Umm..about Pelosi being ruined...

As was pointed out by a more astute blogger than myself. About two months ago, the mainstream press was declaring that Nancy Pelosi was ruined as speaker. The consensus was that she should just pack it up and head off to her little pot & sodomy farm in San Francisco. She was DONE. Stick a fork in her, D-O-N-E. Nobody was going to listen to her and the House Dems were in open rebellion.

Well...just two weeks into her term as speaker. We find out that she kicked a little butt.

Sworn in just over two weeks ago as the first female speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi wasted no time showing who's boss.

The California Democrat rammed six major bills through the House at breakneck speed, stomped out smoking privileges near the House floor, partially sidelined a powerful Democratic committee chairman and decided she liked traditionally Republican office space so much she claimed it for herself.

By Democrats' timekeeping, she did it all in far under the 100 legislative hours she had allotted.

"We did what we promised the American people we would," Pelosi declared on Friday, pledging it was "just the beginning."

Pelosi's initial agenda, completed Thursday, included measures with wide popular support: increasing the minimum wage, broadening stem cell research, allowing government bargaining on Medicare drug prices, cutting student loan costs, putting in place terrorism-fighting recommendations from the Sept. 11 commission and rolling back energy company tax breaks.

Each bill passed with bipartisan majorities and Pelosi triumphantly gaveled down the votes, at one point banging the gavel so enthusiastically that it left a small dent in the podium.

And the American people? They kind of like that San Francisco liberal a hell of a lot more than that Texan 'cowboy':

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Approve 33
Disapprove 65

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Nancy Pelosi is handling her job as speaker of the House?

Approve 54
Disapprove 25

The pollsters helpfully compare the failed Pelosi speakership with Newt Gingrich's successful kick-ass revolutionary one (approve/disapprove):

12/20/94 (as incoming speakers): 35/43
1/4/95: 35/37
1/29/95: 40/48
3/5/95: 38/51

The Washington press corps must be pretty pissed that Pelosi is ruining their preordained story. Maybe they can write some more stories about her choice in outfits.

A place where logic dies

While the rest of the sensible world celebrates John Warner's (R-VA) decision to oppose the troop 'augmentation'. Glenn finds a maddening little nugget from before the war with Iraq (From Larry King Live in the early part of 2003):

KING: What if Saddam Hussein tonight in a fit of sanity decides he totally wants to cooperate. That's it. Whatever Bush ask for short of exile. What does he do?

WARNER: You asked me what does he say, and my reply to that would be, he has no credibility.

KING: But he can't -- that's nothing.

WARNER: But he could establish credibility with quick and prompt actions.

KING: Like.

WARNER: And they'd have to manifest themselves as compliance with the Security Council resolutions all of them. But especially 1441. I am going to disarm, here it, is go find it. Not hide-and- seek. . . .

You know, I asked George Tenet, CIA director basically what you just stated, and he's written a letter, it arrived in my office an hour ago. And he states, we have now provided all of the information that we could to the inspectors. Yet they have not uncovered anything.

Because Saddam Hussein from the very beginning after 1991, decided that he's going have to endure some type of inspection regime as he continues to build weapons and he's become very skillful to keep these manufacturing base of weapons of mass destructions active, mobile and beyond the ability of any inspections to really catch it. And this is proof of it. We've given them all the information, they can't find it.

KING: What's his purpose, he's inviting war. . . .

WARNER: The group of nations agreed on [the inspections], and I think Hans Blix tried to make it work. But he's been outsmarted.

I don't mean to suggest that Warner's change of heart is unwelcome (although, I believe this is being done to carve out a sensible center- which is staying in Iraq for a long time). Yet, we shouldn't forget how we got here. A lot of very foolish people, put on nice suits and thought that because they looked serious they were serious.

Drawer full of Diamonds

Oh my, I can hardly wait for the POTUS's State of the Union. Mr. Snow Job just adds to the excitement. When asked what the best part of the speech was, he responded You know, it's difficult to say. It's like looking in a drawer full of diamonds.

Is there a word?

I have racked my brain to come up with a word to describe Joe Lieberman. Here is his latest:

Yet in hindsight, some Bush advisers believe they misjudged the politics that would greet Bush's Jan. 10 unveiling of the new plan. They understood that many if not most Democrats would not welcome a troop increase but thought at least some would grudgingly go along — not anticipating what ended up as near-universal opposition by Democrats and visceral anger even among some Republicans.

They had hoped more members of Congress would embrace the advice that Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) gave the president during one session in the Cabinet Room. "Mr. President, I have two words for you," Lieberman said, according to officials who were present. " 'Be bold.'"

I think 'enabler' works best. What a wanker.

For people like Joe Lieberman and George W. Bush, being bold means being willing to carelessly end the lives of thousands.

Disco Returns

Chuck Hagel Channels Michael Moore

This is from today's Face the Nation in which Senate 'maverick' Chuck Hagel decides that dissent on the part of the American people is good. Why? Because, when we have earnest debates at home- it reduces the chance that young men and women will die for no real reason.

When I saw this clip, the first thing that came to mind was Michael Moore's ending commentary in Fahrenheit 9-11. He says virtually the same thing. Unfortunately, I cannot find the clip as Moore has been branded as Satan and there are two million clips that talk about how much he hates America and the troops.

Contrast that opinion to the one espoused by Bill Kristol today. As a supporter of the war, he suggested that critics of the war should not say anything for 6 to 9 months. In essence, 70% of the American people should just sit on their hands no matter how badly the war is being managed because it is our dislike of the disastrous policy which is the real danger.

Heartland Values

From This Modern World

Matthew Sweet

If I had just one wish, I would have wished to write this song:

Unfortunately, I didn't.

One year ago

As Atrios points out...it was one year ago that Stephen Colbert did this.

How has the White House responded? Well, um...they hired political firebrand Rich Little (if you do not know who he is, he was AWESOME in the 80s- with his harmless criticisms of President Reagan and Johnny Carson). Apparently, Yakov Smirnoff couldn't make it.

Just to make sure that nothing goes crazy, the President has made sure that any criticisms of his presidency are kept on the DL. Good for him.

President Bush < Vice President Cheney

I guess this kind of kills the whole "the American people really likes the President" crap:

A new poll has found that the American people dislike President Bush more than they dislike ... Dick Cheney. The poll — by Fox News, of all people — finds that President Bush's unfavorable rating is 58%, while Cheney's unpopularity rating is five points lower at 53%. Bush can, however, still take some small solace from the fact that his approval rating is one point higher than Cheney's; the President's is 38%, while the VP's is 37%.

Worse than Cheney? I thought only puppy killing demons with VD, bad breath and a horrible habit of one-upping in conversation could be disliked more than Dick Cheney.

p.s. I will buy a lobster dinner for the first political commentator who states that Bush being more disliked than Cheney is good news for the Bush Administration.

The past will help the future

In judging from some of the recent postings from the left end of the blog world, there seems to be a bit of a dust up over the rationale for going to war. In reviewing the issue, it seems interesting that the notion of preemptive war, or the Bush Doctrine, has completely disappeared from the political discourse. Four years ago, the Bush Doctrine was touted as the new world order and now it has the same relevance as this little gem. Nevertheless, it is necessary to realize just how disastrous the doctrine and rationale for war was(is).

Preventive war is based on the idea that an enemy (presumably) is preparing to do something that will one day threaten you and it is in your best interest to stop them before they achieve that goal. It requires a kind of intelligence that is so amazingly sensitive and prescient that we can see threats before they even emerge.*

This omniscience was what the Bush administration sold going into Iraq ---- that we knew that Saddam was developing weapons that one day would threaten us. That, needless to say, was not true and we can hope that the Bush Doctrine is dead because of it.

'nuff said

Patriots win

Ducks win

Very good sports weekend.

Second Verse Same as the First

Like Glenn Greenwald, I am convinced that the Bush administration is firmly focused on attacking Iran and this point is generally being ignored by the media. I suppose the big questions is, could the administration actually pull this off? If you were to ask me three years ago if this were possible, I would have answered immediately in the affirmative. Yet today I am not so sure, if there was a relatively sane administration in the White House I would say absolutely not. However, the Bush administration has recently shown some damn crazy behavior, which is making an attack seem fairly likely. As Glenn points out:

• Israel's Prime Minister "accidentally" ending decades of nuclear ambiguity by unambiguously acknowledging Israel's nuclear arsenal;

• New Defense Secretary Robert Gates's extraordinary departure -- the very same week -- from long-standing protocol by explicitly describing Israel as a nuclear power;

• The arrest by the U.S. military of senior Iranian military officials in Iraq;

• The announced build-up of forces in the Persian Gulf back in December, the purpose of which -- according to Bush officials -- "is to make clear that the focus on ground troops in Iraq has not made it impossible for the United States and its allies to maintain a military watch on Iran" (UPDATE: As well as this incident revealing the placement of a nuclear-powered submarine in the Straits of Hormuz);

• The leaking by the Israeli military that Israel was developing plans for an attack on Iran using small-grade, limited tactical nuclear weapons. Though the leak was done in such a way as to create plausible deniability as to its significance -- the leak was to a discredited newspaper and leaks that a country has "planned" for a certain type of attack are commonplace and do not mean they are actually going to attack -- the leak was nonetheless deliberate and caused the phrases "Israeli nuclear attack" and "Iran" to be placed into the public dialogue, at exactly the time that tensions have been deliberately heightened between the U.S./Israel and Iran -- the purpose of which is almost certainly not a planned nuclear attack by Israel on Iran, but a ratchering up of the war rhetoric;

• Increasingly explicit advocacy by neoconservatives in the U.S. for a war with Iran, as reflected by the recent Washington Post Op-Ed by Joe Lieberman in which he really did declare that the U.S. is already at war with Iran ("While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran");

• in the later stages of 2006, the President's most prominent neoconservative supporters becoming increasingly explicit about their advocacy of war with Iran;

• The transparent and deliberate use by the President throughout the last several months of 2006 of highly threatening and accusatory language towards Iran that is identical in content and tone to the language he used towards Iraq in the months immediately preceding the U.S. invasion -- often verbatim identical.

• I would also add that we have promoted a Navy officer to oversee CENTCOM. This promotion seems strange as our problems in Iraq do not require a naval solution, but in Iran, we would rely heavily on the Navy.
  

This could be all posturing, but I doubt it. The focus is too precise. If the Bush administration were just trying to keep Iran at bay, there would be more talk and less action. You don't commit forces into an area and you don't take military action unless you have an endgame in mind.

I am willing to wager that the neocons are going to manufacture a way into Iran as there is no way that we could invade Iran without provocation. Perhaps a Gulf of Tonkin type incident, which will propel us into war, is what the Bush administration is looking for. With the 'surge' of troops into Iraq, this offers the perfect cover. Iran will naturally respond to increased troops on their border and this might provide the ideal opportunity to strike (one only needs to look at our own country's response to the Cuban Missile Crisis for an example).

Here's to hoping I am way off of the mark.

Big Brass Ones

You have got to hand it to the President. He is not afraid to say anything, no matter how far away from the truth it is. In his weekly radio address, the President made the following point:

President Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad.

“To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible,” Bush said.

In a pitch to lawmakers and the American people, Bush said the United States will keep the onus on the Iraqi government to take charge of security and reach a political reconciliation. He countered Democrats and his fellow Republicans who argue that Bush is sending 21,500 more U.S. troops into Iraq on the same mission.

To be quite honest, even if I grant (which I am not) that the there are no other proposals, I don't believe that it is irresponsible to oppose the idea yet offer no alternative. For instance, say the Pres and I were having dinner in a restaurant and we noticed that another diner was having a seizure. Now, without any serious medical training, I would not know what to do. Yet, if the President were to turn to me and suggest that we douse the afflicted individual with gasoline and light them on fire in order to stop the seizure, I would be acting negligently if I let this plan go ahead. In regards to his escalation idea, it is a bad idea on its face and I don't need to come up with a counter plan, because the proposed plan is even worse than the current course of action.

However, the President's assertion that there are no other plans out there is patently false. Here is a list of groups/individuals who have offered plans to help us in Iraq:

1. The Baker Commission
2. John Murtha
3. Joe Biden
4. Center for American Progress
5. Dennis Kucinich

I think what the President meant to say was "disagreeing with me is irresponsible".

Getting it right vs. getting it wrong

There is a must read article in Radar that compares the careers of pundits who were wrong about the war in Iraq and pundits that were right about the war. What the article finds is that those who were right about the war have been increasingly marginalized, while those that got everything wrong have become even more trusted by the mainstream media.

The article also brings up some interesting possible consequences for military engagement with Iran. Once again, those arguing against military action are forgotten.

Joe Lieberman: I won't investigate Katrina

Fresh from Newsweek, Joe Lieberman has decided that he is not going to investigate the government's response to Katrina:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the only Democrat to endorse President Bush’s new plan for Iraq, has quietly backed away from his pre-election demands that the White House turn over potentially embarrassing documents relating to its handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans.

I guess he is backing off of because holding your government accountable is partisan. In addition, keeping your campaign promises must also be a sign on partisanship. In true Lieberman style-- this is what he said during last summer's Senatorial campaign

Asserting that there were “too many important questions that cannot be answered,” Lieberman and other committee Democrats complained in a statement last year that the panel “did not receive information or documents showing what actually was going on in the White House.”

Yet today he is singing a different tune. Joe Lieberman got what he wanted, he got the top spot on the Homeland Security committee; now he wants to push his ridiculous war in the hopes that it will further his shameless career ambitions:

But now that he chairs the homeland panel—and is in a position to subpoena the records—Lieberman has decided not to pursue the material, according to Leslie Phillips, the senator’s chief committee spokeswoman. “The senator now intends to focus his attention on the future security of the American people and other matters and does not expect to revisit the White House’s role in Katrina,” she told NEWSWEEK.

Phillips said that Lieberman may still follow up on some matters related to Katrina contracting. But in listing the Connecticut senator’s top priorities for the panel, she cited other areas, such as reform of homeland-security agencies and legislation promoting tighter security at U.S. seaports. Asked whether Lieberman’s new stand might feed complaints that he has become too close to the White House, Phillips responded: “The senator is an independent Democrat and answers only to the people who elected him to office and to his own conscience.

Apparently, the spokesperson is talking about the neocons and Republicans who put Lieberman back into office. Because if Lieberman had any conscience, he would listen to the stories of people who lost everything in this disaster. Even his colleagues in the House are asking for an investigation into the failings of the government:

Rep. Charlie Melancon, a Louisiana Democrat who participated in House investigations on Katrina last year, also said the Katrina disaster needs further inquiry and that he will continue to push for such a probe in the House. “It is still important to my constituents—many of whom lost everything, including their loved ones—that we learn from the mistakes so that they aren't repeated,” he said. “We deserve to know what happened."

Unfortunately for the American people, Joe Lieberman answers to only one constituent-- his enormous ego.

Please stop Tom Curry before he hurts someone

This story had to have originally been from some Mad-Libs for Reporters book. This is what Tom Curry, intrepid MSNBC reporter, had to say:

President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi both need Jim Marshall.

He’s a House Democrat who represents the kind of Republican-leaning district in the South — in Macon, Ga., and its environs — that Pelosi must keep in order to hold onto her majority in the House.

And Bush needs the support of Marshall and Democrats like him to give his Iraq policy a chance of success.

Pelosi must keep Jim Marshall in the fold because, if we don't, the margin in the House will be 232 to 203. True, we would still have a sizable majority, but we would have a palindrome for a number (I really don't know why that is bad, I am just assuming that this is the reason it is so important to keep Marshall on board).

Note to Mr. Curry: I know you want to write a story about how the American people are evenly divided over Iraq. I know you want the reading public to believe that the Democratic party is holding on by a thread to its Congressional power because the rest of the country is still really conservative.

However, that just isn't true. First off, Jim Marshall represents a VERY conservative district as he came extremely close to losing his last election in 2006 (a year in which the entire populace was trending Democratic). Consequently, I would venture to guess that he is trying to stay in the good graces of his district. Secondly, Marshall is not coming out in support of the plan. As is noted later in your article, Rep. Marshall is still on the fence.

Clear as a bell

Keith Olbermann provides the news report I wish all news anchors were giving:

President Bush makes no secret of his distaste for looking backward, for assessing past results.

But in our third story on the Countdown tonight… too bad.

Any meaningful assessment of the president's next step in Iraq must consider his steps and missteps so far.

So, let's look at the record:

Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said he was no nation-builder; nation-building was wrong for America.

Now, he says it is vital for America.

He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today, U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.

He told us about WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake.

He has told us the war is necessary…Because Saddam was a threat; Because of 9/11; Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda; Because of terrorism in general; To liberate Iraq; To spread freedom; To spread democracy; To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states; Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden.

He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi Army, and "de-Baathified" the government. He short-changed Iraqi training.

He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence.

He sent in troops without life-saving equipment.

Gave jobs to foreign contractors, not the Iraqis.

Staffed U-S positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.

We learned that "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".

He has said more troops were not necessary, and more troops are necessary, and that it's up to the generals, and removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.

He told us of turning points: The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government,the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, ¤elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam.

We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers.

As they stood up–we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course',

The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists.

The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.

And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.

Watching and waiting

Since the President proposed the second worst idea ever, I have been wondering what the consensus response from the media is going to be. I am quite certain that the plan does not have the support of either parties in Congress and the American people are generally tired of this President and his half-assed ideas.

That having been said, I do not believe there will be a uniform condemnation of this plan by the press. Instead, the press will operate from the 'cult of Bush' playbook which has provided the ground rules for covering the President. The way this operates is:

1. The President offers a horrible idea
   
2. The press/pundits declare the subject is open to debate
3. The press refers to a Bush cultist for insight
   
4. The cult member looks for any reason, whatsoever, to drink the Kool-Aid.
5. Kool-Aid is consumed and Bush is declared a genius
   
6. The press then refers to a non-Bushist who offers a clear and rational opposition to Bush's plan
7. Ridiculous debate ensues
   
8. The press mulls over this insane debate for 6 months
9. In the meantime, the President offers another horrible idea.
10. Repeat steps 2 through 10

I would like to have more faith in the process, but to be quite honest with you, we are 4 years into an absolute disaster and nothing has changed. The Democrats (and sane Republicans) are perfectly willing to do the right thing and end this mess, yet they are forced to fight a ghost. The President of 9-11 (another press fiction) will always play a central role in debate and it's going to take a long time (or Dr. Peter Venkman) to get rid of that ghost.

Scrolls

As always, Emily makes an excellent point.

Save the myth, save the President

I wonder what sort of evidence the press would need in order to believe that the President is not liked by the American people. Why? Well, according to CNN, the President is VERY, VERY popular in Montana. Only 55% of folks polled in the Treasure State think he is doing a bad job.

Perhaps organizing a "Let's Poop on the President Day" would suffice.

Selling Assets

It seems our marathoner friend did not reach her fund raising goal. Well...it looks like someone gets to tattoo her backside.

The Memory Hole

From Atrios- this was the Time Magazine cover from a month ago.


The lesson? Conventional wisdom is always wrong.

Washington Post- Whistling Past the Graveyard

I am just flabergasted by this article in the Washington Post regarding the strange weather we are having. The headline suggests that the weather is 'wacky', in the same way that one might say that Carrottop is a 'wacky' guy.

Yet, what this article obscures is the enormous threat posed by global warming. Over the course of the entire article, the phenomenon is not mentioned once. And while it may be difficult to say for certain whether global warming is directly responsible for this change in weather, to completely ignore it within this context is horribly irresponsible.

I believe this represents the central difficulty in discussing climate change in the media, global warming represents a systemic change in the environment. It is not easy to point to a specific event and know for sure that global warming is directly responsible. However, by not talking about it at all, we are certainly putting ourselves in danger.

Gratuitous Philly Tie In

For the uninitiated, SNL came out with the following video (BTW it contains some racy material):


Well now I am proud to show off a response from the great city of Philly. I love this woman (it contains even racier language).

Please don't be true

This is just some posturing by the Israeli government, but if it is true, God save us:

Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

An attack on Iran, by the Israeli government would turn a horrible situation into a horrible situation with millions upon millions of expletives preceding it.

Best Global Catastrophe Evah!

It was a beautiful day here in the city. I took my dogs for a run to the dog park, spent some time cleaning up the front of the our house and just really enjoyed the 70 degree weather we were having.

It is January 6th.

We are all going to die. Thank you Exxon/Mobil.

On a related note, the friend that is running the Phoenix marathon just got signed on to help end global warming with Al Gore. It is pretty cool and you can check it out here.

MSNBC: Congress didn't change overnight? That is an outrage!

Lisa Myers of MSNBC is shocked that everything wasn't fixed TODAY:

Democrats say they were returned to power in part because of corruption and ethical lapses of the Republican Congress. They promised to clean up the swamp and crack down on lobbyists.

But hours after changing House rules to reduce favors from lobbyists, it was back to business as usual in Washington.

This shows what the Democrats are truly up against. The press expects that everything is going to happen immediately and when it doesn't? Well, that is evidence that the Democrats were acting disingenuously during the campaign. To members of the press, the fact that there are still some strange things that go on in Washington is clear evidence that the Dems don't want good government. If Ms. Myers wanted to do some actual reporting, she could review the well-detailed relationship between lobbyists and Republican lawmakers and see if the new laws are an improvement on that.

Furthermore, the Democrats need to hold fundraisers. That is not illegal; in fact, if the Democrats want to stay in power, they need to beat the Republicans. I don't wish to ruin the Pollyannish dreams of Ms. Myers, but unfortunately politicians need to raise money to win elections. Until we have complete campaign finance reform, politicians will need to raise vast sums of money.

My greatest fear, concerning the press, is that for the next 2 years we will constantly hear stories about how the Democrats didn't fix EVERYTHING. This article certainly suggests that this concern is valid. The Democrats will be held to an impossible standard; whereas with the Republican majority, there were very few questions about their effectiveness.

The left proved right, again

From the New York Times (via TPM):

In the week since Saddam Hussein was hanged in an execution steeped in sectarian overtones, his public image in the Arab world, formerly that of a convicted dictator, has undergone a resurgence of admiration and awe.

On the streets, in newspapers and over the Internet, Mr. Hussein has emerged as a Sunni Arab hero who stood calm and composed as his Shiite executioners tormented and abused him.

“No one will ever forget the way in which Saddam was executed,” President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt remarked in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot published Friday and distributed by the official Egyptian news agency. “They turned him into a martyr.”

In Libya, which canceled celebrations of the feast of Id al-Adha after the execution, a government statement said a statue depicting Mr. Hussein in the gallows would be erected, along with a monument to Omar al-Mukhtar, who resisted the Italian invasion of Libya and was hanged by the Italians in 1931.

In Morocco and the Palestinian territories, demonstrators held aloft photographs of Mr. Hussein and condemned the United States.

Let me see if I got this right, we took a horrific dictator who was hated throughout the world and in one brief moment we have turned him into a hero for all the Sunni world. Well done, neocons, well done.

Five favorite albums of all time

Getting to listen to all of my music (via the new iPod) has helped me determine what my favorite albums of all time are. In no particular order:

The Clash (London Calling)- A seminal album that is amazing from top to bottom. This album would be on the list solely for the song "Lost in the Supermarket". This song best embodies my theoretical viewpoint regarding commercial culture.

Pavement (Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain)- Most folks seem to think that Slanted and Enchanted is a better album, and while I fully acknowledge it is a great album, the songs just aren't as strong. The songwriting and melodies are perfect on this album (e.g. Unfair, Range Life).

Wilco (Summerteeth)- Every album Wilco has put out is remarkable, but this is the best. With Summerteeth, the band changed from an alt-country outfit to a truly experimental band. This album is also set apart from the earlier ones because of the songwriting, from "How to Fight Loneliness" to "She's a Jar", this was Jeff Tweedy's first foray into the free expression songwriting that has become his calling card.

The Flaming Lips (The Soft Bulletin)- Another transitional album and this one came at the band's peak. I can't find a bad song on the album, it is symphonic yet oddly intimate. The Flaming Lips were able to package all of their quirkyness into an album that works on every level. If you don't own it, you need to buy it.

Belle and Sebastian (The Boy with the Arab Strap)- This album belongs on the list for completely different reasons than the ones above. This album changed my perspective on music, for the better. Before I heard this album, I was convinced that music had to sound like ROCK N' ROLL to be good. Yet, after getting one listen to this album it was clear I was wrong.

Is the 2002 Senate Trying to Cover its A**?

I have mixed feelings on this ABC News article. It states that 33 US Senators would have changed their vote on Iraq if they knew then what they knew now:

ABC News decided to survey the views of the senators who served in 2002, most of whom remain in the Senate. The survey indicates that those senators say that if they knew then what they know now, President Bush would never have been given the authority to use force in Iraq.
...
By ABC News' count, if the Senators knew then what they know now, only 43 at most would still vote to approve the use of force and the measure would be defeated. And at least 57 senators would vote against going to war, a number that combines those who already voted against the war resolution with those who told ABC News they would vote against going to war, or said that the pre-war intelligence has been proven so wrong the measure would lose or it would never even come to a vote.

Here is my take on the change of heart-

1. There is really no change in the information available, a solid 30% of the American people were against the war and a majority of other governments were against the war based upon the intelligence that was available at the time. The BBC and other non-Kool Aid drinking media outlets had reported that the evidence for going to war was weak/non-existent. There was really no solild reason for us to go to war, whether it was WMDs, terrorist funding or connections to Al-Qeada the rationale was flimsy, at best. In addition, the fall out related to our invasion was not hard to figure out. The ethnic tensions at play in Iraq were apparent and the potential influence of Iran on a changed Iraq was fairly clear.

2. The history regarding the authorization of force has been largely forgotten. The political context is completely ignored by the mainstream press. The debate and vote came one month before congressional elections and the Republican party heavily politicized the vote. That doesn't neccisarily mean the Democrats should have authorized use of force, just that the potential for completely ceding control of Congress to the Republicans was always in the background. Unfortunately, we will never know what the outcome would have been had the Democrats fought back.

3. Also regarding the historical context, the authorization for use of force was billed as neccesary by the President, not for actual war but for increased sanctions on the Iraqi government. We were consistently told that the President wanted peace yet still needed to send a strong message so that we could get inspectors into Iraq. In this regard, the complete dishonesty on the part of the Whitehouse has been revealed by the Downing Street Memo.

In the end, I don't know if the Senators involved with this vote are trying to wash their hands of this enormous mess. The political climate we exist in now is vastly different then the one we saw 4 years ago. I would have loved to see some political courage, but I also realize that there is a difference between courageous and being foolhardy. As such, I think we should take this poll with a grain of salt. What we should be doing now is holding these folks accountable.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

I was wondering when someone would get around to writing about this:

But now, a small but increasingly influential group of neocons are again helping steer Iraq policy. A key part of the new Iraq plan that President Bush is expected to announce next week — a surge in U.S. troops coupled with a more focused counterinsurgency effort — has been one of the chief recommendations of these neocons since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

This group — which includes William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard magazine, and Frederick W. Kagan, a military analyst at a prominent think tank, the American Enterprise Institute — was expressing concerns about the administration's blueprint for Iraq even before the invasion almost four years ago.

It is Neocon II: Electric Boogaloo!! It's Awesome!!

So what lessons did we learn from the our first colossal error? Apparently we weren't listening hard enough to the neo-conservatives. Consequently, we really need to follow their recommendations. Why? Because they are apparently due to be correct about something any time soon.

I mean sweet Jesus on a taco (I think I just made that up), what are these people smoking/snorting/rubbing on their bellybutton/injecting/bathing in? We should be running as fast as we can away from any ideas they have about anything. For instance, if Sen. Lieberman suggested that I have mac n' cheese for a snack; I would run like Jesse Owens in rocket shoes away from any processed cheese product.

Fighting reality every step of the way

I have been following this story for a while now, and I am consistently wowed by the idiocy of the far right. For the uninitiated, Michelle Malkin and some of her friends got all in a tizzy over this news story:

The attack on the small Mustafa Sunni mosque began as worshippers were finishing Friday midday prayers. About 50 unarmed men, many in black uniforms and some wearing ski masks, walked through the district chanting "We are the Mahdi Army, shield of the Shiites."

Fifteen minutes later, two white pickups, a black BMW and a black Opel drove up to the marchers. The suspected Shiite militiamen took automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers from the vehicles. They then blasted open the front of the mosque, dragged six worshippers outside, doused them with kerosene and set them on fire.

The problem was that after the story was reported, the US forces in Iraq stated that they had no record of one of the sources for the story. Since that time, Michelle has been working overtime to find this witness and has even pledged to go over to Iraq to find this guy (read about her nuttiness here). Why? Well in the warped mind of conservatives, if the witness doesn't exist than everything in Iraq is going well. Rather than admit to themselves that they were wrong, they will create elaborate conspiracies to justify their opinions. This is the chief problem with conservatives in this country, they would prefer extensive contrivances over evidence (e.g. global warming, evolution, the failings of the President).

And by the way, it turns out the guy does exist (read to the bottom to get the rightwing's response- their collective ability to delude themselves is amazing):

The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media.

Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who had previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station, as had been reported by The Associated Press.

Now, this would be funny if there weren't some real consequences. By attempting to find this one man, not only is he in legal trouble, his life and the life of his family is at risk. Police officers in Iraq are frequent targets, especially ones that collaborate with the press. Unfortunately, this does not enter into their mental calculus, they just want to fight the facts.

Feelin' alright

This is simply amazing:


Congratulations to Nancy Pelosi, the first woman elected Speaker of the House.

On a side note, I completely agree with mcjoan. The media has relatively ignored this story with very little mention made of how historic it truly is. Regardless of your political leanings, it means a great deal to finally have a woman as the Speaker and it should be a cause for celebration. I remember as a kid just how crazy it was when Sally Ride became the first American woman in space, yet Speaker Pelosi is not garnering half the attention. Leading one to wonder if it would kill the conservatives in this country to show a little class.

Doing his part to keep the myth alive

Tom Curry, the national affairs writer for MSNBC, has this brilliant insight regarding the new Congress:

Michele Bachmann and David Loebsack are both newly elected members of the 110th Congress and both Midwesterners.

The congressional districts they represent are only a three-hour drive from each other. But Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican and Loebsack, an Iowa Democrat, come from political universes that are light-years apart.

He’s a liberal, a former professor of international relations who backed Howard Dean for president in 2004; he has never served in the state legislature or on a city council. She’s a conservative tax lawyer who served in the state Senate and led the crusade to outlaw same-sex marriage in her state.

Both elected on Nov. 7, Bachmann and Loebsack are proof that the electorate didn’t have one consistent message in every congressional district last year.

You see, not every Congressional district voted for change. One voted for a whackjob conservative; ipso facto, we are still a divided nation.

Straight Talk Express

People like John McCain because he has integrity (from Vanity Fair).

"Should gay marriage be allowed?," (Chris) Matthews asks.

"I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that," McCain answers, searching in vain for the less loaded phrases he knows are out there somewhere, such as "commitment ceremony" or "civil union." "I don't have any problem with that, but I do believe in preserving the sanctity of the union between man and woman." It may not be clear just what McCain is trying to say, but it's easy to see how his words could be skewed in a direction that the Republican right might not like at all.

Fast-forward to the next commercial break, during which McCain and Matthews reposition themselves from the stage to the auditorium floor to take questions from the students. McCain's longtime political strategist, John Weaver, a lanky, laconic Texan, moves in to whisper some advice. The next question is about the pending federal farm bill, and McCain repeats his long-standing opposition to certain agricultural subsidies.

But then, out of nowhere, he adds, "Could I just mention one other thing? On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe if people want to have private ceremonies, that's fine. I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal." There: he said it, the right words for his right flank.

p.s. I know a lot of people think that McCain is going to be the next president (or at least the Republican nominee) but I don't see that happening. I am guessing it will be Gov. Huckabee of Arkansas. Just sayin...

Old school

When I was a kid, we used to call this type of thing a 'face job'.

Well done, Rep. Ellison.

Liberal media: still at it

Senator Barak Obama tried cocaine when he was in college (20+ years ago), the WP seems to think that this will be enough to potentially ruin his Presidential ambitions.

I find it odd that when a Democrat admits to questionable behavior in their late teens/early twenties, the press is quick to hop all over it. Yet, when Republicans demonstrate bad behavior into their 40s this isn't an issue.

Strange...you would almost think that there is a concerted effort to discredit Senator Obama.

I have found a way to be rewarded for my profound stupidity

So wrong it hurts- from March 17th 2003:

We are tempted to comment, in these last days before the war, on the U.N., and the French, and the Democrats. But the war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about Saddam's regime. It will produce whatever effects it will produce on neighboring countries and on the broader war on terror. We would note now that even the threat of war against Saddam seems to be encouraging stirrings toward political reform in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and a measure of cooperation in the war against al Qaeda from other governments in the region. It turns out it really is better to be respected and feared than to be thought to share, with exquisite sensitivity, other people's pain. History and reality are about to weigh in, and we are inclined simply to let them render their verdicts.

Who was this modern day Oracle of Delphi? None other than Time Magazine's newest 'star' columnist Bill Kristol. Only in this messed up media age, can such stupidity be rewarded.

However, I see an opportunity to make it big- I shall now try to cement my reputation as a major pundit:

In the coming months, the President will re-make the world. Armed with his remarkable foresight, all nations will adopt a half-price nacho policy on Tuesdays. The streets of Rome, Singapore, Cairo will be flooded with oozing yellow gold (and tasty jalepenos). In addition, utilizing his steadfast resolve, the U.N. will adopt the second Bush Doctrine "Whoever Smelt it Dealt it". No longer will there be flatulence related arguments, as the individual with the sharpest sense of smell will easily be tagged as the cheese cutter. Lastly, through divine intervention, the President will finally figure out a way to make Jesus more "John Wayneish" thus making him more desirable to people throughout the world. He will replace the 'sissy' sandals and put some totally bitchin' cowboy boots on ol' J.C. Billions of people will convert to Christianity, bringing an end to conflict everywhere.

I eagerly await your call Time magazine.

Mixed Thoughts

I am not sure what to make of this.

On the legal side, I am not a fan of democratizing inalienable rights. Gays should have the right to marry, and it is not up to the bigoted and right wing religious fascists to have a vote. Allowing such a vote opens the door to the increasing tyranny of the majority.

On the other hand, I would love for these folks to get their butts whipped in an election. I would be very proud of my home state if they defeated this amendment and stood up to bigotry. I think most people in the state came to realize that their world was not going to end because gays and lesbians had the right to marry. The question now will be, if those folks are motivated enough to vote against the religious nuts.

screwing up a one car funeral

As has been documented in recent media reports, the Iraqi government treated the hanging of former dictator Saddam Hussein as a lynching. This naturally leads me to wonder, how else this administration can screw up. The US could have done the right thing by following the procedures put into effect by The Hague, it could have forced the Iraqi government to provide a fair trial for Saddam and it could have overseen the timely execution of Hussein.

Instead, we have added more fuel to the fire. The Shi'ites treated this occasion to humiliate the dictator- thus inflaming Sunnis. As Juan Cole writes, the Sunnis have reacted by openly insulting the Shi'ites in heretofore unseen ways.

We are ruled by infants.

Sunday night fun

This is a great song. Deal with it...

And the beat goes on

The press operates from the same old playbook. George Bush is someone looking out for the country's good while Democrats are filled with partisan hate. Miss Laura from Daily Kos has the lowdown.

This is simply a myth that will not die. The Bush presidency is the most partisan in recent memory and their only concern is with how they will be perceived politically. One only needs to review how we got involved in Iraq to see just how far they will go. Absolutely pathetic.

Corner turning

Saddam Hussein is dead.

I think we have turned the corner in creating a free and stable Iraq.

Just like we turned a corner when the statue fell.
Just like we turned a corner when we killed Saddam's sons.
Just like we turned a corner when we found Saddam.
Just like we turned a corner when we handed sovereignity to the Iraqis.
Just like we turned a corner when Iraq held its first elections.
Just like we turned a corner when Iraq held its second elections.
Just like we turned a corner when the constitution was ratified.
Just like we turned a corner when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed.
Just like we turned a corner when we handed over security to Iraqi forces...

Coming soon- Jesus horses at the Smithsonian

I read this today, and I nearly fell out of my chair:

Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "It is disconcerting that the official position of a 'national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’"

These people are unbelievable.

Joe Lieberman: Professional Idiot

I have read Sen. Lieberman's op-ed in today's Washington Post a number of times and I still cannot figure out what the hell he is saying. His argument is that we need to increase the number of troops in the country because we can't let the country fall into the hands of al-Qeada and Iran. Yet, I have come to the conclusion that he got some monkeys together and had them type away, and kept any sentence that seemed reasonably coherent. He is not a bright man. To wit:

• If he is so concerned about Iran then why go to war to begin with? As Anonymous Liberal points out, Iran was essentially a winner once the first troop stepped foot in Iraq. As the new Iraqi government was bound to be friendly with Iran considering the number of Shi'ites in Iraq.
  
• He, apparently, is just itching for a fight with Iran. Why? Well, the reasons aren't exactly clear. If invading Iraq has cost us half a billion and thousands of lives- one would reasonably expect Iran to be that much tougher.
  
• As Sam Rosenfeld suggests, Lieberman thinks it appropriate to use comic book language to describe the conflict. Rather then trying to understand the complexity of the Middle East, he has a child's understanding of the conflict.
  

There is a hell of lot more to say, but I fear that continuing to parse his argument will cause brain damage.

I, for one, welcome our new overlords

This is just scary-- A recent ruling by a judge in Florida stated that an industry's trade secrets are more important than guaranteeing fair elections.

In Florida's 13th congressional district, the election between Democrat Christine Jennings and Republican Vern Buchanan was extremely close, with Buchanan earning 369 more votes. However, the actual results are uncertain because of serious problems with the voting equipment. In Sarasota county alone, there were 18.000 votes that were not counted (all on computer voting machines). Jennings' lawyers, the ACLU and People for the American Way each filed motions asking that the software, which runs the voting machines, be examined. Here is the judge's reply:

Judge William L. Gary called their request "nothing more than conjecture and not supported by credible evidence," and said that making the secret code available for scrutiny "would result in destroying or at least gutting the protections afforded those who own the trade secrets."

If this ruling holds, we are all in a lot of trouble. Private corporations will effectively own our democracy.

Breaking the proverbial...

It has been a long time, but I saw my first show since moving to Philly. I was lucky enough to see Clap Your Hands Say Yeah at a great local spot.

I love seeing live music and Philly grabs all of the big shows. Unfortunately, the shows I want to see have come on nights that I cannot see music. Hopefully that will change.

Ain't technology grand?

My brother in law, gave me an old iPod recently.

The thing is like crack for the ears.

President Bush's horrible decisions are making him feel horribly

David Ignatius of the Washington Post feels really bad for the President because his grand adventure in Iraq is not working out well.

Bush opened the emotional curtain at a news conference last week. A reporter noted that Lyndon Johnson hadn't been able to sleep well during the Vietnam War and asked Bush if this was a "painful time" for him. He gave an unexpectedly personal answer: "Most painful aspect of my presidency has been knowing that good men and women have died in combat. I read about it every night. And my heart breaks for a mother or father or husband or wife or son and daughter. It just does. And so when you ask about pain, that's pain."

On the bright side, the war is essentially an abstraction, with no real consequences. It is kinda like 'Deal or No Deal':

What makes reality TV gripping is that it's all happening live -- the contestants make their choices under pressure, win or lose. So too with Bush. He is making a vast wager -- of American lives, treasure and the nation's security -- that his judgments about Iraq were right. The Baker-Hamilton report gave him a chance to take some chips off the table, but Bush doesn't seem interested. He is still playing to win. The audience is shouting out advice, but the man under the spotlight knows he will have to make this decision alone.

Let's see what is in the briefcases...

The most popular unpopular President in US history

I don't know how else to parse this, but according to Heidi Collins of CNN, the President is AWESOME (from Atrios).

Ken Rudin: Given the fact that John Edwards from day 1 has been talking about the two Americas, the fact there's been a disparity among - with economics in this country.

Heidi Collins: Ken, forgive me, do you want to position yourself as the opposition to Bush or do you want to be the person who says hey, this is all about bipartisan. Do you really want to be talking about two different Americas because of how close that sounds to, you know, two different worlds in Washington even? And getting things done.

Why does the President represent one side of the debate? With overwhelming opposition from the American people to just about every policy, the President represents the fringe of debate. It would be nice if the news media started to understand that.

This is getting ridiculous

For conservatives, having a healthy debate on the merits of the Iraq war sends a dangerous message to our enemies. Yet saying the following is just fine:

“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.”

This quote came from Robin Hayes, a congressman on the Armed Services committee, in a speech to a local Rotary club.

I wish I could understand how their brains work.

Joe Scarborough gets it right

It seems odd to say this, but conservative commentator Joe Scarborough provided a crystal clear explanation of why the president is moving into dangerous waters. On last night's show he, and his panel, systematically deconstructed the flawed decision making regarding the war in Iraq. I recommend viewing the whole segment (here).

Considering that Scarborough has been a long time supporter of the president, I view this as a hopeful sign that other conservatives will begin to see the light. This is not an issue that can be neatly delineated as a partisan one, all Americans need to see that Bush's failures as a leader will have profound consequences.

Top 5 Albums of the Year

Unfortunately this was not a big year for me purchasing music. With changing cities, buying a house and starting a new academic program, I just couldn't find the time to pick up some new CDs. That having been said, I really really liked the following 5 albums (in no particular order).

Band of Horses (Everything All the Time)- this is a band out of Seattle, which is in heavy play at KEXP. Oddly enough, I don't own this album but I have heard enough of it to realize what a great album it is.

Neko Case (Fox Confessor Brings the Flood)- an absolutely beautiful album. It has come to the point where she could pull a Yoko Ono and scream for 45 minutes and I would love it.

The Silver Jews (Tanglewood Numbers)- I would bet my right kidney that you can't find a better lyricist then David Berman.

Built to Spill (You in Reverse)- this was a wonderful album. I know this because my wife stole it and has kept it in her car for months.

Jenny Lewis and the Watson Twins (Rabbit Fur Coat)- similar to Neko Case, but different enough to make this an excellent album. She is Loretta Lynn and Neko Case is Patsy Cline. That is a good thing.

Songs that I wish I wrote or was allowed to sing on (links go to YouTube videos):
The Hold Steady- Chips Ahoy
Loose Fur- Hey Chicken
The Decemberists- Oh Valencia

My old academic department

For anyone who wonders about the things that happen in academic departments, I offer you this:

After I worked out yesterday night at the Community Center, while I was drying my hair at the men's locker room, a guy passed by and told me: "it was nice in the beginning until you f...ed it up". I looked at him and then he said "I meant your hair" and he smiled. He is big, tall, white, with black short hair around 30-40 years old. He looked like a hitman to me. I have never seen him in the Community Center and he did not work out yesterday, only came by the locker room dressed in jeans and a sweater, not work-out clothes.

If a professor wants to hire a hitman to beat me up or intimidate me now that I got my Ph.D., at least the Department will know where to start from,

This was a message posted by a student to the entire department. He has just completed his Ph.D. and has continually made accusations that members of the faculty were out to get him (with some meager evidence to support him).

Fortunately, I do not study there any more.

Of course there is a liberal media bias...

Columnist and commentator Debbie Schlussel (a frequent contributor to MSNBC, CNN and NPR) recently had this to say about Senator Barak Obama.

So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian, and even if he despised the behavior of his father (as Obama said on Oprah); is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father's heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?

You see, Barak Obama's father (a father he did not know) was Kenyan and a Muslim. So of course, he must be a terrorist.

Considering how insulting her comment was, you would think that she would be shunned by the mainstream media, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Just like Dennis Prager and Glenn Beck, if you are a member of the right wing fringe you can say just about anything you want. There will always be a seat for these people on the cable news talk shows.

But god forbid someone mention that former RNC chair Ken Mehlman is gay...

Putting two and two together

I am really not very encouraged with two items in the news. The first is the announcement that Bush would like to increase the size of our armed forces. The second is in regards to a recent revelation that the Navy is going to increase its presence in the Persian Gulf to warn Iran about its recent behavior.

I know it seems far-fetched to bring up, but this is not a normal person in the White House. I would not be surprised if within a year we are militarily engaged in Iran. The president is becoming increasingly detached from reality and views himself as a monumental historical figure. Iran is just the place to cement, what he thinks, will be his grand legacy.

Virgil Goode- Fighting the War on America since 1996

What an absolute tool.

Congressman Virgil Goode is warning his constituents about the coming scourge of Muslims. His evidence? Newly elected representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) is a Muslim. Apparently Muslims hate our democratic ideals so much that they are participating in elections and getting elected.

Here is a segment of the letter:

I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

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.

The sad thing is, this type of letter has been written to constituents for over 100 years. Just replace Muslim with Black, Catholic, Latino, Gay, Lesbian, etc. and you have the field manual for every right wing jackass in our nation's history.

Why do they do this? Because it is all they have.

Troop Surge

Let me get this straight, the grand plan for Iraq now is to add more troops? How did this plan even pass the laugh test? Why do we continue to listen to folks that were 100% wrong about this whole endeavor?

Take the latest news from Iraq, which states that violence in the country is at its highest point since Iraq regained sovereignty:

Attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops and Iraqi civilians jumped sharply in recent months to the highest level since Iraq regained its sovereignty in June 2004, the Pentagon told Congress on Monday in the latest indication of that country’s spiraling violence.

In a report issued the same day Robert Gates took over as defense secretary, the Pentagon said that from mid-August to mid-November, the weekly average number of attacks increased 22 percent from the previous three months.

Every step Bush has taken has been the wrong one. I think we would have a lot more success if instead of following him, we asked him what he thinks the right move would be and then do the exact opposite.

Still bleeding

OH DEAR GOD!

This article was in the very same paper as the Clinton article mentioned below. The focus of the article is on Bush's stubbornness (or as they say- stalwartness). Here is a little taste:

The seemingly unshakeable confidence in the rightness of his positions has helped the current president weather political storms that might overwhelm others. For a man who presides over an unpopular war, just lost Congress and faces a final two years with constrained options, Bush gives little sign of self-pity. At holiday parties for friends and family in recent days, he has found himself bucking up others depressed by the turn in his political fortunes. "Don't worry, it's not as bad as it looks," he told one friend visiting the White House. "There's a lot we can get done."

The friend, who shared the private moments on the condition of anonymity, was struck by how upbeat Bush seemed. "But he's not a fool," the friend added. "He knows how bad all this is, trust me. There is some resignation that this is where he finds himself. I know he's got a lot of second thoughts about how he got there. Anybody would."

ARRRGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!

I really can't believe they are sticking to this script, with both of these men. Clinton's sexual foibles had no real consequences on the American people, yet he is seen as an unhinged fiend hell-bent on destroying the American way of life. But President Bush has us bogged down in Iraq for the foreseeable future, he has torn up the Bill of Rights, decimated our ability to lead on the global stage, mismanaged every aspect of the US economy and has, through negligence, helped to arm both North Korea and Iran. Why have all these things happened? Because the President will not change his mind on anything. His stubbornness is THE reason things are as bad as they are.

Sometimes they make my eyes bleed

Sweet Jesus, this article in the Washington Post is as about as bad as it gets. This country is in need of some real leadership and instead we get an article about why former President Clinton's indiscretions matter for Hilary Clinton.

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why they even bothered with this. Their central tenet is that Bill is a liability because of his past, yet in this article they note that the former President is incredibly popular. The only population that cares about this crap is the press. They have completely manufactured this controversy and will make sure that it is all over the evening news and Sunday morning talk shows.

Here is the thing that the press must come to understand, the American people do not need endless examinations regarding the minor weaknesses of our leaders. Instead, we need substantive and thoughtful explorations of the major issues. If they just put half their energy into looking at these issues, there is no telling how much better off we would be.

The first strike in the Hobo Wars has begun

I really don't know how else to read this, but it seems that the Hobo and their ilk have finally emerged:

A small spider bite turned out to be a big problem for Cindy Pettey. Pettey awoke when she was bitten on the stomach in the middle of the night a few weeks ago, but thought little else of it. Then she started running a fever, she felt achy and weak. The bite sore became larger.

Next thing Pettey knew, a doctor was telling her he believed she'd been bitten by a dangerous hobo spider.

Pettey had surgery that removed 10 pounds of skin and flesh, leaving her with an abdomen covered in stitches.

I fear for my friends in Oregon (where this attack occurred) but to be honest with you, it is every man for himself/herself. We are at code red here and unfortunately the Department of Homeland Security has neglected their duty. As such, I will step in to provide some advice.

1. Do not, I repeat, do not cool your fresh baked pies on your window sill.
   
2. If you feel the need to hop a train, please consult a non-Hobo travel agent.
   
3. If you come upon some folks standing around a trash can fire, ask them to sing. If they sound like Billy Joel you can approach them, they are doo-wop singers. If not, run like hell.
   

I loved reading this

From the New York Times, here is an article on how Craigslist is refusing to turn its operation into a cash cow. The article has special relevance to me as I am just finishing up a course on Advertising and Society, and this article really highlights just why the ad industry is terrified of the internet. I had proposed in class that the biggest problem facing the businesses world, is that places are popping up all of the time for folks that want to avoid commercialism. Unfortunately, for the business world, these people are the ones that are most likely to innovate and create (and represent a target demo for the ad industry).

On a related note, I predict that in one year YouTube will be the ifilm of today. The switch to advertising on the sight and increasing commercial oversight will move traffic elsewhere.

God help us

Two small items in the news today have succeeded in scaring the crap out of me. The first is from the daily press briefing with Tony Snow. He was asked about Senator Smith's (R-OR) assessment of the war in Iraq, here is his response:

QUESTION: You’re just going to blow it off. A Republican senator is saying that president’s policy may be criminal and it’s immoral and you’re just saying…

SNOW: What would you like me to say? Should I…

QUESTION: Don’t you think you should answer for that? You’re saying — you said from this podium over and over that the strategy is victory, right?

SNOW: And it continues to be.

QUESTION: And you have a Republican senator saying there is no clear strategy, that you don’t have a strategy.

SNOW: Well, let’s let Senator Smith hear what the president has to say. We understand that this is a time where politics are emotional in the wake of an election. And you know what? Senator Smith is entitled to his opinion.

Then there was this in the NY Daily News, which sought to find out how the President is coping with the recent criticisms of his Iraq strategy (via Atrios):

Yet Bush is described by another recent visitor as still resolutely defiant, convinced history will ultimately vindicate him.

"I'll be dead when they get it right," he said during an Oval Office meeting last week.

While I would certainly agree that there are times to shun conventional wisdom, however, the President has crossed the line. He is absolutely delusional and a megalomaniac.

Juan Williams on the brink

NPR reporter Juan Williams has been a fixture on Fox News Sunday for quite some time, and I have been worried that his exposure to these conservative clowns had caused some long term damage. If this segment from today's show is any indication, it looks like he is going to be alright (here is the video):

WILLIAMS: Squishy, impatient, you know, they’ll be in the land of milk and honey? What do you imagine, an American administration is coming in, Republican or Democrat, after President Bush that’s just going to lay down and run away like scared little —

HUME: It will not be phrased that way. Listen, Juan, it’s very simple.

WILLIAMS: This is really — sometimes i just want to scream. You guys have been going on since this thing began. I mean, you don’t give credit to people, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Barbara Lee, people who said from the start this is a mistake. You put them down. Now it’s everybody’s a surrender monkey or impatient or squeamish or weak. Why can’t you say, hey, there’s a real problem in Iraq?

There all idiots

From Atrios, you would think that at some point Joe Biden would realize that he has been saying the same thing for over 3 years!

When hearing things like this, I become completely disheartened that there will be a solution to the trouble in Iraq. These people that we have trusted to lead this country are about as distanced from reality than anyone you would find in a state mental hospital, which is the oddly ironic thing about so-called 'foreign policy realists'. They strive, continuously, to sound authoritative and steely eyed--in the moment, yet when you actually look at their comments over time it is readily apparent that they have absolutely no clue. For them, there is no Iraq, it is purely an abstraction that can be safely debated on a weekend talk show.

A petulant little child

There is no other way to describe the President (except for totally delusional). The President had met with Democratic leaders to discuss the ISG report and what they could do to forge a strategy that worked. Kevin Drum found this little nugget in a report of a meeting Bush had with Democratic leaders:

Instead, Bush began his talk by comparing himself to President Harry S Truman, who launched the Truman Doctrine to fight communism, got bogged down in the Korean War and left office unpopular.

Bush said that "in years to come they realized he was right and then his doctrine became the standard for America," recalled Senate Majority Whip-elect Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "He's trying to position himself in history and to justify those who continue to stand by him, saying sometimes if you're right you're unpopular, and be prepared for criticism."

Durbin said he challenged Bush's analogy, reminding him that Truman had the NATO alliance behind him and negotiated with his enemies at the United Nations. Durbin said that's what the Iraq Study Group is recommending that Bush do now — work more with allies and negotiate with adversaries on Iraq.

Bush, Durbin said, "reacted very strongly. He got very animated in his response" and emphasized that he is "the commander in chief."

I don't know what worries me most here. The fact that the President had a tantrum when he was called on something, or that he thinks the comparison between he and Truman is an apt one.

Washington vs. the rest of us

Digby has a great post about the utter insanity at work within the Washington establishment. I strongly recommend reading the whole thing, but if you are not so inclined I will boil it down for you.

Bill Clinton was a horrible man because he lied about Monica Lewinsky, the Washington Elite could not believe that the President would bring such dishonor to their quaint little village on the Potomac. Nevermind the fact that President Clinton was doing a remarkable job running our country, his transgressions against the Establishment (which weren't transgressions at all) were enough. He made the sleepy little town of DC look unseemly.

Contrast that to George W. Bush. He is a man of integrity who has maintained the right level of decorum in Washington, and really, who cares that his decisions as President have been atrocious. So what if he has the US bogged down in a war that we cannot win. So what if he let New Orleans die so that he could stay on vacation. So what if he has trashed the Constitution. The important thing is, he is being a good resident of DC.

The closest thing I can compare this sick little game to is a high school clique, for them, the clique comes first and everything else can be ignored.

Friday Night Video

I was going to post the video to Chips Ahoy by The Hold Steady, but I saw this. This man is an absolute genius.

Senator Smith's lament and why it doesn't matter

Having lived in Oregon, I am not a particular fan of their junior Senator, Gordon Smith. He is as much of a political opportunist as anyone I have seen on the political stage, so I am doubtful he really means what he says here (he is up for re-election in 2008, in a state that is becoming bluer by the hour). That having been said, it is encouraging to hear such a strong message coming from a Republican:

In an emotional speech on the Senate floor Thursday night, Sen Gordon Smith, a moderate Republican from Oregon who has been a supporter of the war in Iraq, said the U.S. military's "tactics have failed" and he "cannot support that anymore."

Smith said he is at, "the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up the same bombs, day after day.

"That is absurd," he said. "It may even be criminal."

Smith said he has tried to quietly support President Bush during the course of the war -- and doesn't believe the president intentionally lied to get the U.S. into the war -- but now recognizes, "we have paid a price in blood and treasure that is beyond calculation" for a war waged due to bad intelligence.

Moved this week by the findings of the Iraq Study Group, Smith said he needed to "speak from my heart.

"I, for one, am tired of paying the price of 10 or more of our troops dying a day. So let's cut and run or cut and walk, but let us fight the way on terror more intelligently that we have because we have fought this war in a very lamentable way," he said.

The sad part is, no matter how much the American people protest. The US will not leave Iraq in the immediate future. As Atrios has detailed, the President is wedded to Iraq and any pretense that he will listen to reason is misplaced. As this article from the U.S. News indicates:

Former White House advisers to George H.W. Bush are keenly disappointed and concerned about the current President Bush's initial reaction to the report by the Iraq Study Group.

They consider him rather dismissive of the group's conclusions, issued yesterday, which include the view that current Iraq policy is failing. The group recommends a variety of important changes, such as assigning U.S. troops to play more of an advisory and training role and less of a combat role. The ISG also recommends that the United States withdraw most of its combat brigades by early 2008 and that the administration increase diplomatic efforts, including starting talks with Iran and Syria and energetically working toward an Israeli-Palestinian solution.

Adding to the unease were President Bush's comments at his Thursday news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in which he avoided commenting on specifics in the ISG report.

"We have a classic case of circling the wagons," says a former adviser to Bush the elder. "If President Bush changes his policy in Iraq in a fundamental way, it undermines the whole premise of his presidency. I just don't believe he will ever do that."

No level of protestations, short of Laura Bush and Barney leaving the President, will get us out of Iraq in the short term. For Bush, he has simply replaced one addiction with another. He is an Iraqaholic.

Why am I not surprised?

From the "you have got to kidding me department", it turns out the 'moral' conservative blow hard Dennis Prager, I blogged about a couple days ago, was appointed by President Bush to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. Maybe Bush placed him on the board so that they could get the perspective of an intolerant bigot. That is really the best explanation I have.

Damn end of the semester

I had been waiting to write a post like this until things settled down a bit, work wise. However, Matthew Yglesias wrote the exact same words I had wanted to write:

This, however, is just the very mix of silence, collaboration, and complicity on the part of "respectable," "credible," "mainstream" analysts that produced the war in the first place. The more courageous and farsighted voices who got things right were treated as marginal at the time and, shockingly, are still treated as marginal -- excluded from all the coolest bipartisan commissions.

I can't, for the life of me, understand why those who opposed the war at the outset have been shut out of the process for figuring out how to fix this infernal mess. If you want to be serious, you should try and get the advice of those people that had a serious understanding of the risks associated with going into Iraq. Until the press and the political establishment get this very simple point, we will continue to make horrid foreign policy mistakes.

Good times and no sniffles

About 12 years ago, a woman I worked with on trying to save the planet told me about this, and now it is news. At the time, I thought, you must really, really, really want to get high if you are willing to drink copious amounts of the most vile substance known to man. Yet, on the bright side none of that nasty chest congestion.

Jumpin' Jehoshaphat

Lou Dobbs knows as much about polls as the nice young woman at Movering knows about herpetology.

Getting serious

I read this article in the Washington Post, and thought, hmm...these are not household names. Yet, in a sane world, each of these people would be on the political talk show circuit explaining what our next move in Iraq should be. Why? Well, because they were right about Iraq and as such, they have displayed some fundamental understanding of foreign policy. They said the following BEFORE the war in Iraq started:

John Spratt (D-SC)

"the outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain."

Ike Skelton (D-MO)

Warned that Bush's postwar strategy must "take seriously" the possibility that a replacement regime "might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading to civil unrest and even anarchy."

David Obey (D-WI)

He spoke then about poor preparation for postwar Iraq, a concern he developed after listening to State Department officials.

Instead, we get Joe Lieberman and John McCain gracing every Sunday morning talk show. How does that make any sense?

Best. Video. Ever.

This video has been out for a while, but I absolutely love it. If I am correct, it was filmed in Portland.