families as well as the opposition Peasants Party back the resolution, said Szymon Ruman, spokesman for parliamentary speaker Marek Jurek.

How many Christianists read that and said "that sounds like a good idea?"

What has the Catholic Church in Poland said about the proposed Christian Dominionist wet dream?

"Let parliament deal with passing better laws that we need," Gdansk Archbishop Tadeusz Goclowski said.

"This kind of action, although it may stem from good will, sounds a bit like propaganda," said bishop Tadeusz Pieronk.

How much better off would we be if our religious leaders were as willing to keep their noses out of government.

Poland Jesus King

Citation du Jour

2006-12-20T11:52:00.000-05:00

"I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States."

- Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) in a letter to constituents.

The problem with writing bat-shit crazy things in letters to constituents is that one of those letters may inadvertently end up on the possession of someone who will send it to a newspaper.

Think Progress has more from the letter:

I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.

You wouldn't even use it to keep your sofa level? That's what I'm doing with the NRSV...

The Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, "As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office."

Virgil Goode (if that name doesn't scream 'Antebellum South' I don't know what does) seems to be concerned that there will be more Muslims in America in the coming century. First, I'm more concerned that the number of Christianists will be higher in the coming century. Second, Rep. Goode is 60 years old. I'm less than half of his age. My opinion about what's happening in the coming century means a hell of a lot more than his because I'm gonna be alive for most of it.

Bigotry, hatred, and intolerance - alive and well in the U.S.A.

Talking Points Memo has an image of the letter here.

Virgil Goode Bigotry Muslims

"We're not winning, we're not losing."

2006-12-20T09:52:00.000-05:00

Ok, then George. What are we doing in Iraq?

George Bush on Iraq in an interview with Peter Baker in the Washington Post:

President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.

As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."

Funny. The number of hours between now and the next election is inversely proportional to the number of lies that the Bush Administration tells. That's the Rovian Third Law of Governing or something.

In another turnaround, Bush said he has ordered Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps, heeding warnings from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill that multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the armed forces toward the breaking point. "We need to reset our military," said Bush, whose administration had opposed increasing force levels as recently as this summer.

Wouldn't that be one of the 'flip-flop' moments that Bush used to such great effect in 2004 to eek out a victory? (Must have been at the times Kerry was taking a break from calling for 40,000 more troops...) Methinks it is. Of course we all know by now that it's only a problem if a Democrat does it because they flip-flop because of moral weakness. When George does it, it just means God is telling him to do something different.

But in a wide-ranging session in the Oval Office, the president said he interpreted the Democratic election victories six weeks ago not as a mandate to bring the U.S. involvement in Iraq to an end but as a call to find new ways to make the mission there succeed.

Uh-huh.

Bush essentially wants to increase the number of 'boots on the ground' that America can deploy by increasing the size of the Army and the Marine Corps. This would, like everything else that BushCo. does, be too little, too late. It would take about a decade for the effects of the larger force to be felt.

And it would be expensive.

The total bill for this year's operations in Iraq and Afghanistan tops $170 Billion, of which less than half is accounted for in the budget. Over $100 billion is in 'supplemental funds.' The total cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is $600 Billion - more than the cost of the Vietnam War ($549 billion, adjusted for inflation).

The easier, cheaper, and more ethical solution would be, of course, to get out of Iraq.

George W. Bush War in Iraq
Photo: Robert A. Reeder -- The Washington Post Photo

That Rudy Giuliani Post I Promised

2006-12-19T14:41:00.000-05:00

Since I mentioned it earlier, I better actually write it, I guess.

From the Washington Post:

NEW YORK, Dec. 18 -- His national poll numbers are a dream, he's a major box office draw on the Republican Party circuit, and he goes by the shorthand title "America's Mayor." All of which has former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani convinced he just might become America's president in 2008.

He is showing the early signs of a serious candidacy: Giuliani's presidential exploratory committee throws its first major fundraiser in a hotel near Times Square on Tuesday evening, and he recently hired the political director of the Republican National Committee during 2006. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week found that Republicans give Giuliani an early lead over Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who is far ahead of the former mayor in organizing a national campaign.

Despite that lead, conservative party strategists and activists in key primary states are skeptical and warn that the socially liberal Republican faces a difficult campaign. They question whether a Republican who has had one marriage end in annulment and another in divorce, and favors abortion rights, gun control and immigrant rights, has much retail appeal in the evangelical and deeply conservative reaches of the GOP.

That and Republican electoral power is now concentrated in the South. How much excitement do you think a somebody from New York City is going to generate there?

It's like that old 'Pace' salsa commercial where a bunch of cowboys are complaining about a bad bottle of salsa and one reads that it was made in New York City. 'New York City?!?' the cowboys say in surprise and disgust. The commercial ends with the cook looking frightened.

Rovian 'play to the base' politics has made a Northern Republican as un-electable as a Northern Democrat used to be. The race-based immigration politics that some of the Republicans in government can't seem to get away from is just going to make all of this worse.

I'm not complaining.

Rudy Giuliani 2008 Republican Nomination

Sen. Johnson to Make Full Recovery

2006-12-19T13:05:00.000-05:00

Hearing that a family's hospitalized loved one is expected to recover is always great news. Knowing that it will stop some Republicans from claiming that 'God wants a Republican majority' is priceless.

From the Sioux Falls Argus Leader:

The news media might spend time talking about successors to Sen. Tim Johnson, but a son of the South Dakota Democrat is confident his dad will go back to work.

"That's the easiest question for me to answer," said Brendan Johnson, the second-oldest child of Tim and Barbara Johnson. "From my conversations with the doctors and based on the progress he has been making, I feel very confident that he is going to be getting back to work sooner rather than later."

It was the first interview given by a Johnson family member since the senator was hospitalized Dec. 13 with stroke-like symptoms followed by brain surgery at George Washington University Medical Center in Washington.

Brendan Johnson says his conclusions come from talking with doctors and also seeing how his father has done in neurological exams.

While the Senator remains heavily sedated to aid in healing, his mental functions show every sign of a full recovery. He is able to preform tasks (wiggle toes, hold an object, etc.) when asked - especially when asked by his wife.

This is all very good news. His recovery will not be instantaneous or without pitfalls, but his prognosis is good. As always, best wishes to Senator Johnson and his family.

Tim Johnson

1000th Post

2006-12-19T10:11:00.000-05:00

This is, as the title notes, the one-thousandth post here at 300 Dollar Wonder. As such, I feel compelled to write something profound, introspective, and insightful. Unfortunately, this 1000th post thing sort of sneaked up on me. Thirty seconds ago, this was going to be a post about Rudi Giuliani.

I could take this opportunity to talk about the fact that Time Magazine named me (and many other mes) 'Person of the Year,' an occurrence I missed while I was sick. I'm not going to because I think the whole thing was an effort by a stodgy old media icon to jump on something - anything - with 'buzz.'

I could talk about how different my life is now, a scant 400+/- days ago. I'm married, no longer living in somebody else's basement, and well on my way to being a 'professional' - as opposed to being that kid that just graduated from college. I would do that, here on my blog for the interested masses to read, but George F. Will would think that's narcissistic.

Then there are the political changes. Unfortunately, I covered that a month ago for the 300 Dollar Wonder 1 year anniversary.

In the end, I don't really know what I want to say. I just didn't want to waste this post on Rudi Giuliani.

The Civilian 'Leadership' - UPDATE

2006-12-19T09:38:00.000-05:00

From the Washington Post:

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said.

Ok, let's look at this one carefully. President NationalGuard McFlightsuit wants to send 30,000 troops into a situation where the professional military experts - career soldiers - say that it's a bad idea. The Military seems to think that sending 30,000 soldiers into harms way on a poorly defined mission because it's really the only plan that BushCo. can come up with is a bad idea. On top of that, the Military knows that scrounging up another 30,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen isn't going to be easy or good for the long term health of the military. If Bush recognizes this, he's decided that a major blow the the effectiveness of the U.S. military and untold numbers of deaths are not to large a price to pay for the chance to rescue his legacy.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.

But the legacy, we must save the legacy!

Here's the most telling part of the whole Washington Post piece:

A senior administration official said it is "too simplistic" to say the surge question has broken down into a fight between the White House and the Pentagon, but the official acknowledged that the military has questioned the option. "Of course, military leadership is going to be focused on the mission -- what you're trying to accomplish, the ramifications it would have on broader issues in terms of manpower and strength and all that," the official said.

Hmmm... The military is fixating on things like 'what you're trying to accomplish, ramifications, broader issues and logistics. Those sound like important things. I think a President should probably be thinking about all that too. But our President isn't concerned with details, or reality "and all that." He goes with his gut.

God help us all.

UPDATE: 2:22 pm

Think Progress points us to this speech by George W. Bush explaining how troop levels are determined:

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders.

I realize that in a changing situation, it's important for a leader to be able to adjust certain positions and guidlines. Infact, leaders that don't change in the face of changing situations are bad leaders. But when it comes to strategic troop deployments, flip-flopping from 'I'll let the military decide how many soldiers it needs to do its job' to 'More troops to save my legacy!' I'm going to call you out on it.

George W. Bush Pentagon War in Iraq

Ok, Now I'm Really Back

2006-12-19T07:22:00.000-05:00

After having been sick for a while (I don't think I've been sick for this many days in a row 'since elementary school when I had the Chicken Pox.) I'm back, and with a bit of luck, we be posting with some regularity.

First post back? We'll use that one for good news.

Bush's Approval Rating for Iraq is below, BELOW, 30%.

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Support for President Bush's management of the war in Iraq has dropped to a new low as he ponders a change in the U.S. strategy there, according to a CNN poll released Monday.

The survey, conducted for CNN by Opinion Research Corporation, found Bush's overall job approval at 36 percent -- little changed from the last CNN poll, taken Dec. 5-7. Sixty-two percent said they disapproved of his performance in office, up from 57 percent in the previous poll.

But support for his management of the war in Iraq dropped considerably, from 34 percent earlier this month to 28 percent in Monday's poll. And a record 70 percent said they disapproved of his handling of the nearly 4-year-old war.

Ouch. I'm guessing that's pretty much rock bottom.

Worse yet for Bush, his approval ratings for the "Global War on Terror^tm" has fallen to just 42%. A new record high percentage of Americans disapprove of the President's anti-terrorism efforts - 55%.

They say that 'you can't fool all the people all the time.' We'll, the Bush Administration's time limit has officially run out. And it seems that when the American people realized what they'd been fooled into, they weren't too pleased.

George W. Bush Approval Rating War in Iraq War on Terror

Why Did This Take Months?

2006-12-14T12:37:00.000-05:00

The AP:

Ga. board: Harry Potter books can stay
By GREG BLUESTEIN, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA - The Georgia Board of Education voted Thursday to uphold a local school board's decision to leave
Harry Potter books on library shelves despite a mother's objections.

The board members voted without discussion to back the Gwinnett County school board's decision to deny Laura Mallory's request to remove the best-selling books.

Well, that would seem to resolve that. Except that Ms. Mallory has a habit of not giving up when an authoritative body rules against her...

Mallory, who has three children in elementary school, has worked for more than a year to ban the books from Gwinnett schools, claiming the popular fiction series is an attempt to indoctrinate children in witchcraft.

"It's mainstreaming witchcraft in a subtle and deceptive manner, in a children-friendly format," said Mallory, who is considering a legal challenge of the board's ruling. [I called it!] "The kind of stuff in these books — murder and greed and violence. Why do they have to read them in school?"

Gwinnett school officials have argued that the books are good tools to encourage children to read and to spark creativity and imagination. Banning all books with references to witchcraft would mean classics like "MacBeth" and "Cinderella" would have to go, they said.

I really wish that these Anti-Potter zealots would stop lying. It's not about "murder, greed, and violence." That would mean that reading the Old Testament would be out of the question. (And then how would people know to hate gay people?)

This is about the fact that this is about a 'wizard' in a contemporary setting - something that a science-deprived mind thinks might just be true... with the power of Satan!

Idiots. I hope this is the last I hear of this for a while...

Laura Mallory Harry Potter Georgia Christianists

The Horror! The Horror!

2006-12-14T11:53:00.000-05:00

From the Patriot News:

WASHINGTON - A month after suffering the largest defeat by a Senate incumbent in a quarter-century, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum ponders a future as a cable TV talking head and earning big bucks on the lecture circuit.

Santorum, who lost to Democrat Bob Casey Jr. in last month's election, has been weighing offers. They range from appearing on Fox News Channel as an analyst to working for a law firm, according to several people who have spoken with the Pennsylvania Republican.

Santorum, one of the most vocal lawmakers for the last decade, has been nearly invisible in the last month as he weighs his options.

Santorum has been negotiating a cable deal, which political insiders say most likely is with Fox -- though MSNBC and CNN have been mentioned as well -- "to be a screamer," as one political operative put it.

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Suddenly the salad I'm having for lunch doesn't taste so good...

I thought we were rid of this asshat. I cannot understand how failing to win reelection (and rather spectacularly at that) qualifies you for your own cable show. Why would any (non-ideologically driven) network ever chose a commentator who's been rejected by the public?

I guess I answered my own question.

Rick Santorum Fox News

Protecting Democracy before Promoting Faith

2006-12-14T10:55:00.000-05:00

Daniel C. Dennett (left) may look like Santa Clause but he's actually the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, at Tufts University. He wrote Breaking the Spell. He brings an Atheist's perspective to the Washington Post's regular "On Faith" section. He takes on this question in today's paper:

Some politically conservative Christians say that America is "a Christian nation," and at this time of year, with the country saturated with Christmas imagery, it can seem that they are right. Are they? Is America a "Christian nation"? Should it be?

His answer is very good. Some excerpts:

[T]he Christian conservatives in the country who wish to declare that this is a Christian nation are becoming bolder and bolder in their willingness to impose their own viewpoint on those who disagree. Fortunately, there are the beginnings of an organized Resistance to this takeover, such as the Interfaith Alliance, chaired by Walter Cronkite. I enthusiastically support this effort, even though I am myself an atheist. Atheism is one of the live rails of American politics-touch it and you're toast. Fair enough. Those are the current facts of life. Not so long ago, you couldn’t be elected if you were Catholic, or Jewish, or African-American. But shouldn't we install another live rail, on the opposite side of the religious spectrum?

It ought to be just as much a fact of life that anybody who declares that their allegiance to their religion comes before their allegiance to democracy is simply unelectable. Fifty years ago President Eisenhower nominated Charles E. Wilson, then president of General Motors, as his Secretary of Defense. At the nomination hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Wilson was asked to sell his shares in General Motors, but he objected. When asked if his continued stake in General Motors mightn't unduly sway his judgment, he replied: "For years, I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa." Some in the press, unsatisfied with this response, stressed only the second half of his response--"What's good for General Motors is good for the country"-and in response to the ensuing furor, Wilson was forced to sell his stock in order to win the nomination.

Substitute "The American Baptist Church" or "The Roman Catholic Church" for "General Motors" and ask yourself whether you want candidates who waffle on this score to lead the nation. Even if it is true, as Wilson opined, that other things being equal, what's good for GM is good for the country, people wanted to know which way he'd lean in the perhaps rare cases where he had to choose between what was good for the country and what was good for his corporation. They wanted him to put General Motors firmly in second place, and we want our politicians to put the welfare of the nation ahead of the welfare of their religion as well. If they won't make a solemn pledge about this, we should worry.

Dr. Dennet concludes his response with this powerful statement:

We are currently asking the Shiites and Sunnis of Iraq to put their allegiance to their nation ahead of their allegiance to their religion. We must surely ask ourselves, and especially our political leaders, to make the same solemn commitment.

Once more, we see Christian Privilege. Our leaders are prepared to govern by their religion, legislate their beliefs, and mandate their particular morals, rules, and guide lines - yet turn around and demand that non-Christian efforts to do exactly the same thing be abandoned in favor of a secular, unity government.

Dr. Dennet asks a simple question and draws very clear conclusions from a response.

"Do [you] put the welfare of the nation above the welfare of [your] particular religion? If you cannot answer Yes to that question, you should consider that you are not a good American, but a part of the problem: you are taking advantage of American religious freedom without being prepared to pledge your support to the principle that secures it."

Other panelists seem unwilling to draw a hard line about America's status as a 'Christian Nation.'

Some clearly state that they mean to ignore "whether a nation can (or should) be Christian." Instead they outline divides among American Christians and seek to redirect the question into something more like 'What kind of Christians make up America?'

Another panelist simply try to keep everybody happy by declaring that America isn't a 'Christian Nation' but a great nation because there are so many Christians in it.

The question is further avoided by panelists who play with the difference between 'nation' and government and call for a "society in which religiously informed viewpoints are welcomed in the public square on an equal basis with all other voices." One assumes that teaching children in public schools that the world in 6,000 years old, that Dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together and/or that the world is flat would be some of the 'viewpoints' given equal basis as, say, Science.

Calling for any politician that wouldn't put the Constitution above her or his religious beliefs to be "unelectable" same way that Atheists are now and African Americans used to be (in places still are) shows a great deal of moral courage. It is a call that is both necessary and unpopular.

That's why I'm sure it will be ignored.

Daniel Dennett Christian Nation Christianists

Sen. Tim Johnson

2006-12-14T10:22:00.000-05:00

I'd like to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes to Sen. Johnson and his family. Any serious medical problem, especially one that is sudden and unexpected, is a terrible ordeal. I'm sure that I speak for many people on the Left and the Right when I say that I hope his recovery is swift and complete.

Although I understand that a medical condition is incredibly personal, the fact that Sen. Johnson is the deciding vote in the U.S. Senate means that his condition is also of concern to every America.

Here's what I know:

The front page at Daily Kos has this:

According to Johnson's attending physician:
Subsequent to his admission to George Washington University Hospital, Senator Tim Johnson was found to have had intracerebral bleed, caused by Congenital Arteriovenous Malformation. He underwent successful surgery to evacuate the blood and stabilize the malformation.
Senator Johnson's wife, Barbara Johnson, released a statement saying:
The Johnson family is encouraged and optimistic. We are grateful for the prayers and good wishes of friends, supporters and South Dakotans. We are especially grateful for the work of the doctors and all medical personnel in GWU Hospital.
The medical specialist on CNN describes "Congenital Arteriovenous Malformation" as, "a cluster of blood vessels that grow too close together and can sometimes bleed. It's often congenital, meaning someone has it their entire lives...hypertension or some other factor causes can cause it to bleed."

Senator Johnson remains in critical condition, but that was described as standard after a surgery like this. A press conference will be held this morning to give further updates on the Senator's condition.

The AP has this report:

WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota was in critical but stable condition Thursday after late-night emergency brain surgery, creating political drama about which party will control the Senate next month if he is unable to continue in office.

Johnson suffered from bleeding in the brain caused by a congenital malformation, the U.S. Capitol physician said, describing the surgery as successful. The condition, present at birth, causes tangled blood vessels.

"The senator is recovering without complication," the physician, Adm. John Eisold, said. "It is premature to determine whether further surgery will be required or to assess any long-term prognosis."

Eisold said doctors had to drain the blood that had accumulated in Johnson's brain and stop continued bleeding.

Preliminary reports that the Senator had a stroke seem to be untrue, though the mistake is understandable. I'm far from a medical expert, but people seem to be cautiously optimistic. Let's hope they're right.

Tim Johnson

AP Photo/Jenny Michael

Harry Potter vs. Christian Privilege

2006-12-14T09:19:00.000-05:00

I've mentioned a few times that a certain Ms. Mallory (right) is seeking to have all Harry Potter books removed from Georgia Public School Libraries.

More news has come in. From the International Herald Tribune:

ATLANTA: The state Board of Education will decide Wednesday whether to keep Harry Potter books on library shelves in one suburban Atlanta school district, and the matter will be discussed in public rather than behind closed doors as previously planned.

The board will consider an appeal by parent Laura Mallory who is upset that the Gwinnett County school board voted to keep the best-selling books in its schools, despite her claims that the books indoctrinate children in pagan religion.

It turns out that the board isn't reviewing Gwinnett County's decision, just whether it acted within its authority when making that decision.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution:

State board members are not deciding whether J.K. Rowling's series of children's books about a powerful boy wizard are appropriate material for public schools. Instead, they are deciding the technical matter of whether Gwinnett acted within its authority when a parent challenged their use.

[...]

Earlier today, state board members gave tacit approval to the decision by the administrative law judge that Gwinnett had acted within its authority. The board is expected to take a formal vote Thursday.

It appears that cooler heads (or rather rational ones) are poised to prevail.

As Shakespeare's Sister points out, it's important to remember why Ms. Mallory is objecting to the wildly popular series by J.K. Rowling:

"There are so many problems facing our children today — drugs, alcohol, violence and the growth of the occult, too. These books are helping to mainstream witchcraft. These books are dangerous and harmful to our children. I am a Christian. I feel that Christian rights are being abolished in this country. Everyone talks about our views being pushed on them. But what about our beliefs? Don't we have any rights at all?" [Bolds mine.]

No, Ms. Mallory, you're wrong. Christian rights aren't being abolished - just Christian privilege.

People like Ms. Mallory have allowed themselves to slip into thinking that the advantages that they've enjoyed for so long as Christians aren't just a perk of being the majority - they think that these privileges are are right.

The 'Culture Wars' aren't really a 'war' so much as a rear-guard action by a fading majority. Ten Commandments on a court house? 50 years ago it just wasn't an issue. Sure, it was still wrong then, but the monument wasn't put up because Christians had a right to put it on Federal property, it just happened because there weren't enough (or rather powerful enough) non-Christian organizations to prevent it.

For a very long time, if something wasn't in keeping with Christian principles, it wasn't in keeping with the principles of the vast majority of Americans. While Christians are still the majority in this nation, they are loosing ground. As there is more religious diversity in America and as more people realize that - even if it's their personal religion - Christianity isn't the only religion in America there is less and less support for Christian Privilege.

One cannot expect every member of a population that enjoys special privileges to abandon them simply because it is the right thing to do. One can hope that there are enough fair minded Christians in America to realize that Christian Privilege isn't in keeping with our American ideals.

Harry Potter Laura Mallory Georgia Christianists

Photo: John Amis / AP