Molly Ivins can't do that, can she?

Alas, she can. Molly Ivins died far too soon today at the age of sixty-two.

I'm not sure if we could have made it through the last six years without Molly Ivins' passion and humor. For all that she, as a Texan, knew long before most Americans what they were getting when they allowed George W. Bush to assume the presidency, she never succumbed to despair, instead deciding to fight the Bush junta with her best weapon -- humor.

There really isn't anything I can say that can illustrate what we lost today, so I'll just let Molly Ivins speak for herself one last time:

We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell. Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge. If you can, go to the peace march in Washington on Jan. 27. We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"

If we won't do it for ourselves, and we won't do it for the generations to come, then for God's sake let's do it for Molly. It's the least we can do after all she did for us.

Obama throws down the gauntlet

OK, grab your popcorn, because this ought to be good:

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, one of the most prominent Democrats in the 2008 presidential field, proposed for the first time setting a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, as part of a broader plan aimed at bolstering the freshman senator's foreign policy credentials.

Obama's legislation, offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. The date falls within the parameters offered by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which recommended the removal of combat troops by the first quarter of next year.

The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close," Obama said in his speech. "It is time for us to fundamentally change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis their country back."


The Obama plan, called the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, would begin a troop withdrawal no later than May 1, 2007, but it includes several caveats that could forestall a clean break:

It would leave a limited number of troops in place to conduct counterterrorism activities and train Iraqi forces. And the withdrawal could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration. That list includes a reduction in sectarian violence; the equitable distribution of oil revenue; government reforms; and democratic, Iraqi-driven reconstruction and economic development efforts. Obama's proposal also would reverse Bush's troop-increase plan....Obama described his proposal as a mainstream package of well-vetted ideas, consistent with the Iraq Study Group's recommendations and "with what the American people demanded in the November election," when they voted Republicans out of power in both the House and the Senate.

The details of the Obama plan are here. Good for Obama for doing this. My beef with him has been his excessive caution and unwillingness to take a stand on anything. While this plan still allows far too many American soldiers to die for this failed war between now and 2008, it at least describes concrete steps for extricating the U.S. from this disastrous civil war, and reminds the Crawford Caligula just who is in charge of the pursestrings. Nice. The one giant gaping hole in the plan as put forth in Obama's web site is what the consequences might be for Iraq FAILING to meet the benchmarks. As yet, no one seems willing to address that possibility. The absence of such consequences here has echoes of the same delusion that Bush has: "It will work because it has to."

In contrast, Hillary Clinton not only does not have any position papers on Iraq (or anything else for that matter) on her campaign wab site, but so far her position on Iraq is "Hey, George, clean it up before you leave." This demonstrates that she still doesn't get what she's dealing with in this Administration. She voted for this war and has still not expressed regret for that vote, claiming that "if we knew then what we know now there never would have been a vote. I never would have voted to give this president that authority."

Sorry, Hill, but that just won't wash. I knew that Bush was determined to go to war. So did a half-million people who marched in New York City in February 2002 and millions more nationwide. If I, a mere citizen knew what you were dealing with in 2002, why didn't you?

This is a Big Bold Move for Obama, perhaps the first of his Senate career. It dares Hillary Clinton to take a stand, and positions Obama in stark contrast to John McCain (who may not be the one to watch at this point).

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out on both sides of the aisle.

Somehow I get the feeling that the Bush/McCain/Lieberman agenda in Iraq isn't about "winning"

...at least not in the military victory sense.

The Iraq war has been a bonanza for military contractors. From Halliburton and its many subsidiaries to Dyncorp to Bechtel, some of the most heinous corporations in the United States have turned Iraq into a cash cow, using OUR money -- money that could have been spent on education, infrastructure, research into alternative fuels, medical research, providing universal health insurance, or perhaps even fighting the REAL battle against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Instead, proving on an even more massive scale what I said back in 1988 when I posited that the Bush family regards the entire country as a private fiefdom for itself and its friends, the Bush/Cheney administration has bankrupted the country for generations to come shoveling cash into the pockets of these corporations.

And this is what we got for our so-called "investment":

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

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

"The security situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, hindering progress in all reconstruction sectors and threatening the overall reconstruction effort," according to the 579-page report, which was being released Wednesday.

Calling Iraq's sectarian violence the greatest challenge, Bowen said in a telephone interview that billions in U.S. aid spent on strengthening security has had limited effect. Reconstruction now will fall largely on Iraqis to manage — and they're nowhere ready for the task.

The audit comes as President Bush is pressing Congress to approve $1.2 billion in new reconstruction aid as part of his broader plan to stabilize Iraq by sending 21,500 more U.S. troops to Baghdad and Anbar province.

[snip]

According to the report, the State Department paid $43.8 million to contractor DynCorp International for the residential camp for police training personnel outside of Baghdad's Adnan Palace grounds that has stood empty for months. About $4.2 million of the money was improperly spent on 20 VIP trailers and an Olympic-size pool, all ordered by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior but never authorized by the U.S.

U.S. officials spent another $36.4 million for weapons such as armored vehicles, body armor and communications equipment that can't be accounted for. DynCorp also may have prematurely billed $18 million in other potentially unjustified costs, the report said.

Bowen, whose office was nearly eliminated last month by administration-friendly Republicans in Congress, called spending waste in Iraq a continuing problem. Corruption is high among Iraqi officials, while U.S. contract management remains somewhat weak.

With America's $21 billion rebuilding effort largely finished, it will be up to the international community and the Iraqis to step up its dollars to sustain reconstruction, Bowen said in the interview. "That will be a long-term and very expensive process," he said.

According to the report:

_Major U.S. contractors in Iraq, including Bechtel National and Kellogg, Brown and Root Services Inc., said they devoted an average 12.5 percent of their total expenses for security.

_Bowen's office opened 27 new criminal probes in the last quarter, bringing the total number of active cases to 78. Twenty-three are awaiting prosecutorial action by the Justice Department, most of them centering on charges of bribery and kickbacks.

Meanwhile, John McCain, who has completely lost his mind and thinks he's back in 1972 and he is the only person standing between victory and loss in Vietnam, along with Joe Lieberman, who seems to think that nuclear war in the Middle East somehow benefits Israel, and Lindsey Graham, are committed to propping up this failed presidency by continuing to fund this war in perpetuity, no matter how many American kids have to die to do it.

And what of those American kids? Remember the opening scene in Three Kings, in which Mark Wahlberg says, "Are we shooting people, or what?" That was fiction. This is the real-life mirror image of that scene:

"Who the hell is shooting at us?" a US soldier yelled last week. His platoon was in a strife-torn part of Baghdad, teamed with an Iraqi Army unit. Gunfire was coming from all directions. "Who's shooting at us? Do we know who they are?"

Those of you who were alive during the Vietnam era just felt a chill, didn't you? Because we have all been here before. The ghosts of Vietnam hover over this war like the crazy aunt in the attic about whom no one wants to talk. Vietnam wasn't lost due to a lack of will; it was lost because we had no business being there in the first place. Putting the generations to come into debt to China in perpetuity to pay for another escalation of another senseless war will not change history in Vietnam, nor will it prevent a similar outcome in Iraq. It will, however, make a whole lot of Bush/Cheney contributors, as well as the Vice President himself, even wealthier than they are now.

The head of the Evil Empire guests on The Daily Show

Now this is completely surreal.

Part I:

Part II:

Here's what I want to know: How the hell does the richest man in the world still look like a college student? And what is he going to do to Comedy Central as punishment for using Macromedia Flash for its videos?

The real John McCain

Or as Pam calls him, "Humpy McTool".

This ought to derail the so-called "Straight Talk Express" for good:

Live by the flip-flop, die by the flip-flop.

(And what the hell is wrong with his cheek, anyway? He looks like he's got acorns stowed in there.)

Every day we move closer to a complete and total George W. Bush dictatorship

Now he is the decider on all things regulatory:

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

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

Got that? Every federal agency has to have a Bush crony overseeing how regulations are enforced.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

In an interview on Monday, Jeffrey A. Rosen, general counsel at the White House Office of Management and Budget, said, “This is a classic good-government measure that will make federal agencies more open and accountable.”

Amazing that a human being can say that with a straight face, isn't it?

Business groups welcomed the executive order, saying it had the potential to reduce what they saw as the burden of federal regulations. This burden is of great concern to many groups, including small businesses, that have given strong political and financial backing to Mr. Bush.

Say this about George W. Bush: If you give him money, he takes good care of you. Sort of like a protection racket.

Typically, agencies issue regulations under authority granted to them in laws enacted by Congress. In many cases, the statute does not say precisely what agencies should do, giving them considerable latitude in interpreting the law and developing regulations.

The directive issued by Mr. Bush says that, in deciding whether to issue regulations, federal agencies must identify “the specific market failure” or problem that justifies government intervention.

Besides placing political appointees in charge of rule making, Mr. Bush said agencies must give the White House an opportunity to review “any significant guidance documents” before they are issued.

The Office of Management and Budget already has an elaborate process for the review of proposed rules. But in recent years, many agencies have circumvented this process by issuing guidance documents, which explain how they will enforce federal laws and contractual requirements.

Peter L. Strauss, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the executive order “achieves a major increase in White House control over domestic government.”

“Having lost control of Congress,” Mr. Strauss said, “the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch.”

Bush has thrown down the gauntlet to Congress. This is "Go ahead...make my day" politics. The craven, small-minded weasels who still support George W. Bush may applaud this as a big, swinging dick tactic of macho administration by a guy who won't let himself be pushed around by those wimpy Democrats, but they should be very careful putting that much authority in the executive branch -- unless they are pretty damn sure that the current dick-waver plans to stay in office forever. That every decision like this makes such a scenario more plausible must delight them to no end.

Macro Wholefoods, Concord

Edit 11/12/07: Macro Wholefoods at Concord has now closed.Plain packaged Macro organic honeys"To the lay person, this is a clean food place."I'm at the media launch of the latest Macro Wholefoods store, this one in the cosy wholesome village of Concord.Executive Chairman Pierce Cody is giving us a guided tour of the store. Wooden slats feature heavily in the fruit and vegetable section, shiny

Not sure why but this made me feel awful

Yeah, I know, there are PEOPLE being killed every day, and in the larger sphere of things, this is pretty damned insignificant. But for some strange reason, I felt kicked in the gut when I read this:

Kentucky Derby winner Barbaro was euthanized Monday after complications from his gruesome breakdown at last year's Preakness, ending an eight-month ordeal that prompted an outpouring of support across the country.

"We just reached a point where it was going to be difficult for him to go on without pain," co-owner Roy Jackson said. "It was the right decision, it was the right thing to do. We said all along if there was a situation where it would become more difficult for him then it would be time."

A series of ailments, including laminitis in the left rear hoof and a recent abscess in the right rear hoof, proved too much for the gallant colt.

Barbaro battled in his ICU stall for eight months. The 4-year-old colt underwent several procedures and was fitted with fiberglass casts. He spent time in a sling to ease pressure on his legs, had pins inserted and was fitted at the end with an external brace. These were all extraordinary measures for a horse with such injuries.

He suffered a significant setback over the weekend, and surgery was required to insert two steel pins in a bone — one of three shattered in the Preakness but now healthy — to eliminate all weight bearing on the ailing right rear foot.

The procedure Saturday was a risky one, because it transferred more weight to the leg while the foot rests on the ground bearing no weight.

The leg was on the mend until the abscess began causing discomfort last week. Until then, the major concern was Barbaro's left rear leg, which developed laminitis in July, and 80 percent of the hoof was removed.

Richardson said Monday morning that Barbaro did not have a good night.

I don't even LIKE horses.

I guess it's because those of us who have had pets have at one time or another had to endure that terrible dilemma of judging when the animal we love has been through enough. And when someone else goes through that, it brings back all the pain we've had in our lives making similar decisions. The loss of a beloved pet or animal companion of any kind, whether through death or another reason, is sharper than those who are not animal people can understand. The pain of this couple making the correct, if painful choice to return a cat they had adopted to its desperate original owner is palpable.

I'm still not sure why Barbaro became the mascot of a nation. Perhaps we wanted to believe in a happy ending because it meant we didn't have to confront the sick waste and Darwinian brutality of horse racing. Perhaps it was because he seemed to WANT to fight back and be the one horse that makes it. Whatever the reason, an entire nation affixed its own emotional baggage to this one horse, and when he was unable to come through for us, it feels like a personal loss.

And now for something completely different

Because sometimes we need a break from the horror that is life in Bush's America.

I've blogged periodically this winter on figure skating, particularly over New Year's weekend when not much else is happening. It's not that I follow skating that much anymore; other interests have supplanted it. But every now and then I see something that reminds me why I enjoyed watching skating.

Enter Evan Lysacek, like manna from skating heaven.

He's cute, he's straight, he's tall, and hoo-boy, can this young man skate. Forget the quad toe-triple toe combination to open the program. Forget the triple axel-triple toe combination. Forget the jumps. Look at the SPINS. Anyone who's taken martial arts training will tell you how difficult that sit spin position is:

Yes, his choreography leaves something to be desired; it has far too much Brian Orser-style flailing his arms around. And yes, sometimes it seems that if one more skater uses music from Carmen, we're going to put our heads in the oven. But for a kid coming off a hip injury just over a month ago to skate a program like this is nothing short of amazing.

But you'd better watch him now, because at 6'1", you have to wonder what kind of toll these jumps are going to take on his hips and legs. Tim Goebel, the last American "quad rat", had to retire at age 26 after landing 76 quad jumps in his career. And he was only 5'7".

Sorry, Hillary, this is NOT good enough

That she's correct about what she said doesn't change the fact that it sounds appallingly opportunistic:

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that President Bush should withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq before he leaves office, asserting it would be "the height of irresponsibility" to pass the war along to the next commander in chief.

"This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy," the Democratic senator from New York said her in initial presidential campaign swing through Iowa.

"We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009, the former first lady said.

The White House condemned Clinton's comments as a partisan attack that undermines U.S. soldiers

Let's ignore the whiny-ass titty baby kvetching of an administration that has claimed that every criticism of anything it does "emboldens the enemy." Let's look instead at what Hillary is saying. She's absolutely right, of course, that the Bush strategy of running out the clock and continuing the Crawford Caligula's pattern of screwing up everything he touches and then leaving the mess for someone else to clean up is appalling. However, if she thinks that demanding a timetable for withdrawal by the end of the current administration somehow negates her vote for the war, she'd better guess again, as far as I'm concerned. Let's not be blinded by this and think that this is a change in her "invading Iraq was the right thing to do, it was just planned and executed badly" viewpoint. Do not be fooled. She is still a war hawk, and these times demand more courage than the kind of triangulation that may have worked well enough during the 1990's indicates.

The situation can change radically by November 2008, but right now she is well-positioned to take the Democratic nomination, whether a majority of Americans would vote for her in a general election or not. And this is NOT what I want to hear from the party's likely nominee.

John Aravosis disagrees:

My initial reaction is: smart move. The overwhelming majority of Americans have had it with this war. They want us out - just not yet. Yes, it's a contradiction, I get it, but they don't, and it's where they are. People want the war over "soon." And Hillary just gave the public a timeline that meets what their gut is telling them.

It also puts Bush on notice that the clock is ticking. He no longer gets to pull the old "this war will have to be settled by the next president." Hillary's message for the next two years is going to be "are we there yet?" And it's a smart message for the Democrats as well. It permits them to keep running against Bush even as the elections approach for the post-Bush.

The only danger with this strategy is were it morphed into a "Bush has two more years to fix things, so let's just escalate and see what happens." No one is for that, and that's not what Hillary is saying, in any case. She's saying that even she, Democrat who has often been a pain in the butt (to us) as it concerns her views on the war, has a limit.

Here's the problem with Hillary's so-called "timetable": It essentially asks for the war to be ended in time for her to presumably take office -- but does not take into account a temporary escalation and the lives of the thousands more American soldiers that will be lost while we wait for Bush to clean up the mess. Whom does waiting benefit, other than the next president? It certainly doesn't benefit the American people, who are going to pay for another year and a half of war profiteering on the part of Bush and Cheney's friends and cronies. It doesn't benefit the troops who will be at risk for loss of life or limb for another year and a half. And it doesn't seem to benefit the so-called Iraqi military, who somehow miraculously, after foundering for four years, got its act together at least for a day right when George W. Bush needed them to most.

Hillary Clinton's call for an end to our presence in Iraq not now, but before SHE can take office, is exactly the kind of policy position, driven not by the pulse of the American people who marched on Washington on Saturday and the many others who weren't there but were in solidarity, but by the Washington consultant corps -- the Bob Shrums and Al Froms and craven "centrist" Democrats like Chuck "Let's try to do it halfway" Schumer, that is the LAST thing we need. The next president is going to have to have one hell of a mess to deal with -- and this sort of blithe willingness to sacrifice more Americans in a lost cause is disturbing on a potential nominee who is supposed to represent an alternative.

This is what happens when you vote for a guy who thinks he's God's Anointed Instrument to bring about the Rapture

According to the Scotland Sunday Herald, the Crawford Caligula will try to make himself better about his penis size one more time by launching an attack on Iran before the end of April:

PRESIDENT BUSH is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of April and the US Air Force's new bases in Bulgaria and Romania would be used as back-up in the onslaught, according to an official report from Sofia.

"American forces could be using their two USAF bases in Bulgaria and one at Romania's Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran in April," the Bulgarian news agency Novinite said.

The American build-up along the BlackSea, coupled with the recent positioning of two US aircraft carrier battle groups off the Straits of Hormuz, appears to indicate president Bush has run out of patience with Tehran's nuclear misrepresentation and non-compliance with the UN Security Council's resolution. President Ahmeninejad of Iran has further ratcheted up tension in the region by putting on show his newly purchased state of the art Russian TOR-Ml anti-missile defence system.

Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic event is hard to gauge at this stage. But, in conjunction with the beefing up of America's Italian bases and the acquisition of anti-missile defence bases in the Czech Republic and Poland,the Balkan developments seem toindicate a newphase in Bush's global war on terror.

Sofia's news of advanced war preparations along the BlackSea is backed up by some chilling details. One is the setting up of new refuelling places for US Stealth bombers, which would spearhead an attack on Iran. "The USAF's positioning of vital refuelling facilities for its B-2 bombers in unusual places, including Bulgaria, falls within the perspective of such an attack." Novinite named colonel Sam Gardiner, "a US secret service officer stationed in Bulgaria", as the source of this revelation.

Curiously,the report noted that although Tony Blair, Bush's main ally in the global war on terror, would be leaving office, the president had opted to press on with his attack on Iran in April.

Before the end of March,3000 US military personnel are scheduled to arrive "on a rotating basis" at America's Bulgarian bases. Under the US-Bulgarian military co-operation accord, signed in April,2006,anairbaseatBezmer, a second airfield at Graf Ignitievo and a shooting range at Novo Selo were leased to America. Significantly,lastyear's bases negotiations had at one point run into difficulties due to Sofia's demand "for advance warning if Washington intends to use Bulgarian soil for attacks against other nations, particularly Iran".

Romania, the other Black Sea host to the US military, is enjoying a dollar bonanza as its Mihail Kogalniceanu base at Constanta is being transformed into an American "place d'arme". It is also vital to the Iran scenario.

Last week,the Bucharest daily Evenimentual Zilei revealed the USAF is to site several flights of F-l5, F-l6 and Al0 aircraft at the Kogalniceanu base. Admiral Gheorghe Marin, Romania's chief of staff, confirmed "up to 2000 American military personnelwillbe temporarily stationed in Romania".

In Central Europe, theCzech Republic and Poland have also found themselves in the Pentagon's strategic focus. Last week, Mirek Topolanek, the Czech prime minister, and the country's national security council agreed to the siting of a US anti-missile radar defence system at Nepolisy. Poland has also agreed to having a US anti-missile missilebase and interceptor aircraft stationed in the country.

Russia, however, does not see the chain of new US bases on its doorstep as a "defensive ring". Russia's defence chief has branded the planned US anti-missile missile sites on Czech and Polish soil as "an open threat to Russia".

If this report is true, then it's time for Congress to step up to the plate and once and for all yank funding from any of this president's war efforts, because he is a certified madman the likes of which we haven't seen since Nikita Krushchev banged on the table at the UN and said "We will bury you." Are they so craven about their political futures that they're willing to risk global thermonuclear war? Do they realize that if we have global thermonuclear war, there will be no political future about which to be worried?

Just in case you're thinking you might vote for Chuck Hagel over, say, Hillary Clinton

Because I've been thinking I might quite possibly do that.

But here are some things you need to know about Chuck Hagel's record before deciding:

Chuck Hagel on Abortion

• Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
  
• Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
  
• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
  
• Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
  
• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
  
• Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
  
• Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
  

I don't have a problem with banning human cloning, but the rest of it is troublesome.

Chuck Hagel on Civil Rights

• Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
  
• Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
  
• Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
  
• Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
  
• Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
  
• Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
  
• Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
  
• Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
  

This is not a great record.

Chuck Hagel on Corporations

• Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
  
• Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
  
• Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
  
• Rated 87% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
  

It isn't just pro-business, it's anti-worker and anti-consumer. Hagel is clearly in the pocket of the corporations.

Chuck Hagel on Education

• Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
  
• Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
  
• Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
  
• Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
  
• Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
  
• Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)
  
• Voted YES on Educational Savings Accounts. (Mar 2000)
  
• Voted YES on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999)
  
• Voted YES on education savings accounts. (Jun 1998)
  
• Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
  
• Rated 36% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (Dec 2003)
  

Again -- not great. It sounds like he's not interested in funding public education at the federal level.

Chuck Hagel on Energy & Oil/Environment

• Voted NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's AMWR. (Nov 2005)
  
• Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
  
• Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
  
• Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
  
• Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
  
• Voted NO on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
  
• Voted NO on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
  
• Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
  
• Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
  
• Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
  
• Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
  
• Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
  
• Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
  
• Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
  
• Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
  
• Voted YES on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
  
• Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
  
• Voted NO on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
  
• Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
  

This is a TERRIBLE record on issues related to global warming and the environment, as well as indicating a very friendly-to-the-energy-industry pattern -- something that we don't know if it has changed as a result of his growing opposition to the Iraq war.

Chuck Hagel on Government Reform

• Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
  
• Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
  
• Voted NO on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
  
• Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
  
• Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
  
• Voted NO on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
  
• Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
  

Again -- awful on government-for-sale and government corruption issues. Let us also not forget Hagel's connection to ES&S -- the manufacturer of the voting machines used in Nebraska in both elections he won:

Chuck Hagel first ran for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska in 1996. Electronic voting machines owned by Election Systems & Software (ES&S) reported that he had won both the primaries and the general election in unprecedented victories. His 1996 victory was considered one of the biggest upsets of that election. He was the first Republican to win a Nebraska senatorial campaign in 24 years and won virtually every demographic group, including many largely black communities that had never before voted Republican.

Six years later Hagel ran again against Democrat Charlie Matulka in 2002, and won in a landslide. He was re-elected to his second term with 83% of the vote: the biggest political victory in the history of Nebraska. Again, the votes were counted by ES&S, now the largest voting machine company in America.

While these victories could be dismissed simply as a Republican upset, a January 2003 article in the independent Washington paper The Hill revealed interesting details about Hagel's business investments and casts a different light on his election successes. Chuck Hagel was CEO of ES&S (then AIS) until 1995 and he is still a major stockholder of the parent company of ES&S, McCarthy & Company. Hagel resigned as CEO of ES&S to run for the Senate and resigned as president of the parent company McCarthy & Company following his election (where he remains a major investor).

Today, the McCarthy Group is run by Michael McCarthy, who happens to be Chuck Hagel's treasurer. Hagel's financials still list the McCarthy Group as an asset, with his investment valued at $1-$5 million. Campaign finance reports show that Michael McCarthy also served as treasurer for Hagel until December of 2002.

But there's more:

Chuck Hagel on Health Care

• Voted YES on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
  
• Voted NO on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
  
• Voted NO on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
  
• Voted NO on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
  
• Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
  
• Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
  
• Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
  
• Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
  
• Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
  
• Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
  
• Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
  
• Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
  
• Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage. (Apr 2001)
  
• Rated 12% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
  

More here.

As appealing as Chuck Hagel is looking right now because of his principled stand against escalating the Iraq war, let's not forget, before we fall in love, that this is a very right-wing guy on everything else. I'm not saying don't consider voting for him, just know what you're getting when you do.

I guess dynasties too are OK if you're a Republican

Funny how the conservatives scream "No more dynasties!" when it comes to a Hillary Clinton presidency, but already they've forgotten what a botch job the Crawford Caligula has made of this country -- and they're cheering his brother as the new Bush standard bearer:

At a time when the conservative movement is looking bereft, humbled by midterm-election defeats and hungering for a presidential candidate to rally around, Jeb Bush delivered yesterday in Washington a resounding endorsement of conservative principles, bringing his audience repeatedly to its feet.

In his lunchtime remarks to the Conservative Summit, Bush struck every conservative chord, blaming Republicans' defeat in November on the party's abandonment of tenets including limited government and fiscal restraint.

"Don't take offense personally if I get mad at Congress," the Republican former Florida governor began. "It's important for us to realize we lost, and there are significant reasons that happened, but it isn't because conservatives were rejected. But it's because we rejected the conservative philosophy in this country."

He added, "If the promise of pork and more programs is the way Republicans think they'll regain the majority, then they've got a problem."

Bush's speech prompted three standing ovations from the audience of hundreds at the National Review Institute's conference at the JW Marriott Hotel, reflecting the widespread concern among conservatives that exorbitant government spending led to the loss of majorities in the House and Senate and concern about whether Republicans would again embrace the traditional principles.

To Ed Gillespie, a prominent lobbyist and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, Bush's two terms in Tallahassee -- where he developed a reputation as a tax-cutter and staunch spending hawk -- exemplified conservative politics at its best, and what makes for a compelling presidential candidate.

"For those who are worried if you can put forward a vigorous conservative policy agenda in a state like Florida and still get elected and still be popular: Our keynote speaker left office with approval ratings above 60 percent," Gillespie said.

"If he were former two-term governor Jeb Smith, he might be in Des Moines today," Gillespie said, alluding to presidential hopefuls' campaigning.

Bush says he will not run for president in 2008, however, and conservatives continue to look for a candidate to excite their interest.

"So far there's definitely a lukewarm feeling about the field, but it's still early, and conservatives want to see how these guys run. And it's still possible that one or the other of the candidates will really inspire conservatives," said Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review.

Sounds like the folks at National Review really, really, really want Jebbie to run in 2008 -- as if we hadn't had enough of the Bush family.

The king is dead. Long live the king.

Blog post of the year

And January isn't even over yet. But the award goes to The Poor Man, for the 2006 Kippie Awards for Wingnuttery.

And more soldiers are going to address this -- how?

It Has Unraveled So Quickly

A PAINFUL measure of just how much Iraq has changed in the four years since I started coming here is contained in my cellphone. Many numbers in the address book are for Iraqis who have either fled the country or been killed. One of the first Sunni politicians: gunned down. A Shiite baker: missing. A Sunni family: moved to Syria.

I first came to Iraq in April 2003, at the end of the looting several weeks after the American invasion. In all, I have spent 22 months here, time enough for the place, its people and their ever-evolving tragedy to fix itself firmly in my heart.

Now, as I am leaving Iraq, a new American plan is unfolding in the capital. It feels as if we have come back to the beginning. Boots are on the ground again. Boxy Humvees move in the streets. Baghdad fell in 2003 and we are still trying to pick it back up. But Iraq is a different country now.

The moderates are mostly gone. My phone includes at least a dozen entries for middle-class families who have given up and moved away. They were supposed to build democracy here. Instead they work odd jobs in Syria and Jordan. Even the moderate political leaders have left. I have three numbers for Adnan Pachachi, the distinguished Iraqi statesman; none have Iraqi country codes.

Neighborhoods I used to visit a year ago with my armed guards and my black abaya are off limits. Most were Sunni and had been merely dangerous. Now they are dead. A neighborhood that used to be Baghdad’s Upper East Side has the dilapidated, broken feel of a city just hit by a hurricane.

The Iraqi government and the political process, which seemed to have great promise a year ago, have soured. Deeply damaged from years of abuse under Saddam Hussein, the Shiites who run the government have themselves turned into abusers.
Never having covered a civil war before, I learned about it together with my Iraqi friends. It is a bit like watching a slow-motion train wreck. Broken bodies fly past. Faces freeze in one’s memory in the moments before impact. Passengers grab handles and doorframes that simply tear off or uselessly collapse.

I learned how much violence changes people, and how trust is chipped away, leaving society a thin layer of moth-eaten fabric that tears easily. It has unraveled so quickly. A year ago, my interviews were peppered with phrases like “Iraqis are all brothers.” The subjects would get angry when you asked their sect. Now some of them introduce themselves that way.

Before deciding to resolve his Oedipal issues by invading Iraq, George W. Bush had no idea what the difference between Shia and Sunni were. When he lumped them together in his State of the Union address last week, he showed that he still doesn't. He can throw all the soldiers he wants at this, it will never, ever resolve the underlying problem.

Before the 2000 election, there was a parody cover by Bruce McCall of John F. Kennedy Jr.'s magazine George. Instead of it being a political/culture magazine, this cover represented a magazine by and about George W. Bush. The headline at the top, directly above the title, was "Iran, Iraq -- would you guys make up your mind already?"

McCall couldn't have known how prescient he was.

Thanh Binh, Cabramatta

The shopkeepers are rolling down their shutters as dusk settles in Cabramatta, but the Thanh Binh still has plenty of patrons.Thanh Binh has a popular sister restaurant in inner west Newtown, but I'd always prefer to patronage the sibling that is further out in the suburbs. Here there are Vietnamese menus under glass-topped tables, hand-written specials on the wall, a peek into the kitchen at the

What John said.

I'm watching some idiot on C-Span
by John in DC - 1/27/2007 12:04:00 PM


Joe and I are heading down to the peace rally in an hour, to take photos, etc. And I'm watching it on C-Span right now, and I'm asking myself - though I'm not surprised - why is some woman from the "US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation" speaking? And why is she speaking, ad naseum, about the "Israeli occupation of Palestine" rather than speaking about the war in Iraq? She gave 10% of her speech to Iraq and spent the rest of the time railing against Israel?

First off, wrong topic.

Second off, way to alienate most Jews in America, a rather influential group of people we could use as allies.

Third off, way to alienate the rest of us who don't hate Israel, don't hate the Palestinians, and don't feel that the problem over there will be solved by simply blaming everyting on Israel - there's more than enough blame to go around. And in any case, this rally has nothing to do with Israel leaving Palestine, so STFU and stay on topic.

I'm sorry, but as many of you know, I tend to have issues with "peace rallies," not because I have issues with peace or rallies, but because I find myself cringing when I see the substance of them, who's attending, the issues they feel compelled to bring up (Mumia, Israel, trans fats, the suffering of amoeba, whatever). Would it kill someone organizing these events to tell the speakers to speak about Iraq or don't speak at all? Would it kill people to try to present their message in a way that appeals to the majority of Americans?

Oh, and it's not just the peace folks. Big gay rallies have similar issues with invited speakers and folks holding ridiculously offensive signs that, while funny (obscenely funny), are hardly appropriate for a public rally in which you're trying to affect public opinion. The 93 March on Washington, boy did I get an earful from family and friends (and even my doctor) about the coverage on C-Span. The entire country watched women flashing their boobs at cameras, like it was girls gone wild, rather than one of the most massive civil rights rallies in American history. Think, people, think. (Though, I fully admit and acknowledge that you can't control everyone, so some idiot is always going to pull something stupid that the cameras will pick up. Having said that, you do have control over your own speakers on the stage.)

Mr. Brilliant and I had considered going to DC today for the rally, but between the cold weather and a nagging sense that this was going to be yet another one of those rallies in which a good and valid cause got lost in an assortment of interest group grudges and pet causes, we decided against going. And I'm not sorry. This morning I tuned into C-Span just in time to hear some woman railing against "the Israeli occupation of Palestine" -- probably the same one to whom John is referring -- and promptly turned it off. I'm also pretty certain that there were a few "Free Mumia!" signs in the crowd, as there always are at these events.

And this, my progressive friends, is why, when I hear of a march organized by United for Peace and Justice, I know that despite their best intentions, what I call the "A.N.S.W.E.R. left" is going to be front and center. And this is why I want no part of them.

This rally was supposed to be a massive show of support by the American people to ending the war in Iraq. Period. Why must every mass public protest turn into a gumbo of grievances? No wonder leaders in Washington don't take us seriously, and no wonder it's so difficult to get Americans outside the progressive activist circles to attend these rallies.

If the purpose of today's rally is to end the war in Iraq, then let's stay on message. And if we can't stay on message, then let's not have rallies. But if giving huge amounts of face time to people with laundry lists of tired causes turns ME off, how do they expect to reach the people in the flyover states?

Prayers (or something similar) for Molly Ivins

It's so much easier to be religious. Then you can say things like "Please say some prayers" for Molly Ivins, who has been battling breast cancer and was hospitalized this week.

Ivins is a national treasure. We need her voice. So whatever you believe your influence with the infinite to be, I hope you'll join me in sending good wishes her way.

They also received dead fishes in the Capitol Hill interoffice mail

You Never, Ever, Ever, Ever Disrespct Da Family:

A top GOP staffer says more than 70 senators would oppose the surge if their vote matched their comments in private meetings. "The White House is trying to but they really don't know how to handle this," said a senior GOP aide involved in the talks.

White House officials are pleading with GOP senators to oppose any congressional resolution that specifically condemns Bush's effort to escalate the war effort in coming months, congressional sources said Friday morning. In private conversations, the officials are telling senators that the resolution would demoralize U.S. troops and hurt the GOP politically for years to come.

Bush allies are arguing that Republicans will damage their individual political interests as well. Their logic is that there is no anti-war constituency inside the Republican Party, pointing specifically to Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a potential presidential candidate who has opposed the surge but not gained much traction with party activists. "That's a flat argument," the senior aide said. "That does not work."

Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy and confident in our democracy that politicians are willing to sacrifice another few thousand American kids for the sake of their political careers?

And the World's Oldest Living WATB is....

George Herbert Walker Bush, who has his panties in a twist because:

"It's one thing to have an adversarial ... relationship -- hard-hitting journalism -- it's another when the journalists' rhetoric goes beyond skepticism and goes over the line into overt, unrelenting hostility and personal animosity," former President George Bush said.

The elder Bush, the 41st U.S. president, had a relatively collegial relationship with the press but things turned sour during his losing 1992 re-election campaign. He got so fed up with media coverage that supporters at the time circulated hats with the slogan "Annoy the Media -- Re-Elect Bush."

"I won't get too personal here -- but this antipathy got worse after the 43rd president took office," the former president said. He was speaking at a reception for a journalism scholarship awarded in honor of the late Hugh Sidey, White House correspondent for Time magazine.

"And so bad in fact that I found myself doing what I never should have done -- I talk back to the television set. And I said things that my mother wouldn't necessarily approve of," Bush's father said, according to a transcript of his remarks.

Excuse me, but on what fucking planet did things get worse after the 43rd president took office? Certainly not this one. Was the old man asleep during the Clinton years, when it was Whitewater Whitewater Whitewater Whitewater Paula Jones Paula Jones Paula Jones Lewinsky Lewinsky Lewinsky all the time, 24 x 7? Was he asleep when the New York Times was the first media outlet out of the gate to hammer to death a 25-year-old land deal in which the Clintons lost money?

The first few months of the Crawford Caligula's term were actually quite ho-hum in terms of the press, as I recall, with the press heaving a collective sigh of relief that they were no longer going to have to utter the word "semen" in print or on the air. I don't recall much of an outcry in the press for any of these events occurring from the day Bush was inaugurated up until the 9/11/01 attacks:

January 2001
20 - On the day of George W. Bush’s inauguration, Chief of Staff Andrew Card issues a sixty-day moratorium halting all new health, safety, and environmental regulations issued in the final days of the Clinton administration.

23 - On the twenty-eighth anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, Bush reinstates the “global gag rule” barring U.S. funding for abortion counseling abroad.
February 2001

5 - Bush suspends Clinton’s “roadless rule” protecting nearly sixty million acres of forests from logging and road-building.

17 - Bush signs four anti-union executive orders, including measures to prohibit “project labor agreements” at federal construction sites and to remove job protections for union employees whose companies lose federal contracts.


March 2001

7 - At the urging of President Bush, Congress repeals ergonomic regulations designed to protect workers from repetitive-stress injuries.

9 - Bush issues an executive order to prevent mechanics at Northwest Airlines from going on strike.

14 - Bush abandons his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

20 - Bush administration moves to overturn a Clinton regulation reducing the allowable level of arsenic in drinking water.

28 - Bush backs out of Kyoto treaty on global warming.

April 2001

4 - United States Department of Agriculture proposes lifting a requirement that all beef used in federal school lunch programs must be tested for salmonella; the proposal is dropped two days later.

9 - Department of Interior proposes a limit on lawsuits seeking protection of endangered species.

May 2001

11 - Bush administration abandons international effort to crack down on offshore tax havens.

16 - Vice President Dick Cheney’s task force releases its “National Energy Policy” report, calling for weaker environmental regulations and massive subsidies for the oil and gas, coal, and nuclear power industries.

26 - Congress passes $1.35 trillion tax cut.

29 - Bush meets with California governor Gray Davis but refuses to impose federal price controls to curtail California’s energy crisis.


June 2001

19 - Cheney refuses to release records of energy task force meetings to the General Accounting Office.

21 - Bush threatens to veto McCain-Kennedy patients’ bill of rights legislation.

28 - Attorney General John Ashcroft announces a policy that would require gun records be destroyed one day after a background check rather than ninety days later.


July 2001

9 - Bush administration opposes UN treaty to curb international trafficking in small arms and light weapons.

26 - Bush administration rejects international treaty on germ warfare and biological weapons.

August 2001
9 - Bush limits stem cell research to “existing lines.”

September 2001

6 - Justice Department drops effort to break up Microsoft, hoping to speed settlement of antitrust lawsuit.

It wasn't the press that was hostile in those days, it was the American people, who after a close and divisive and dubious election outcome to a campaign in which the scion of this family with delusions of being American royalty painted himself as a "compassionate conservative, who were shocked and appalled at how the new president was governing from as hard a right wing as was possible. By the time of the 9/11 attacks, Bush's approval ratings were hovering in the 47-50% range. The day before the 9/11 attacks, Newsweek hit the stands with a blistering cover story of the Republican thuggery surrounding the Florida recounts, and many people wondered if this presidency was already damaged beyond repair.

George Herbert Walker Whiny-Ass Titty Baby has obviously forgotten how Judith Miller shilled for Bush's war in the absence of facts. He's forgotten Fox News. And he sure as hell has forgotten Chris Matthews' man-love of his son:

• Chris ♥ George, Part 1: Bush sometimes "glimmers" with "sunny nobility." On MSNBC's Hardball, during a discussion with Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley of the effects on President Bush and his administration of the investigation into the leak of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame, Matthews said "[S]ometimes it glimmers with this man, our president, that kind of sunny nobility." [Hardball, 10/24/05]



• Chris ♥ George, Part 2: "Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs ..." Insulting the majority of Americans who hold an unfavorable opinion of President Bush, Matthews exclaimed on Hardball: "Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left," adding, "I mean, like him personally." [Hardball, 11/28/05]



• Chris ♥ George, Part 3: Matthews praised Bush speech as "brilliant" even before it was delivered. Before Bush had even delivered his November 30 speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, Matthews used variations of the word "brilliant" twice to describe it, while deriding Democratic critics of the Iraq war as "carpers and complainers." [MSNBC live coverage, 11/30/05]



• Chris ♥ George, Part 4: Bush "belongs on Mount Rushmore." Recounting his experience at a White House party, Matthews said that he "felt sensitive" during his interactions with the president, adding: "You get your picture taken with him. It's like Santa Claus, and he's always very generous and friendly." He continued: "I felt like I was too towel-snappy with him," explaining that Bush had noted his "red scarf" and remarked that he looked "preppy." During the same show, Matthews stated: "If [Bush's] gamble that he can create a democracy in the middle of the Arab world" is successful, "he belongs on Mount Rushmore." [Hardball, 12/16/05]

The old man CERTAINLY has forgotten this example of verbal fellatio, again on the part of Chris Matthews, with Katty Kay, Fareed Zakaria, and Paul Gigot rounding out this orgiastic gathering, on May 3, 2003:

MATTHEWS: Let's go to this sub--what happened to this week, which was to me was astounding as a student of politics, like all of us. Lights, camera, action. This week the president landed the best photo of in a very long time. Other great visuals: Ronald Reagan at the D-Day cemetery in Normandy, Bill Clinton on horseback in Wyoming. Nothing compared to this, I've got to say.

Katty, for visual, the president of the United States arriving in an F-18, looking like he flew it in himself. The GIs, the women on--onboard that ship loved this guy.

Ms. KAY: He looked great. Look, I'm not a Bush man. I mean, he doesn't do it for me personally, especially not when he's in a suit, but he arrived there...

MATTHEWS: No one would call you a Bush man, by the way.

Ms. KAY: ...he arrived there in his flight suit, in a jumpsuit. He should wear that all the time. Why doesn't he do all his campaign speeches in that jumpsuit? He just looks so great.

MATTHEWS: I want him to wa--I want to see him debate somebody like John Kerry or Lieberman or somebody wearing that jumpsuit.

Mr. DOBBS: Well, it was just--I can't think of any, any stunt by the White House--and I'll call it a stunt--that has come close. I mean, this is not only a home run; the ball is still flying out beyond the park.

MATTHEWS: Well, you know what, it was like throwing that strike in Yankee Stadium a while back after 9/11. It's not a stunt if it works and it's real. And I felt the faces of those guys--I thought most of our guys were looking up like they were looking at Bob Hope and John Wayne combined on that ship.

Mr. GIGOT: The reason it works is because of--the reason it works is because Bush looks authentic and he felt that he--you could feel the connection with the troops. He looked like he was sincere. People trust him. That's what he has going for him.

MATTHEWS: Fareed, you're watching that from--say you were over in the Middle East watching the president of the United States on this humongous aircraft carrier. It looks like it could take down Syria just one boat, right, and the president of the United States is pointing a finger and saying, `You people with the weapons of mass destruction, you people backing terrorism, look out. We're coming.' Do you think that picture mattered over there?

Mr. ZAKARIA: Oh yeah. Look, this is a part of the war where we have not--we've allowed a lot of states to do some very nasty stuff, traffic with nasty people and nasty material, and I think it's time to tell them, you know what, `You're going to be help accountable for this.'

MATTHEWS: Well, it was a powerful statement and picture as well.

If you wonder how George W. Bush became the spoiled brat that we see today, a man who takes direction from no one, a narcissistic sociopath who believes himself to be the center of the universe, a man who has no concept whatsoever that actions have consequences, all you need do is look at how his father goes whining and complaining every time the media does its fucking job instead of genuflecting before him. The Bush family truly believes itself to be somehow special, to be above the rabble, to be the Royal family of America. And it is about Goddamn time we started to disavow them of that notion. Let's just keep this in mind when they try to regain the kingdom by putting Jebbie up for the presidency, or George P. the Girlfriend Stalker, or any of the other Spawn of Satan who carry this particular bloodline.

Movies in the Overflow

Summer in Sydney is too good to spend indoors.That's why I love the Sydney Festival, especially the outdoor events, many of which are free. Yay. I love that word.I didn't get to some of the favourite events this year: things like Symphony in the Domain and Jazz in the Domain, but I did get to Movies in the Overflow, free outdoor movie sessions at Sydney Olympic Park.Place an Australian outdoors

"They told us they would bring democracy...They brought us nothing but death and killing...they brought mass destruction to Baghdad"

Lara Logan is the kind of television journalist you rarely see anymore. Attractive young talking heads are a dime a dozen, but an attractive young talking head with a brain, the courage to report from an active war zone, and a commitment to delivering the truth is almost unheard of.

Logan has created a segment called "The Battle for Haifa Street" for CBS News, which the network has refused to run on their nightly Cupcake News with Katie "Cupcake" Couric, because "the Executive Producer of the Evening News thought some of the images in it were a bit strong­ plus on that day the program was already packed with other Iraq news."

Media Channel has background on this cowardice and craven sucking up to the Bush Administration on the part of the News Division that Edward R. Murrow Built, including the reprinted text of an e-mail that Lara Logan sent to colleagues at CBS News, an e-mail which I am re-reprinting here (emphases mine):

From: lara logan
Subject: help

The story below only appeared on our CBS website and was not aired on CBS. It is a story that is largely being ignored, even though this is taking place every single day in central Baghdad, two blocks from where our office is located.

Our crew had to be pulled out because we got a call saying they were about to be killed, and on their way out, a civilian man was shot dead in front of them as they ran.

I would be very grateful if any of you have a chance to watch this story and pass the link on to as many people you know as possible. It should be seen. And people should know about this.

If anyone has time to send a comment to CBS – about the story – not about my request, then that would help highlight that people are interested and this is not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore.

Many, many thanks.

It's important that Sean McManus, the head of CBS News, be told that we are aware of this story and that we believe it should be seen, especially as the Crawford Caligula gets ready to do even more damage by escalating our presence in this civil ware solely because he is by nature unable and unwilling to admit failure. Americans have not just a RIGHT, but an OBLIGATION to know what is being done in our name. The Vietnam War ended because Americans saw on the evening news what was happening in a war without point, a war without strategy, a war seemingly without end, and we demanded accountability and action from our government to end it. McManus may feel that he is doing a public service by propping up George W. Bush's war effort. He may feel he is serving his stockholders by caving in and sucking up to the right wing media echo chamber. But he does not seem to realize that the right-wing echo chamber will be satisfied with nothing less than the kind of paeans to the Glory and the Power that is George W. Bush that run on Fox News. If he wants to join them, then let him just go ahead and do it. But if he wants to run a news division that Murrow would have been proud of, he should run this piece.

Watch the video here.

"Action" Jackson update

For those of you were captivated by the incredible journey of "Action" Jackson Jones, #20 on our Brilliant 20 of 2006 list, his proud papa has an update here on another milestone passed by the Little Kid that Could.

Read this and then ask a Republican how Bush's plan can possibly work

With this kind of sectarian division, how can anyone actually believe that sending 20,000 more soldiers door-to-door armed with semiautomatic weapons is going to result in a peaceful, harmonious, democratic Iraq?

Iraq’s Shiite prime minister and Sunni lawmakers hurled insults at one another during a raucous session of Parliament on Thursday, with the prime minister threatening a Sunni lawmaker with arrest and the Sunni speaker of Parliament threatening to quit.

The uproar revolved around the new Baghdad security plan, but it came as the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, is under increasing pressure to demonstrate evenhandedness. President Bush’s new strategy for Iraq hinges in large measure on the Iraqi government’s ability to rein in both Shiite and Sunni militants.

In Parliament on Thursday, Mr. Maliki focused his anger on Sunni lawmakers, accusing one of being involved in sectarian kidnappings. The confrontation erupted after Mr. Maliki described the outlines of the new Baghdad security plan and pledged there would be no “safe haven” for militants.

The leader of a powerful Sunni bloc, Abdul Nasir al-Janabi, provoked Mr. Maliki, saying over jeers from Shiite politicians, “We cannot trust the office of the prime minister.”

His microphone was quickly shut off, and Mr. Maliki lashed into him, essentially accusing him of being one of the outlaws he had just said would not be granted sanctuary.

“I will show you,” Mr. Maliki said, waving his finger in the air. “I will turn over the documents we have,” implying that the legislator was guilty of crimes.

While the politicians battled in Parliament, the sectarian battle on the streets went on unabated, with 25 people killed by a suicide car bomb in a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad.

Heh. Shutting off the microphone. Just like this guy:

(Skip forward to about 4 minutes into this video if you like, but be sure to watch to the very end.)

It looks like this Republican administration in the U.S. really did create "democracy" in their own image in Iraq after all.

"When does the greed stop?"

Ted Kennedy, yesterday, in response to Republicans filibustering legislation to raise the nimimum wage:

We have now had amendments that have been worth over 200 billion dollars… Amendments that have been offered. We've had amendments on education of 35 billion dollars. We've had health-savings amendments that will benefit people with average incomes of $112,000… We've had those kinds of amendments and we're looking at the Kyl amendment at 3 billion dollars. But we still cannot get two dollars and fifteen cents -- over two years. Over two years!

What is the price, we ask the other side? What is the price that you want from these working men and women? What cost? How much more do we have to give to the private sector and to business? How many billion dollars more, are you asking, are you requiring?

When does the greed stop, we ask the other side? That's the question and that's the issue.

...

Do you have such disdain for hard-working Americans that you want to pile all your amendments on this? Why don’t you just hold your amendments until other pieces of legislation? Why this volume of amendments on just the issue to try and raise the minimum wage? What is it about it that drives you Republicans crazy? What is it? Something. Something! What is the price that the workers have to pay to get an increase? What is it about working men and women that you find so offensive?

See it for yourself:

However you feel about Ted Kennedy -- he's a drunk, he got away with murder, he's laughable, he gets Barack Obama's name wrong, he's a dinosaur -- you have to admit that he's onto something here. When it comes to legislation to shovel more cash into the pockets of those who already have more money than they can spend in a lifetime, Republicans are there at the ready. When it comes to more tax breaks for corporations that have already shown that instead of sharing the wealth with workers, they give more compensation to their most senior executives, Republicans are there at the ready. When it comes to enriching the haves and the have-mores, Republicans work with lightning speed. But when it comes to raising the minimum wage, which has remained the same for over ten years, they won't budge.

"But raising the minimum wage benefits mostly teenagers," the opponents say. "These aren't 'hard working men and women raising families."

It's true that half of minimum wage workers are under 25 and that a quarter of them are aged 15-19. It's also true that the largest proportion of minimum wage workers is in the very southern states that not only constitute the majority of the Republican base. It's also true that in 2000, 42% of military recruits came from the south. Are southern youth more "patriotic" than their northern peers? Or is it simply a function of economics? Is it that there are so few opportunities outside the retail and service trades in the south that for low-income kids unable to afford college, the military is the only opportunity these young people have to perhaps do something with their lives -- if they still have them after their inevitable tours of duty in Iraq -- other than make beds in a hotel or run a cash register at Wal-Mart?

Talking about the mythical archetypal teenager who doesn't need a minimum wage hike because all he does is buy athletic shoes and video games and iPODs is like Ronald Reagan's invocation of the welfare queen in the Cadillac -- elevating the exception to the rule into the rule itself, all in the service of thwarting legislation that might actually benefit someone other than the wealthiest people in our society.

I don't know about where you live, but where I live, if you go to a supermarket or a fast food restaurant, most of the workers you see are clearly Latino, most of them are female, and most of them are young. Their husbands are the guys who work for the landscapers and the roofers and the building contractors. Now THESE are the people who offend the Republicans so much, then let the Republicans be honest enough to admit it -- and go after them in the form of immigration legislation, NOT by filibustering the minimum wage. But don't tack on a bunch of amendments to this relatively modest attempt at raising living standards as if the corporations and wealthiest individuals hadn't received enough government largesse over the past six years.

How much of John Kerry's decision not to run in 2008 was because of this?

The conventional wisdom is that John Kerry decided not to run for the presidency in 2008 after watching what a REAL "manly veteran" looks like in the person of Jim Webb on Tuesday night.

I don't think Kerry is that insightful, quite frankly. I think perhaps it might be related to this:

2 election workers convicted of rigging '04 presidential recount

Two election workers in the state's most populous county were convicted Wednesday of illegally rigging the 2004 presidential election recount so they could avoid a more thorough review of the votes.

A third employee who had been charged was acquitted on all counts.

Jacqueline Maiden, the elections' coordinator who was the board's third-highest ranking employee when she was indicted last March, and ballot manager Kathleen Dreamer each were convicted of a felony count of negligent misconduct of an elections employee.

Maiden and Dreamer also were convicted of one misdemeanor count each of failure of elections employees to perform their duty. Both were acquitted of five other charges.

Rosie Grier, assistant manager of the Cuyahoga County Elections Board's ballot department, was acquitted of all seven counts of various election misconduct or interference charges.

The felony conviction carries a possible sentence of six to 18 months.

There was a gasp in the courtroom gallery, which included some relatives and friends of the defendants, when a "not guilty" verdict was announced on the first charge. The courtroom went silent when a "guilty" verdict was returned.

The defendants sat near each other silently as the 21 verdicts were read.

Ohio gave Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry in the close election and hold on to the White House in 2004.

Special prosecutor Kevin Baxter, who was brought in from Erie County to handle the case, did not claim the workers' actions affected the outcome of the election — Kerry gained 17 votes and Bush lost six in the county's recount.

But Baxter insisted the employees broke the law when they worked behind closed doors three days before the public Dec. 16, 2004, recount to pick ballots they knew would not cause discrepancies when checked by hand so they could avoid a lengthier, more expensive hand recount of all votes.

Ohio law states that during a recount each county is supposed to randomly count at least 3 percent of its ballots by hand and by machine. If there are not discrepancies in those counts, the rest of the votes can be recounted by machine. A full hand-count is ordered if two random samples result in differences.

In this particular case, the prosecutor was not trying to prove that the employees' actions affected the outcome of the election, but if you read those last two paragraphs, it's clear that by cherry-picking the precincts to select ONLY those for which discrepancies were not going to exist, it calls the entire election in Ohio, the state that gave the 2004 election to George Bush, into question. Again. Just like 2000. Same shenanigans, different state.

As Brad Friedman notes:

By way of reminder, the recount --- the one that was rigged by Ohio Elections Officials --- came by way of the Green and Libertarian Party candidates, not by way of the Democrats or John Kerry. As well, the money to pay for the gamed recount was raised by folks on the Internet, not paid for out of the $15 million or so that Kerry reportedly had left in his campaign war chest after the "Election" in Ohio.

All of that, despite Kerry's continued and then broken promise to "Count Every Vote" in 2004.

These convictions occurred in Cuyahoga County, a Democratic stronghold of some 600,000 voters. Kerry "lost" the state of Ohio, according to the history books anyway, by just 118,000 out of some 5.5 million votes cast in the Buckeye State.

In 2000, we weren't fully aware of the degree to which an election could be stolen. By 2004, it was clear that the Bush junta would do whatever was necessary to prevail. Ohio's election procedures in 2004 were reprehensible; from Cuyahoga County's cherry-picking of ballots to recount to Warren County officials lying about an FBI warning of a terrorist threat against the county's election building where the votes were being counted (a claim the FBI itself has debunked), to Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell's blatant partisanship, the Ohio election results were highly suspect as early as election night. Al Gore wasn't aware of the extent of the problem in 2000. By 2004, John Kerry should have been. And his refusal to fight for every vote, instead taking his $14 million in leftover campaign cahs and going home even as his running mate was still vowing to continue fighting, disqualifies him from ever being given consideration as a presidential nominee again. I'm just glad he realized it before we were subject to further campaign ineptitude from the former warrior who refused to fight when it counted.

(h/t: OpEd news)

The Spocko/KSFO battle hits the MSM

...and miracle of miracles, USA Today not only gets the facts straight, but doesn't immediately dismiss the blogosphere as a bunch of drooling lunatics (unlike the very right-wing talk radio hosts Spocko is battling).

The First Amendment flap was debated Sunday on CNN's Reliable Sources. Dan Riehl, a blogger critical of Spocko, said some of the radio hosts' comments "were blown out of proportion or misrepresented" in the complaints to sponsors. Mike Stark, another blogger and a Spocko ally, said: "The way to fight free speech that you disagree with is to engage in more free speech. And that's exactly what Spocko did."

Examples of commentary that riles the bloggers:

•In November, morning co-host Melanie Morgan said of then-incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco Democrat: "We've got a bull's-eye painted on her big, wide, laughing eyes."

•Evening host Brian Sussman in December referred to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who has a Kenyan father and a white American mother, as a "halfrican." In October 2005, Sussman asked a caller to prove he wasn't a Muslim by saying "Allah is a whore."

•In October, host Lee Rodgers warned "enemy" Muslim nations: "You keep screwing around with stuff like this, we're going to kill a bunch of you — millions of you."

Spocko is battling people that represent the most lunatic of the lunatic fringe of the right; people who blithely advocate murder and genocide to score cheap political points. The problem is that the less-lunatic fringe ("less lunatic" defined as being given credibility on mainstream television programs) is only marginally less toxic.

When Ann Coulter says that "Basically, um, it is like California with Baghdad as LA with Hispanics, white and blacks. “You have the Crips and the Bloods in Baghdad. That’s where all the fighting is", she's not advocating killings -- this time. But advocating extermination is not unknown to the Coulter oeuvre, given her infamous comments in the past about killing leaders in Muslim countries and converting them to Christianity; and expressing a wish that Timothy McVeigh had blown up the New York Times Building instead of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. John Gibson of Faux News joins the KSFO lunatics in spreading a lie invented by the Moonie Insight magazine that Barack Obama attended a Wahabbi madrassa as a child.

Spocko's letter to KSFO advertisers, which is reproduced here, doesn't threaten boycotts if the advertisers don't pull their ads, it simply points out the kind of views that their advertising dollars are promoting. It's perfectly legitimate. The right just can't stand it when its opposition is effective, because they've become so spoiled from the opposition's haplessness during the last decade.

Well, guess what, folks. We've been working out getting in shape and now we're buff, rested, and ready.

Meatgrinder

This is the Crawford Caligula's marvelous plan for dealing with the civil war in Iraq; the plan that his few remaining supporters (including Saint John McCave (sic)) think "can work:

In a miniature version of the troop increase that the United States hopes will secure the city, American soldiers and armored vehicles raced onto Haifa Street before dawn to dislodge Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias who have been battling for a stretch of ragged slums and mostly abandoned high rises. But as the sun rose, many of the Iraqi Army units who were supposed to do the actual searches of the buildings did not arrive on time, forcing the Americans to start the job on their own.

When the Iraqi units finally did show up, it was with the air of a class outing, cheering and laughing as the Americans blew locks off doors with shotguns. As the morning wore on and the troops came under fire from all directions, another apparent flaw in this strategy became clear as empty apartments became lairs for gunmen who flitted from window to window and killed at least one American soldier, with a shot to the head.

Whether the gunfire was coming from Sunni or Shiite insurgents or militia fighters or some of the Iraqi soldiers who had disappeared into the Gotham-like cityscape, no one could say.

“Who the hell is shooting at us?” shouted Sgt. First Class Marc Biletski, whose platoon was jammed into a small room off an alley that was being swept by a sniper’s bullets. “Who’s shooting at us? Do we know who they are?”

Just before the platoon tossed smoke bombs and sprinted through the alley to a more secure position, Sergeant Biletski had a moment to reflect on this spot, which the United States has now fought to regain from a mysterious enemy at least three times in the past two years.

“This place is a failure,” Sergeant Biletski said. “Every time we come here, we have to come back.”

He paused, then said, “Well, maybe not a total failure,” since American troops have smashed opposition on Haifa Street each time they have come in.

With that, Sergeant Biletski ran through the billowing yellow smoke and took up a new position.

The Haifa Street operation, involving Bradley Fighting Vehicles as well as the highly mobile Stryker vehicles, is likely to cause plenty of reflection by the commanders in charge of the Baghdad buildup of more than 20,000 troops. Just how those extra troops will be used is not yet known, but it is likely to mirror at least broadly the Haifa Street strategy of working with Iraqi forces to take on unruly groups from both sides of the Sunni-Shiite sectarian divide.

OK, so American soldiers "smash opposition" every time they have come in -- but they still need to go in regularly, going door-to-door while the Iraqi soldiers with whom they're supposed to be embedded cheer them on.

Is this what Americans signed onto even when a majority DID support this war? Is this what American families should be sending their sons to do? Go into Iraq to play whack-a-mole where the moles have guns?

Here is the unfortunate truth: Iraq is a completely fucked-up mess. Whether we stay or we leave, anarchy and violence rule in Iraq. And you didn't need to be a Middle East expert, or an expert in the history of Shi'a and Sunni Islam to know that this is exactly how this war was inevitably going to turn out. And this is why a half-million people marched in the street in February 2002.

Because we knew. And we wanted to prevent it.

And now it is Bush's war -- Bush's war and the war of everyone in Congress who made a political calculation that it was easier to give him the authority to do it and "get it off the table", as Pat Buchanan said on Scarborough Country last night. (And how sad is it that not only was I watching Scarborough Country, but actually agreeing with Pat Buchanan.) And it's the war of every American who allowed their basest fears after the 9/11/01 attacks to get in the way of their better judgment and continue voting for people who would support him in this misadventure, and those who gave this incompetent lunatic another four years to wreak his havoc.

George W. Bush's reputation and legacy are beyond repair. And not one more American life should be cut short trying to salvage what's left of it.

Freaky

Does anyone else find this story about the discovery of a live, prehistoric frilled shark just a wee bit disconcerting?

It isn't just that the poor creature is:

a) hideous
b) LOOKS like a marine dinosaur; and
c) died in the Awashima Marine Park shortly after this video was filmed.

It's that these are very deep-sea animals, usually found at depths of 400 to over 4000 feet. Remember that footage of the Titanic wreck that you saw ten years ago; in waters that were pitch-black dark and cold and you wondered how anything could live down there? Well, this creature did. And I wonder what kind of climatological signals it received that caused it to make its pilgrimage to the surface.

Meanwhile, at the Scooter Libby trial...

It looks like old Scooter isn't going to quietly take one for the team. And indeed, why should he? It's not as if he's even part of the team anymore, so he might as well try to save his own ass.

It's too bad that all this was lost in the hoopla over the State of the Union address last night, but since the media seem able to focus on only one story at a time, this didn't get much play:

It was the last thing the White House needed at a time when President Bush is already on the defensive over Iraq: a circular firing squad in a federal courtroom in which the president’s men—and Vice President Dick Cheney’s—are all shooting at each other.

But that’s how the perjury trial of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Cheney’s former chief of staff, began. Libby’s long-awaited defense was laid out for the first time Tuesday in opening statements and it turned out to be a stunner: a “scorched earth” strategy in which his main defense lawyer pointed accusatory fingers at White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove as well as other top current and former Bush aides.

Almost no legal experts had expected this plan of attack in the trial, the outcome of a drawn-out investigation into who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative, to the media. According to chief prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the leak occured amid an effort by Bush administration officials to discredit Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had publicly cast doubt on the administration’s case for war against Iraq. The FBI began an investigation after newspaper columnist Robert Novak exposed Plame’s identity in 2003. Libby is accused of obstructing the probe and lying to investigators. Neither of the two men later identified as the sources for Novak’s column, Rove or former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage, was charged in the case.

Libby, it was widely thought by legal experts, was going to be the good soldier. He would play it safe at his trial in order to preserve his options; mainly, if convicted, to seek a presidential pardon before Bush leaves office.

But no sooner did he start his opening statement Tuesday morning than defense lawyer Ted Wells shocked the courtroom and all but tossed the “pardon strategy” out the window. Seeking to rebut Fitzgerald’s contention that Libby had lied about his knowledge of Plame’s CIA employment in order to save his job with Cheney, Wells shot back: “Mr. Libby was not concerned about losing his job in the Bush administration. He was concerned about being set up, he was concerned about being made the scapegoat.”

According to Wells, the chief culprit, or at least the beneficiary of the plot was Rove, described by the defense lawyer as “the president’s right hand man,” whose survival was essential for the president’s re-election. As related by Wells, his client was so worried that Rove’s fate was taking priority over his that Libby went to his boss, Cheney, in October 2003 and complained: “I think people in the White House are trying to set me up. People in the White House are trying to protect Karl Rove.”

Well’s argument was both brilliant and complex-and perhaps difficult for non-news hounds on the jury to follow. But it raised the prospect that the Libby trial will now turn into a horror show for the White House, forcing current and former top aides to testify against each other and revealing an administration that has been in turmoil over the Iraq war for more than three years.

I don't know about you, but I for one can't wait for the fun of watching these guys to start scrambling all over themselves and each other trying to save their reputations.