CaliBlogger

VOTE!

2010-10-12T20:55:00.000-07:00

I know, I know, it's been a depressing year for progressives. None-the-less, despite my well-earned scorn for Democratic leaders, the alternative is worse, much worse.

So shake off that apathy and turn those pollsters "likely voter" numbers on their heads!

Fight the Right

2010-07-22T20:47:00.000-07:00

New video form the Democratic Governor's Association Amazing, something intentionally amusing from politicians, who'd a thunk it?

Enjoy.

Matt and Trey Forever

2010-04-24T00:47:00.000-07:00

I know, it's been awhile. And sure, there've been a few things I might have weighed in on. But threaten South Park? Have you at last sir, no decency?

Au revoir mes enfants

2009-01-14T20:07:00.000-08:00

Howdy folks.

After years of outrage and incredulity over BushCorp™'s many follies, I find myself outraged out.

As our President-elect begins his new administration I find that I simply need a rest. And, given the current state of the economy (thanks George) I unfortunately find that I have to focus much, much more on merely keeping my family afloat.

But not to worry, should need arise, and opportunity prevail, I hope to see you back here one day.

Until then.

Be well.

Know hope.

Knock me down with a feather: Time names Obama Person of the Year

2008-12-17T13:24:00.000-08:00

In an announcement that surprises absolutely no-one, Time magazine names Barack Obama as its Person of the Year.

The main surprise is their given reasoning:

As Obama has moved with unprecedented speed to build an Administration that would bolster the confidence of a shaken world, his flash and dazzle have faded into the background. In the waning days of his extraordinary year and on the cusp of his presidency, what now seems most salient about Obama is the opposite of flashy, the antithesis of rhetoric: he gets things done. He is a man about his business — a Mr. Fix It going to Washington.

OTOH I'm pretty sure that his inspirational and transformational election didn't hurt either.

Congratulations Mr. President-Elect.

V is for Viral

2008-12-03T16:54:00.000-08:00

Just about the only thing about the whole Prop 8 fiasco that's ever made me smile.

And it features Jack Black as Jesus!

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

A funny thing

2008-11-11T17:08:00.000-08:00

Sure, the world sucks.

But for some reason I really don't feel that bad.

I wonder why.

Rahm Emmanuel in a nutshell

2008-11-06T17:00:00.000-08:00

Rahm Emmanuel is Barack Obama's Luca Brasi.

Without the mafia ties of course.

Though he does have his own awkward relation ship with fish.

Joe must go

2008-11-06T16:21:00.000-08:00

Joe Lieberman must go, you know why. In this helpful video from last June Josh Marshall explains how:

My letter to Senator Boxer:

Dear Senator Boxer,

After his disgraceful behavior during this election cycle Senator Lieberman has no place in the Democratic caucus, and certainly has no place as a committee chair.

As my Senator, and as a member of the Democratic steering and outreach committee I am counting on you to do the right thing.

President-elect Obama has said that we need to reach out and listen to those who disagree with us, and I wholeheartedly agree.

That does not mean, however, that we need to reward them with committee chairmanships.

Sincerely,

Steven Kang
www.stevekangsblog.blogspot.com

If your Senator is on this committee please take a moment to write.

What's right about being wrong

2008-11-06T15:37:00.000-08:00

Ok.

So I've given myself a day to just walk around smiling and reading as many newspapers I could get my hands on.

Time, I suppose, to ever so gently start looking forward.

One very preliminary thought inspired by TPM's David Kurtz is this, never have I ever been so glad to be so frequently wrong.

I'm not going through the full litany of lefty second guessings that Obama proved wrong, Kurtz does a fine job of that.

But, just to point out the obvious, in every case, Cool Hand Barack's choices were consistently superior to the lefty blogosphere's recommendations (including my own).

Turns out Barack Obama is smarter than the rest of us.

Go figure.

So does that mean that in the future I'll stop second-guessing the new administration?

Surely (Shirley) you jest.

It just means that I expect to find myself frequently, happily, wrong.

President Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-04T23:51:00.000-08:00

In 2004 I heard about a speech given at the Democratic National Convention. After watching it my first thought was: my God, this man has a future in this party.

My second thought was: why does he have to be named Barack Hussein Obama?

But after today's historic events I understand.

America has, for the past eight years, worked to destroy itself, its place in the world as a leader, not only militarily and finacially, but as a beacon of reason and sanity.

Perhaps we could be forgiven the first four years of a Bush administration transformed by the disaster of 9/11 from merely blandly incompetent to actively evil.

But then came 2004.

We re-elected him.

To the world, and to ourselves, that was a nearly unpardonable sin.

And make no mistake, the blame then lay not only on the shoulders of Bush's supporters and voters, but on those of us on the left as well who failed to defeat him.

Which is why it is so important that a black man named Barack Hussein Obama is now President-Elect.

Because we on the left had to work that much harder to get him there. Because it forced the saner of Bush's former supporters to realize that they had to choose between the reason and sanity Obama represents, and the madness represented by their rabid far-right wing.

Which is why I'm also (now) thankful for Sarah Palin who made the choice even more stark.

And (while I'm feeling magnanimous) let me express my thought that we have done John McCain a great service by rejecting his presidential bid.

The McCain I saw tonight reminded be of the McCain I admired not so many years ago, like his soul had been held prisoner to the worst elements of the GOP campaign machine, but had suddenly been released.

So now the beginning is ended. Tomorrow (after sleeping late) we begin to face the many challenges that confront us, individually and as a nation. But now, as I never have before, I truly believe that we are up to the task.

We can do it together.

Yes, we can.

VOTE FOR HISTORY!

2008-11-03T20:42:00.000-08:00

[I]n no other country on earth, is my story even possible.

- Barack Obama, 2004 keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention.

Helpful time (and sanity) saving hint

2008-10-27T15:47:00.000-07:00

Let's say your a left-leaning political junkie who likes to keep an eye on what the wingnuttiest wingnut right is up to. Like me, however, you find it difficult, nay painful to wade through that much garbage and still keep down your breakfast. And further, like me, you don't want to give those bastards any clicks.

Here's the solution: read Bill Kristol's comments.

You're not clicking on his main article so you won't get counted as a reader, plus you don't have to steel your nerve (or risk your blood pressure) by reading his inane drivel. But, through the good services of the NYT readership, you not only get a good feel for Kristol's garbage du jour, but you also get to enjoy his skewering by said readership.

It's a win/win.

Stevens (R-Alaska) Guilty of Corruption

2008-10-27T14:01:00.000-07:00

Do get the feeling that, increasingly, the term "corrupt Republican" is a redundancy?

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was convicted today of lying on financial disclosure forms to hide tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and renovations to his Alaska home that were financed mostly by a powerful business executive and his oil services company.

Schadenfreude reigns as Mr. Bridge-to-Nowhere is found to be as venal in his personal life as he was in his public.

But, happy giggles by liberals aside, Stevens' conviction has important implications for the upcoming election.

The news that Ted Stevens has been found guilty on all charges in his federal corruption trial badly imperils any lingering chance that the long-time Alaska Republican Senator had at winning reelection in eight days time.

It's hard to imagine worse timing for the Stevens' conviction to be announced -- roughly one week before he faces Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich in a race long targeted by national Democrats as a takeover opportunity.

This was one of the races Dems need in order to achieve that magic filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate. So far, so good.

Know Hope

2008-10-22T20:41:00.000-07:00

From Obama's speech today in Richmond:

At a defining moment like this, we don't have the luxury of relying on the same political games, the same political tactics, that we've become accustomed to. This slash-and-burn politics that divides us from one another... which the challenges and crises we face right now, we can't afford to divide this country. By race, by class, by region, by who we are, by what policies we support. Let me tell you something, because I know you've been hearing a lot of stuff lately. There are no real parts of the country and fake parts of the country. There are no pro-America parts of the country and anti-America parts of the country. We all love this country. No matter where we live. Or where we come from.

Two things. Not only are these points self-evident (or at least they should be), but this is the sort of speech that, 8 years ago, John McCain might well have endorsed.

That he now could not is a tragedy for both McCain 2.0, as well as the country.

Watch the video:

Some endorsements matter more than others.

2008-10-22T13:44:00.000-07:00

I understand, and frankly agree, that endorsements don't make all that much difference, especially this late in the game.

But still you have to believe the optics on the last round of endorsements might be telling.

Sure Barack Obama racks up endorsements from Colin Powell, and even neo-con Ken Adelman, but hey, McCain just got a high=profile endorsement of his own:

Al Qaeda.

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush.

Maybe that's their reasoning. Personally I think bin Laden just has the hots for Sarah Palin.

So, how was your weekend?

2008-10-19T14:24:00.000-07:00

weekend

(wēk'ĕnd') n. - A time period usually extending from Friday night through Sunday.

Once upon a time (last month) weekends were used to rest up from a busy week's activities and recharge yourself for the week ahead. A time when the most pressing news events happened on ESPN and the Golf Channel.

So much for that.

First, late Friday, Minnesota Representative and McCain supporter Michelle Bachmann got into a heated exchange with Chris Matthew's on Hardball were she not only questioned the patriotism of Barack Obama and the Democratic party, but also suggested the media should conduct a witch hunt on capitol hill to expose unpatriotic congressmen as well.

The effect of all this right-wing blather?: Nearly $500,000 was donated to her Democratic opponent in the next 24 hours and the DCCC has decided to put resources into this suddenly competitive district! (BTW, if you'd like to donate follow the links from the dkos article on the affair from Ms. Bachmann's Democratic rival, Elwyn Tinklenberg.)

Then came Sunday with two huge announcements, Obama's stupefying $150,000,000 haul in September donations, and his long-anticipated endorsement by General Colin Powell.

Oh, and also, Mrs. CaliBlogger and I saw W yesterday. Almost made me feel sorry for the guy.

Well, almost.

Obama v. McCain: the last (thank God) debate

2008-10-15T20:33:00.000-07:00

Winner: Bob Scheiffer. Not only a good questioner, he actually got the candidates to engage in what, mostly, sounded like an actual debate.

Winner: Barack Obama. Given the fundamentals, Obama's challenge throughout these debates was much like Reagan's in 1980, to make people in whose interest it would be to vote for him comfortable enough to do so. I.e. to look and act presidential.

Mission accomplished!

Loser: McCain (what did you think I was going to say?). Faced with Mission Impossible: to revitalize his campaign without going negative (which has only hurt him with independents), McCain has shown he's no Tom Cruise, or even Peter Graves.

And he forgot that it's the message that's supposed to self-destruct.

Prescient Obama

2008-10-12T00:55:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama said in the most recent debate (I paraphrase) that we need a president who can not only see what's right in front of him, but see around the corner.

He's both correct in that observation, and capable of such vision:

[H/t Andrew Sullivan]

No complacency: just a win is not enough

2008-10-09T19:08:00.000-07:00

And since the O-man is high-minded enough for the both of us, I have no qualms about agreeing with what kos says about today's GOP:

Break their back, crush their spirits

Frankly, the only divide I want to see Obama bridge is between progressive and Bluedog Democrats. I just don't think Republicans in their current state are salvageable, with the ones surviving the coming firestorm being the hardest of the hard right.

Obama: the right leader for our time

2008-10-09T17:25:00.000-07:00

According to the oft cited quote from Winston Churchill: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.”

And certainly it seems that, by design, by luck, or by divine providence, whenever the US has been faced with a major crisis it has eventually brought forth a leader to deal with that crisis. FDR saw the country through both the great depression and World War II, Abraham Lincoln successfully defended the union and ended slavery during the civil war, and at the nation's most critical moment, its birth, George Washington set an unmatched example of how to lead, and transfer leadership for the new republic.

As the US stares down the worst economic crisis since the great depression, as it finds itself embroiled in two land wars, as it sees its military, political, and economic leadership at new lows, will we be again so fortunate as to choose a man who historians will rank with Washington, with FDR, with Lincoln?

Reformed religious right leader, author, and Obama supporter Frank Schaeffer certainly thinks so:

Great presidents are made great by horrible circumstances combined with character, temperament and intelligence. Like firemen, cops, doctors or soldiers, presidents need a crisis to shine.

Obama is one of the most intelligent presidential aspirants to ever step forward in American history. The likes of his intellectual capabilities have not been surpassed in public life since the Founding Fathers put pen to paper. His personal character is also solid gold. Take heart, America: we have the leader for our times.

As a skeptic and cynic by inclination, as well as training, I have a hard time buying into the totality of Schaeffer's paean.

And certainly such belief would be mocked incessantly by the right (despite, of course, some of the rather silly things they've said about W over the years).

The thing is though, I really want to believe.

And, even as an agnostic, even I might be inclined to say a word or two in prayer to whatever gods there may be, that Obama become the man we so desperately need him to be.

You can read Schaeffer's whole post over at Huffingtonpost.com.

Paris for prez

2008-10-08T20:46:00.000-07:00

And why not? Her policies make more sense than McCain's, and she can talk in complete sentences unlike Sixpack Sarah. Plus she's getting the advise from one of the greatest fake president's of all time.

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

Obama v. McCain Part II

2008-10-07T20:15:00.000-07:00

I'm a terrible judge of how these things are viewed through non-partisan eyes.

I thought Obama was his usual calm, certain self on economics.
On foreign policy I liked his "crush al qaeda" fire, Also I frankly think Obama's position towards going after them with or without Pakistan's help is very main street. McCain loses points every time he goes after Obama on this.

McCain was much better composed for this one than the first, though I wonder if the "that one" comment about Obama is going to be a sound bite that ends up biting McCain.

Those are my first thoughts, for an Obama rave from an experienced debater I suggest Andrew Sullivan.

McCain plans to cut Medicaid/Medicare

2008-10-06T20:38:00.000-07:00

McCain plans to cut Medicaid/Medicare by 1.3 Trillion!
What's this?
Some left-wing scare tactic?
Is the Obama campaign getting desperate?
Um, no.
From that bastion of pinko sympathizers, the Wall Street Journal:

John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs.

The Republican presidential nominee has said little about the proposed cuts, but they are needed to keep his health-care plan "budget neutral," as he has promised. The McCain campaign hasn't given a specific figure for the cuts, but didn't dispute the analysts' estimate.

Brilliant.

The only people the McCain camp hasn't entirely managed to scare off are seniors who largely depend on these medical insurance programs. And now he's trying to scare them off too?

As an Obama supporter all I can say is thank you.

Gloves officially off

2008-10-06T13:32:00.000-07:00

For those of you out there who were afraid the O-man couldn't throw a punch, well, that's not much of a question anymore is it?

Devastating doesn't nearly say it.

Wow.

Sarah Palin and aversive racisim

2008-10-05T15:39:00.000-07:00

Like he needs my help, but I'll anyway recommend Nicholas Kristof's NYT op-ed, Racism Without Racists.

You should read it yourself, but his main point is that overt racism is a minor problem for Obama. More important is what he refers to as "aversive racists":

“In the U.S., there’s a small percentage of people who in nationwide surveys say they won’t vote for a qualified black presidential candidate,” Professor Dovidio said. “But a bigger factor is the aversive racists, those who don’t think that they’re racist.”

Faced with a complex decision, he said, aversive racists feel doubts about a black person that they don’t feel about an identical white. “These doubts tend to be attributed not to the person’s race — because that would be racism — but deflected to other areas that can be talked about, such as lack of experience,” he added.

Keeping this in mind helps focus on two recent campaign developments, the "Obama as a terrorist sympathizer" being so repugnantly parroted by McCain's lipsticked bit-bull, and that pit-bull's recent debate performance.

The first is an easy call of course. Character assassination by association is a tried and true political tactic, most often used against people of sterling character for one simple reason: if the candidate is clearly of the highest charater, such as Obama clearly is, what other choice do you have?

Palin's debate performance is another matter. Many on the left have criticized it as being a verbal lapdance for rightwing fanboys (see Lowry, Rich). Let me, however posit a different take. Whatever else you think of Palin's winky, hokey, barely intelligible debate performance, one thing is crystal clear: she has got to be the whitest woman in the US.

And as such, to sub-concious racists across the land, much more qualified than the, um, darker-hued gentleman from Illinois.

Biden v. Palin, First Thoughts

2008-10-02T19:55:00.000-07:00

Most authentic moment by either side: Biden's voice catch rcalling the death of his first wife in that terrible accident.
Promise fulfilled: Palin warned up front that she had no intention of answering any questions she didn't have note cards on.
Speaking of note cards: do you have any idea how that went over with the public. Given my opinions I, of course, think needing to use note cards in a debate about who should be a heartbeat from the presidency is a little, ah, Bush league.
Biden should always have a timer to look at when he's speaking (I thought this during the primary debates as well. When he's forced to be brief he's smart, concise, and much less likely to put his foot in his mouth.
Palin scaled the rather low bar set for her by putting nouns and verbs in proper order when she spoke.
Biden's best (like I said) with a time limit, very strong performance, and excellent self-control (I only noticed one peeved galnce at his opponent).
Outcome: slight edge for Biden for providing the only honest human emotion of the night.

Overall: Neither delf-destructed, which, given Obama's lead, means he (and the rest of us) are the winners.

McCain/Palin Ifillibuster

2008-10-01T19:08:00.000-07:00

You may have heard that, in their continuing efforts to lower expectations for Sarah Palin's performance in tomorrow's debate, the new rightwing kerfuffle is about debate moderator Gwen Ifill's upcoming book on Obama.

This makes sense for GOPers because, with Palin's competence already at ground zero because of her incoherent* responses to Katie Couric's lob-ball questions, the only thing left is to work the ref.

Of course, the fact that Ifill's book deal was public knowledge before she was accepted by the McCain camp to moderate does make their last minute whining seem just a tad disingenuous.

But they claim they just didn't know about it.

And hey, I kinda believe them given that, like their candidate, they just don't hold with no book-larnin'.

*Random thought, Palin is incoherent, Wasilla is the meth capital of Alaska, co-incidence? Hmmmm.

Palin Interview Here!

2008-09-30T19:51:00.000-07:00

You want to be just like Katie Couric don't you? Well don't you?

OK , maybe not Katie, but surely you think you're better than David Gregory. Who doesn't?

And now you can land the interview that any big-time journo not surnamed Gibson or Couric has failed to get (sorry, Hannity does NOT qualify as a journalist): Sarah Palin.

For some reason bailing out the rich is unpopular

2008-09-30T13:09:00.000-07:00

The trend, since the onset of Reaganomics (aka Voodoo economics, trickle-down economics) has been an increasing disparity between the relative wealth of the rich and virtually everyone else.

This gap held its own during the Clinton administration, only to reach new levels of disparity during the reign of King George.

Is it all surprising that an emergency financial package which seems aimed primarily at bailing out the very beneficiaries of the Reagan revolution are universally reviled by the vast majority of the people?

So, the next time a conservative asks what the problem with the rich getting richer, you ow have an answer.

Time to get to know our new masters

2008-09-29T18:57:00.000-07:00

The other day Mrs. CaliBlogger, understandably concerned about the burgeoning financial brouhaha, asked me about the security of our primary bank, Union Bank of California.

I blithely told her that the main problems were with investment banks and that regardless, our minuscule deposits were FDIC insured.

She (darn her and her inconvenient facts) pointed out that WaMu and Wachovia were commercial banks. She also wasn't clear on what kind of rigmarole the FDIC would put us through if worse came to worse.

So, as always when faced with a troubled mind, I sought the wisdom of the Delphic Oracle known as the internets and soon found out something interesting indeed, my UBOC had just been bought out. Indeed the buyer (Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group) has been working on this for a while. And, if you think about it, such deals aren't particularly unusual.

Big companies buy out smaller companies all the time.

So that got me thinking, instead of holding auction where the US government buys out bad debt instruments, shouldn't we be working instead on selling off these badly run Wall Street behemoths to the highest bidder?

Central banks all over the world are sitting on mountains of dollars. If market liquidity is the problem why not encourage those governments to use those dollars to "buy American" if you will.

The way the market's crashing there have GOT to be some bargains out there.

And sure, it'll be a little weird that GM will be owned by the People's Republic of China, but I bet they'll give us great terms on that next Hummer.

Somebody call them a waaaambulance

2008-09-29T13:33:00.000-07:00

The delicate flowers that make up today's GOP are saying they're willing the country's finances collapse because Nancy Pelosi said mean things about them.

[Republican House Minority Leader John] Boehner charged that the bill could have passed today "had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House."

Nice to see the "country first" party getting their priorities straight.

Eye Contact

2008-09-28T01:01:00.000-07:00

I'll never hire someone who doesn't have a firm handshake and look me in the eye while s/he's speaking.

I don't have an explanation for this, but it's something I've learned in over two decades of hiring and firing salespeople. If you can't look me in the eye while you're talking I don't trust you, and more importantly my customers won't trust you.

Barack Obama had no problem looking John McCain in the eye, McCain could not. Not once.

That tells me one thing. McCain isn't as confidant of the product he's selling as he claims to be.

And, though I'm obviously an Obama supporter, such things are not lost, however subliminally on most people.

And, to be frank,I suppose it's to McCain's credit as a human being, that he's unable to fake a sincerity he certainly doesn't feel.

Fly in the ointment

2008-09-25T16:04:00.000-07:00

I'm not thrilled by need for the proposed bailout, nor am I entirely convinced of the efficacy of the scant provisions that have been floated.

But I'm sure of one thing: the LAST thing the bailout negotiations needs right now is an injection of partisan campaign politicking into the mix.

John McCain, apparently disagrees:

But after the meeting broke up about an hour later, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), who strongly opposes the bailout, told reporters, "I don't believe we have an agreement." He said he voiced his concerns in the meeting, calling attention to a letter from leading economists that lays out objections to the plan. The bailout plan "will create more problems; we're rushing to judgment," he said in summarizing the economists' argument....

A visibly irritated Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, summarized the impasse in more pointed terms. He told CNN that the meeting was thrown off when Republicans brought up "some new core agreement" that supposedly had been floated by McCain and was being considered by the Treasury Department.
"What this looked like to me was a rescue plan for John McCain," Dodd fumed. "This is a sad day for the country." He said he still hopes that a deal can be struck but that the Republicans "need to get their act together and decide what they're for."

And so McCain's policy of government by gimmick continues.

Seriously, is this REALLY what you want for the next four years? To live in a state of constant anxiety about what the man with the red button (and I'm not talking about this clown's nose) will do?

John McCain: Crisis manager

2008-09-24T13:25:00.001-07:00

As you no doubt have heard, Republican John McCain Is "suspending" his presidential campaign in order to "assist" in resolving the current financial crisis.

Why does this sound to much akin to the resignation of a disgraced bureaucrat who's going home "to spend more time with his family"?

Regardless this strikes me as a cagey political move from master stuntmeister McCain.

Given the ineptitude with which he's handled the crisis so far, campaign silence from McCain will probably work better for him than letting him speak.

Plus he should be good at this since the financial "meltdown" seems to following the classic Republican model: let a problem fester for years without addressing it, then arm-twist panicked Democrats into giving Republicans the extraordinary powers required to deal with the crisis the Republicans themselves created.

As the man in the Guinness ad says: "brilliant"!

Free Sarah Palin!

2008-09-24T13:10:00.000-07:00

Well, it's about time. Even members of the dread MSM are sick and tired of the sexism being aimed at McCain veep selection Sarah Palin:

Frankly I have had it, and I know a lot of other women out there who are with me on this. I have had enough of the sexist treatment of Sarah Palin. It has to end.

She was in New York on Tuesday meeting with world leaders at the U.N. And what did the McCain campaign do?

They tried to ban reporters from covering those meetings. And they did ban reporters from asking Gov. Palin any questions.

I call upon the McCain campaign to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower who will wilt at any moment.

Like I said, it's about time.

McCain too risky?

2008-09-23T18:35:00.000-07:00

Sure I believe that John McCain 2008 has shown himself to be unsuitable for the office of president.

But don't just ask me, ask conservative columnist George Will:

Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

And sure, progressive that I am, I believe Sarah Palin's nomination to be nothing more than a clever campaign gimmick which reflects poorly on McCain's judgment. But don't take my word for it, ask conservative columnist David Brooks what he thinks of Palin:

Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared.

Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.

Please read both columns (especially Will, who I always enjoy even when I'm grumbling at him through the computer screen).

John McCain's Healthcare Plans

2008-09-22T20:38:00.000-07:00

John McCain writing in Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries (pdf):

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation. [Emphasis mine - CK]

You read it here. John McCain is promising to do for healthcare what he (and his fellow Republicans) have done for finance.

Obama's response:

Game. Set. Match.

[H/t Steve Benen]

Government by crisis

2008-09-21T19:13:00.000-07:00

Where have we heard this before?

A national crisis occurs.

The costs of responding will be limited.

But we must act now, now, now or face impending doom, a figurative, if not literal mushroom cloud.

Now I'm not saying some drastic measures won't be needed to shore up an economy teetering on the brink of collapse, but still that doesn't mean we should allow ourselves to be railroaded into just any old deal because BushCorp™ says it's urgent.

Any benefit of the doubt was lost to this crew a looong time ago.

For a far better and more thorough analysis of the similarities on how the Bushies are selling their bailout like they did the invasion of Iraq I suggest Glen Greenwald.

My main point is this, because we need to do _something_ does not mean we should do just anything.

Meet the new lackies, same as the old lackies

2008-09-21T19:01:00.000-07:00

Anyone reading this blog probably knows already that McCain = Bush's 3rd term, but it's still nice for the MSM to confirm it.

From the Washington Post:

The clutch of Bush veterans helping to coach Palin reflects a larger reality about Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign: Far from being a group of outsiders to the Republican Party power structure, it is now run largely by skilled operatives who learned their crafts in successive Bush campaigns and various jobs across the Bush government over the past eight years.

The team has been assembled and led by Steve Schmidt, a sharp-witted, low-key strategist who has emerged as the campaign's day-to-day operations chief after the ouster of a group of loyal but sometimes undisciplined McCain loyalists. Schmidt's operation is tightly run and hard-nosed -- made up of policy advisers, communications experts, advance people and lower-level aides, many of them old friends who have worked together for the last eight years, and whose presence lends a familiar vibe to the Palin operation.

Republicans have been heartened by the effectiveness of the new McCain organization, which has helped put McCain back in serious contention for the White House, causing restlessness among Democrats who believed the race was Sen. Barack Obama's to lose. Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, expressed pride at what her former colleagues have been able to accomplish.

"We had a great team -- they're the best in the business, and I'm sure the campaign feels fortunate to have them," Perino said.

I love that last quote, "the best in the business". Indeed.

Though if your business is stone-walling, spreading lies, innuendo, and irrelevant bamboozlement, I'm not sure pride is really appropriate.

4 more years!
4 more years!
4 more years!

The Conversation: Bartlett and Obama

2008-09-21T17:06:00.000-07:00

The other day I killed an afternoon watching a West Wing marathon on one of those stations that does that sort of thing.

I, like, I suspect, many another progressive spent many a Thursday evening wishing that I would wake the next morning to find that my president was Jed Bartlett, and that the whole GWB thing was a black comedy out of Aaron Sorkin's wild imagination.

That being the case I was pleased that Maureen Dowd ceded some of her very valuable column inches to Mr. Sorkin for an imagined conversation between Barack Obama and Jed Bartlett.

The result was significantly more entertaining than anything Dowd usually writes (though to be fair, her mean-spritedness doesn't keep me from reading her so I guess she's doing something right).

The conversation should be read in full, especially by WW fans who always wished that Sorkin would've gone back into politics instead of wandering into TV land for his next series.

But here's a tiny taste:

OBAMA I’m interested in your advice.

BARTLET I can’t give it to you.

OBAMA Why not?

BARTLET I’m supporting McCain.

OBAMA Why?

BARTLET He’s promised to eradicate evil and that was always on my “to do” list.

Sigh.

Meyerson: "what good was Lehman Brothers, anyway?"

2008-09-18T14:55:00.000-07:00

I've been an admirer of Harold Meyerson's writing for several years now, ever since he took the time to personally respond to an email inquiry I'd sent him.

I don't now recall the topic, but I do recall his graciousness in responding.

And, in addition to being a gentleman, he is also a reliably progressive and sane commenter on the national stage.

His column in today's Washington Post may, if read and understood by the right people, may be the most important he's ever written.

Someone needs to invest in the United States of America. For the past decade and, in a broader sense, for the entire duration of the Reagan era, both government and Wall Street have opted not to. Should Barack Obama win, the era of neglectful government will probably come to an end. No matter who wins, Wall Street is vanishing before our eyes. And by the measure of their contribution to America's economic strength and well being, both Reagan-age government and Wall Street's investment banks plainly deserve to die.

I give his conclusion here, but his arguments and historical analysis are important for a more thorough understanding of our problems as well as an understanding of why Barack Obama (barring a believable McCain renunciation of Reaganomics, yeah, right) must be elected if we are to overcome and avoid further exacerbating and repeating the mistakes leading to the recent financial let down.

READ THE WHOLE THING. (Please).

Aristocrats for McCain

2008-09-17T15:12:00.001-07:00

You can't make up stuff like this.

"A prominent Hillary Clinton supporter who is a member of the Democratic National Committee's Platform Committee will endorse John McCain at a press conference at the Capitol Hill Club today, September 17," the advisory said.

As a headline, the announcement played great -- even landing a prominent spot on the Drudge Report. But McCain supporters who read further might not have found the payoff quite as satisfying.

Turns out, the prominent Clinton supporter who crossed the partisan aisle to support McCain was none other than Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, wife of British banking scion Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. And the Lady Forester, as she is sometimes known, may not be the ideal spokesperson for McCain in the present environment of economic uncertainty.

When not engaged in politics, de Rothschild -- whom the Wall Street Journal dubbed a "New York socialite" and Portfolio has described as "the flashiest hostess in London" -- has the run of a sprawling estate in Buckinghamshire, north of London, known as Ascott House. In the U.S., she summers on Martha's Vineyard. And she has not been shy with her feelings about Obama prior to today, telling CNN weeks ago -- and without any hint of irony -- that, "frankly, I don't like him. I feel like he is an elitist." [Emphasis mine - CK]

I could kiss Matthew Mosk for that last line.

AIG Bailout

2008-09-17T15:12:00.000-07:00

If you owe the bank $10,000 that's your problem (so goes the joke), but if you owe the bank $10,000,000 it's the bank's problem.

And if you ad a few more zeros it becomes the government's problem.

And make no mistake, this bailout was necessary, given the current circumstances.

And yet one wonders, need it have been?

Or, could it be, that the AIG bailout is yet another example of the GOP's favorite crisis management technique, management by crisis. I.e: ignore a problem until it reaches catastrophic levels, then scramble like mad to find enough duct tape to keep the thing from falling apart?

And, before I get into a round of Bush-bashing, let me make clear, I don't think this problem is Bush's per se, and I don't think Democrats are immune from procrastination, but the GOP's governing philosophy (if it can be called such) seems to lend itself to such disasters.

Best enunciated by St. Ronald Reagan: "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

And, since government is the problem, why not staff it with incompetent, corrupt cronies? (Katrina)

Why not use it to enrich your friends? (Iraq)

Why not ignore your rival's warnings about the world's dangers? (9/11)

Why not deregulate and let the free market's invisible hand rule and let the chips fall where they may?

But of course, when push comes to shove Republicans only want the chips to fall where they may when they fall on someone else.

I'd post more examples of the results of the GOP's "government is the problem" philosophy, but my head hurts.

[x-posted at Daily Kos]

Hope she likes gitmo

2008-09-17T01:19:00.000-07:00

One day after admitting the obvious point that neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin would be fit ti fill her shoes as head of a major corporation, the McCain campaign has "disappeared" Carly Fiorina.

A more generous person would say she'll be missed.

A Bush Doctrine Palin Knows

2008-09-17T01:01:00.000-07:00

She may be clueless about Bush's radical views on proactive war, but McCain's choice for second most powerful person in the world has clearly absorbed Bush's doctrine when dealing with investigations into its own malfeasance.

Not only is Palin refusing to co-operate in the investigation into troopergate that she had so recently promised to co-operate with, her agents are now blocking co-operation by her lackies.

Sheesh.

And recall she was John (country before party (TM) ) McCain's first "presidential" decision.

Note to BO, these guys really aren't as bad as Bush.

They're worse.

Dilbert, the economy, the election and you

2008-09-16T16:34:00.000-07:00

For those of you not familiar, Scott Adams is the creator of Dilbert, the widely read comic strip about the absurdities of life inside and outside the cubicalized modern world.

He also blogs regularly.

Lately, in his largely fruitless attempts to make sense of the current political situation (I'm not implying blame her, I just recognize that finding a rational response to the absurd may well be a hopeless endeavor) Mr. Adams decided to finance a survey of economists. His goal: to see which presidential candidate's economic plans make the most sense (at least to economists).

Says Adams, “I found myself wishing someone would give voters useful and unbiased information about which candidate has the best plans for the economy. Then I realized that I am someone, which is both inconvenient and expensive.”

At considerable personal expense, Adams commissioned a survey of over 500 economists, drawn from a subset of the members of the American Economic Association, a non-political group, some of whose members had agreed in advance to be surveyed on economic questions.

Obama supporters will be pleased to find that their candidate gets the nod, though McCainiacs will protest that the results are skewed because, as it happens, most economists are Democrats.

Most important (if this can be called important) is that those all important independents also generally favor Obama's economics.

As to what this all means, Mr. Adams:

“If an economist uses a complicated model to predict just about anything, you can ignore it. By analogy, a doctor can’t tell you the exact date of your death in 50 years. But if a doctor tells you to eat less and exercise more, that’s good advice even if you later get hit by a bus. Along those same lines, economists can give useful general advice on the economy, even if you know there will be surprises. Still, be skeptical.”

Detailed survey data here.

CNN article here.

Today's McCain Lie

2008-09-16T13:16:00.000-07:00

Another day, another lie.

In case you hadn't heard Senator John McCain, acknowledged computer illiterate, now claims to have invented the ubiquitous Blackberry PDA!

At a gathering in Washington today, McCain domestic policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin was asked about his candidate's grasp of high-tech matters. Holtz-Eakin held up his BlackBerry and, in a nod toward McCain's onetime tenure as head of the Senate Commerce Committee, said, "He did this."

And unlike Al Gore who a) never claimed that he invented the internet, and b) was none the less an early supporter, McCain's claim is just an out and out fabrication.

Ah yes, the narrative takes hold.

(BTW, for those playing along at home, the DNC has created a helpful wiki page to track the McCain/Palin lying bastards Express)

John McCain: Unserious or Delusional?

2008-09-15T18:59:00.000-07:00

As a recovering sufferer of Palin addiction, I'd like to expand (a little bit) on the thoughts of my previous post.

In truth Sarah Palin is only symptomatic of the problems I have with the McCain candidacy.

Though a longtime liberal, I once admired John McCain's apparent honor and integrity, though never someone I'd vote for, certainly he seemed someone I could work with. But for reasons best known to himself he has decided to abandon the persona grown through years of public service and succumbed to the blandishments of the worst elements of the GOP attack machine.

By choosing Governor Palin as his Veep John McCain has demonstrated that he is either unserious about the job of being president, or, he is delusional.

A serious John McCain would have recognized that as a 72 year old man with a history of melanoma, his VP would need to be someone who, in cold-blooded fact, needs to be someone who is as ready to assume the presidency as anyone can be on "day 1".

Sarah Palin is a virtual antithesis of such a person.

The other possibility is that John McCain is delusional: he simply doesn't believe he's going to die.

Either way, he's unfit to serve and so, as I said, Sarah Palin is only a symptom, John McCain is the disease.

Happy Monday

2008-09-15T13:20:00.000-07:00

Just a quick thought on McCain/Palin.

While I continue to astounded/offended by the nomination of someone so obviously unqualified to be Veep, little less, and God forbid POTUS, still I think it's important to keep in mind that Palin is merely a symptom of what's wrong with McCain's candidacy.

McCain is the underlying disease.

Energy expert Palin doesn't know how much energy her state produces

2008-09-11T20:22:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin's biggest claim to national security experience is her supposed knowledge of the energy industry.

I guess it would be problematic then if she, for example, couldn't get her figures straight on, say Alaskan oil production, wouldn't it?

In today's published report of Sarah Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson she is quoted as saying this:

Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

Golly 20% of US domestic energy!? That's sure a lot.

It's also a lie.

According to US government statistics Alaska produces (in 2005) 3.5% of total US domestic energy production.

Alaska does produce nearly 20% of US domestic oil supply (actually it was 18.5% in 2006).

Oh, you say, so she just got them mixed up?

Perhaps, but strangely enough (or not) John McCain made the exact same mistake in his most recent interview:

She knows more about energy than probably anybody else in the Unites States. She is governor of a state [pause] that 20 percent of America's energy supply comes from there.

Now I realize that people's eyes glaze over regarding statistics, but still, the McPalin campaign is using her energy "expertise" as the main facet of her security resume.

That she doesn't know what her state produces, or (more likely to my mind, and consistent with the McPalin MO to date) is simply lying about it, is something that we should (helpfully) point out to anyone and every one we can.

One more talking point in the growing "McPalin is lying to you" narrative.

[x-posted at Daily Kos]

Mayberry was never like this

2008-09-11T15:30:00.000-07:00

The common wisdom is that the Obama campaign should be focusing on issues and not letting the McPalin campaign distract them with sideshows like the great porcine lipstick controversy.

I agree.

However since your humble blogger doesn't work for Campaign Obama I feel free to reveal the latest bit of nastiness from the GOP's goddess.

The USA Today headline says it all:

"Palin's town used to bill victims for rape kits"

But the Anchorage Daily News (which I highly recommend for all things Palinesque) has the more complete story:

Eight years ago, complaints about charging rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill -- signed into law by Knowles -- that banned the practice statewide.

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said

A May 23, 2000, article in Wasilla's newspaper, The Frontiersman, noted that Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies regularly pay for such exams, which cost between $300 and $1,200 apiece.

"(But) the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests," the newspaper reported.

Presumably they were trying to encourage competition between rape kit companies by encouraging rape victims to shop around.

As the O-man said, with Republicans, you're on your own.

And one rape, apparently, deserves another.

NEWSFLASH: McCain Seeks Pedophile Support

2008-09-10T18:29:00.000-07:00

I assume that's his goal. Why else run an ad criticizing Barack Obama for supporting legislation designed to warn children away from such predators?

Sarah Palin and Petty Larceny

2008-09-09T13:20:00.000-07:00

According to the Washington Post, McCain's choice to become a single 72 year old heartbeat from the presidency billed the state of Alaska for days she spent at home:

ANCHORAGE, Sept. 8 -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

The governor also has charged the state for travel expenses to take her children on official out-of-town missions. And her husband, Todd, has billed the state for expenses and a daily allowance for trips he makes on official business for his wife.

She also billed for various expenses for the first dude as well as her kids.

And though the expense claims may or may not be technically legal, this is an excellent example of the petty larceny typical of politics as usual.

I hope my fellow citizens will not give her an opportunity to commit greater thefts on a vastly grander scale.

That would indeed be more of the same.

Newsflash: Republican Commits Truth

2008-09-04T15:41:00.000-07:00

We know it's what a lot of GOPers think, it's just nice to hear them come right out and say it:

Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland used the racially-tinged term "uppity" to describe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Thursday.

Westmoreland was discussing vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech with reporters outside the House chamber and was asked to compare her with Michelle Obama.

"Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.

Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.”

Wow, refreshing honesty from a Republican, I never thought I'd see the day. Though such honesty may not win Ms. Westmoreland a lot of admirers.

[H/t Andrew Sullivan]

No mere trophy Veep

2008-09-03T19:25:00.000-07:00

If you, like me, are having trouble conceiving why Sarah Palin represents a potentially formidable obstacle (barring any truly ghastly skeletons in her as yet unexplored closets) I recommend Lance Mannion's always entertaing analysis here and here.

She's there to be average in order to appeal to "average" Americans.

I wonder whether average Americans understand that what we need as a leader is far beyond average.

I hope so.

McCain's Veep Pick

2008-08-29T12:46:00.000-07:00

So, was Dan Quayle busy?

Obama's Acceptance Speech

2008-08-29T00:39:00.000-07:00

Oh my.

But don't take my word for it, ask rightwing firebrand and former Nixon speechwriter Pat Buchanan:

Ask conservative (though definitely not Republican) columnist Andrew Sullivan:

Above all, he took on national security - face on, full-throttle, enraged, as we should all be, at how disastrously American power has been handled these past eight years. He owned this issue in a way that no Democrat has owned it since Kennedy. That's a transformative event. To my mind, it is vital that both parties get to own the war on Jihadist terror and that we escape this awful Rove-Morris trap that poisons the discourse into narrow and petty partisan abuse of patriotism. Obama did this tonight. We are in his debt.

As occasioanlly happens in history, though remarkably frequently in American history, a time of extraordinary demands has given rise to an extraordinary leader.

Andrew's response is to the point:

"I've said it before - months and months ago. I should say it again tonight. This is a remarkable man at a vital moment. America would be crazy to throw this opportunity away. America must not throw this opportunity away.

Know hope."

Hope.

Feels good, doesn't it?

Hillary's Speech: What she needs to say

2008-08-26T15:49:00.001-07:00

When Hillary Clinton addresses the Democratic Nation Convention tonight she needs to say the following:

"I, of all people, understand the disappointment, and yes the hurt felt by my supporters. But if you support me, if you support the goals which I've spent my life pursuing, then you must support and vote for Barack Obama."

Anything less is unacceptable if either Clinton seeks to have a political life within the Democratic party.

My bet is that Hillary understands this as well.

[UPDATE: Mission accomplished, great job Hillary!]

Paris Attacks

2008-08-05T19:21:00.000-07:00

Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Adfunny videosFunnyOrDie.com

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

How sad is it that in McCain v. Hilton, Paris Hilton comes off as the mature one?

Reprehensible

2008-07-22T18:45:00.000-07:00

"I had the courage and judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Sen. Obama would rather lose the war in order to win a political campaign." Emphasis mine-CK

So much for taking the high ground. Expect more and worse as the wheels continue to fly off the straight talk express.

No, Obama's not that funny, but then neither is Maureen

2008-07-16T16:54:00.000-07:00

OK, I get it.

After 7 years of a buffoon-in-chief in the form of GW, preceded by 8 years of Bill Clinton's tastes for both cheeseburgers and cheesy interns, the press has gotten used to an easily mock-able President.

So I suppose Maureen Dowd's lament over the lack of humor emanating from the Obama campaign is understandable. (Not that it's impossible to find. As Andy Borowitz demonstrates, even a lack of humor can be funny.)

But I don't see that Obama needs to be anything other than who and how he is, even at the risk of the "regular guy"-ness that people like Dowd insist we plebes crave. I, for one, don't want anyone approaching "regular" sitting in the Oval office come January. Nope, the person I want, and the country clearly needs as President should be exceptional, intelligent and, horror of horrors, serious.

The pundits and comedians are just going to have to work for their laughs this time around.

The Anti-Dumb Candidate

2008-07-10T15:56:00.000-07:00

To all my compatriots on the left who are shaking their heads about Obama's latest "sell-out" I highly recommend Gail Collins' NYT column.

Think back. Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton in the first place? Their policies were almost identical — except his health care proposal was more conservative. You liked Barack because you thought he could get us past the old brain-dead politics, right? He talked — and talked and talked — about how there were going to be no more red states and blue states, how he was going to bring Americans together, including Republicans and Democrats.

Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place? Left field?

When an extremely intelligent politician tells you over and over and over that he is tired of the take-no-prisoners politics of the last several decades, that he is going to get things done and build a “new consensus,” he is trying to explain that he is all about compromise. Even if he says it in that great Baracky way.

I suggest you read the whole thing (if only for the penguin story).

A coupla thoughts on recent Obama news

2008-06-25T15:45:00.000-07:00

On public financing: Obama would be a fool not to use every advantage he can legitimately muster to win this election, and he's never struck me as a fool. As for going back on his "promise", said "promise" was pretty finely parsed. After 7 years of finely wrought arguments about what TORTURE means, I'm not too shocked by a politician walking a fine line on a campaign promise.

On helping to retire Hillary's debt: Welcome to politics. By helping Hill, the O-Man will help soothe some of HRC's followers, and as importantly encourage HER donors to give to him.

Count me as among those Democrats who are tired of losing elections because we were too proud to muss our hair and (God help us) actually engage in politics.

Obama Endorsement News

2008-06-15T17:10:00.000-07:00

I know, I know, endorsements don't matter, Teddy K. couldn't even win Mass. for Obama, etc.

Still, ya gotta believe that some endorsements matter more than others.

(H/t to Lance Mannion)

Can you tell the difference?

2008-06-12T19:43:00.000-07:00

What's in a name?

2008-02-28T20:33:00.000-08:00

Personally I'd be quite happy to have a president named Barack Hussein Obama.

But for those of you uncomfortable with multisyllabic monikers I highly recommend Juan Cole's rant on other great Americans with funny sounding names.

Feel better?

Land of the free?

2008-02-28T16:27:00.000-08:00

Hardly.

On the importance of words

2008-02-25T18:01:00.000-08:00

What Arianna says.

Happy Valentines Day

2008-02-14T18:39:00.000-08:00

Both Mrs. C and my self are feeling much better thank you.

And by the way, after winning February so, apparently, is the Obama campaign.

But then why wouldn't they, I mean this guy is good.

(h/t Andrew Sullivan)

Congratulations

2008-01-03T18:59:00.001-08:00

I'm sick (just a cold), and Mrs. C is very ill (all positive thoughts accepted gladly), but somehow I feel better than I have for months.

Cuba Libre!

2007-09-03T00:19:00.000-07:00

And no, I don't mean the rum drink.

Anyway.

Could someone please explain to me the current travel restrictions on Americans visiting Cuba?

And please, if you've a mind to, please read Steve Benen's thoughtful post over at the Daily Dish (congrats Andrew on your marriage!), and explain to me 1) why he's wrong and 2) why Hillary's satisfaction with the status quo makes any sense what-so-ever.

Republicans go on record against mother's milk

2007-08-31T14:14:00.000-07:00

Lest you forget that GOP protestations of patriotism are limited to war at the expense of any other American values like, say, liberty, or the rule of law, it's now official: Republicans are against breast-feeding:

In an attempt to raise the nation's historically low rate of breast-feeding, federal health officials commissioned an attention-grabbing advertising campaign a few years ago to convince mothers that their babies faced real health risks if they did not breast-feed. It featured striking photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples.

Plans to run these blunt ads infuriated the politically powerful infant formula industry, which hired a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a former top regulatory official to lobby the Health and Human Services Department. Not long afterward, department political appointees toned down the campaign.

So, in an effort to assuage their corporate masters, the GOP has come out against mom.

Next on the agenda, government reports touting the benefits of mock-apple pie and tee-ball?

Dogs of War

2007-08-29T15:59:00.001-07:00

Glenn Greenwald has the call on Bush's most dangerous speech to date regarding the impending (so the neo-cons hope) war with Iran.

After outlining the mendacities upon which Bush is building the case for war, Greenwald makes the scariest observation I've read:

The true danger here is that even if there would be marginally more political opposition to an attack on Iran than there was for an attack on Iraq -- and surely there would be, perhaps considerably more opposition -- those who favor an attack are still politically strong within the administration. And there simply are no factions which would oppose such an attack that are anywhere near strong enough to stop one. Who and where are they? What are the political factions which have sufficient political strength and who are willing to risk political capital to stop such a confrontation?

By stark and dispositive contrast, those who are pining for an attack on Iran -- from the Weekly Standard to the AEI and various generic warmongers of the Dick Cheney/National Review strain, as well as our most pious evangelical Christian warriors -- are zelaous adherents, True Believers. Bringing about a military confrontation with Iran has always been, and continues to be, their paramount priority.

Where oh where is the outcry against Bush's transparent warmongering?

If you want to nip this lunacy in the bud, please, please, please contact your representatives and let them know you'll support anybody who stands up to Bush and the war-machine.

[NOTE - Here's the text that I sent to my reps. Feel free to copy/paste it and send it to yours:

Yesterday President Bush gave a speech to the American Legion in which he outlined his case against Iran.

I found the similarities between this speech and the rationales given in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq to be as disquieting as they were border-line mendacious.

Too many Democratic leaders appear to feel that opposing the President's war-mongering will lead to charges that they are "weak" on defense.

Please let me assure you that I and many like me understand that strong defense does not require an unending series of needless wars and that we are prepared to fully support any politician brave enough to stand up and say so.

I hope to count you as such.

GONZO

2007-08-27T10:45:00.000-07:00

And though you'll never hear it from MSM accounts, the blogosphere was incredibly important in exposing this hack.

Congratulations to Josh and the gang at TPM.

House alleges administration crimes

2007-07-25T08:14:00.000-07:00

Yesterday the House Judiciary Committee released a report alleging that WH and DoJ officials engaged in illegal activity in its firings of the Gonzales 8 US attorneys.

From the Washington Post:

The report says that Congress's seven-month investigation into the firings raises "serious concerns" that senior White House and Justice Department aides involved in the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year may have obstructed justice and violated federal statutes that protect civil service employees, prohibit political retaliation against government officials and cover presidential records.

The key importance of this report, which the article fails to point out I might add, is that a presidential "executive privilege" claim is much weaker in the face of an actual criminal investigation.

Should this go to the courts the administration will now be much harder pressed to show why their blanket claim of that privilege is valid.

2007-07-04T10:59:00.000-07:00

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Courtesy ushistory.org.

Government of the crooks, by the crooks, for the crooks

2007-07-03T08:28:00.000-07:00

Of late, the trend in the political blogosphere has been towards group blogs and I have a theory as to why.

The Bush administration.

I know I've talked about this before, but I suspect BushCorp™'s myriad sins have simply left solo bloggers like your CaliBlogger too exhausted for proper outrage.

Torture.

Renditions.

Gitmo.

Abu Ghraib.

Illegal surveillance.

Katrina.

Global warming.

War in Iraq.

War in Afghanistan.

War in Iran.

"Justice" Department.

Alberto Gonzales.

Right wing Supreme Court.

And now, Scooter Libby.

Sigh.

I started this blog in order to express my rage and incredulity over the outcome of the '04 elections. At that time I couldn't bear the thought that my fellow citizens had really re-elected this idiot.

And in the intervening time I've done my level best to keep up, but, in the face of so much incompetence and corruption I'm frankly overwhelmed.

So, though I suppose that commuting the sentence of a convicted perjurer in a country where possessing an ounce of pot can land you in jail should put me in a proper lather, I find it does no such thing.

It just makes me feel tired.

So, for those of you seeking some proper outrage I can only recommend checking out a few of my brethren in the blogosphere:

Shaun Mullen:

It would have been one thing if the Libby commutation had been an aberration. But here is a man who as governor of Texas openly mocked a woman whom he had just put to death by pursing his lips and squeaking “please don’t kill me” after she had appealed to him for clemency.

Digby (multiple posts).

mcjoan (at Daily Kos) has a nice roundup of candidate reactions.

And if you want some true hair-singeing, read the comments to MissLaura's news post on Libby (also at Kos).

I could go on, there's plenty of well-earned bile out there.

But frankly I need a nap.

And a shower.

Dogs of War: The New York Times

2007-07-02T20:47:00.000-07:00

As BushCorp™ hawks continue to push for war with Iran, no-one serves them so obsequiously as the press.

And especially guilty in this regard is the nation's "paper of record", the New York Times and this week's stenographer, Michael Gordon.

So, unsurprisingly, given their cheer leading for the fiasco in Iraq, the Times is now frontpaging more Dod dictation.

Read Glenn Greenwald for the gristly details.

Immigration bill bites dust

2007-06-29T11:02:00.000-07:00

Other than as yet another sign that Bush is now doomed to irrelevancy, the death of the immigration overhaul is not a good thing.

Yes, it was flawed. Among other things the proposed guest worker program, offering no avenue for permanent residence and citizenship, could have the effect of creating a permanent underclass similar to those troubling England and Europe as a source of radicalism bred from hopelessness.

But the failure to address and normalize the status of the purported 12 million undocumented workers currently residing in the US accomplishes much the same thing on a far vaster scale.

So, since it becomes ever clearer that the GOP represents the fraction of the US that is ever given to resentment and fear of the "other", the only possible solution is to elect Democrats.

But you probably already guessed that.

Jump Al, Jump

2007-06-29T10:27:00.000-07:00

I'm just sayin'.

With God on our side

2007-06-18T13:21:00.000-07:00

One of the enduring paradoxes of current American politics is the question of how, in the face of overwhelming evidence, George W. Bush can continue policies so widely viewed as destined for failure?

And even more exasperating, how can 29% of Americans still support him in that effort?

In his new book, now available to pre-order at Amazon, Salon contributor and CaliBlogger must-read, Glenn Greenwald, posits a fairly straightforward explanation:

At the heart of this process lies a binary moralistic view of the world, one which seeks to define every conflict and political challenge, both foreign and domestic, as a battle of Good versus Evil. The crux of this mindset is the continuous identification of an Enemy, one which embodies Evil and which must be stopped, typically destroyed, at all costs. No competing considerations, no rational arguments, no counter-balancing objectives, not even constraints of reality or resources, can compete with the moral imperative of this mission. The mission of destroying Evil trumps all.

And the converse then also falls comfortably into place: those who seek to destroy Evil -- whether it be America, or President Bush, or the right-wing political faction that has supported the Bush presidency -- are, by definition, the embodiment of Good. Thus, whatever steps they take, whatever instruments they employ in service of their mission, are intrinsically justifiable because, by definition, they are employed in service of the Good.

Your CaliBlogger has long held the belief that portraying the world in terms of Good and Evil enables those who would think of themselves as Good to commit, or at least abide, the most unspeakable acts. Thus the collective yawn with which most Americans seem to greet news of torture and murder, all committed by our government, and in our name.

So, discerning reader, please be ware of any polemicists characterizing world events as a struggle between good and evil (or its secular counterpart, madness). Either they are deluding themselves, or they are trying to delude you.

Dogs of War: New York Times

2007-06-17T12:39:00.000-07:00

One of the worst failures leading up to the invasion of Iraq was the unwillingness of the nation's media to question BushCorp™ assertions about the need for war.

Especially egregious was the New York times whose front-page placement of stories by warmongers such as Judith Miller lent the prestige of the US' "paper of record" to the neo-con line of bullshit.

So, it is especially troubling that, despite its mea culpas on its Iraq coverage, the Times is doing it again, this time transcribing, and therefore giving credence to administration assertions about our next target, Iran:

Even beyond its nuclear program, Iran is emerging as an increasing source of trouble for the Bush administration by inflaming the insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and in Gaza, where it has provided military and financial support to the militant Islamic group Hamas, which now controls the Gaza Strip.

But as Glenn Greenwald points out:

Note that the numerous claims here are presented not as assertions, not as arguments, but as facts. And they are not even accompanied by the qualification that these were asserted by the article's anonymous "administration officials." Rather, they are simply stated, by the Times itself, as unquestionable facts. And they are obviously inflammatory "facts," as they depict Iran as, more or less, at war with the U.S. in multiple countries, arming and funding groups directly at war with our military.

I recommend Mr. Greenwald for a point by point break down of the inaccuracies and fallacies behind the Times' assertions, but the key point is this, when administration lies go unchecked and unquestioned by the MSM, the only victors are the dogs of war.

A third party run for Ron Paul?

2007-06-16T09:07:00.000-07:00

While most talk on the web concerned with possible third party candidates for the 2008 presidential election focuses on that dying species, the liberal Republican, mostly in the form of New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, I'd suggest keeping an eye on another type of Republican altogether, once (and future?) Libertarian Ron Paul.

Why, you ask, does your CaliBlogger think the still obscure Texas congressman might make a flanking run at the presidency?

First, of course is that Paul's consistently libertarian views put him at odds with Bush's Republican party which is increasingly authoritarian, Christianist, and interventionist. Paul doesn't just mouth platitudes about small government, he actually believes that government has no business meddling in foreign countries, has no business spying on its own citizens, and has no business monitoring what people do in their bedrooms, and who with.

Secondly, Paul, unlike Ross Perot whose Reform Party was more personality cult than political organization, would presumably be running under the auspices of an existing party, the Libertarian.

And while small compared to the major parties, the Libertarian Party is the largest of US third parties, and most importantly, consistently shows the ability to put a candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.

Finally, perhaps because of his libertarian leanings, Ron Paul is an even rarer bird than the liberal Republican, a Republican with actual grassroots support.

While Republicans are typically funded through astroturf groups that are funded by just a few wealthy individuals or corporations, Paul is getting support and interest from that most democratic of modern amalgamations, the Internet. From the Washington Post:

Rep. Ron Paul is more popular on Facebook than Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). He's got more friends on MySpace than former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. His MeetUp groups, with 11,924 members in 279 cities, are the biggest in the Republican field. And his official YouTube videos, including clips of his three debate appearances, have been viewed nearly 1.1 million times -- more than those of any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, except Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

No one's more surprised at this robust Web presence than Paul himself, a self-described "old-school," "pen-and-paper guy" who's serving his 10th congressional term and was the Libertarian Party's nominee for president in 1988.

"To tell you the truth, I hadn't heard about this YouTube and all the other Internet sites until supporters started gathering in them," confessed Paul, 71, who said that he's raised about $100,000 after each of the three debates. Not bad considering that his campaign had less than $10,000 when his exploratory committee was formed in mid-February. "I tell you I've never raised money as efficiently as that, in all my years in Congress, and all I'm doing is speaking my mind."

And someone who just speaks his mind would be a refreshing change for Republicans who are more adept at fear-mongering and feigning the sort of flat-earth ignorance that appeals to the knuckle-draggers that form the party's base.

Now to be clear, your CaliBlogger is far from enamored of some of Paul's rather extreme anti-government stances (eliminating the Department of Education), but someone who also advocates the repeal of the Patriot Act and the liquidation of the Department of Homeland Security, is at least demonstrating an appealing level of unaccustomed intellectual consistency.

And the fact that a Paul candidacy would continue the destruction of the crumbling Republican party is only and added side benefit.

Bush: the bizarro Midas' touch

2007-06-15T08:03:00.000-07:00

One of the key features of BushCorp™ policy making is becoming increasingly apparent, its penchant for governance by unintended consequences.

In North Korea Bush's dissolution of Clinton era accords led to Pyonyang's unsupervised development of nuclear capability.

On the Gulf Coast, Bush's hack appointees combined with the Republican penchant for the privatization of government responsibilities led to the exacerbation of the devastation by Hurricane Katrina.

And in Iraq...well 'nuff said.

So Hamas' recent takeover of Gaza should really come as no surprise to anyone watching the unfolding of BushCorp™ policy in the area.

For a good overview of this sorry situation you might try this Washington Post article, but let me break it down for you.

First the US, typically, blindly backed Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza leaving a power vacuum in the area.

Then Bush, drunk on his own pro-democracy rhetoric, if not NA beer, encouraged Palestinian elections on the assumption that US backed Fatah, despite its record of incompetence and corruption (wonder how Bush missed that?) would win handily.

Funny thing though. Hamas, whose consistently anti-Israel rhetoric and behavior, as well as its more effective humanitarian activities (relative to Fatah anyway) makes it popular with the Palestinian street, won the election and took over the government. Hey, Hamas might be fundamentalist terrorists, but at least they get things done.

And, in an unsurprising betrayal of its pro-democracy rhetoric, rather than recognizing the need to talk to Palestine's democratically elected government, Bush organized a global effort to cut off support for Palestine in hopes of toppling the regime in favor of US backed Fatah.

Another funny story. It turns out that Palestinians, on seeing their already desperate plight worsened, apparently are focusing their hatred, not on their own elected government, but on Fatah, a group now seen not only as incompetent and corrupt, but also as a US/Israeli collaborator.

Oops.

You know, if five years ago you had asked me whether the Israeli/Palestinian conflict could get any more hopeless, I'd have been hard pressed to envision a situation worse than the cycle of violence which already gripped the region.

Then again, five years ago I didn't know then what I now now about Bush's bizarro Midas' touch.

Defeat in Iraq

2007-06-14T12:23:00.000-07:00

President Bush has claimed that the only way we can lose in Iraq is if we leave.

But what if that assertion is no more accurate than any other assertion he makes?

What if the US Army, for all its might, stays in Iraq and is defeated none-the-less?

James Wolcott puts into words an idea that's been rattling around your CaliBlogger's brain for some time now:

On the op-ed pages and the pundit panels and in the presidential debates, the onus is put on those who advocate withdrawal, even wimpy, slow-mo, phased withdrawal. They're put on the defensive as the questions are posed, "What happens if the US withdraws? What would that do to American credibility? Are you prepared to take responsibility for a bloody aftermath?"

But the counter-question also needs to be asked:

"What happens if the US stays--and loses? How prepared are you to deal with that eventuality?"

Mr. Wolcott's article should be read, as always, in full to appreciate the depth of his analysis, but especially this time for the citations from William S. Lind, Larry C. Johnson, and Timothy Garton Ash, which flesh out the increasingly real possibility of American military defeat.

Dogs of War: Joe Lieberman

2007-06-11T10:45:00.000-07:00

Joe Lieberman (I-BushCorp™), fresh from his fact free fact-finding trip in Iraq, now has some sage and sober advice.

With the conquest of Iraq moving along swimmingly despite the continued efforts of a few bad apples, it's time to move on to our next conquest: Iran.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

...

"We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," Lieberman said. "Well, we can tell them we want them to stop that. But if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them."

Brilliant.

But before we follow blood-soaked Joe's advice, perhaps we should look more closely at his justifications.

I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq.

Perhaps it's a conspiracy of silence by the ever controversy averse (ahem) MSM, but I don't recall reading about or hearing any evidence about Iranians killing Americans, in Iraq or anywhere else. Saudis, sure, Jordanians, Syrians, Pakistanis, Afghanis, Yemenis sure. And let's not even get into the whole Iraqi civil war thing, please, let's not.

But Iranians?

And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.

Good evidence? But then, if you're a BushCorp™ toady yourself I suppose anonymous leaks by other BushCorp™ toadies is good enough.

We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans.

Hey, if "we've said so", gosh it must be true. After all, BushCorp™ is widely well-known for the truthful and open approach to the facts, especially when it comes to matters of war.

But if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them.

No, how could we think that talking could help. After ~~all these years of open~~ fleeting moments of limited dialog between Washington and Tehran, what more could talking possibly gain us?

Like I said, brilliant.

But what do you expect from the dogs of war?

Dogs of War: a reading tip

2007-06-03T13:24:00.000-07:00

As the Bush administration continues its efforts to distract Americans from the disaster in Iraq by drumming up support for an attack on Iran, it's well to keep in mind some of the lessons from its previous efforts to manipulate a compliant media.

Today's case in point, an article by Robin Wright in to day's Washington Post breathlessly describing Iran's purported efforts to supply weapons to both Shia insurgent groups in Iran and the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan. Just read the first paragraph and see if you can spot the problem:

Iran has increased arms shipments to both Iraq's Shiite extremists and Afghanistan's Taliban in recent weeks in an apparent attempt to pressure American and other Western troops operating in its two strategic neighbors, according to senior U.S. and European officials.

Catch it? Let's try that again with highlights:

Iran has increased arms shipments to both Iraq's Shiite extremists and Afghanistan's Taliban in recent weeks in an apparent attempt to pressure American and other Western troops operating in its two strategic neighbors, according to senior U.S. and European officials.

And why do these "officials" need to go un-named? Why should they? The article certainly doesn't tell us.

Since they are talking about (not showing, mind, but merely describing) evidence of Iranian malfeasance, it seems unlikely that the anonymous officials are in danger of running afoul of higher ups, the usual reason for anonymity.

The likely reason said officials seek to remain anonymous is that they don't want to be publicly caught in a lie.

That being the case my advice is this, the history of BushCorp™ lies and deception being what it is, save your self a few minutes in the day and just skip any article that refuses to name names.

Life is to short.

Bush's autocrat ally

2007-06-02T13:06:00.000-07:00

For someone whose self-proclaimed mythology portrays himself as dedicated to his ideals to the point of obstinacy, President Bush has shown a remarkable ability to betray those ideals for political expediency.

This has been most clearly obvious in the support that an administration purportedly dedicated to spreading democracy shows for some of the worst tyrants in the world.

Take Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf...please.

(Sorry)

Musharraf has ruled Pakistan since 1999, when a military-led coup toppled the democratically elected civilian prime minister. The country is due for elections later this year, but Musharraf has said he wants the outgoing parliament to give him another five-year term before the public votes. He has also indicated he is reluctant to shed his role as head of the army, as the constitution requires.

Musharraf is allegedly a crucial ally in the GWoT, though, when he's not cutting deals to cede Pakistani territory to terrorists, seems mostly useful in capturing one of the seemingly limitless numbers of No. 3 ranking al Qaeda honchos when Bush needs a political boost here in the US.

So one must wonder what BushCorp™'s stance will be in the face of increasing pro-democracy challenges to Musharraf's dictatorship? So far the silence is deafening.

Fighting them over here

2007-06-02T12:44:00.000-07:00

If nothing else, the one thing the current administration is good at the memorable catch phrase.

But a good catch phrase doesn't make it true.

A case in point is the president's repeated assertion that "we're fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them here", or the equally catchy, and its equally misguided cousin, SecDef Gates', "It's important to defend this country on the extremists' 10-yard line, and not on our 10-yard line".

As witnessed by today's news of a home-grown plot to blow up the jet fuel lines to JFK airport, fighting the civil war in Iraq is hardly helping.

In fact I would call Iraq irrelevant to such plots except for this: it serves to further inflame and bolster the wills of those who hate American behavior both around the world and, as we see, here in the US.

It was 40* years ago today...

2007-06-01T08:59:00.000-07:00

You'll be reading the above headline on many an article today as we mark the 40th anniversary of the release of one of the greatest, and most talked about albums in pop music history, the Beatles' Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Talked about? How about obsessed over? From Rolling Stone:

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the most important rock & roll album ever made, an unsurpassed adventure in concept, sound, songwriting, cover art and studio technology by the greatest rock & roll group of all time. From the title song's regal blasts of brass and fuzz guitar to the orchestral seizure and long, dying piano chord at the end of "A Day in the Life," the thirteen tracks on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band are the pinnacle of the Beatles' eight years as recording artists. John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr were never more fearless and unified in their pursuit of magic and transcendence.

From the comments section comments section:

To remove Sgt. Pepper from the context in which it was originally released can only hurt it’s reputation. The Beatles put together albums full of stronger songs both before (Revolver) and after (Abbey Road) it’s release, but Sgt. Pepper has to be their masterpiece simply because nothing else approaches the ambitious, sweeping, sonic majesty of it all.

From the opening murmurs of an expectant crowd on the title track to the crashing piano chord at the end of ‘A Day in the Life’ thirty nine minutes later, the album pays tribute to almost every musical influence Paul McCartney ever had and John Lennon ever dreamed (from english dance hall on ‘When I’m 64′ to LSD hallucinations on ‘Lucky in the Sky with Diamonds’).

Calling it a ‘failed’ concept album (Lennon said they stopped caring about ‘Sgt. Pepper’ by track three), is missing the point. An album that should be taken as a whole, not a couple hit songs plus filler, was the point. And it was understood immediately, as Sgt. Pepper was the first album radio stations played in full.

The Beatles took everyone who ‘bought the ticket’ to places where popular music was never intended to go. A symphony for a young girl leaving home. Making the boredom of the morning a frantic mix of guitars and animals. An ode to a meter maid.

It was new and different, and because of that it was taken up as a representation of the social and political changes of the sixties, even though all it was and all it intended to be was a great set of tunes.

Or this from the Washington Post:

A hundred years from now, musicologists say, Beatles songs will be so well known that every child will learn them as nursery rhymes, and most people won't know who wrote them. They will have become sufficiently entrenched in popular culture that it will seem as if they've always existed, like "Oh! Susanna," "This Land Is Your Land" and "Frère Jacques."

But whatever your take on what RS named as the greatest album of all time (and I suppose your take may well be generational depending on whether you're a boomer of a member of generations x, y, or z), the tunes still sound great.

*And by the way, as a correction to all those headlines, it would be 60 years ago today that Sgt Pepper taught the band to play as the band was putatively 20 years old when the album was released.

Cheers

National Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

2007-05-31T12:17:00.000-07:00

During his Tuesday interview with Al Gore, Keith Olbermann referred to America's continued state of fear as "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder".

And while that might be somewhat overstating the thing, certainly the government and the MSM still seems, earnest in its attempts to keep the public looking over its collective shoulders (c.f. today's hysteria over the great TB scare).

Certainly though it does sometimes seem that, in addition to non-Texan hot sauce, the biggest import from NEW YORK CITY?! is the paranoid spirit behind its "See Something, Say Something" campaign.

For the latest expression of American PTSD (APTSD) we go to an innocent looking fax machine in Ashland, Mass. From the AP:

ASHLAND, Mass. --A faulty bank fax printed a message that was misinterpreted as a bomb threat Wednesday, leading authorities to evacuate more than a dozen neighboring businesses and a day care center.

The branch manager of the Bank of America called police about 10 a.m. after receiving a fax containing images of a lit match and a bomb with a fuse, bank spokesman Ernesto Anguilla said.

I have no idea how to break the media of its love affair with scary stories, but it would help if individuals at least recognized them for what they are, sensational attempts to garner ratings being promoted out of all proportion to their real importance in our daily lives.

Dying for nothing

2007-05-31T09:37:00.000-07:00

In his op-ed in the WaPo Harold Meyerson succinctly sums up the futility of our occupation of Iraq:

We are fighting for a national government that is not national but sectarian, and has shown no capacity to govern. We are training Iraq's security forces to combat sectarian violence though those forces are thoroughly sectarian and have themselves engaged in large-scale sectarian violence. We are fighting for a nonsectarian, pluralistic Iraq, though whatever nonsectarian and pluralistic institutions existed before our invasion have long since been blasted out of existence. In the December 2005 parliamentary elections, the one nonsectarian party, which ran both Shiite and Sunni candidates, won just 8 percent of the vote.

In other news, Sisyphus, noting that he's half-way up the mountain, claims that his struggle with that damn rock is "in it's last throes".

Good economic news!

2007-05-31T09:30:00.000-07:00

With first quarter economic news dour at best, it's good to know that some American industries are thriving.

TB scare: typical balanced media response

2007-05-31T08:56:00.000-07:00

With my internet connection temporarily down, I had the distinct, um, pleasure, of getting my morning news fix from cable.

Apparently the nation is about to be hit by a devastating outbreak of untreatable tuberculosis, causing, judging from the wall to wall coverage, deaths in the millions.

Or not.

Amid all the breathless coverage bewailing how someone so infected could slip through the security dragnet that envelops the US (or, at least it seems, should), one quote seems to be missing:

"We believe that his degree of infectiousness is quite low," Dr. Martin Cetron, director of the CDC's Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, told a news conference.

Whew, I feel better already. Be a shame if the country got ~~distracted~~ all worked up about a non-threat, wouldn't it?

Memorial Day, 2007

2007-05-28T10:15:00.000-07:00

Remember.

A Pasadena favorite son

2007-05-22T10:47:00.000-07:00

Your CaliBlogger's lived in Pasadena for going on four years now, which, by California standards, makes him a "native".

That being the case I feel obligated to engage in a wee bit of local boosterism.

Pasadena is well known for the parade and the bowl game, and is as well home to Caltech and JPL (sidenote: because of this latter, don't be surprised if you confront a loudmouth standing next to you in line at the Laemmle when he responds that yes, he is a rocket scientist thank you).

And for such a relatively small city (approximately 140,000) Pasadena has been birthplace or home to some remarkable individuals. Actress Sally (yes we really do like you) Field, cooking show grande dame Julia Child, and renowned director Victor Fleming (The Wizard of Oz) were born here.

Jackie Robinson moved here when he was 1 and graduated from Pasadena's John Muir High School before going on to break Major League Baseball's color barrier. And General George S. Patton was born in neighboring San Gabriel, his father serving as Pasadena's first City Attorney.

To this illustrious group we can now add a, perhaps, future president, Bill Richardson.

As it turns out Richardson, who formally announced his candidacy yesterday, was born at Pasadena's venerable Huntington Hospital. Not that he hung out for long. Joel Achenbach writes in the Washington Post:

The Constitution limits the presidency to people born in the United States. Richardson meets that provision only because his father sent his mother by train to California just before she went into labor. He was born in Pasadena, Calif. Then his mother took him promptly back to Mexico City.

"My father had a complex about not having been born in the United States," Richardson said. His father, son of a biologist who collected museum specimens, had been born on a boat heading to Nicaragua. "If my father didn't have this complex, I wouldn't be able to run for president. I wish I'd thanked him. One of the regrets I always have is that I never thanked him."

But despite the self-acknowledged paucity of his SoCal roots ("My roots are about three hours"), it's no surprise that Governor Richardson decided to make his announcement in LA. As Dan Schnur notes in the LA Times:

But Richardson's problem is that Latino voters don't know he's Latino. And although there's no guarantee that they will vote for him simply because of his ethnicity, his trailblazing endeavor would certainly bring him a much greater share of attention from the nation's fastest-growing minority community once they do find out.

So rather than an Iowa cornfield or a New Hampshire gymnasium, or even his home state, which has the largest percentage of Latino residents — 43% — he came to Los Angeles. California's earlier Feb. 5 primary has inflated the importance of the state's role in the nomination process, but the driving force behind Richardson's unusual announcement location is the growing role of Latino voters in American politics.

And despite his short tenure hear in the Rose City, should bill Richardson manage to win the uphill battle he faces for the Democratic presidential nomination, I have no doubt Pasadena will happily claim him as a favorite son.

[P.s. If you haven't yet seen Richardson's terrific (and funny) campaign ads be sure to check them out here.]

Good news in Iraq?

2007-05-20T11:44:00.000-07:00

Unsurprisingly for a foreign policy whose main point of consistency is its subservience to the law of unintended consequences, the Iraq ~~escalation~~ surge may actually be working, sort of.

Ostensibly intended to give the Iraqi government breathing room (or at least vacation time) in which to seek the political compromises EVERYBODY recognizes to be necessary to a reasonably peaceful Iraq, the surge may be assisting one of the militias we are ostensibly battling.

But while the ineffectual government appears no closer to resolving the differences between the various factions in Iraq, another group is, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

From the Washington Post:

The 33-year-old populist is reaching out to a broad array of Sunni leaders, from politicians to insurgents, and purging extremist members of his Mahdi Army militia who target Sunnis. Sadr's political followers are distancing themselves from the fragile Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which is widely criticized as corrupt, inefficient and biased in favor of Iraq's majority Shiites. And moderates are taking up key roles in Sadr's movement, professing to be less anti-American and more nationalist as they seek to improve Sadr's image and position him in the middle of Iraq's ideological spectrum.

"We want to aim the guns against the occupation and al-Qaeda, not between Iraqis," Ahmed Shaibani, 37, a cleric who leads Sadr's newly formed reconciliation committee, said as he sat inside Sadr's heavily guarded compound here.

Whether Sadr can be successful in his attempts to reach out to Sunnis is far from a settled question. But given that his Mahdi Army, now lying low during the American surge in order to let the US do his dirty work for him, represents the largest indigenous Iraqi military force and holds sway over a far larger portion of Iraq than does the Iraqi government which can barely govern the heavily barricaded Green Zone, little less the rest of the country, Sadr's initiative needs to be taken seriously.

But should Sadr be successful one wonders how the US will react. Would we continue to support the beleaguered Iraqi government against a combined Sadrist-Sunni force?

Would we want to?

Or, will BushCorp™, desperate to extricate itself from this quagmire of its own making, accept a new strongman to replace Saddam?

Should it?

An endgame for the American empire

2007-05-18T13:13:00.000-07:00

For the past few days I've been meaning to mention a must-read article by author and UC San Diego professor emeritus Chalmers Johnson, but with scandals and revelations about the Bush administration coming at an hour to hour clip it's been hard to find the time.

None the less, professor Johnson's analysis of the state of the nation and its place in the world is a must read for those who hold hope that the dream of America can yet be salvaged, though his prescription isn't easy:

I believe that there is only one solution to the crisis we face. The American people must make the decision to dismantle both the empire that has been created in their name and the huge (still growing) military establishment that undergirds it. It is a task at least comparable to that undertaken by the British government when, after World War II, it liquidated the British Empire. By doing so, Britain avoided the fate of the Roman Republic -- becoming a domestic tyranny and losing its democracy, as would have been required if it had continued to try to dominate much of the world by force.

Professor Johnson's article at TomDispatch should be READ IN FULL, as should Tom Engelhardt's introduction.